People's reaction to rape allegations

[carl dsaadi 10]

It would, but the accuser has to prove the accusation. A court will not convict on "he did it", even if the accused is a serial abuser.

 

 

 

 

Would that be conveniently 'unmemorable' now because the past has caught up ? Memory loss isn't a defense to an offence.

 

No, the prosecution and defense have to present a sequence of events that 12 people can believe and the 12 people decide which version is the most believable. It's a belief system and not a system that requires proof.

 

Most people won't remember events that are unmemorable, if someone claims that you did something 30 years ago it very unlikely that you remember doing it if it was unmemorable. The human brain evolved with the ability to forget old information that is considered unimportant.

 

Short-term memory is the capacity for holding a small amount of information readily available state for a short period of time, most of that information won't be stored in the long term memory and even if it is, over time it becomes more difficult to recall.

[cassity 10]

No,

 

Saying "No" at the beginning of posts isn't evidence that you are right.

 

The sequence of events are evidence. It has to be something more substantial than "Yes, he did it" as evidence he did, and "No, I didn't" as evidence he didn't.

 

Proof of a crime requires evidence, not just a belief.

[carl dsaadi 10]

Saying "No" at the beginning of posts isn't evidence that you are right.

 

The sequence of events are evidence. It has to be something more substantial than "Yes, he did it" as evidence he did, and "No, I didn't" as evidence he didn't.

 

Proof of a crime requires evidence, not just a belief.

 

What possible evidence could exist that someone raped someone else 30 years ago, other than someone or a group of people saying he raped me, its then down to the jury to decide if they believe the accuser or the accused.

 

If you claimed to have a diamond the size of a tennis ball I wouldn't believe you, because it is unbelievable. You could prove it by producing the diamond for inspection but producing 20 other people that also say they have a diamond the size of a tennis ball wouldn't be proof that you or they have one.

 

If you claimed to have one the size of a grain of sand I would be more inclined to believe you, but the only way to prove you have one is to produce it for inspection, the fact that they are quite common isn't proof you have one.

 

So people are convicted because the jury believe the accused to be guilty and not because they saw proof of guilt.

[cassity 10]

 

So people are convicted because the jury believe the accused to be guilty and not because they saw proof of guilt.

 

 

They come to this conclusion because of evidence. Not because they believe he looks dodgy..that isn't justice.

 

What possible evidence could exist that someone raped someone else 30 years ago, other than someone or a group of people saying he raped me, its then down to the jury to decide if they believe the accuser or the accused.

 

That's the job of the prosecution. Just because 30 yrs have elapsed doesn't negate the fact that there could still be evidence. Your line of logic is, 30 yrs have gone by so that alone is evidence of innocence.

[Cyclone 10]

No, the prosecution and defense have to present a sequence of events that 12 people can believe and the 12 people decide which version is the most believable. It's a belief system and not a system that requires proof.

Beyond reasonable doubt though, not on the balance of probabilities.

 

So a single persons allegation from 30 years ago should not be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

[carl dsaadi 10]

They come to this conclusion because of evidence. Not because they believe he looks dodgy..that isn't justice.

 

 

 

That's the job of the prosecution. Just because 30 yrs have elapsed doesn't negate the fact that there could still be evidence. Your line of logic is, 30 yrs have gone by so that alone is evidence of innocence.

 

 

 

What evidence? there is no evidence that anyone had sex with anyone else let alone raped them, other than the word of the accuser, its down to the jury to decide who to believe, the accuser or the accused, and if the accused has no idea what they was doing at the time of the alleged rape then they can't even present a defense other than, I didn't rape them.

 

I haven't said that someone is innocent just because 30 years have gone by.

 

I have said their conviction is based on belief and not proof, the jury will decide who to believe. Billions of people believe that God exists even though they have no proof of its existence. There are 12 people on the jury, they might all believe the accused is guilty or innocent or their vote might be split with someone believing guilty and some believing innocent. What they decide is based on their opinion and what they believe, in some cases there is a huge amount of evidence and the choice is easy and in other cases there is very little in the way of evidence but they still need to make a decision, sometimes they will get it right and sometimes they will get it wrong.

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2015 at 13:54 ----------

 

Beyond reasonable doubt though, not on the balance of probabilities.

 

So a single persons allegation from 30 years ago should not be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

 

But only beyond reasonable doubt for the 12 people on the jury, 12 different people could come to a different verdict, very often even though the 12 people listened to the same evidence they still don't all agree, because people are willing to believe different things based on different levels of evidence.

 

Billions of people will say that God exists but that isn't proof of its existence. 12 people believing beyond reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime is enough to lock them up, but it isn't proof that they actually committed the crime.

[Cyclone 10]

The judge will instruct them on what BRD means in law. If the only evidence and defence presented are statements from the complainant and the defendant then I think it extremely unlikely that a conviction could take place so long after the alleged offence.

 

Now if 30 people complain, independently, with similar stories, that's a very different matter.

[Halibut 12]

What evidence? there is no evidence that anyone had sex with anyone else let alone raped them, other than the word of the accuser, its down to the jury to decide who to believe, the accuser or the accused, and if the accused has no idea what they was doing at the time of the alleged rape then they can't even present a defense other than, I didn't rape them.

 

I haven't said that someone is innocent just because 30 years have gone by.

 

I have said their conviction is based on belief and not proof, the jury will decide who to believe. Billions of people believe that God exists even though they have no proof of its existence. There are 12 people on the jury, they might all believe the accused is guilty or innocent or their vote might be split with someone believing guilty and some believing innocent. What they decide is based on their opinion and what they believe, in some cases there is a huge amount of evidence and the choice is easy and in other cases there is very little in the way of evidence but they still need to make a decision, sometimes they will get it right and sometimes they will get it wrong.

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2015 at 13:54 ----------

 

 

But only beyond reasonable doubt for the 12 people on the jury, 12 different people could come to a different verdict, very often even though the 12 people listened to the same evidence they still don't all agree, because people are willing to believe different things based on different levels of evidence.

 

Billions of people will say that God exists but that isn't proof of its existence. 12 people believing beyond reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime is enough to lock them up, but it isn't proof that they actually committed the crime.

 

I've tried really hard to understand the mindset of a man who ignores the realities of rape and focuses all their energy on defending men, but I just can't.

 

I can only assume that you don't really care about women, or that you think rape isn't that big a deal.

[Kthebean 10]

I have said their conviction is based on belief and not proof

 

Not necessarily, there could be witnesses, there might be photographic or video evidence. There might be witnesses or other evidence of threats or intimidation. There might be a baby born of the rape which bears DNA.

 

Just because a crime happened 30 years ago it doesn't mean there is no evidence.

[leviathan13 348]

Not necessarily, there could be witnesses, there might be photographic or video evidence. There might be witnesses or other evidence of threats or intimidation. There might be a baby born of the rape which bears DNA.

 

Just because a crime happened 30 years ago it doesn't mean there is no evidence.

 

Two people meet in a pub, have a one night stand (unprotected but consenting), woman finds out she's pregnant and claims that she was raped to try and hide her humiliation... thus DNA is NOT proof of a rape, just a very drunkenly misguided evening.

[Kthebean 10]

Two people meet in a pub, have a one night stand (unprotected but consenting), woman finds out she's pregnant and claims that she was raped to try and hide her humiliation... thus DNA is NOT proof of a rape, just a very drunkenly misguided evening.

 

Man has consensual or otherwise sex with a 13 year old girl. Girl gets pregnant.

 

Girl decides 30 years later to disclose who raped her.

 

Conclusive proof of rape.

 

Does depend on the circumstances doesn't it. I'm not sure WHY you're trying to DISPROVE things I DIDN'T say?

[leviathan13 348]

Man has consensual or otherwise sex with a 13 year old girl. Girl gets pregnant.

 

Girl decides 30 years later to disclose who raped her.

 

Conclusive proof of rape.

 

Does depend on the circumstances doesn't it. I'm not sure WHY you're trying to DISPROVE things I DIDN'T say?

 

But only if the victim is underage - not all of them were.