I do like how in the steady attempt to erode the burden for sexual assault cases, we are now no longer allowed to consider the victim's behavior before or after the time of the alleged assault.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
Or it's like someone always has the right to say no, no matter what happened before. And that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to conform and not rock the boat. And that a lot of those "incongruities" are actually societal misconceptions about how victims should act, as opposed to how they do act.
Also, the victim's behaviour before or after the crime is not a factor in any other crime.
A thief is not excused because the victim looked like someone who enjoyed wealth. A drunk-driver is not excused because there were question on why the victim was crossing the street in the first place. A murderer is not excused because the victim was suicidal. A kidnapper is not excused if we can demonstrate the parent had turned their back on the child for a moment. A pickpocket is not excused because the victim was drunk at the time. A con artist is not excused because the victim was too embarrassed to call the cops right away when they realized they'd been had.
Excusing rapists because of the victims' behaviour is a double-standard that we would all find ridiculous to apply in any other situation.
If you took my car on a road trip. And I texted you a bunch while you were driving it, asking how the trip was going. And then you return it, and I ask you if you need to borrow it again next weekend. Then I go to the cops years later and claim you stole it. That sure as hell would be a great defense against charges of theft of my car.
That is not an argument about your state of mind when I borrowed/stole your car, this is an argument about lying in an official police deposition and under oath. Different argument.
Rapists often walk free because "the victim was drunk, what kind of chaste woman gets drunk around horny men?" or because "look at how tight the victim's pants were / how short that skirt was, she clearly wanted sex" or because "the victim has had sex in the past, how could the rapist reasonably guess she did not want sex that one night?". These are the "victim's behaviour" excuses for rape that are being eroded and rejected. And very rightfully so.
So what is the acceptable amount of perjury to allow a witness?
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", and tell you so but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it anyway.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
You're steps weren't quite right so I bolded the additions and striked the key removal that makes it accurate.
Edit: With these changes then yes that actually is auto theft. Permission to use can be removed at any time.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
That's my entire problem. You seem to be arguing for a completely separate (nonexistent) burden of proof for rape prosecutions. Or if not lowering the burden of proof, simply that the defense can present no evidence and perform no cross examination.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
Also, the victim's behaviour before or after the crime is not a factor in any other crime.
... would be an irrelevant point then? After all, if it cannot be compared to any other crime, then differences between it and other crimes are meaningless.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
What crime would you compare it to?
None?
Good. Than why do you resent that it is prosecuted/defended in a different way from other crimes?
I see many posts bemoaning that the victims are treated differently, that their interactions with the alleged perpetrators and other such factors are taken into account more than in other crimes. Perhaps this is because it is a unique crime that instead of relying on facts relies very much on the believability of the victim?
There is no corpse to point to as evidence. There is no missing merchandise. There is no lost money, no broken window, no forced lock. There is only the statement of the accuser vs the statement of the accused. In such an instance, the only valid defense is to call that believability into question.
Can we please avoid using dumb analogies in this thread it is obnoxious and condescending and lowers the clarity of the discussion on both sides. We're grownups, we can talk about serious issues without resorting to lies (and car metaphors) for small children.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
What crime would you compare it to?
None?
Good. Than why do you resent that it is prosecuted/defended in a different way from other crimes?
I see many posts bemoaning that the victims are treated differently, that their interactions with the alleged perpetrators and other such factors are taken into account more than in other crimes. Perhaps this is because it is a unique crime that instead of relying on facts relies very much on the believability of the victim?
There is no corpse to point to as evidence. There is no missing merchandise. There is no lost money, no broken window, no forced lock. There is only the statement of the accuser vs the statement of the accused. In such an instance, the only valid defense is to call that believability into question.
Do you disagree with any of this? If so, why?
So you're saying that it's natural that our system pretty much outright disbelieves victims of sexual assault? And the issue is that a lot of the interactions used to say that there was consent actually don't have any real provative value.
But I will change my answer on what crime we should be looking at. Because we should be looking at domestic violence as a comparison, because we see a lot of the same issues. How many times do we see people say "why do they go back?" Though not as much these days, because we now know more about the social pressures that affect DV victims. And we're seeing a lot of similar dynamics with sexual assault as well.
Not that I think the state of sexual assault prosecution is fine (it's pretty awful) but I'd hazard a guess that there are reasons beyond prejudice and sexism that prompt further examination of the victim's statements in this case. A significant one would be that most other criminal acts are things that are almost always criminal and rarely consensual, while the reverse is true for sex.
Again: sexual assault is not prosecuted nearly as much and in many cases the defendants are put through terrible things to attempt to see justice. I just think that "it's telling we question the victims on these specific crimes" is not that valuable a statement since even a perfect system would put more emphasis on the victim's state of mind and account of events for these crimes.
Quoting myself from page 1. I stand by this statement. Sexual assault (and to a much lesser extent DV) relies on victim testimony and character because it is much more defined by mindset and consent than by the actual actions that occurred. It is unfortunate that for this reason even in a society without bias or prejudice against imperfect victims, sexual assault would still have a much harder time clearing the bar for reasonable doubt. But I don't buy the argument that you need to throw out reasonable doubt as the bar to counteract this.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
What crime would you compare it to?
None?
Good. Than why do you resent that it is prosecuted/defended in a different way from other crimes?
I see many posts bemoaning that the victims are treated differently, that their interactions with the alleged perpetrators and other such factors are taken into account more than in other crimes. Perhaps this is because it is a unique crime that instead of relying on facts relies very much on the believability of the victim?
There is no corpse to point to as evidence. There is no missing merchandise. There is no lost money, no broken window, no forced lock. There is only the statement of the accuser vs the statement of the accused. In such an instance, the only valid defense is to call that believability into question.
Do you disagree with any of this? If so, why?
So you're saying that it's natural that our system pretty much outright disbelieves victims of sexual assault? And the issue is that a lot of the interactions used to say that there was consent actually don't have any real provative value.
But I will change my answer on what crime we should be looking at. Because we should be looking at domestic violence as a comparison, because we see a lot of the same issues. How many times do we see people say "why do they go back?" Though not as much these days, because we now know more about the social pressures that affect DV victims. And we're seeing a lot of similar dynamics with sexual assault as well.
I absolutely believe that our justice system should not default to believing the accuser. That's a frankly preposterous idea. Why even have a trial if you're going to settle he said she said situations automatically in favor of the accuser?
As for DV you seem to be accessing more the social side than the trial/justice side of things. Though, DV from a justice system point of view has ALOT of its own problems.
Hedgie I'd put forward that you're approaching this from the angle that A: the accusers are in fact victims, and B: as such deserve justice, so draw a line from A to B however needed. This point of view is sympathetic but completely discounts how our justice system actually works (and indeed should work).
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
What crime would you compare it to?
None?
Good. Than why do you resent that it is prosecuted/defended in a different way from other crimes?
I see many posts bemoaning that the victims are treated differently, that their interactions with the alleged perpetrators and other such factors are taken into account more than in other crimes. Perhaps this is because it is a unique crime that instead of relying on facts relies very much on the believability of the victim?
There is no corpse to point to as evidence. There is no missing merchandise. There is no lost money, no broken window, no forced lock. There is only the statement of the accuser vs the statement of the accused. In such an instance, the only valid defense is to call that believability into question.
Do you disagree with any of this? If so, why?
So you're saying that it's natural that our system pretty much outright disbelieves victims of sexual assault? And the issue is that a lot of the interactions used to say that there was consent actually don't have any real provative value.
But I will change my answer on what crime we should be looking at. Because we should be looking at domestic violence as a comparison, because we see a lot of the same issues. How many times do we see people say "why do they go back?" Though not as much these days, because we now know more about the social pressures that affect DV victims. And we're seeing a lot of similar dynamics with sexual assault as well.
Yes. Yes it needs to.
innocent until proven guilty.
Proven.
What are you not understanding? You keep railing against the fundamental concept of how the law works in some convoluted thought process.
Please explain how you would want sexual crimes to be tried because right now you are in make believe land.
The accused is innocent until you can prove to a judge (or jury) that they did beyond reasonable doubt a crime.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
What crime would you compare it to?
None?
Good. Than why do you resent that it is prosecuted/defended in a different way from other crimes?
I see many posts bemoaning that the victims are treated differently, that their interactions with the alleged perpetrators and other such factors are taken into account more than in other crimes. Perhaps this is because it is a unique crime that instead of relying on facts relies very much on the believability of the victim?
There is no corpse to point to as evidence. There is no missing merchandise. There is no lost money, no broken window, no forced lock. There is only the statement of the accuser vs the statement of the accused. In such an instance, the only valid defense is to call that believability into question.
Do you disagree with any of this? If so, why?
So you're saying that it's natural that our system pretty much outright disbelieves victims of sexual assault? And the issue is that a lot of the interactions used to say that there was consent actually don't have any real provative value.
But I will change my answer on what crime we should be looking at. Because we should be looking at domestic violence as a comparison, because we see a lot of the same issues. How many times do we see people say "why do they go back?" Though not as much these days, because we now know more about the social pressures that affect DV victims. And we're seeing a lot of similar dynamics with sexual assault as well.
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
The controversy is how the former drives the latter, and how we do our level best to ignore that.
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
The controversy is how the former drives the latter, and how we do our level best to ignore that.
SO it's the systems fault they lied on the stand?
That's a pretty convoluted argument right there. S
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
The controversy is how the former drives the latter, and how we do our level best to ignore that.
I agree with that in general, but you have done an excellent job making that position disagreeable by pushing it in reference to this case.
As I also said early on in this thread, this case is not the hill to die on. It absolutely makes you look like uncompromising and unconcerned with justice to seriously argue this particular case is a standout example of victim blaming or a broken system (judge's shitty comments aside, those were unpleasant).
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
The controversy is how the former drives the latter, and how we do our level best to ignore that.
So how much perjury is a witness allowed to commit?
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
The controversy is how the former drives the latter, and how we do our level best to ignore that.
I agree with that in general, but you have done an excellent job making that position disagreeable by pushing it in reference to this case.
As I also said early on in this thread, this case is not the hill to die on. It absolutely makes you look like uncompromising and unconcerned with justice to seriously argue this particular case is a standout example of victim blaming or a broken system (judge's shitty comments aside, those were unpleasant).
So, you're saying that it's disagreeable to consider that what happened here is that you had women challenging an individual who had a significant amount of clout and were worried that their past would be used against them because we as a society have an image of how victims of sexual assault should behave, and thus chose to lie because they felt like they had no other option?
It's funny how being concerned about how the incredibly inequitable way we treat sexual assault in the justice system and how that influences how victims behave makes me "unconcerned with justice". Because apparently it doesn't matter why they lied, just that they did.
Yes, the fact that you are literally arguing perjury doesn't matter in this case makes you unconcerned with justice.
I'm not saying that it doesn't matter.
What I'm saying is that there are better explanations than "lying bitches had it out for him", and that if you actually want to address the issue, you need to look at how badly the system actually treats victims of sexual assault. Unless all you're concerned about is just getting women to "not lie on the stand", in which case the backlash is achieving that.
They'll just not come forward now.
Somehow, I don't think that serves the cause of justice either.
Yes, as I said I agree with you that people tend to be too inclined to think women are lying in these cases, or exaggerate how much misstatements or imperfect recall mean.
That is not what happened in this case.
In this case there was a rather blatant attempt to deceive that included lies about witness collusion. This is, as I said, not the hill to die on for arguing that women are unfairly accused of lying, because in this particular case they were lying to an extent that would ruin the case even in a perfect, unbiased world with a favorable jury.
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
The controversy is how the former drives the latter, and how we do our level best to ignore that.
So how much perjury is a witness allowed to commit?
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
The controversy is how the former drives the latter, and how we do our level best to ignore that.
So how much perjury is a witness allowed to commit?
AngelHedgie
It would be totes awesome if you could answer this question.
Mainly because it kind of seems like you keep skipping over it.
I haven't answered it because it's a dodge from my point.
Everyone is so concerned about them lying on the stand, but nobody is asking "why would these women feel the need to conceal this information in the first place?" And my point there is that the defense would have made the exact same arguments that the did about how all these things showed consent (when no, they actually don't), or that the prosecution would have just discounted them from the get-go. We're basically saying "hey, if you get sexually assaulted, you need to realize it right away so you can act 'appropriately'. Oh, and think twice about reaching out to other victims, as that can be held against you."
Also, you seem to be missing the trees for the forest here.
Yes, our system has issues.
No, this is not the case that you want to hang your hat on when trying to talk about how bad the system is.
So tell me - which case do we hang our hat on? How long do we wait for the "perfect" case to use to talk about how fucked up things are when it comes to sexual assault?
Or do we take what we get, and actually discuss those issues now?
It's not the actions that are the issue, it's lying on the stand about it
And what I'm asking is why would they do that?
I know you might find this hard to believe but take your time and process it.
Because they were not raped
I'm aware this does not seem to fit your world view.
And there's the elephant in the middle of the room.
Because what's the more believable theory?
That these three women held some sort of vendetta against him, and plotted to take him down through a false accusation of sexual assault?
Or that they were assaulted, reacted in a completely realistic manner, reached out to each other when they came to terms with what happened? That they were afraid to come forward as long as he held a good amount of clout in their industry, but felt that they could after that clout had been diminished? And that they felt that their past would be held against them, so they chose to hide it because they felt there was no other option?
It's not the actions that are the issue, it's lying on the stand about it
And what I'm asking is why would they do that?
I know you might find this hard to believe but take your time and process it.
Because they were not raped
I'm aware this does not seem to fit your world view.
And there's the elephant in the middle of the room.
Because what's the more believable theory?
That these three women held some sort of vendetta against him, and plotted to take him down through a false accusation of sexual assault?
Or that they were assaulted, reacted in a completely realistic manner, reached out to each other when they came to terms with what happened? That they were afraid to come forward as long as he held a good amount of clout in their industry, but felt that they could after that clout had been diminished? And that they felt that their past would be held against them, so they chose to hide it because they felt there was no other option?
The emails and communications paint a different story.
I don't know either way here, but the dissonance between presented evidence and thier testimony leaves a lot up in the air.
What I'd also put forward is that you believe so strongly in the validity of these cases that even one as obviously tainted as this one has your unwavering support. If this all doesn't give you doubt, what on earth would give you pause in a case like this?
It's not the actions that are the issue, it's lying on the stand about it
And what I'm asking is why would they do that?
I know you might find this hard to believe but take your time and process it.
Because they were not raped
I'm aware this does not seem to fit your world view.
Or, and see if you can follow this, since the number of rape convictions is pathetically small they felt the need to strengthen their case by covering up a few things. From what I can tell the big issue is "lying" about correspondence? Hate to tell you but completely forgeting that would be expected. Trauma is a bitch that way, and it will leave huge black holes in your memory. It is quite probable none of them had any memory of the old correspondence until It was brought up.
Colluding? Serial rapist has gotten away with it for over a decade (according to them). Do you leave to chance one of you fucking up or do you try to play the role of the perfect victim which is needed? Considering some of the lies they were caught in was bullshit like make and model of car, and whether or not they got hair extensions maybe we can see how they would feel the urge to lie a bit yeah? Literally any little discrepancy will be used to discredit you on the stand so take a strong stance on it.
Maybe I am missing some smoking gun here but from the perspective of the alleged victims in this case their actions are consistent and reasonable. Were they smart? No, absolutely not. It certainly hurt their case in areas to try and go above and beyond to fight a broken system. Does any of this make me doubt their story? Not for a second.
What do I know though. I am just a counselor with experience treating PTSD as well as having spent a lot of time in Child Protective Services routinely being involved in every stage of cases involving sexual misconduct of all kinds.
The smear campaign is bullshit, but the victims tanked their own case. Time to move on to the next rape trial involving this assclown.
It's not the actions that are the issue, it's lying on the stand about it
And what I'm asking is why would they do that?
I know you might find this hard to believe but take your time and process it.
Because they were not raped
I'm aware this does not seem to fit your world view.
And there's the elephant in the middle of the room.
Because what's the more believable theory?
That these three women held some sort of vendetta against him, and plotted to take him down through a false accusation of sexual assault?
Or that they were assaulted, reacted in a completely realistic manner, reached out to each other when they came to terms with what happened? That they were afraid to come forward as long as he held a good amount of clout in their industry, but felt that they could after that clout had been diminished? And that they felt that their past would be held against them, so they chose to hide it because they felt there was no other option?
We don't condemn people on what's most probable or believable.
Unless you believe that 100% the of people who are wrongly accused of rape should be jailed for the sole reason that they represent a statistical anomaly.
It's not the actions that are the issue, it's lying on the stand about it
And what I'm asking is why would they do that?
I know you might find this hard to believe but take your time and process it.
Because they were not raped
I'm aware this does not seem to fit your world view.
And there's the elephant in the middle of the room.
Because what's the more believable theory?
That these three women held some sort of vendetta against him, and plotted to take him down through a false accusation of sexual assault?
Or that they were assaulted, reacted in a completely realistic manner, reached out to each other when they came to terms with what happened? That they were afraid to come forward as long as he held a good amount of clout in their industry, but felt that they could after that clout had been diminished? And that they felt that their past would be held against them, so they chose to hide it because they felt there was no other option?
I'm seriously not being sarcastic but option #1
Because your option #2 disregards that all three of them tried to peruse relationships or sexual encounters after the fact and they have zero proof that he did anything unwanted to them. Read the letters they sent dude... I'm sorry but those do not read at all like abuse victims. i have seen not one shred of evidence he did anything wrong and only have their word that he did and by their own volition they lied about nearly everything.
I've had a few jilted lovers in the past. I had one tell all my friends 5 years after we broke up that I forced her to have an abortion.
A: I never slept with her
B: I did not make her have an abortion
This was 5 years after having last spoken to her. So yes, I think people will do crazy shit for inexplicable reasons.
I've also been the victim of abuse, helped a friend report a rape and volunteered in a woman's shelter. I've seen the gamut and do believe there are some pretty big holes in the system.
Your really not helping the cause by blindly believing every accusation. None of these women were long term girlfriends and most were one night stands.... Yet all three chased him and seem to want more of his company. Does that ring zero alarms to you?
Here is a jury instruction from my state instructing jurors about witnesses who may have lied during their testimony:
EVALUATING WITNESS TESTIMONY—
WITNESS FALSE IN PART
Sometimes a witness may give incorrect or even inconsistent testimony. This does not necessarily constitute lying on the part of the witness. The witness’s testimony may be an honest mistake or confusion. The witness may simply forget matters, or his or her memory of an event may contain honest inconsistencies or contradictions. Also, different witnesses may observe or recount the same event differently.
However, if you find that a witness has intentionally lied in part of his or her testimony, you may, but are not required to, distrust other portions of that witness’s testimony.
As jurors, you have the sole responsibility to determine which testimony or portions of testimony you will or will not rely on in reaching your verdict.
Clearly the judge in this case found that he did not trust the witness testimony in front of him, for a lot of what I personally think are misguided reasons. But the idea that any bit of false testimony renders the rest of the testimony unreliable automatically is way too black and white, especially for these types of cases.
Posts
So what is the acceptable amount of perjury to allow a witness?
That my problem with this entire idea. It's like some insane, quantum non-causal justice.
If you ask me to come borrow my car, and I let you in my house and say keys are on the kitchen table.
You borrow my car, and as you are pulling out of the driveway I think "I actually don't want to loan him my car", but hey you are already almost gone so I let you borrow it.
and then after you return it I send you a text thanking you for putting gas in it.
Then later I say you stole my car.
My behavior and communications both before and after you were driving my car, are legally highly relevant to your defense against me claiming you stole it.
This argument you seem to be promoting, is that there is basically no behavior of mine before or after that deserves consideration vis a vis the claim of auto theft.
All that matters is that, as you were pulling away I thought 'on second thought this is not what I want'.
If the actuality of the theft is not inferable from any action I take before or after. WHY HAVE A FUCKING TRIAL? If I say it was theft it was theft, go directly to jail.
...it's almost like rape and grand theft auto are two very different crimes that should not be compared to each other.
You're steps weren't quite right so I bolded the additions and striked the key removal that makes it accurate.
Edit: With these changes then yes that actually is auto theft. Permission to use can be removed at any time.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
What crime would you compare it to?
None?
That's my entire problem. You seem to be arguing for a completely separate (nonexistent) burden of proof for rape prosecutions. Or if not lowering the burden of proof, simply that the defense can present no evidence and perform no cross examination.
Then it would seem that ...
... would be an irrelevant point then? After all, if it cannot be compared to any other crime, then differences between it and other crimes are meaningless.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Good. Than why do you resent that it is prosecuted/defended in a different way from other crimes?
I see many posts bemoaning that the victims are treated differently, that their interactions with the alleged perpetrators and other such factors are taken into account more than in other crimes. Perhaps this is because it is a unique crime that instead of relying on facts relies very much on the believability of the victim?
There is no corpse to point to as evidence. There is no missing merchandise. There is no lost money, no broken window, no forced lock. There is only the statement of the accuser vs the statement of the accused. In such an instance, the only valid defense is to call that believability into question.
Do you disagree with any of this? If so, why?
So you're saying that it's natural that our system pretty much outright disbelieves victims of sexual assault? And the issue is that a lot of the interactions used to say that there was consent actually don't have any real provative value.
But I will change my answer on what crime we should be looking at. Because we should be looking at domestic violence as a comparison, because we see a lot of the same issues. How many times do we see people say "why do they go back?" Though not as much these days, because we now know more about the social pressures that affect DV victims. And we're seeing a lot of similar dynamics with sexual assault as well.
Quoting myself from page 1. I stand by this statement. Sexual assault (and to a much lesser extent DV) relies on victim testimony and character because it is much more defined by mindset and consent than by the actual actions that occurred. It is unfortunate that for this reason even in a society without bias or prejudice against imperfect victims, sexual assault would still have a much harder time clearing the bar for reasonable doubt. But I don't buy the argument that you need to throw out reasonable doubt as the bar to counteract this.
I absolutely believe that our justice system should not default to believing the accuser. That's a frankly preposterous idea. Why even have a trial if you're going to settle he said she said situations automatically in favor of the accuser?
As for DV you seem to be accessing more the social side than the trial/justice side of things. Though, DV from a justice system point of view has ALOT of its own problems.
Hedgie I'd put forward that you're approaching this from the angle that A: the accusers are in fact victims, and B: as such deserve justice, so draw a line from A to B however needed. This point of view is sympathetic but completely discounts how our justice system actually works (and indeed should work).
Yes. Yes it needs to.
innocent until proven guilty.
Proven.
What are you not understanding? You keep railing against the fundamental concept of how the law works in some convoluted thought process.
Please explain how you would want sexual crimes to be tried because right now you are in make believe land.
The accused is innocent until you can prove to a judge (or jury) that they did beyond reasonable doubt a crime.
Looking at sexual assault cases as a whole, I disagree with the way our system disbelieves the victims.
Looking at all cases, I agree with the way our system disbelieves witnesses who lie/give false testimonies.
Looking at this specific case, the victims were disbelieved because of the latter. I fail to see what the controversy is.
Had there been more evidence to corroborate their statements, the outcome could have been different, but this was not the case.
Everything rested on the testimony of the three victims/accusers, and their testimonies were found to be unreliable, not due to the nature of the crime (sexual assault), but by their content.
The controversy is how the former drives the latter, and how we do our level best to ignore that.
SO it's the systems fault they lied on the stand?
That's a pretty convoluted argument right there. S
I agree with that in general, but you have done an excellent job making that position disagreeable by pushing it in reference to this case.
As I also said early on in this thread, this case is not the hill to die on. It absolutely makes you look like uncompromising and unconcerned with justice to seriously argue this particular case is a standout example of victim blaming or a broken system (judge's shitty comments aside, those were unpleasant).
So how much perjury is a witness allowed to commit?
So, you're saying that it's disagreeable to consider that what happened here is that you had women challenging an individual who had a significant amount of clout and were worried that their past would be used against them because we as a society have an image of how victims of sexual assault should behave, and thus chose to lie because they felt like they had no other option?
It's funny how being concerned about how the incredibly inequitable way we treat sexual assault in the justice system and how that influences how victims behave makes me "unconcerned with justice". Because apparently it doesn't matter why they lied, just that they did.
I'm not saying that it doesn't matter.
What I'm saying is that there are better explanations than "lying bitches had it out for him", and that if you actually want to address the issue, you need to look at how badly the system actually treats victims of sexual assault. Unless all you're concerned about is just getting women to "not lie on the stand", in which case the backlash is achieving that.
They'll just not come forward now.
Somehow, I don't think that serves the cause of justice either.
That is not what happened in this case.
In this case there was a rather blatant attempt to deceive that included lies about witness collusion. This is, as I said, not the hill to die on for arguing that women are unfairly accused of lying, because in this particular case they were lying to an extent that would ruin the case even in a perfect, unbiased world with a favorable jury.
@AngelHedgie
It would be totes awesome if you could answer this question.
Mainly because it kind of seems like you keep skipping over it.
Yes, our system has issues.
No, this is not the case that you want to hang your hat on when trying to talk about how bad the system is.
I haven't answered it because it's a dodge from my point.
Everyone is so concerned about them lying on the stand, but nobody is asking "why would these women feel the need to conceal this information in the first place?" And my point there is that the defense would have made the exact same arguments that the did about how all these things showed consent (when no, they actually don't), or that the prosecution would have just discounted them from the get-go. We're basically saying "hey, if you get sexually assaulted, you need to realize it right away so you can act 'appropriately'. Oh, and think twice about reaching out to other victims, as that can be held against you."
So tell me - which case do we hang our hat on? How long do we wait for the "perfect" case to use to talk about how fucked up things are when it comes to sexual assault?
Or do we take what we get, and actually discuss those issues now?
And what I'm asking is why would they do that?
I know you might find this hard to believe but take your time and process it.
Because they were not raped
I'm aware this does not seem to fit your world view.
And there's the elephant in the middle of the room.
Because what's the more believable theory?
That these three women held some sort of vendetta against him, and plotted to take him down through a false accusation of sexual assault?
Or that they were assaulted, reacted in a completely realistic manner, reached out to each other when they came to terms with what happened? That they were afraid to come forward as long as he held a good amount of clout in their industry, but felt that they could after that clout had been diminished? And that they felt that their past would be held against them, so they chose to hide it because they felt there was no other option?
The emails and communications paint a different story.
I don't know either way here, but the dissonance between presented evidence and thier testimony leaves a lot up in the air.
What I'd also put forward is that you believe so strongly in the validity of these cases that even one as obviously tainted as this one has your unwavering support. If this all doesn't give you doubt, what on earth would give you pause in a case like this?
Or, and see if you can follow this, since the number of rape convictions is pathetically small they felt the need to strengthen their case by covering up a few things. From what I can tell the big issue is "lying" about correspondence? Hate to tell you but completely forgeting that would be expected. Trauma is a bitch that way, and it will leave huge black holes in your memory. It is quite probable none of them had any memory of the old correspondence until It was brought up.
Colluding? Serial rapist has gotten away with it for over a decade (according to them). Do you leave to chance one of you fucking up or do you try to play the role of the perfect victim which is needed? Considering some of the lies they were caught in was bullshit like make and model of car, and whether or not they got hair extensions maybe we can see how they would feel the urge to lie a bit yeah? Literally any little discrepancy will be used to discredit you on the stand so take a strong stance on it.
Maybe I am missing some smoking gun here but from the perspective of the alleged victims in this case their actions are consistent and reasonable. Were they smart? No, absolutely not. It certainly hurt their case in areas to try and go above and beyond to fight a broken system. Does any of this make me doubt their story? Not for a second.
What do I know though. I am just a counselor with experience treating PTSD as well as having spent a lot of time in Child Protective Services routinely being involved in every stage of cases involving sexual misconduct of all kinds.
The smear campaign is bullshit, but the victims tanked their own case. Time to move on to the next rape trial involving this assclown.
We don't condemn people on what's most probable or believable.
Unless you believe that 100% the of people who are wrongly accused of rape should be jailed for the sole reason that they represent a statistical anomaly.
I'm seriously not being sarcastic but option #1
Because your option #2 disregards that all three of them tried to peruse relationships or sexual encounters after the fact and they have zero proof that he did anything unwanted to them. Read the letters they sent dude... I'm sorry but those do not read at all like abuse victims. i have seen not one shred of evidence he did anything wrong and only have their word that he did and by their own volition they lied about nearly everything.
I've had a few jilted lovers in the past. I had one tell all my friends 5 years after we broke up that I forced her to have an abortion.
A: I never slept with her
B: I did not make her have an abortion
This was 5 years after having last spoken to her. So yes, I think people will do crazy shit for inexplicable reasons.
I've also been the victim of abuse, helped a friend report a rape and volunteered in a woman's shelter. I've seen the gamut and do believe there are some pretty big holes in the system.
Your really not helping the cause by blindly believing every accusation. None of these women were long term girlfriends and most were one night stands.... Yet all three chased him and seem to want more of his company. Does that ring zero alarms to you?
EVALUATING WITNESS TESTIMONY—
WITNESS FALSE IN PART
Sometimes a witness may give incorrect or even inconsistent testimony. This does not necessarily constitute lying on the part of the witness. The witness’s testimony may be an honest mistake or confusion. The witness may simply forget matters, or his or her memory of an event may contain honest inconsistencies or contradictions. Also, different witnesses may observe or recount the same event differently.
However, if you find that a witness has intentionally lied in part of his or her testimony, you may, but are not required to, distrust other portions of that witness’s testimony.
As jurors, you have the sole responsibility to determine which testimony or portions of testimony you will or will not rely on in reaching your verdict.
Clearly the judge in this case found that he did not trust the witness testimony in front of him, for a lot of what I personally think are misguided reasons. But the idea that any bit of false testimony renders the rest of the testimony unreliable automatically is way too black and white, especially for these types of cases.