Innocent man finally "freed".

[Xno Kappa]

About 12% of our case load in fiscal year 2011 dealing with rapes turned out to be consensual. I know there was a recent supreme court ruling on sexual assault cases overturning the fact that it was the only type of crime where it was on the defendant to prove innocence.

[Salodin]

About 12% of our case load in fiscal year 2011 dealing with rapes turned out to be consensual. I know there was a recent supreme court ruling on sexual assault cases overturning the fact that it was the only type of crime where it was on the defendant to prove innocence.

So a little more then 1/10 people get fucked over in these situations? That's pretty scary...

[archibaldcrane]

He's dealing (IIRC) with military situations, which may be hard to extrapolate to the general population.

[Churchill]

I would say in military cases (on post) it's less likely to be wrongfully convicted if it's handled via UCMJ only prior to seeing state/federal punishment.

Commanders are generally more keen on discovering the truth, as well as CID, than taking someones word for it. Their interest is to protect their soldiers.

Edit: If you mean military folks may attract more/less of the of false accusation types, that I don't know.

[Xno Kappa]

I think our local pd who we do joints with all the time is at about about 6%? Can't remember but I know it was a single digit. Our numbers are higher because we tend to deal with spouses fucking around while their husbands are deployed. Said husband then finds out and now it's magically rape.

[Celeste]

Shit seriously blows the mind.

[Niiro]

I know there was a recent supreme court ruling on sexual assault cases overturning the fact that it was the only type of crime where it was on the defendant to prove innocence.

This highlights an interesting aspect of rape cases.

But it seems to me that in situations like this couldn't one simply request a bench trial? Unlike a jury, which are composed of average people (ie. morons) at the very least you can be sure the judge finished high school and probably read a pamphlet on law at some point.

What judge could possibly look at a rape accusation case consisting of nothing but victim testimony (no physical evidence, no witnesses, no apparent motive) and come to the conclusion, beyond reasonable a doubt, that a rape occurred?

Obviously there are biased and completely unethical judges, but unlike a jury a judge is putting their reputation on the line and is in general much more keenly aware of manipulative prosecution tactics. It's much easier to convince a group of random jackoffs with a dramatic and emotional display than it is 1 who sees this bullshit on a daily basis.

[Ryany]

I saw the thread title and before I even looked at the article or post, I correctly figured it was a minority accused of a sex crime. (like it is every fucking time)

[archibaldcrane]

I assume Wanetta Gibson is also black, but yeah.

[Cadsuane]

The gender politics side of this issue is zero sum for everyone involved and therefore stupid. I'd like to point out that women get plenty of a rough deal in rape cases when confirmation bias kicks in for police/judges and juries who have heard a couple of stories like this. As a woman, I'd say you're dreading the day someone calls you the boy who cried woof about as much as a guy dreads the possibility of being falsely accused of rape and it being taken seriously. Both genders hate hearing these stories for the same fucking reason.

Cases like these happen the way they happen because of the over-emphasis placed on victims rights if they're well represented enough. In the U.S. you have... well everything I guess. Laws are legislated and sentences are handed out because juries and elected officials feel they owe some schadenfreude to victims dressed up as "closure". Bad sense of jurisprudence all around. Here in Canada we have newly proposed cyber-bullying legislation, which is far more causally related to the issue here than the paranoid view of overreaching feminism.

[Lucavi]

The gender politics side of this issue is zero sum for everyone involved and therefore stupid. I'd like to point out that women get plenty of a rough deal in rape cases when confirmation bias kicks in for police/judges and juries who have heard a couple of stories like this. As a woman, I'd say you're dreading the day someone calls you the boy who cried woof about as much as a guy dreads the possibility of being falsely accused of rape and it being taken seriously. Both genders hate hearing these stories for the same fucking reason.

What is worse: a woman being raped and a guilty man going free, or a woman accusing a person of rape and having an innocent man locked away for life? Both are terrible, but which is worse, and yes, one of the two -is- worse.

[Cadsuane]

What is worse: a woman being raped and a guilty man going free, or a woman accusing a person of rape and having an innocent man locked away for life? Both are terrible, but which is worse, and yes, one of the two -is- worse.

Yes yes I agree that convicting the innocent is worse than failing to convict the guilty. Read the second paragraph of the post you quoted and you'll see that this is a direct implication of my arguing that the fact that victims rights take precedence in general is a subversion of justice (ie. not just in rape cases, but in any kind of criminal case, including cyber bullying now whatever the fuck that means). Moreover it's just jurisprudence 101. Just don't raise the banner of gender equality while you're arguing this cause you're gonna look kinda dumb.

[Lucavi]

I raised no banner of gender equality, because this is a situation where the U.S. has proven where there can be no gender equality. Its always one side or the other; either the man gets off because women aren't respected socially (the past) or men have to prove their innocence instead of women proving their guilt (the present). There's no equality to speak of, there.

[Cadsuane]

I raised no banner of gender equality, because this is a situation where the U.S. has proven where there can be no gender equality. Its always one side or the other; either the man gets off because women aren't respected socially (the past) or men have to prove their innocence instead of women proving their guilt (the present). There's no equality to speak of, there.

What? You're not talking about gender equality and then complaining that there's no gender equality and I'm supposed to believe you're not making a tacit normative statement about whether there should be gender equality and what it would entail. Okay.

You're conflating a legal issue with a social one. The social one is stupid, stop whining about it.

[Lucavi]

The social one directly correlates to the legal one. That's the entire point. You can't talk about the article at hand without talking about both. No rape case with a twisted ending can boil down to a strictly legal or social issue; the cases always contain both.

[Qalbert]

the boy who cried woof

[Kuishen]

Thank god I wasn't the only one that caught that.

[Ashmada]

Threw me off as well.

But not as much as learning Cadsuane was a woman. Not that I thought she was a guy, I just thought Canadians reproduced asexually. Some sort of macromitosis.
(oh and to be a "boy who cried wolf" case, the rape victim needs to have tried to falsely accuse someone before so I don't really see the relevance)

I raised no banner of gender equality, because this is a situation where the U.S. has proven where there can be no gender equality. Its always one side or the other; either the man gets off because women aren't respected socially (the past) or men have to prove their innocence instead of women proving their guilt (the present). There's no equality to speak of, there.

Presumption of innocence doesn't have to go hand-in-hand with not respecting women socially, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

If we want to make it a social issue, though, it's easy: but but rape isn't only male on female!111one. Anyone wants to make that case?