Is there less rape these days?

[Berkut]

But rather considerably less than a provable case of rape. For all you know, he is telling the truth.

That's a perfectly fine case of sex assault and I'd feel comfortable running it.

Wow. Gives a lot of power to women to utterly ruin the life of any man she chooses.

How do you know she didn't assault him? Maybe you should run with that one.

[garbon]

That's why I threw in the step-uncle - someone she would never have consented to sex to (or so she says), and not some cute boy she's always had a crush on...

I don't see how that's the case at all.  Her step-uncle could be "some cute guy" that she had a crush on. Someone else could have seen what happened or heard about it after the fact from her and rather than face up to the embarrassing reality, she plays the rape card.

[ulmont]

Wow. Gives a lot of power to women to utterly ruin the life of any man she chooses.

Gives a lot of power to women to utterly ruin the life of any man she has sex with.  Pretty sure that's been the case for a while.  Ask Fahdiz.

[Berkut]

If all DAs are this willing to try to throw people in jail on so little actual evidence, I am starting to think Stonewall is right.

[Barrister]

Wow. Gives a lot of power to women to utterly ruin the life of any man she chooses.

How do you know she didn't assault him? Maybe you should run with that one.

Rape is a crime that overwhelmingly happens behind closed doors with no witnesses.  If you required absolute proof (which is not a requirement for any crime) then you're give free reign to rapists.

There's no requirement for corroboration for rape, or for any other crime.

[Barrister]

If all DAs are this willing to try to throw people in jail on so little actual evidence, I am starting to think Stonewall is right.

DAs present cases.  Judges and juries throw people in jail.

I said I'd be comfortable running the case.  Who knows what the outcome might be.

[ulmont]

There's no requirement for corroboration for rape, or for any other crime.

Maybe in your backwards Canadian system.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

[Martinus]

But rather considerably less than a provable case of rape. For all you know, he is telling the truth.

That's a perfectly fine case of sex assault and I'd feel comfortable running it.

Wow. Gives a lot of power to women to utterly ruin the life of any man she chooses.

How do you know she didn't assault him? Maybe you should run with that one.

You seem to operate under an assumption that a drunk man is unable to control his urges or assess (in)appropriateness of his actions, as soon as the woman implies consent. That's as ridiculous as the assertion that "women are always victims" you seem to be fighting here.

[Berkut]

Wow. Gives a lot of power to women to utterly ruin the life of any man she chooses.

How do you know she didn't assault him? Maybe you should run with that one.

Rape is a crime that overwhelmingly happens behind closed doors with no witnesses.  If you required absolute proof (which is not a requirement for any crime) then you're give free reign to rapists.

There's no requirement for corroboration for rape, or for any other crime.

Who said anything about "absolute proof"? That is your strawman.

There is something between "absolute proof" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" you know. At least, I hope you know.

And yeah, rape is a bitch to prove even when it does happen. But we have this idea in the Western legal tradition - we would rather let ten guilty men go free than throw one innocent man in jail.

[Berkut]

If all DAs are this willing to try to throw people in jail on so little actual evidence, I am starting to think Stonewall is right.

DAs present cases.  Judges and juries throw people in jail.

I said I'd be comfortable running the case.  Who knows what the outcome might be.

uggh, so there is no onus on the DA to actually think that case has merit and the person in question is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Because there is a lot more involved here than just a trial. The suspect will eb arrested and put in jail in all likelihood before that even happens.

[Berkut]

But rather considerably less than a provable case of rape. For all you know, he is telling the truth.

That's a perfectly fine case of sex assault and I'd feel comfortable running it.

Wow. Gives a lot of power to women to utterly ruin the life of any man she chooses.

How do you know she didn't assault him? Maybe you should run with that one.

You seem to operate under an assumption that a drunk man is unable to control his urges or assess (in)appropriateness of his actions, as soon as the woman implies consent. That's as ridiculous as the assertion that "women are always victims" you seem to be fighting here.

I agree that prosecuting her for rape based on nothing more than his word is just as ridiculous as prosecuting him for rape based on nothing more than her word - and in this case, it isn't even her word that she was raped, since BB has posited that she doesn't actually remember ever telling him no - she remembers nothing.

[ulmont]

we have this idea in the Western legal tradition - we would rather let ten guilty men go free than throw one innocent man in jail.

Actually, one to one thousand guilty men depending on your source.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

[Berkut]

I said I'd be comfortable running the case.  Who knows what the outcome might be.

So you are comfortable running cases where you "don't know what the outcome might be", or in other words a case that you are not even certain yourself that the person is guilty?

[Valmy]

You seem to operate under an assumption that a drunk man is unable to control his urges or assess (in)appropriateness of his actions, as soon as the woman implies consent. That's as ridiculous as the assertion that "women are always victims" you seem to be fighting here.

Having sex with a woman who gave consent is not rape or a crime, even if it is pretty damn dishonorable and scummy when she is drunk but hey we are not all angels.

How is it ridiculous to claim otherwise?

[ulmont]

Having sex with a woman who gave consent is not rape or a crime, even if it is pretty damn dishonorable and scummy when she is drunk

Ehh, if both of you are drunk, doesn't it cancel out?