Rape is rape

[AmyNation]

Yes, she can.

Anyone can falsely report a crime. Although if you want to frame someone for a crime I don't know why you'd choose rape, as only 25% of all reported rapes ever go to trial.

That statistic is meaningless. We have something called a plea bargain in the US criminal justice system, and it means that only a fraction of all criminal procedures end up at trial. what usually happens is the prosecutor comes in and threatens to charge someone with a crime that could result in years in prison, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the complications.

If you plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit, you don't get sympathy from me.

Rape is very hard to prove which is why its rarely reported and rarely results in a conviction.

You seem to be under the impression that a woman can say "he raped me" and the accused is locked up, end of story. In he said she said cases, the burden of proof is on the victim.

 

[pinqy]

Rape victims have come out years later, this is not beyond any norm.

Yes, it is. About half of rape victims don't report at all. A good number report immediately or wait a day or a few days (and any delay makes prosecution difficult). There are very few cases of waiting months or years and all the cases I'm aware of are in conjunction with subsequent rapes/abuse where previous victims come forward. I don't believe I've ever heard of a case where the victim waited months or years and then came forward without any particular reason.

And regardless, it is still a question to be asked: Why exactly did he delay? What prompted him to come forward 4 months later? Note that I am NOT saying the delay means he was not raped or is proof that he is lying, but it IS something that needs to be addressed.



In most states, lack of consent is defined as giving in under force, threat of force, coercion or incapacity. We can discount incapacity, so without force, threat of force, or coercion, how is there lack of consent?

In particluar we can look at Massachusetts Law Chapter 265 Sec 22:

Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a person and compels such person to submit by force and against his will, or compels such person to submit by threat of bodily injury, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years; and whoever commits a second or subsequent such offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term or years.

Harsher punishment if there is a weapon or if the rape occurs during the commission of an assault, a robbery, or a burglary.

In Massachusetts you can be charged with, and convicted of, rape if the person you are having sex with is drunk because they are legally incapable of giving consent. That kind of bursts your argument that force is needed.

You must have missed the part where I stated "or incapacity, which is what the Blache case covered.

BLACHE, COMMONWEALTH vs., 450 Mass. 583

You really should look at all the laws before you try to pretend you know what you are talking about.

I did, and the law as written only mentions force. So that's the actual law. Now the courts rightfully showed that incapacity was part of the law even though it's not explicitly stated.

But surely you're not arguing that in this case the man was mentally incompetent due to lack of mental faculties or drunkenness?


So again, discounting incapacity, force, threat of force, or coercion is required for lack of consent.

 

[pinqy]

Still missing the point.

The victim doesn't have to prove he, or she, did not consent, all they have to do is say they didn't, and that makes it rape.

The victim doesn't have to prove lack of consent, but the prosecution does since that's one of the elements of the crime. The victim's statement of lack of consent is evidence, not proof and can certainly be questioned. Presumption of innocence still holds and the prosecution has to support its case. Simply stating "I have a girlfriend" is not refusal to consent. And under Massachusetts law, the prosecution has to show force or coercion.

The presumption in the court is that the victim in a rape case is telling the truth.

Cite? I find it difficult to believe that presumption of innocence is thrown out in rape cases.

[qutoe]Just because the story said that is what he said, and tried to imply that was all he said, does not mean that it is all he said.[/quote]
Never said it was. I was very specific that I was limiting myself to what was known.

The police are investigating the incident, my guess is they think the facts they have warrant an investigation.

No, they have an obligation to investigate. They don't get to make the judgement call about whether it's warranted or not unless it's something plainly ridiculous or impossible.

Your assumption that there is no need for an investigation is rather stupid under those circumstances, don't you think?

I made no such assumption and have said nothing that could rationally be interpreted that way. I didn't say a word about whether or not there should be an investigation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone can falsely report a crime. Although if you want to frame someone for a crime I don't know why you'd choose rape, as only 25% of all reported rapes ever go to trial.

That statistic is meaningless. We have something called a plea bargain in the US criminal justice system, and it means that only a fraction of all criminal procedures end up at trial. what usually happens is the prosecutor comes in and threatens to charge someone with a crime that could result in years in prison, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the complications.

If you plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit, you don't get sympathy from me.

Rape is very hard to prove which is why its rarely reported and rarely results in a conviction.

You seem to be under the impression that a woman can say "he raped me" and the accused is locked up, end of story. In he said she said cases, the burden of proof is on the victim.

You don't think people that are in prison for something they did not do deserve sympathy?

Talk about callous.

Please note, I didn't say anything about them not being guilty, it is interesting that you jumped straight to that though.

You seem to be under the impression that a person accused of rape has some sort of chance of fighting the charges after being locked up, loosing his job, his car, and his apartment. Do you really think public defenders are all great lawyers?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, it is. About half of rape victims don't report at all. A good number report immediately or wait a day or a few days (and any delay makes prosecution difficult). There are very few cases of waiting months or years and all the cases I'm aware of are in conjunction with subsequent rapes/abuse where previous victims come forward. I don't believe I've ever heard of a case where the victim waited months or years and then came forward without any particular reason.

And regardless, it is still a question to be asked: Why exactly did he delay? What prompted him to come forward 4 months later? Note that I am NOT saying the delay means he was not raped or is proof that he is lying, but it IS something that needs to be addressed.



In most states, lack of consent is defined as giving in under force, threat of force, coercion or incapacity. We can discount incapacity, so without force, threat of force, or coercion, how is there lack of consent?

In particluar we can look at Massachusetts Law Chapter 265 Sec 22: Harsher punishment if there is a weapon or if the rape occurs during the commission of an assault, a robbery, or a burglary.

In Massachusetts you can be charged with, and convicted of, rape if the person you are having sex with is drunk because they are legally incapable of giving consent. That kind of bursts your argument that force is needed.

You must have missed the part where I stated "or incapacity, which is what the Blache case covered.

BLACHE, COMMONWEALTH vs., 450 Mass. 583

You really should look at all the laws before you try to pretend you know what you are talking about.

I did, and the law as written only mentions force. So that's the actual law. Now the courts rightfully showed that incapacity was part of the law even though it's not explicitly stated.

But surely you're not arguing that in this case the man was mentally incompetent due to lack of mental faculties or drunkenness?


So again, discounting incapacity, force, threat of force, or coercion is required for lack of consent.

I don't know, nethier do you. Unlike you, I am willing to give him the exact same level if credulity I would give to a woman that made the same accusation. You should try it sometime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The victim doesn't have to prove lack of consent, but the prosecution does since that's one of the elements of the crime. The victim's statement of lack of consent is evidence, not proof and can certainly be questioned. Presumption of innocence still holds and the prosecution has to support its case. Simply stating "I have a girlfriend" is not refusal to consent. And under Massachusetts law, the prosecution has to show force or coercion.

The presumption in the court is that the victim in a rape case is telling the truth.

Cite? I find it difficult to believe that presumption of innocence is thrown out in rape cases.

[qutoe]Just because the story said that is what he said, and tried to imply that was all he said, does not mean that it is all he said.

Never said it was. I was very specific that I was limiting myself to what was known.

The police are investigating the incident, my guess is they think the facts they have warrant an investigation.

No, they have an obligation to investigate. They don't get to make the judgement call about whether it's warranted or not unless it's something plainly ridiculous or impossible.

Your assumption that there is no need for an investigation is rather stupid under those circumstances, don't you think?

I made no such assumption and have said nothing that could rationally be interpreted that way. I didn't say a word about whether or not there should be an investigation.[/QUOTE]

The accused cannot bring up any evidence of the accusers character unless he can prove its relevance. Rape is the only crime where this rule applies. That is what I am talking about, not the presumption of innocence.

 

[pinqy]

The accused cannot bring up any evidence of the accusers character unless he can prove its relevance. Rape is the only crime where this rule applies. That is what I am talking about, not the presumption of innocence.

How on Earth do you think that could possibly be inferred from

The presumption in the court is that the victim in a rape case is telling the truth.

?????????

And you're not quite correct anyway. The accuser's character is irrelevant in all cases except to show credibility. It particularly applies in rape cases because in the past, the accuser's previous consent to others was brought up to question lack of consent in the particular case. Since that is no longer considered relevant, it's no longer allowed.

But that still doesn't mean the accuser's claims are presumed true. Why investigate at all if just the claim is sufficient evidenc.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The accused cannot bring up any evidence of the accusers character unless he can prove its relevance. Rape is the only crime where this rule applies. That is what I am talking about, not the presumption of innocence.

How on Earth do you think that could possibly be inferred from

The presumption in the court is that the victim in a rape case is telling the truth.

?????????

And you're not quite correct anyway. The accuser's character is irrelevant in all cases except to show credibility. It particularly applies in rape cases because in the past, the accuser's previous consent to others was brought up to question lack of consent in the particular case. Since that is no longer considered relevant, it's no longer allowed.

But that still doesn't mean the accuser's claims are presumed true. Why investigate at all if just the claim is sufficient evidenc.

The presumption is always that witnesses are telling the truth, that is why they are sworn in and the government actually prosecutes people they can prove are lying. Presuming they are lying would destroy the entire system.

 

[AmyNation]

That statistic is meaningless. We have something called a plea bargain in the US criminal justice system, and it means that only a fraction of all criminal procedures end up at trial. what usually happens is the prosecutor comes in and threatens to charge someone with a crime that could result in years in prison, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the complications.

If you plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit, you don't get sympathy from me.

Rape is very hard to prove which is why its rarely reported and rarely results in a conviction.

You seem to be under the impression that a woman can say "he raped me" and the accused is locked up, end of story. In he said she said cases, the burden of proof is on the victim.

You don't think people that are in prison for something they did not do deserve sympathy?

Talk about callous.

Please note, I didn't say anything about them not being guilty, it is interesting that you jumped straight to that though.

You seem to be under the impression that a person accused of rape has some sort of chance of fighting the charges after being locked up, loosing his job, his car, and his apartment. Do you really think public defenders are all great lawyers?

I said I had no sympathy to those who plead guilty, and I don't.

You do not get locked up because someone accuses you of rape. The police will investigate based on her accusation. However you need more than her word agaisnt yours to get a conviction.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit, you don't get sympathy from me.

Rape is very hard to prove which is why its rarely reported and rarely results in a conviction.

You seem to be under the impression that a woman can say "he raped me" and the accused is locked up, end of story. In he said she said cases, the burden of proof is on the victim.

You don't think people that are in prison for something they did not do deserve sympathy?

Talk about callous.

Please note, I didn't say anything about them not being guilty, it is interesting that you jumped straight to that though.

You seem to be under the impression that a person accused of rape has some sort of chance of fighting the charges after being locked up, loosing his job, his car, and his apartment. Do you really think public defenders are all great lawyers?

I said I had no sympathy to those who plead guilty, and I don't.

You do not get locked up because someone accuses you of rape. The police will investigate based on her accusation. However you need more than her word agaisnt yours to get a conviction.

Like what?

 

[syrenn]

While rape is rape, there are some odd things about the story....The incident occurred in April, but he waited 4 months to report it. Why? Motive is question as well....why would a masseuse who is really a prostitute, force sex? And lack of consent is questionable because without any threat, why was he not able to resist?

Rape victims often delay reporting, it is one of the things defense attorneys used to use to question the motive of the victim.

Yes, I am aware of delay, but 4 months is a bit beyond the norm. It' questionable.

Really?.... There is a "norm" on when you feel ready to report a rape? Do tell... have you ever been raped?

 

[AmyNation]

You don't think people that are in prison for something they did not do deserve sympathy?

Talk about callous.

Please note, I didn't say anything about them not being guilty, it is interesting that you jumped straight to that though.

You seem to be under the impression that a person accused of rape has some sort of chance of fighting the charges after being locked up, loosing his job, his car, and his apartment. Do you really think public defenders are all great lawyers?

I said I had no sympathy to those who plead guilty, and I don't.

You do not get locked up because someone accuses you of rape. The police will investigate based on her accusation. However you need more than her word agaisnt yours to get a conviction.

Like what?

Evidence.

 

[syrenn]

Yes, I am aware of delay, but 4 months is a bit beyond the norm. It' questionable.

Not only that, but was this guy forced/coercerd in any way, shape, or form? I find it hard to believe that a 30 year old male's "happy-ending" was actually rape.
From what the article says the man said, "I have a girlfriend" saying "I have a GF" is definitly not saying something like "no."

edit: I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact of rape being rape. I just don't really see how the topic at hand could be considered, especially in a court of law, an act of rape. (given the articles information)

In a court of law all it takes is a lack of consent. Force and/or coersion are not required to prove rape.

If yo yo can provide evidence of payment...it should be interesting.

 

[Noomi]

Yes, she can.

Anyone can falsely report a crime. Although if you want to frame someone for a crime I don't know why you'd choose rape, as only 25% of all reported rapes ever go to trial.

That statistic is meaningless. We have something called a plea bargain in the US criminal justice system, and it means that only a fraction of all criminal procedures end up at trial. what usually happens is the prosecutor comes in and threatens to charge someone with a crime that could result in years in prison, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the complications.

So if I said that you raped me, and you were facing years in prison, you would be happy to strike a deal and go to prison for something you didn't do?

You sir, are a fucking moron.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said I had no sympathy to those who plead guilty, and I don't.

You do not get locked up because someone accuses you of rape. The police will investigate based on her accusation. However you need more than her word agaisnt yours to get a conviction.

Like what?

Evidence.

Evidence life, for example, the testimony of a victim?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone can falsely report a crime. Although if you want to frame someone for a crime I don't know why you'd choose rape, as only 25% of all reported rapes ever go to trial.

That statistic is meaningless. We have something called a plea bargain in the US criminal justice system, and it means that only a fraction of all criminal procedures end up at trial. what usually happens is the prosecutor comes in and threatens to charge someone with a crime that could result in years in prison, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the complications.

So if I said that you raped me, and you were facing years in prison, you would be happy to strike a deal and go to prison for something you didn't do?

You sir, are a fucking moron.

Try it and find out how willing I am.

 

[Noomi]

That statistic is meaningless. We have something called a plea bargain in the US criminal justice system, and it means that only a fraction of all criminal procedures end up at trial. what usually happens is the prosecutor comes in and threatens to charge someone with a crime that could result in years in prison, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the complications.

So if I said that you raped me, and you were facing years in prison, you would be happy to strike a deal and go to prison for something you didn't do?

You sir, are a fucking moron.

Try it and find out how willing I am.

You sound very eager. God only knows why.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if I said that you raped me, and you were facing years in prison, you would be happy to strike a deal and go to prison for something you didn't do?

You sir, are a fucking moron.

Try it and find out how willing I am.

You sound very eager. God only knows why.

Possibly because you don't understand anything.

 

[syrenn]

Anyone can falsely report a crime. Although if you want to frame someone for a crime I don't know why you'd choose rape, as only 25% of all reported rapes ever go to trial.

That statistic is meaningless. We have something called a plea bargain in the US criminal justice system, and it means that only a fraction of all criminal procedures end up at trial. what usually happens is the prosecutor comes in and threatens to charge someone with a crime that could result in years in prison, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the complications.

So if I said that you raped me, and you were facing years in prison, you would be happy to strike a deal and go to prison for something you didn't do?

You sir, are a fucking moron.

Lets see as a hypothetical...... 20 years in for a trial conviction...or say... 2 years for a plea deal. What would you take?

Prosecutors are about wins and convictions. If they can get someone to plea a deal of guilty..... they will. Its a win win for them.

 

[pinqy]

The accused cannot bring up any evidence of the accusers character unless he can prove its relevance. Rape is the only crime where this rule applies. That is what I am talking about, not the presumption of innocence.

How on Earth do you think that could possibly be inferred from

The presumption in the court is that the victim in a rape case is telling the truth.

?????????

And you're not quite correct anyway. The accuser's character is irrelevant in all cases except to show credibility. It particularly applies in rape cases because in the past, the accuser's previous consent to others was brought up to question lack of consent in the particular case. Since that is no longer considered relevant, it's no longer allowed.

But that still doesn't mean the accuser's claims are presumed true. Why investigate at all if just the claim is sufficient evidenc.

The presumption is always that witnesses are telling the truth, that is why they are sworn in and the government actually prosecutes people they can prove are lying. Presuming they are lying would destroy the entire system.

There is no presumption as far as evidence goes...that's what makes it evidence.

Presumption of Innocence means the entire burden of proof is on the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. They must call witnesses and present evidence to back their case. Theoretically, the defense doesn't have to do or say anything in court..no obligation to prove innocence or rebut any prosecution testimony, the entire burden is on the prosecution.

In reality it doesn't work that way, but no, it's not presumed that any prosecution testimony is true, that's what the prosecution has to prove.

You can't have it both ways that the defendent is presumed innocent and that the accuser's claims of the defendent's guilt are presumed true. That becomes nonsensical.