Rape is rape

[pinqy]

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?

Of course there is, why wouldn't there be? About 65% of rapes go unreported...so that makes that one norm. Most other rapes are reported within a day or two based on andecdotal evidence from law enforcement. I have heard of some cases of victims coming forward years later as support for the claims of other victims or cases like with Bill Clinton where his seeking office is an impetus for the victim to come forward.

Considering how many rapes are unreported it makes little sense to think there's any significant number that fail to report and then, for no compelling reason, come forward long after the fact when chance of conviction is much lower.

Surely you're not claiming this is common?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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.

You are really hung up on this.

The presumption is that testimony is true.

401 F2d 659 United States v. Boone L J | OpenJurist

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Of course there is, why wouldn't there be? About 65% of rapes go unreported...so that makes that one norm. Most other rapes are reported within a day or two based on andecdotal evidence from law enforcement. I have heard of some cases of victims coming forward years later as support for the claims of other victims or cases like with Bill Clinton where his seeking office is an impetus for the victim to come forward.

Considering how many rapes are unreported it makes little sense to think there's any significant number that fail to report and then, for no compelling reason, come forward long after the fact when chance of conviction is much lower.

Surely you're not claiming this is common?

If 65% of rapes go unreported that is not one norm that is the norm. That makes any reported rape out of the norm. Considering the fact that rape is so unlikely to be reported there is no reason to doubt anyone who reports a rape simply because they delay reporting.

 

[pinqy]

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.

You are really hung up on this.

The presumption is that testimony is true.

401 F2d 659 United States v. Boone L J | OpenJurist

Ummm the ruling was that a judge should NOT instruct the jury that any testimony is presumed true, but in this particular case the error was harmless.

Hint: make sure your links actually support your claim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are really hung up on this.

The presumption is that testimony is true.

401 F2d 659 United States v. Boone L J | OpenJurist

Ummm the ruling was that a judge should NOT instruct the jury that any testimony is presumed true, but in this particular case the error was harmless.

Hint: make sure your links actually support your claim.

Maybe you should learn to read. the reason the error was harmless was because both sides had witnesses, and the instruction basically ended up null. The funny thing is that no matter how often you read that decision you will not find a single instance where anyone said that witnesses were not presumed to be telling the truth.

 

[MeBelle]

OK, back to the OP...

Perhaps the gentleman decided to report the rape four months later when the girlfriend discovered his infidelity?

 

[Cowman]

I love i when people suddenly get up in arms about rape because of a novelty rape victim... when they seem to care little at all during all the other times.

"A man getting raped who wasn't in prison? <GASP>. A woman getting raped? Well that's just life."

 

[Noomi]

OK, back to the OP...

Perhaps the gentleman decided to report the rape four months later when the girlfriend discovered his infidelity?

Exactly what I was saying, although QW doesn't believe this.

 

[pinqy]

You are really hung up on this.

The presumption is that testimony is true.

401 F2d 659 United States v. Boone L J | OpenJurist

Ummm the ruling was that a judge should NOT instruct the jury that any testimony is presumed true, but in this particular case the error was harmless.

Hint: make sure your links actually support your claim.

Maybe you should learn to read. the reason the error was harmless was because both sides had witnesses, and the instruction basically ended up null. The funny thing is that no matter how often you read that decision you will not find a single instance where anyone said that witnesses were not presumed to be telling the truth.

But that case references and uses as preference US v Meisch which clearly states:

20
Appellant also brings to our attention the trial judge's instruction to the jury that a "witness is presumed to speak the truth but this presumption may be outweighed by the manner in which the witness testifies, by the character of the testimony given or by contradictory evidence." It is perhaps safe to say that the vast majority of witnesses speak the truth and that jurors are aware of this. But we have not found an authoritative case, and the prosecution has cited none, casting that tendency of human nature into a legal presumption in a criminal case tried to a jury. In addition to derrogating from the jury's sole right to determine the credibility of witnesses, this rule conflicts with the presumption of innocence of a defendant. Attempts to shorten this protective cloak have been nullified by the Courts. See, for example, Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952); Reynolds v. United States, 238 F.2d 460, 16 Alaska 502 (C.A.9, 1956). The quoted words also clashed with the charge regarding the burden of proof. The appellant did not take the stand or offer any witnesses on his behalf. Under the circumstances the jury could have concluded that they were required to accept the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses at its face value since it was not contradicted by other witnesses. If the case is ever retried, the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, should not include therein the proposition that a witness is presumed to speak the truth.

Emphasis mine.

Is that clear enough for you?
Testimony is neutral...not presumed to be either true or false. It's the jury's job to evaluate the credibility.

As applied in US v Boone, the court ruled that even though the judge was incorrect to instruct the jury to presume truth of testimony, the error did not affect the jury's decision, did not cause harm to the defense, and so was not enough to invalidate the verdict. I have no idea how you can get the idea that saying that the judge should NOT tell the jury that there is a presumption of truth means that there is one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love i when people suddenly get up in arms about rape because of a novelty rape victim... when they seem to care little at all during all the other times.

"A man getting raped who wasn't in prison? <GASP>. A woman getting raped? Well that's just life."

Funny, what I have seen is just the opposite. A woman getting raped? Hang the guy and kill everyone involved. A man getting raped, he must be lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, back to the OP...

Perhaps the gentleman decided to report the rape four months later when the girlfriend discovered his infidelity?

Exactly what I was saying, although QW doesn't believe this.

I don't believe anything unless I have evidence, I have no evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ummm the ruling was that a judge should NOT instruct the jury that any testimony is presumed true, but in this particular case the error was harmless.

Hint: make sure your links actually support your claim.

Maybe you should learn to read. the reason the error was harmless was because both sides had witnesses, and the instruction basically ended up null. The funny thing is that no matter how often you read that decision you will not find a single instance where anyone said that witnesses were not presumed to be telling the truth.

But that case references and uses as preference US v Meisch which clearly states:

20
Appellant also brings to our attention the trial judge's instruction to the jury that a "witness is presumed to speak the truth but this presumption may be outweighed by the manner in which the witness testifies, by the character of the testimony given or by contradictory evidence." It is perhaps safe to say that the vast majority of witnesses speak the truth and that jurors are aware of this. But we have not found an authoritative case, and the prosecution has cited none, casting that tendency of human nature into a legal presumption in a criminal case tried to a jury. In addition to derrogating from the jury's sole right to determine the credibility of witnesses, this rule conflicts with the presumption of innocence of a defendant. Attempts to shorten this protective cloak have been nullified by the Courts. See, for example, Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952); Reynolds v. United States, 238 F.2d 460, 16 Alaska 502 (C.A.9, 1956). The quoted words also clashed with the charge regarding the burden of proof. The appellant did not take the stand or offer any witnesses on his behalf. Under the circumstances the jury could have concluded that they were required to accept the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses at its face value since it was not contradicted by other witnesses. If the case is ever retried, the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, should not include therein the proposition that a witness is presumed to speak the truth.

Emphasis mine.

Is that clear enough for you?
Testimony is neutral...not presumed to be either true or false. It's the jury's job to evaluate the credibility.

As applied in US v Boone, the court ruled that even though the judge was incorrect to instruct the jury to presume truth of testimony, the error did not affect the jury's decision, did not cause harm to the defense, and so was not enough to invalidate the verdict. I have no idea how you can get the idea that saying that the judge should NOT tell the jury that there is a presumption of truth means that there is one.

Let me put it to you this way.

Everyone who testifies before a court does so under penalty of perjury. Perjury is a crime. Since the presumption is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty the presumption of the law is that everyone who testifies is that they are telling the truth. In fact, ethics rules specifically prohibit lawyers from allowing anyone to testify if they know they are going to lie, even if it their own client.

 

[Noomi]

OK, back to the OP...

Perhaps the gentleman decided to report the rape four months later when the girlfriend discovered his infidelity?

Exactly what I was saying, although QW doesn't believe this.

I don't believe anything unless I have evidence, I have no evidence.

Having no evidence didn't stop you from supporting the woman who bashed her kids coach over claim he abused them.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly what I was saying, although QW doesn't believe this.

I don't believe anything unless I have evidence, I have no evidence.

Having no evidence didn't stop you from supporting the woman who bashed her kids coach over claim he abused them.

Pot, meet kettle.

Supporting her is not believing he is guilty, it is understanding the fact that she is human, that she is a mother, and that she has an inbuilt urge to protect her children. Since you are part of an alien species that reproduces using a semelparous strategy you obviously do not understand the human urge to protect children.

 

[Noomi]

I don't believe anything unless I have evidence, I have no evidence.

Having no evidence didn't stop you from supporting the woman who bashed her kids coach over claim he abused them.

Pot, meet kettle.

Supporting her is not believing he is guilty, it is understanding the fact that she is human, that she is a mother, and that she has an inbuilt urge to protect her children. Since you are part of an alien species that reproduces using a semelparous strategy you obviously do not understand the human urge to protect children.

Then you believe she should be charged with a crime?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Having no evidence didn't stop you from supporting the woman who bashed her kids coach over claim he abused them.

Pot, meet kettle.

Supporting her is not believing he is guilty, it is understanding the fact that she is human, that she is a mother, and that she has an inbuilt urge to protect her children. Since you are part of an alien species that reproduces using a semelparous strategy you obviously do not understand the human urge to protect children.

Then you believe she should be charged with a crime?

Should she be charged?

No.

 

[Noomi]

Supporting her is not believing he is guilty, it is understanding the fact that she is human, that she is a mother, and that she has an inbuilt urge to protect her children. Since you are part of an alien species that reproduces using a semelparous strategy you obviously do not understand the human urge to protect children.

Then you believe she should be charged with a crime?

Should she be charged?

No.

So you DO believe it okay for people to let their emotions rule?

If I killed the next door neighbour because I believe he molested my kids, should I be charged?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you believe she should be charged with a crime?

Should she be charged?

No.

So you DO believe it okay for people to let their emotions rule?

If I killed the next door neighbour because I believe he molested my kids, should I be charged?

No.

And No

 

[Noomi]

Should she be charged?

No.

So you DO believe it okay for people to let their emotions rule?

If I killed the next door neighbour because I believe he molested my kids, should I be charged?

No.

And No

This woman let her emotions rule. You say that is wrong, but you also excuse her actions.

You can't even make up your mind on where you stand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you DO believe it okay for people to let their emotions rule?

If I killed the next door neighbour because I believe he molested my kids, should I be charged?

No.

And No

This woman let her emotions rule. You say that is wrong, but you also excuse her actions.

You can't even make up your mind on where you stand.

Just because you can't wrap your head around my logic does not mean it does not exist.

Yes, it is wrong, in my opinion. I admire Vulcans, not Romulans. That does not mean I don't understand that emotions are powerful, and that they can overwhelm people.

Come to think of it, so does everyone else with a brain, even the people that wrote laws. That is why extreme emotional distress is a valid defense for some crimes. I guess that makes you flat out wrong.