We need to stop awarding money to rape victims

I'm saying that if we create a system where a woman automatically gets money if a man is convicted in criminal court, and we have a system where a man can be convicted based on pretty much nothing other than the testimony of that woman, then we have a big problem.

 

No you're just ignoring what I am saying and any opposition because you sir are hard headed! You clearly haven't understood anything I have said...what you are claiming isn't as easy as you're making it out to be! Rarely does just a mere allegation turn into compensation or a conviction, I didn't say it doesn't, but not as often as you're portraying. And your claim is biased, one sided and yet you manage to be all over the place.

If an appellate court rules to overturn a guilty verdict, the plantiff can get refunded those damages! Grant it, it can be a very lengthy drawn out process depending on the state and I am by no means saying it's an easy process. It's not as final as you're implying though...

 

Very likely these gold diggers would have already spent all the money, and the man will never get any of it back.

Plus an appellate court has no reason to reverse if the first court decided the testimony of the accuser was enough to convict.
Like I said before, you bringing up an appellate court kind of side steps the whole issue.

We need a specific law to direct the court what to do (or not to do, rather). Don't give money when the man was convicted based practically all on the testimony of the alleged victim.

 

Yet that RARELY happens and if a man can get a conviction on verbal testimony ALONE...the defendant has a crappy lawyer!

 

You can give hypotheticals all day long....

 

I've presented two stories so far where that's happened.

Do you have any proof or evidence that this doesn't happen, that juries do not convict based on the testimony of alleged victims?

 

Well, we need laws to address these hypotheticals.

 

That isn't only because the claims the victims were raped or sexually assaulted but also that those incidents were actively covered-up. It's being payed by his company (via their insurance at that) rather than him personally. It's also not a payout because they were victims, it's a payout to try to stop them from even bringing the legal case in the first place.

Yes, a one-sided story from an understandably biased source. That's why I mentioned actually court records.

Even that specifically refers to evidence from other witnesses and (purported) experts. He also makes accusations that would imply major incompetence, potentially conspiracy, both by the court and his own lawyer. The piece overall seems to go in to all sorts of aspects about rape cases, many perfectly legitimately, so doesn't seem to be based on the idea that the issue is victim testimony alone being the basis for conviction.

I'm certainly not saying there aren't all sorts of problems and issues with rape cases and the US legal system in general. You're just grossly oversimplifying things.

 

I don't believe I saw case documents that were undeniable proof as to what was admitted as evidence by both prosecuting and defense lawyers....ohhhhh two stories...wow you made your case!! Funny, you're wanting me to believe you on just a story....

I never denied that this happens, but it's RARE! You on the other hand are denying many other COMMON sides, no empathy for actual victims and for that reason, without this getting to personal I am done...

 

So you wouldn't be against a law that says the woman definitely can't get any money unless there's convincing evidence that doesn't involve just the testimony of alleged victims?


Look, I'm not saying we can't punish the man based on the testimony of a victim.
I'm just saying don't give her any money! Make sure she knows that so she won't file a false accusation trying to get money.

 

You're oversimplifying it though, on a major level. We do not have a perfect legal system, but it is better than most. If a woman can get money on just a verbal testimony without any evidence at all, sometimes cirucmstancial evidence is enough, but on hearsay alone the defendant has a REALLY REALLY shitty lawyer! You're acting like a woman gives rape sob story and they just hand her a freaking check, not how it works at all, not even in settlements. Rape and sexual assault are VERY difficult to prove (as you have to prove it was not consensual).

What punishment would you recommend, if you feel a verbal testimony is enough to punish someone, what punishment? If you're saying there isn't enough proof to compensate a victim, why would it be okay to then punish him if there wasn't enough evidence to begin with?

Again, if a woman files a false accusation and its proven false. The man could take her to court and sue for damages done to him...it works both ways. It's not like the man is helpless. Also, if a woman lies under oath its perjury, a crime!

 

Well, a man can get convicted just because a woman gives a rape sob story. And you're the one who said if a man is convicted, it's a pretty secure indication that he raped her and should have to give her money.

Well, from what various cases I've read, in cases where the man was convicted based on the alleged victim's verbal testimony alone, usually the judge sentences them to around 6 years.

I'm guessing these lighter sentences are taking into account the lower burden of evidence.

 

Yes! Convicted means in the eyes of the law that person is guilty!! And no sir it is RARELY that simple and your ignorance is mind boggling on this topic...

By the way you have yet to address any of my points previously mentioned throughtout this topic which shows you're just biased and completely one sided...

 

Again, you're applying piecemeal logic, not being able to connect the different disparate pieces together.

Your logic is A --> B, so B --> C

But you need to more closely examine things and look at how A --> C more directly.

That's the flaw in your, and everyone else's logic. And that's why I think this problem in the legal system persists, the perception that conviction means the person should automatically be seen in the eyes of the law as guilty, in all ways.

 

You're points are A, and thats it....thats the flaw in your logic...and by the way the fact that not a single person has yet to agree with you shows you're the wrong one...not everyone else!

 

Or it shows why this problem remains entrenched in the legal system, because it's so hard for most people to be able to see it.

They want to apply a lazy simple-minded perception of it. It really comes down to intellectual laziness, and it being psychologically much easier to just "trust in the system", than to question things.

 

Nope you're the proud owner of that one...good day!

 

Sometimes I don't understand why people seem unable to grasp the concepts I try to elaborate on.

Is it just "too complicated" for you people?

 

Apparently our legal system as a whole is just too complicated for you. Apparently you make lousy arguments if you can't get anyone to grasp what you're saying...

You're so incredibly one sided you missed most of the other posters including mine points all together because you're so biased it's almost unreal...

 

You do not understand that it is not up to you to second guess the quality of the testimony or the evidence presented by counsel, unless you sat in that courtroom. Please don't bother asserting that it was 'just a he said/ she said' because anyone who asserts such a thing knows absolutely nothing about how incredibly rare that could ever really be, and how such cases are actually proved beyond a reasonable doubt by impeaching testimony. finding inconsistencies or outright lies and using either prior or subsequent behavior to point to one narrative being vastly more likely than another. Once you get in the territory of 'Vastly' more likely, and if one side ends up twelve votes of guilty, and the other side can't find a single acquittal vote, you are more likely than not, meeting that reasonable doubt standard.

Soo you now have the burden of proving to me, that there are a lot unanimous and improper guilty verdicts in rape cases, in which was 'nothing more than the testimony of the woman' and that defense counsel did not immediately make a motion for the court to set the verdict aside secondary to evidentiary deficiency, that was not sustained by the presiding magistrate. And unless you have actually sat in the trial day after day, you have little credibly to offer here about any of them. I am pretty much dismissing your claim out of hand, absent subsequent independent review of the case by a judge and a separate finding.

If the jury hears nothing but a bunch of lies, and half truths from the mouth of the man and all of his actions before and after the 'crime took place' only make sense under the prosecution's theory, and are completely inconsistent with his story and that same jury hears nothing that is not credible in the story told aby the woman, not a single statement that is not wholy consistent with what she did and said in the days and weeks thereafter, you have beyond a reasonable doubt sitting in front of you without needing some camera footage of the crime in progress.

I just don't think you know how bad and obviously made up some of these concoctions of lies by criminals claiming to be innocent can be. Some of them are incredibly stupid about telling their story straight and how often they forget that they basically confessed to the crime, three weeks ago in their first interview by a cop. Nothing but words but plenty of evidence sitting in those words. No need for the semen sample with DNA and photos of bruises by the time they finish ruining their own story.

 

Well I misunderstood you in the first place. I assumed that you were talking about fines and reparations levied as part of the criminal sentence, in criminal court. As part of the punishment for the crime, a judge may accomplish some of the goals that might otherwise be addressed in a separate civil tort case. Sentencing judges are not precluded from levying criminal fines, and dispersing the dividends either to the court, or the victim or victim's family or even a charity, like maybe a women's shelter!

As for civil courts, they normally give great deference to any finding of material fact by a equal or greater burden of proof in a prior court proceeding, obviously represented by either a guilty plea, or a guilty verdict, but that is not just in criminal cases to a civil case, it can also be the result of a family law court finding, or child placement hearing, or even a finding of material fact in a probate court that can be deemed pertinent and relevant to a civil court matter.

Its pretty simple. why take up another court's time to go through all that again for weeks and weeks and go throught all that discovery, the motions, collecting those witnesses and taking new depositions, finding that evidence and reviewing new expert opinions etc, and reviewing all that prior testimony for inconsistencies etc, when its already been proven to a greater certainty in another court?

Its not absolutely determinative, and the judge has discretion, but they certainly are likely to pay a lot of heed to what happened in another court. Especially when those statements by witnesses were by definition made under oath under threat of perjury, and closely examined by counsel and a jury.

 

Even that may not be a good idea. Because if the woman even thinks she could get some money, she might accuse a man.
That certainly was the case in that story I linked to (the first one), a drug addict desperate for some quick cash.

I think there needs to be an additional law giving some clarity to what sort of burden of evidence there needs to be for a woman to be awarded monetary damages, in these sort of situations. I mean, her claim alone should not be enough.

And I'm also kind of wary of making a man pay money just because there are multiple women accusing him. After all, there weren't multiple witnesses for any one alleged rape. And there's a lack of accountability. Even if we can prove one rape didn't happen, it only discredits one woman. Which is why her story shouldn't have so much of a bearing on any monetary damages resulting from a story from another woman.

I don't even know if a DNA sample is necessarily even enough. She could have intentionally slept with him, and maybe after he left her she had resentment about it and decided to turn it into a rape accusation. Or maybe intentionally slept with him to get the DNA sample.
It depends on the situation though.
But I think we should have something written into the law to instruct the judge that, if they believe it's at all even plausible the man and women may have had a consensual sexual relationship, not to give the woman any money.

 

Your opinion wotrh nothing until you get sentenced without any evidence.

 

The law is clear women more equal then men, even though such law violates U.S. constitution.
The problem is, men in U.S. rarely speak up against unconstitutional principles.

 

Why even bother with court, just put all men in jail.