There’s always more evidence than just two people’s word.
In such a case, the prosecution hinges on the accuser’s credibility. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the accuser’s word is good enough to send someone to prison, which is no easy feat. Especially since there are a lot of potential jurors out there who think a woman with the temerity to accuse someone of rape is a lying whore until proven otherwise. Even without injust bias, the prosecution has an uphill battle to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and this is how it should be.
I feel sorry for anyone who has been falsely accused of rape, but the system should not be revised just because it is often difficult to prove. However, I do think the rape shield law should be dropped, if anything because it furthers the perception that those who are accused of rape are being mistreated by the system. The reality is that they are being treated like any other person accused of a crime.
How are the two incompatible? Is it not possible that a particular group behaves in a manner representative of the student body at large, and receives a pass on bad behavior because it is made up of athletes?
Is a Duke commissioned report the best source of information here? Even that admits there is a problem with alcohol use there. The team seems to have a particular reputation for “heartiness.”
Now I accept the figure of 1/3 of the team being charged for their behavior could indicate that they are not given special treatment. It does seem a very high number for people whose behavior is the same as that of the student body at large. I didn’t remember 1/3 of my colleagues at any of the places I studied being charged, but then again, that could be because I was legal to drink all through college. On the other hand, this 1/3 figure could still co-exist with special treatment, which would make the issue even more problematic.
And is my memory failing, or did one of these community service oriented angels get convincted of assault recently?
That story you linked to looks like a case of he-said/she-said to me. It doesn’t appear justified to me to have sentenced the accuser for a false claim.
The evidence adduced that she was lying was just that they could prove her jacket was in contact with his bed cover for a long time. I don’t see how that shows that she was lying. So maybe at first they were friendly, then things went downhill? Who knows?
Just because she couldn’t prove he raped her, this doesn’t mean she lied, and the evidence given that she lied seemed seriously insufficient to me.
I think this is a bad story to link to in reference to your topic.
Only if you assume that the rest of the student body behaves badly and does not get a pass. Still no cites for the general bad behavior of the lacrosse team? It’s a bullshit claim, in other words.
Do you have a better one?
More bullshit claims, unless you can provide evidence more compelling than how things “seem” to you.
And it could be that the whole team is in the Russian Mafia. Or it could be that you just like to make shit up and fling infounded accusations and assumptions about willy-nilly.
If I was going to pick someone to kill and clain self-defence, I’d pick a dude with a violent history for sure.
If the woman who accused me of rape was a hooker who had a history of accusin trick of rape to get more money out of them, I’d want that as evidence for my defence. That doesn’t mean that blackmailing hookers can’t be raped, it just means that I think the jury needs to hear all the relevant info to make an informed decision.
a I agree with, b sort of, though it is possible that studies can prove that on average someone who has a high number of sexual partners tend to be more or less trustworthy statistically, but that’s another issue.
Neither is that reliant to my point.
In this case it would be quite the opposite, a virgin could not have been raped, as that would end virginity. So that would be a false accusation of rape, and should be allowed in court.
Since it is a crime, rape MUST be proven, and the accused have rights that must be honored in a free country.
As for your car example:
Person A claims person B stole the car. Person B said that person A loaned the car to him.
Now if you can prove that person A has never loaned her car to anyone I would think it would make a difference in deciding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then if person A casually gives her car to anyone who asks.
Remember when a accusation of rape is made there IS a crime, either the rape or the false accusation.
I’m sure casdave will be along shortly with chapter and verse, but IIRC this is known in the U.K. as TWOC - Taken Without Owner’s Consent - and is usually used by car thieves who say that yes, they did take the car, but intended to return it, and therefore they did not steal it.
I pointed out that hearsay was admissible in certain circumstances before the Constitution, during the time it was being drafted and debated, and after it was adopted. How can you respond to that by claiming “Get the person who said it on the stand, allowing cross examination, this is the system the founding fathers set up…?”
That is NOT the system the founding fathers set up. As I said in the post you replied to, and which seems to have sailed over your head, is that hearsay has always been admissible in certain circumstances. And that hearsay is, by definition, a failure to permit cross-examination of the speaker.
Now think this through carefully. Are you disagreeing that admissible hearsay exceptions existed at the time of the Founding Fathers?
Would you care to discuss the existence of Chapman v. California, then? It seems to me you must live in a universe where that case rule doesn’t exist.
Where are you getting YOURS from?
Mine’s from the Restatement (Torts) § 675 et seq. The tort of malicious prosecution has four elements: (1) the initiation of a criminal proceeding by the tortfeasor; (2) which ended in the plaintiff’s favor; (3) was initiated without probable cause; and (4) was intiated by malice. See Andrews v. Ring, 266 Va. 311, 322, 585 S.E.2d 780, 786 (2003) (quoting Stanley v. Webber, 260 Va. 90, 95-96, 531 S.E.2d 311, 314-15 (2000)).
Not true.
Probable cause is defined as reasonable grounds of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant an ordinarily prudent person in believing the accused party is guilty of the offense. “…probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Derr v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 215, 219-20, 368 S.E.2d 916, 918 (1988) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820, 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981)).
Merely saying, “She maintains she was raped,” does not automatically create probable cause. It must be that the allegation is credible enough, taking into account ALL the facts known, so that an ordinarily prudent person could believe the accused party is guilty. If, as here, there are dramatic reasons to question the accuser’s credibility, then there is no particular guarantee that probable cause exists.
Proof of malice and lack of probable cause may be established by circumstantial evidence, since direct evidence is usually not obtainable. Malice may be inferred from a lack of probable cause. Bill Edwards Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Carey, 219 Va. 90, 100, 244 S.E.2d 767, 773 (1978).
Now, that’s what I’m relying upon: case law, admittedly from the next state to the north of NC.
Completely different matter. Don’t dodge. The issue isn’t whether they do matter, but that you want things like the victim’s sexual history to matter. That’s reprehensible.
Please also quit bringing new things into this; no-one has said that it shouldn’t matter if a victim has a history of making false rape allegations.
If you look I provided a cite that one third of the team had been charged with various offenses. Strikes me as pretty poor behavior. In themselves, teh offenses don’t seem likely to be that serious, but I don’t think I can name a single friend of mine charged while I took three degrees at three different universities, and I hung around with people who were definitely partial to a few frosty adult beverages. Actually, now I think of it, one guy had a DUI from before he bacame a student. Unless you think that 1/3 of the general student population have been charged with similar offenses?
And the fact you don’t find an assault conviction indicative of poor behavior is interesting, to say the least.
If you’re less apt to take a promiscuous accuser at their word than a non-promiscuous accuser, that would actually be quite “reliant to your point”. Otherwise, what would be you reason for thinking that sexual history is relevant to the question of guilt or innocence?
No it wouldn’t. If Person A has a history of loaning her car out to anyone with two legs and a face but not once in her life told a lie that impinges upon her credibility as an accuser, then her history for generosity has shit all to do with whether or not you should believe her claim. The case rests on whether consent was granted in this instance. Not on how many times she has been generous with her possessions.
Yeah, but first things first. If the accusation of rape is made, then that is what the trial should be aimed at proving. If you what to charge someone with making a false claim, then the is separate matter. Failure to prove rape means only that. It doesn’t automatically follow that the claim was false.
OK let be rephrase why the sexual past of the accuser matters.
It allows the people (jury) to decide the chance if the encounter was consensual. I again bring up someone in a committed monogamous vs. someone who parties every night and wakes up in a different bed each morning. This depends on the accused wishing to pursue the option that it was consensual, but that is his right.
It does matter (see above), so do the rights of the accused. What is reprehensible is that you wish to deny the accused their constitutional rights.
Bricker I do not want to get sidetracked with hearsay, and neither does Priceguy:
"Charged"is not “guilty,” at least in the minds of reasonable folks. Oh, and the law.
Do you suppose you could be bothered to at least stand by your own words? You claimed that the **team **exhibited **general **bad behavior. One instance of one member who was hundreds of miles from Durham has fuck-all to do with the general behavior of the team, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Perhaps you would be better served by takng your inuendos and half-baked claims to an arena where the standards of proof are more lax.
I’ll stand by one third of the team being charged as being a sign of bad bahavior. Notice here I said bad, not necessarily criminally convicted. You clearly don’t think it is. We’ll have to differ on that.
I’ll also stand by the reference to the assault conviction. It is an example of bad behavior by a member of the team. If you go to an arena where standards of proof are not lax, you might realize that individual instances are relevant as indicative of an overall pattern.
Interestingly, if you read the report on the assault trial, the judge made it pretty clear he felt that another Duke lacrosse player was telling porky pies on the witness stand. Or didn’t you read it?
Here is the section:
I’ll wait now for the assertion that because he was a past player, his behavior has no relevance to the behavior of the present team. And that would be right. Though it might be relevant to a discussion of an ongoing behavioral issue. It’s an interesting sidebar at least.
This seems to be the key thing that those who talk about turning every failed prosecution of rape into a conviction of false charges for the accuser miss. Some even talk about this becoming built in to the system, so that a failed rape charge carries, without a separate trial, a sentence for the accuser. I don’t see who this would benefit other than rapists and other misogynists.
They can talk all they want to, but this would be an obvious and flagrant denial of due process, which in no way seems to match what the OP is suggesting.
It should be obvious that prosecution for false charges carries the same burden as any other prosecution, including proof “beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty”. That the failure to obtain a conviction can be taken as evidence that the charges were criminally false and malicious is ludicrous.
The purpose of a trial is to determine whether there is sufficient proof that a defendant committed the crime they are being charged with. It is NOT to determine the chances that the charged individual didn’t break the law (i.e. have consensual sex).
I don’t blame you, since the issue of admission of hearsay eviscerates your “Founding Fathers” point completely. If you wish to withdraw your claim that the Founding Fathers intended a strict Confrontation Clause that would eliminate any possibility of the admission of evidence when the accused could not cross-examine the original speaker, then I’m happy to stop mentioning hearsay. And, indeed, your point can survive just fine without it: you can simply contend that the Founding Fathers’ intent is irrelevant and immaterial, and that your evidentiary “code” is the wisest for us to adopt. It’s a valid line of argument.
But if you do NOT withdraw your claim that the FF were Confrontation Clause purists, then I’m afraid you do have to explain or distinguish your argument from hearsay somehow.