If you were a judge

Traveler

Traveler

Senior Member
Location
San Diego County
On another thread it was stated that the American judicial system is "PRO-RAPE", and that unless the woman was beaten it is difficult to obtain a conviction.

Let us examine that. First, we must look at the issue from the view-point of the judge. Let us look at ALL cases where the word of one person is weighed against the word of another person. Imagine that you are the judge. You have a case before you where one person is asking for relief for a loan. You, the judge, ask that person if he/she has any proof that a loan was made ? The person answers, "No, your honor".

You, the judge, then ask the person who is being sued, "Did you receive a loan from the plaintiff ?" Answer: "No, your honor".

What do you do ? With no proof of a loan ever being made, how can you possibly find for the plaintiff ? You, as the judge, must rule "case dismissed". Does that verdict make you biased against the plaintiff ? No, of course not. You, the judge, have your hands tied. Without any proof,there is nothing you can do.

The same problem occurs in a rape case, if the woman has not been beaten. It comes down to a matter of one person's word against another's word. This is especially true in date rape situations. The man's fingerprints are all over the location. But, it in a dating situation, that is to be expected.

The woman may have gone to the hospital and the lab results absolutely prove that his DNA was removed from the woman. What, exactly does that prove ? It proves that there was sexual completion. It does not prove that there was rape.

As the judge, what do you do ? Do you assume that the woman is telling the absolute truth and instruct the jury to believe the woman and not the man ? If you, the judge, did so, the case would absolutely be over-turned on appeal.

There can be no doubt, what-so-ever, that some women are raped. There can be no doubt, what-so-ever, that some men are rapists. The problem is how do we prove rape "beyond a reasonable doubt", if there is no sign of a struggle ?

The problem is compounded when alcohol is involved. It is not reasonable to conclude that since a woman was intoxicated she could not possibly have gone willingly to the bed. She may, repeat may, have felt one way that night but another way in the morning. How are we to know for certain ?

This is a very difficult issue. Just because a man is found not guilty, it does not follow that there is a pro-rape judicial system. Just as in the case of the alleged loan, how are we to determine who is telling the truth ?
 

RadishRose said:
Another woman debate. Same issues, different hats. I'll pass on this one, thanks.
Click to expand...


It is my hope that we can look at this issue and discuss any possible options. Do people think that the American justice system is "pro-rape"?
I would hope that it is not but others may have some thoughts.
 

Hmmm, unless there was a duplication, as far as I recall, I made such a post, referencing the Canadian judicial system. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable re American system to comment.
 
Shalimar said:
Hmmm, unless there was a duplication, as far as I recall, I made such a post, referencing the Canadian judicial system. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable re American system to comment.
Click to expand...


Ok. If you could change something about the Canadian system, what would it be ?
 
DNA is not the only evidence that juries have to take into account.
Sexual predators these days seem to like filming their exploits on smart phones, especially when the victim is unconscious..
If police were more proactive and diligent with their investigations it might be possible to secure more convictions.

This man raped unconscious women in hospitals where he was a nurse...

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe...y/news-story/34f88e7012214a034f24a9a797bd71cf

This one had a criminal career spanning 15 years before he was brought before the courts. He rendered his victims insensible and used them as props in his own self made porn videos.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/28-years-jail-for-filmed-rapes-of-drugged-women-20090630-d3sj.html

The trouble is the girl may have trouble being taken seriously if she reports a rape to the police. She is told that she has no evidence and it is her word against his. So she goes away. However, if men reported for rapes were to be placed on a watch list and checked for admissions on social media, more of them might be pulled up before they had in excess of a dozen victims.
 
I wasn't sure that I wanted to post on this issue, but here goes. First, when a woman claims that she has been raped, she will be taken to a hospital where they will complete a rape kit. I am not going to explain all what that involves. You can look it up. Rape is normally a violent act and so besides taking blood and semen samples, along with any hair follicles found and scrapings under the fingernails, bruising on the walls of the inside of the ****** are also present. The bruising and/or scarring is generally proof that a rape "probably" took place. Most juries that I have been in court with generally do find the defendant guilty when bruising is present and evidence from the rape kit also points to guilty. If the defendant has had prior convictions for the same crime or if there are multiple victims that come forward, it makes the case much easier to resolve. In closing, I will say this, courts today, at least in my state, have taken a pro active stance in dealing with rapists. With the number of rapes that have taken place since the 80's, more and more juries are finding for the plaintiff and putting these monsters away. As I have stated in the past, DNA has become a real game changer in crime solving and although DNA alone won't prove a rape, other forensics that are collected using a rape kit certainly do help close a case.

Generally, the plaintiff has not been the defendant's first ever victim. And so, if other victims come forward, the defendant's fate is pretty much sealed.

As for the loan issue, I cannot comment on that. That's a civil case, which I have seldom been involved in.
 
Thank you, Ike. It is good to hear that things are improving for complainants. One thing that has improved over here is that defendants who choose to represent themselves can no longer cross examine the victim.
 
My comment on this. I think the guy is in deep trouble if there is a complaint. The tendency now or the trend is to believe the woman in just about every case. The guy is guilty till proven innocent.
 
MarkinPhx said:
Traveler,
Hypothetical comparing a civil case about a loan that is disputed in in a civil court is a lot different then a case of a felony crime of rape. The two don't mix at all.
Click to expand...

That's not a fair statement.
The point he is trying to make is that without evidence it's one person's word against another whether it's a civil case or a felony.

So how do you rule after hearing the evidence or lack of evidence.
 
Without any evidence, there's probably little chance of a rape conviction. But what if this man has previously been accused of rape by other women? At what point would a jury start
looking very intently at this man, on the premise that usually when there's smoke there's fire?
 
Warrigal said:
The trouble is the girl may have trouble being taken seriously if she reports a rape to the police. She is told that she has no evidence and it is her word against his. So she goes away. However, if men reported for rapes were to be placed on a watch list and checked for admissions on social media, more of them might be pulled up before they had in excess of a dozen victims.
Click to expand...


Excellent idea. I didn't know it was possible to monitor social media. If you are correct, and I hope you are, this would be a great tool to use in bringing those evil men to justice.
 
MarkinPhx said:
Traveler,
Hypothetical comparing a civil case about a loan that is disputed in in a civil court is a lot different then a case of a felony crime of rape. The two don't mix at all.
Click to expand...


Of course there is no comparison between a civil matter and a felony crime of a heinous nature. All I was attempting to do was to show that in any case of one persons word against another word it can be difficult to make a ruling when there is no other evidence.
 
Warrigal said:
Thank you, Ike. It is good to hear that things are improving for complainants. One thing that has improved over here is that defendants who choose to represent themselves can no longer cross examine the victim.
Click to expand...


I am glad to hear that. I hope that the U.S. has similar laws to protect the victim.
 
Sunny said:
Without any evidence, there's probably little chance of a rape conviction. But what if this man has previously been accused of rape by other women? At what point would a jury start
looking very intently at this man, on the premise that usually when there's smoke there's fire?
Click to expand...

This is one issue that disturbs me greatly; many times a judge will not allow a jury to hear of previous charges or convictions. I do NOT understand this. If a jury can see that there is a pattern with a disturbed individual, why doesn't the jury get all the facts?
 
Sunny said:
Without any evidence, there's probably little chance of a rape conviction. But what if this man has previously been accused of rape by other women? At what point would a jury start
looking very intently at this man, on the premise that usually when there's smoke there's fire?
Click to expand...

You can't bring that up in court. The jury won't hear of previous cases.

It's one case at a time.
 
Butterfly said:
It is never up to the judge to tell the jury whom to believe; that is the purview of the jury alone. The jury alone is the "trier of fact."
Click to expand...


First, I wish to state that I am not an expert on the law. You are correct. Judges do not tell the jury what to believe. But this I do know, judges quite often instruct the jury on what it may or may not consider. When we watch news broadcasts of interviews with jurors (after the case has been settled) jurors occasionally say, "If I had known X, Y or Z, I'd have voted differently.
 
Traveler said:
First, I wish to state that I am not an expert on the law. You are correct. Judges do not tell the jury what to believe. But this I do know, judges quite often instruct the jury on what it may or may not consider. When we watch news broadcasts of interviews with jurors (after the case has been settled) jurors occasionally say, "If I had known X, Y or Z, I'd have voted differently.
Click to expand...

And this is why previous arrests or convictions cannot be presented as evidence. The jury may (probably) would become biased. If I was arrested for stealing a car and 6 months later I was back in court on the same charge, but a different car being stolen, some or maybe all jurors would believe, “Well, he stole one car, so he probably stole this car too.”

And like I stated earlier in this thread, but not everyone is reading all of the posts, rape convictions are getting better due to better forensics. When a woman is raped, her body does not sucrete the necessary ******l fluids that are normally secreted when she is sexually aroused during pleasant sex. Therefore, during a rape, the female is terrorized and no ******l basil fluid will be sucreted. Not having this fluid being sucreted during pleasant sex is what causes tearing or bruising of of the ******l walls. This trauma is found during the use of a rape kit and is used in court.

This is ends my discussion on this issue.
 
Camper6 said:
My comment on this. I think the guy is in deep trouble if there is a complaint. The tendency now or the trend is to believe the woman in just about every case. The guy is guilty till proven innocent.
Click to expand...
Not in Canada. I have been present during over forty rape trials. Conviction is by no means assured without heavy forensics, even then, sentences often not commensurate with crime. Without further evidence of violence, ******l bruising is often attributed to rough role play. The more powerful and respected the man, the more difficult to convict. Jurors in this country are forbidden to comment on previous trial. (Sadly, there is still a lingering perception that a woman who did not put up an obvious fight, is, in some way, to blame.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top