If you were a judge

[Camper6]

I meant can an American court charge someone for a crime in another country?

Yes they can if they have enough evidence. For instance treason against the United States. If you murder an American in another country you can be charged in an American court and they ask for extradition to get you back to your own country. Some countries will. And some countries won't.

International law is tricky. It's not cut and dry.

 

[Traveler]

The main question, however, remains unanswered. Is the justice system in the U.S. and/or Canada, "pro-rape" as someone has previously stated? Or, is it simply a matter of not being able to prove a crime has been committed ?

http://nydailynews.com/opinion/convictions-sex-crimes-cases-hard-article-1.1053819

 

[Dragonlady]

They are not so much "pro" rape as they are pro denial that it ever happened or that it was not consensual. Too many years it has been considered the woman's fault (for various rationalizations) - and still is in many middle Eastern countries - which, of course, exonerates the rapist.

 

[Butterfly]

IMHO to take the position that courts are pro-rape is ridiculous on its face. In order to be pro anything you have to be in favor of it, as in "pro-abortion." Neither courts nor the general population of this country is pro-rape -- I do't know anyone who thinks rape is a good thing in any scenario.

 

[Butterfly]

I agree. I don't know why a jury is not allowed to hear of previous convictions. Perhaps only a trial lawyer, or a judge, could explain it to us.

You can quite easily trace the history, development, and interpretation of the law by searching online. If one wants to change the law, one needs to take it up with one's legislature, which writes the law, not with the courts, which must abide by the law as written and codified.

 

[Camper6]

I am assuming. I can do that because I am not on the jury. In court, however, there will not be any assuming. The young girl will almost certainly, with the help of a counselor, tell the whole story. If she says they had sex, that is rape. The law calls that statutory rape.

You don't know the whole story yet. But. What if she told him her age was 18 and she went willingly and maybe even suggested it. Who knows?

That's no defense in court. However if it is true it does mitigate the sentence. If the jury hears it and she testifies the truth.

 

[Warrigal]

O.K. what if the woman has a history of crying rape and is a loose cannon with her sex life and none of her claims of rape stood up in court. Should that be allowed to be brought out in court?

It is only the accused that has the benefit of not having past criminal history revealed in court. The plaintiff is fair game for having her name blackened in all sorts of ways, including inference during cross examination.

However, if the defendant relies of the defense of "good character" and produces witnesses to that end then the prosecution can counter with evidence of bad character.

The defendant can choose not to testify (remain silent) and can therefore avoid cross examination. The plaintiff has no such right.

 

[Camper6]

That's how the justice system works.

Innocent till proven guilty.

Testifying means you better have your story told truthfully.