Man meets woman in bar/grocery store/church. Both are sober. He takes her to his hotel room and has sex with her, cumming in whatever hole fits the story. The next day she cries rape for any reason you want to conjur up (mentally disturbed, gold digging, fame hound etc…).
She reports the rape and has a rape kit done etc… His DNA is in her.
Is it possible for
Him to prove his innocence at all? What would that take? It’s his word against hers and she’s got his cum to prove SOMETHING happened.
Is there any way for this scenario to play out where the guy doesn’t get branded for life as an accused rapist in his community? Is his reputation immediately destroyed? Can he recover?
What would be his primary defense other than “She consented?”
ETA: Please remember that for this scenario it is a given that he did NOT actually rape her. Use whatever definition you like for rape.
Probably she’d have to be caught confessing to someone. I (vaguely) recall reading of one case where that happened, she was overheard laughing with her friends about how he’d lost thirty pounds or so from the stress, and the woman who overheard reported it.
Fortunately in this country our legal system has a presumption of innocence.
Regarding reputation, there are many scenarios in which one can tell defamatory lies about someone else. I don’t see how rape is unique in this regard, other than being a particularly severe accusation.
Honestly I’d be much more concerned about how a rape victim can prove the sex wasn’t consensual.
It appears, at least in popular media today, that all the victim has to do is state “it was not consensual”. Then the accused has to prove that it was.
It’s important to not that “popular media” doesn’t try cases, though.
It is still incumbent on the prosecution to prove the elements of rape, which, in the overwhelming majority of US jurisdictions, include both proving force and absence of consent.
Odd then that those who prosecute rape seem to think it is a much harder crime to prove than other crimes, and are very wary bringing rape cases.
And despite that, wouldn’t you then think that the conviction rate in rape cases, given that the are “more likely to be believed with no evidence” would be higher than in other cases? Because it isn’t, you know.
Regarding “more likely to be believed”, I would think the opposite is true. My wife has worked with victims of child molestation. Certainly in her experience people are all too willing to believe that nothing so horrible could actually be happening.
Well, they do and they don’t, no matter how much trouble jury selectors go to in order to get an unbiased jury.
Good, rape is very difficult to prove. I’d say the allegation is more likely to be believed without evidence by the media, the police, prosecutors and people in general, but juries still need ot be convinced beyond and reasonable doubt, and even in cases where rape has actually happened proving lack of consent isn’t easy. The fact that there are any convictions goes to show how easy convictions are to obtain with little evidence.
I know when they do a rape kit they look for more than just semen. They also look for bruising, evidence of force etc. When that fails to turn up, it will be the first red flag to the police.
Of course, someone can be raped by the mere threat of force, e.g. if the victim says “no” but is too scared to fight back. No doubt a lack of such physical evidence makes it much harder to prove the case, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the alleged victim is lying.
There are generally two ways one can recover from such a thing:
a) Win a major sports championship (the more the better)
b) Artistic achievements, although the recovery there may be limited to the community of fellow artists and conossieurs
It happened, but with another man. (the “SODDI” defense)
In the current hypo, the act was actually consensual, and there is DNA evidence, which rules out (1) and (3). So the accused has to use consent as his defense, and focus on the lack of evidence of force (no bruising, no tearing) as well as inferential behavior (no immediate outcry, etc).
Consent cases are not that rare. Juries are certainly open to the idea that a woman might claim rape after consensual sex. They are also open to the idea that a rapist might claim “consent” after being arrested for rape. The relationship of the parties, their behavior, as **Bricker **says, and the jury’s “life experiences” tend to help sort it out. It’s not perfect, but with a plausible story, a good lawyer can convince a jury they shouldn’t convict someone of such a serious crime without more than the allegations of one woman. Sometimes, however, there is no plausible story and the rape scenario is the most logical explanation.
He may be able to find witnesses (bartender/waiter/clerk) who would testify about how they were interacting. There may also be security cameras which would show them together. If they appeared to be getting along and she willfully goes to his hotel room, it would bolster his claim of consensual sex.