When should a rape defendant be exonerated from the accusation?

[marish01]

If there is no evidence that he raped

If there is evidence that he didn't rape

He shouldn't since no evidence can prove rape. We better sentence innocent men among real rapists than let real rapists walk freely

[MrOracle]

Like any other crime, there needs to be evidence to prove the accusation. This means that rapes need to be reported immediately after they occur, so that evidence can be collected. The sooner that collection is done, the better the collected evidence will be - semen samples, hair and fiber samples, blood samples (if she was drugged), injury reports, etc. There may also be video evidence - say a girl is drugged at a bar and she's seen visibly stumbling or nodding off while being taken out of the bar, etc. All of those things need to be collected immediately before they go away or are further contaminated.

I realize that it's POSSIBLE that some men could take significant measures to reduce such evidence to make it almost impossible to make a case, but in practice, that rarely happens - that's mostly the stuff of TV crime dramas. The main problem with this is that so many women wait days to report being raped, and most or all the evidence is gone.

You also have date rape, which is a different issue, because often the perp readily admits that sex took place, and the only disagreement is whether it was consensual. That's much more difficult to prove, and I've personally known girls who routinely put themselves in compromised positions (going to the homes of random guys, often for free booze or drugs), and some of them were probably raped in these situations - she knows they had sex, but isn't sure if she consented or not. I suspect that often the girl was willing in the moment, but I'm sure that wasn't always the case. One I know for sure was violently raped against her will by several guys who she went with to a motel room to do drugs.

There's no doubt that some of these situations are gray areas where proving it in court is very difficult, and no doubt, real rapists get away with it for that reason. But there are also innocent men in prison for this too. Both are terrible.

in my opinion, the most important thing about rape is that the emotional damage can be major and can't be easily or quickly fixed or compensated for, so even successfully prosecuting a rapist and putting them in prison (which I highly recommend doing whenever possible) isn't going to fix that damage - SO, I strongly recommend women do everything they can reasonably do to avoid being in compromised situations in the first place. It won't protect you 100%, but if it reduces your chances of being victimized by 90%, that's a significant improvement.

As a man, I won't have sex with a woman who has been drinking (a single drink at dinner is fine, if we have sex several hours later, but otherwise), or has used drugs, or seems confused or unsure or any of that. I'd much rather go without than put myself in a situation where there is a legitimate difference of opinion about consent - and this is what I tell other guys to do. Unfortunately, most people (guys and girls) don't listen to this advice, and a few of them find themselves in bad situations.

[DaveJord]

Honestly you can never exonerate a person on court of public opinion. You can't exonerate someone from something they never did in the first place. So unless they are found guilty and then later you can exonerate him, but he or she can never escape the negative stigma associated with investigation. Being found not guilty of a charge is not the same thing as being exonerated. Because accuser is not guilty of a crime either and is exonerated of any charge of making false claims... because they are still considered as being a victim of some type of trauma perpetrated upon them by accused.

In order to exonerate someone from false claim they would actually have punish the person that filed the false charge and prosecute them. Legally there nothing a person falsly accused can do other than sue the accused for liable claims. But thats almost as hard as getting a real rape conviction.

[Yucy_Gluttony]

I want to throw the rape accusers in jail! The world would be a better place withou them YEE-HA

[globetrotter22]

You mean false rape accusers right?

[Yucy_Gluttony]

@globetrotter22 YUUUUUUUUUUUPH!

[globetrotter22]

You just got a resounding upvote from me 👍

[Yucy_Gluttony]

@globetrotter22 Yippy!

[abc3643]

D There is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

>>>>>>>>>> I AM GOING TO USE ALL-CAPS BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE REAL WORLD SO QUESTIONS LIKE THIS ONE DO NOT GET ASKED.

HOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK:

1. THE PROSECUTION ONLY GETS A CONVICTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PERSUADE A JURY THAT, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE ACCUSED DEFENDANT COMMITED THE CRIME. IF THAT OCCURS, THEN THE JURY SHOULD VOTE TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT MEANING THEY FOUND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY.

2. OTHERWISE, THE JURY SHOULD ACQUIT.

3. EXHONORATION IS NOT ACQUITTAL. AN EXONERATION OCCURS WHEN SUFFICIENT NEW EVIDENCE ARISES THAT MAKES THE GUILT OF A PREVIOUS CONVICTED PERSON TO NOW BE BELIEVED TO BE INNOCENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONVICT, PREVIOUSLY FOUND TO BE GUILTY IN A TRIAL, IS NOW FOUND TO HAVE NEVER COMMITTED THE CRIME.

[marish01]

I didn't know the correct word so I used exonerate lol

But isn't your variant D the same as my variant A?

[abc3643]

I'll cut you slack on exonerate (which I misspelled, but you had right) because most people don't know the legal meaning of the term.

As for "D" and "A" being the same, no, they are not.

_A_ says "no evidence"
_D_ says "insufficient evidence" which doesn't mean that there is no evidence, but just not enough to convict.

_D_ is why OJ Simpson was not convicted in his murder trial in 1995, but was found liable in 1997 of the wrongful death civil trial filed by victim Ronald Goldman's father. There was insufficient evidence for a conviction which requires a unanimous jury. But, in the civil case, there was sufficient evidence for the majority of the jury to say "Yeah, he probably did it."

[globetrotter22]

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. - Sir William Blackstone

There is a reason why western countries have legal standards where a person must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They dynamic can really suck at times given that guilty people occasionally get let off. However countries have a guilty until proven innocent approaches coincidentally have much higher rates of human rights abuses. Just look at America’s justice system vs Mexico’s laws.

[globetrotter22]

Looks like 2 girls and 1 guy voted option C so far @marish01.

I would like to think that they are just trolls and really don’t believe that. But the sad reality is some people really are that deranged.

[marish01]

Sadly there are people who worship women even if they are assaulters

[globetrotter22]

And this crap pushes other people way too far in the other direction. I can’t stand radicalism on either side.

I respect women who respect me. I don’t worship them though.

I am thinking we need to bring back lie detector tests for both the accused and the accusers. The technology has improved. A falsely accused person should be able to demand taking a battery of lie detector tests. If he (or rare cases she) passes at least 4 out of 5 tests chances are they’re innocent.

[blissinanarchy1]

I was falsely accused of rape and did 18 months. Bail was too high to post, and Covid kept pushing my trial back. The accusation was that it was consensual at first, she took consent away in the middle of sex (She admitted in court, she NEVER said no, and was enthusiastically participated) that I pinned her down, she fought me off, started riding me, and that I fingered her against her will, somehow while she showed me HOW to finger her. Testimony alone can convict, physical evidence or not. The only reason I was found innocent is because the rape accusation didn't even add UP to rape. In other words, I have a big ass lawsuit against the county because they didn't even have probable cause.

[genericname85]

when the accusation can not be adequately proven to be true. if we start punishing people on behalf what "people claim they did" or on "what they could have done in theory", we might as well just stop having a legal system and courts and go back to just witchhunting people with pitchforks and torches. you can never proof "non guilt". you can only ever proof guilt. that's why we're always assuming innocence untill proven otherwise.

[SignedAutographs]

People don't realize how bad it is, once you accuse someone of something they didn't do. It ruins their reputation, and thus, makes it hard for them to not only get a job, but an s. o., on down the road. Watson is lucky he has a job right now, here in cleveland, because we all know, those are just money grabbing whores

[cth96190]

It is better for men to refuse to have sex with women and become MGTOW monks.
Today’s consensual sex is tomorrow’s false rape allegation.
Do not date. Do not have relationships with women. Do not have sex with women. Never be alone with a woman. Do not even speak to women. Give women the wall of silence.

[marish01]

Still a woman can claim he raped her

[Anonymous]

When proved innocent in a court of law. Sorry innocent people regardless of gender should never be falsely imprisoned. Those that say men should be imprisoned just on accusation alone don't belong in civilized society.

[marish01]

They should go back to the ancient times lol

[Opinion Owner]

Agreed

[Jamie05rhs]

Damn; that's a good question. Because "exonerated" is a very specific word. Doesn't that mean proven not guilty?

But my personal opinion is that, if the evidence is inconclusive, then they should not be found Guilty OR Not Guilty. The case should remain open and he should remain on watch by the police in case they can find something to nab him later (if he slips up and confesses to someone accidentally. Or if his alibi is proven to be false.)

[normalice]

You don't prove "not guilty." It's just an absence of proof of guilt. There is a reason we don't say "proven innocent," because that's not what happens in a trial. Proof of innocence is no doubt an effective defense if it can be done, but even if the defendant is innocent that can often be difficult. So the standard is "assumed not guilty until proven otherwise." As a defendent you're not supposed to have to prove anything at all. It is up to the prosecutors to prove everything. Granted they aren't entirely beholden to the truth and there is a lot of human error involved in a jury's decisions, so it would be unwise to not at least explain why their evidence is circumstantial (which it necissarily must be if you are innocent)..

[Kaamraj]

The burden of proof lies on the accuser and prosecution, in the abscense of which innocense and before that presumption of innosence is the default.

[Drumlin2001]

You have to prove the case, like any other crime. Innocent till proven guilty

[bolverk]

A & B If there is no evidence of rape and the person accused has a rock solid alibi for the time period in question then they should be fully and publicly exonerated.

[motownplayer2000]

Rape usually can be proven.. literally shoving one’s dick into someone else usually will leave some kind of DNA behind for them to find. Sexual assault/harassment is generally harder to prove

[Anonymous]

Pretty much the same as for any other crime. Nothing different here.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No physical evidence or at least 2 eye witnesses to the crime then no charges should be brought forth is the correct way to judge a matter.

[OddBeMe]

Gawd! This reminds me so much of how oppressed men are…

[msc545]

If there is no evidence and all there is is an accusation, that is far from being proof.

[Reijen]

The first two options.
Should also pass a law criminalizing false accusations.

[TallAnon]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[lucas262]

INNOCENT until proven guilty.

[Anonymous]

Innocent until proven guilty

[KieranByrne]

Females rape also!

[Anonymous]

Upon acquittal.