No such thing as rape

[Guinevere]

Except that the he saids and the she saids are not necessarily equally plausible. Someone accused of rape would have an obvious reason to be lying about whether the sexual intercourse that occurred was rape. If there is a reasonable explanation proffered as to why the complainant could be lying, then sure, the jury should acquit. But if he/she has no conceivable reason to lie, and he/she is not crazy or some sort of attention hound, then why would he/she put herself through that ordeal?

A perfect example of the perversion of the presumption of innocence. It is not the accused's job to show that the accuser might not be telling the truth. It is the prosecution's job to prove that the accuser is telling the truth.

Your way of looking at things is how innocent people end up in prison. And you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Not when you put it into context. Don't forget that juries aren't making these decisions in a vacuum. They have instruction and direction regarding the law provided to them, so they can make their determinations about facts in the appropriate context. At least in civil cases in Massachusetts, it is perfectly reasonable to give the jury an instruction which states that they may consider financial incentive in the matter in assessing the credibility of any witness (an instruction which cuts equally against both plaintiffs and defendants). I don't know if there is a similar instruction which could be applicable in a criminal rape case, but all of those issues the two of you are discussing end up coming back to the question of credibility, which is a matter reserved for the jury. Appropriately so, I believe.

[Andrew D]

There is also the matter of the burden of proof. If all that the prosecution can come up with to prove the without-consent element of its rape case is an accusation, then the prosecution should be held not to have met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case need not go to the jury at all.

[Scooter]

So I guess the nun dragged into the alley has no chance of seeing her rapist convicted? His word against hers, right?

You were in my house. There was $100 sitting on my coffee table. I saw you pick it up, put it in your pocket, and walk out the door before I could stop you. I call the police and tell them you stole $100 from me. You admit to taking the $100, but you say I told you that you could have it. Is my testimony witnessing you taking the money enough for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof, or must a jury give credence to your fairy tale?

[Andrew D]

If we start already knowing what the truth is, then the answers are easy. Hypothetical questions that presuppose knowledge of the truth are easy to answer. They also tell us nothing worth knowing.

In the real world of criminal prosecutions, we don't start already knowing what the truth is. We start not knowing what the truth is, and it is the prosecutor's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her version of things is the truth.

Is my version of the facts a "fairy tale"? If you start already knowing that it is false, then sure it is. But if you're operating in the real world, where we don't start already knowing what is true and what is false, then maybe it's not a "fairy tale".

Maybe you owed me $100. Maybe when I picked up the $100, I was simply taking what belonged to me -- the money you owed me. Maybe you said that my taking the $100 was fine with you, but then you got pissed off about owing me $100 in the first place, and you decided to make my life suck by calling the police and claiming that I had stolen $100, even though the truth of the matter is that I hadn't stolen anything at all.

You said / I said. Where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Scooter]

So, absent some other corroboration, the fact that you are now in possession of property which we both admit was once mine, is not sufficient to convict you of theft. So much for pretty much every shoplifting conviction. "But Officer, he told me I could take the magazine/bubble gum/lipstick/handbag without paying for it. I can't imagine why he ran out of the store after me yelling, 'Stop, thief!' "

[Andrew D]

Just another wild, off-the-point, can't-back-up-the-last-thing meandering.

What happened to your stealing-$100 scenario?

Got confronted with its falling apart, did you?

Found yourself unable to resurrect it, did you?

You deal with the squashing of your previous hypothetical; then I'll consider addressing your latest one. Until then, you're just fulminating.

[Scooter]

I have asked more than once to deal with the scenario of the nun claiming rape in an alley that I previously posed. Why don't you try addressing it instead of pretending to ignore it?

And as to the $100:

Maybe you owed me $100. Maybe when I picked up the $100, I was simply taking what belonged to me -- the money you owed me. Maybe you said that my taking the $100 was fine with you, but then you got pissed off about owing me $100 in the first place, and you decided to make my life suck by calling the police and claiming that I had stolen $100, even though the truth of the matter is that I hadn't stolen anything at all.

Anything offered to suggest any of these to be credible scenarios? No? Then no reason for a jury to doubt that taking the money from my house was a crime.

[Andrew D]

All of your scenarios revolve around the same thing: You want it to be the defendant's burden to give the jury some reason to believe the defendant's version of events, but you're fine with the accuser's giving the jury no reason to believe the accuser's version of events other than the accusation itself. That is not presuming innocence; that is presuming guilt.

[dgs49]

All things being equal, a woman accusing someone of rape has to get past some fairly significant hurdles before someone goes on trial. THe police have to believe her story, the prosecutror has to believe her story, and the prosecutor has to believe that there is sufficient evidence to PROVE the case to a jury. Historically, a DA would not pursue a rape case unless there was significant corroborating evidence (bloody garments, witnesses, bruising inconsistent with consensual sex, etc.) The "he said/she said" cases never made it to trial.

Might be different now, but not much.