Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah
Okay, so who do you know is telling the truth?
"Crying Rape" is only the first thing that happens. The problem is that the moment that "Rape" is cried, a woman is likely to be disbelieved rather than believed, is likelier to be mocked or threatened than not and that's before the investigation starts. And not only women. I'd be scared to know what men go through if they reported a rape.
I'm not saying that there aren't cases of people claiming Rape when there was none, I'm not that stupid. The point is, just how do you prove Rape happens when most of the time people work against you, not for you?
Don't blame Me Too for it, put the blame where it goes, onto the people who don't believe something happened to begin with.
I agree it's a complicated situation. I'm sure nine claims out of ten are true. The problem for the judge is telling them apart from the one out of ten. Because rape is so difficult to prove, unless we want to put innocent people in jail, we end up with a situation in which a judge will acquit nine defendants out of ten even though he know that nine out of ten are probably guilty. If a person (man or woman) is accused of rape, I'd say from the start nine out of ten chance he or she is guilty; yet because he or she may be innocent, I can't take the law into my own hands.
As for the complainant, nine times out of ten she (or he) survived sexual assault. In the end, all we can really do in the absence of proof in most cases is to believe both sides and to acquit. Very rarely will there be sufficient proof for a conviction.
The above presents a new problem though. Since we know that nine out of ten accused are guilty but that maybe only one out of ten are convicted because we can't always tell the guilty apart from the innocent, our better sentiments lead us to want to do something about it. That's where rape-shield laws come in. While they may increase the conviction rate, they also increase the risk of a wrongful conviction. Another proposal I've read was to reduce the burden of proof to proof of rape on a balance of probabilities and of a sexual act beyond reasonable doubt. While that too would increase the conviction rate, it too would lead to a higher risk of a wrongful conviction.
My preferred solution would be the right to an inquisitorial trial with protection from rape-shield laws (so as to reduce the risk of a wrongful conviction) and make fornication a heavily fineable offence. That would have the benefit of deterring sexual assaults (since fornication would be easier to prove than sexual assault) while still maintaining adequate protection against a wrongful finding of guilt (since the person would still be fined for something that he would have been proved guilty of beyond reasonable doubt after due process with all of the protections the state could afford to give such as the right to an inquisitorial trial and protection from rape-shield laws.
There may exist other options too; but at the end of the day, radical feminists need to understand that even when a rape does occur, it usually can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt and so the judge can't usually tell the rapist apart from an innocent accused. Radical feminists need to address this reality head on rather than spew a hate-on for men.
By the way, women too can sexually coerce boys and even men into sex. I know. And that further adds to the complexity of the case since a judge can't even rightfully just assume that the perpetrator is necessarily the male and the victim the female. Sometimes when there is sexual harassment and counter sexual harassment (and yes that can happen when one party tries to pressure the other into a sex act and other then responds by forcing the first into another sex act that that person didn't want), we can't assume even when there is proof of one party coercing the other that the coercion or other abuse was not reciprocal.
So many complexities abound in these kinds of cases that even when the party or parties is or are guilty, seldom can the state prove it conclusively. Though I do not deny that most accusations are probably true and that most perpetrators are probably acquitted, I still think that feminism fails to address the complexities of the matter. Even though probably nine out of ten perpetrators are acquitted, some innocents still end up convicted. The question then becomes how we as a society are to address these imperfections in the system. Feminism needs to stop skirting around these complexities and address them head on if it's to remain relevant.