[Anna150]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
100? What? It's just beyond reasonable doubt, isn't it...

Well yeah, but if they're only 90% certain then they must have doubts? Either way the burden of evidence is on the prosecution (as it should be). If i was sitting in that Jury i probably would have found him innocent aswell because i wouldn't want to send someone to prison and lable them as a rapist without more certain evidence. That doesn't mean i think the wife was making it all up.

[Ham22]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
I wonder why she hasn't been charged with harassment and false rape claims yet. Oh yeah, sexism towards men.

Just because he was found not guilty, doesn't mean she was making it up. If you fail to see how this is a possibility, you are an idiot.

[Ape Gone Insane]

(Original post by Anna150)
Well yeah, but if they're only 90% certain then they must have doubts? Either way the burden of evidence is on the prosecution (as it should be). If i was sitting in that Jury i probably would have found him innocent aswell because i wouldn't want to send someone to prison and lable them as a rapist without more certain evidence. That doesn't mean i think the wife was making it all up.

Key word being 'reasonable'. I don't think it has ever been 100%. Beyond all reasonable doubt is not the same thing as beyond all shadow of a doubt.

That's true but this is a concern that needs to be addressed on a wider level in how we approach rape cases, I think.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
Nah, because a jury which is placed there to judge him in the administration of justice and has seen all the evidence - found him not guilty

What evidence is there to offer in situations like this, though? What kind of stuff would he have to provide to be acquitted?

[de_monies]

(Original post by ckingalt)
No woman is likely to ever be prosecuted for making false rape allegations. Even if those allegations are proven to be false without a doubt. Women's groups would have a fit for fear of discouraging actual victims from coming forward. While I understand the desire to protect real victims, I believe our justice system should be sacred in its' pursuit of justice for all.

In all fairness, I thought that would be the case. It's a very sexist part of the law. If you make fake rape allegations, and are proven without a doubt to have made those allegations, then you deserve to go in to prison for the same amount of time that the other party would have gone in for, if convicted

EDIT: To the feminists, I'd argue the same if a man falsely accused someone of rape, though man on man rape seems to be rarer

[Hopple]

(Original post by Silver Arrow)
In response to yesterday's thread
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-trouble.html
It turns out the wench made up those allegations just to get him into trouble. How do you all feel now?

I thought something was fishy at the time, but decided not to post in the other thread because it hadn't gone through the courts and the only material wasn't too detailed. Basically, it took her two whole years from the first rape to decide to break away, when probably the most damaging rape was the first.

(Original post by de_monies)
What a bitch, if true. She should deserve the same punishment as a rapist would get. False allegations of rape are very serious and can destroy a person's life. It's only fair that the same happens to her.

That being said, I don't know why they were together. They're clearly dysfunctional

I think that would be fair enough. Let's also not forget that lies mean true victims are viewed with more suspicion (rightly, if lies are more prevalent, but it need not be that way).

[Ice Constricter]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
I wonder why she hasn't been charged with harassment and false rape claims yet. Oh yeah, sexism towards men.

She won't be charged unless she admits to falsely accusing her husband of rape or if there is evidence showing her story not adding up. At this moment in time there simply isn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the rapes.

[Anna150]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
Key word being 'reasonable'. I don't think it has ever been 100%. Beyond all reasonable doubt is not the same thing as beyond all shadow of a doubt.

That's true but this is a concern that needs to be addressed on a wider level in how we approached rape cases, I think.

The whole foundation of our legal system is built on the reasoning that it would be preferable for 99 guilty men to walk free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned. Which i agree with but obviously this ends in low conviction rates for rape cases because often the only evidence is one person's statement that they didnt give consent.

People mistakenly thinking that an 'innocent' verdict means that the person reporting the rape was lieing are not helping the problem. This man may very well be one of the 99 guilty men we allow to go free to ensure we never inadvertently imprison an innocent man.

[Ham22]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Or it didn't happen.

Yes, that could also be the case, but from we are all sitting here on the interwebs (with almost none of the details, i.e. none of us were there in court, and none of us were there when the alleged incidents took place) I don't understand why people are now somehow certain that the allegations were malicious and made up.

So much facepalm in this thread. Seriously, university, and potential ****ING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS?!

Almost ALL accused rapists are acquitted in court. Why do you think that is? They are not all innocent, but they are non the less found so. Why could this be?

[Anna150]

(Original post by de_monies)
In all fairness, I thought that would be the case. It's a very sexist part of the law. If you make fake rape allegations, and are proven without a doubt to have made those allegations, then you deserve to go in to prison for the same amount of time that the other party would have gone in for, if convicted

EDIT: To the feminists, I'd argue the same if a man falsely accused someone of rape, though man on man rape seems to be rarer

If they arrested her for false claims and lieing under oath she would be aquitted for the same reason her husband was. There isn't enough evidence. Actually there isn't any evidence, so it wouldn't even make it to court.

Don't get me wrong, people who falsely accuse others of rape are despicable but how do you prove they are lieing?

[Hopple]

(Original post by Anna150)
The whole foundation of our legal system is built on the reasoning that it would be preferable for 99 guilty men to walk free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned. Which i agree with but obviously this ends in low conviction rates for rape cases because often the only evidence is one person's statement that they didnt give consent.

People mistakenly thinking that an 'innocent' verdict means that the person reporting the rape was lieing are not helping the problem. This man may very well be one of the 99 guilty men we allow to go free to ensure we never inadvertently imprison an innocent man.

What should it be for low conviction rate crimes? You could argue that for more serious crimes (i.e. where the sentence is greater) the burden of proof should be higher, and since it's usually consent rather than whether or not something happened that is in question (as opposed to murder where there's either a dead body with blood everywhere or there isn't), a low conviction rate makes sense. I can't find too many details about other conviction rates, but apparently 60% of rapes that make it to the courts end up in a conviction which is higher than some other violent crimes, and the ~6% figure from arrests is about half that of terror convictions, which isn't too bad considering that although terrorism is probably stopped when still mostly in the suspects' heads, there will be some material evidence.

[Ape Gone Insane]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
What evidence is there to offer in situations like this, though? What kind of stuff would he have to provide to be acquitted?

Sadly, it's usually statements/oral evidence. Since no one knows the facts/was there, faith has to be placed in the jury verdict who witnessed the testimony (though it still leads in so many cases to the rapist walking because of a lack of evidence). There could be circumstantial evidence, evidence of distress, injuries, statements/comments to other witnesses or other solid evidence which would lead to a conviction. But our legal system places a lot of emphasis on oral evidence and cross examination so it comes down to how the jury views both parties. Rape (especially during marriage) in general is a type of crime which takes place indoors, over a few years (sometimes rape victims don't report until some time after) and there doesn't seem much to offer in terms of lasting evidence.

The onus is on the prosecution unless she produced enough evidence that he would then have to rebut (with his own evidence) in order to raise a reasonable doubt.

[Anna150]

(Original post by Hopple)
What should it be for low conviction rate crimes? You could argue that for more serious crimes (i.e. where the sentence is greater) the burden of proof should be higher, and since it's usually consent rather than whether or not something happened that is in question (as opposed to murder where there's either a dead body with blood everywhere or there isn't), a low conviction rate makes sense. I can't find too many details about other conviction rates, but apparently 60% of rapes that make it to the courts end up in a conviction which is higher than some other violent crimes, and the ~6% figure from arrests is about half that of terror convictions, which isn't too bad considering that although terrorism is probably stopped when still mostly in the suspects' heads, there will be some material evidence.

I wouldn't never say "Rape conviction rates should be higher". They are what they are. I don't have any solution on how to improve it. It's just annoying seeing everyone jump on the "What a lieing bitch" bandwagon. It's really simple

If the Jury thought the Wife was telling the truth the verdict would have been Guilty
If the Jury thought the Husband was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent
If the Jury could not tell either way who was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent

An innocent verdict doesn't mean she was lieing. If in a murder case it was CERTAIN that either defendant A or defendant B killed the victim and it couldn't possibly have been anyone else, they still both could walk away 'innocent' if there wasn't enough evidence to definitive say who is telling the truth and who is lieing. Yet in that case they would be allowing them to walk free knowing full well that ONE of them comitted murder.

[MrJim]

1 Hour Ago: 3rd May 2012 23:02
MrJim
Junior Member

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 66
Re: Husband raped wife on wedding night after she declined him sex
I don't know how anyone could hurt someone they love just to get sex quicker. I've been with girls who say no and mean yes though, and come back with me, pretend to not want sex and then end up in bed with me and after I kind of lay down, they'll say "HEY, I DO ACTUALLY WANT SEX, DON'T FALL ASLEEP! JIIIIIM!". I'm not implying this is the case here though. Just saying.


More or less predicted.

[Algorithm69]

(Original post by S-man10)
That doesn't change the fact that he was proven innocent?

Not-guilty, not innocent.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Anna150)
I wouldn't never say "Rape conviction rates should be higher". They are what they are. I don't have any solution on how to improve it. It's just annoying seeing everyone jump on the "What a lieing bitch" bandwagon. It's really simple

If the Jury thought the Wife was telling the truth the verdict would have been Guilty
If the Jury thought the Husband was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent
If the Jury could not tell either way who was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent

An innocent verdict doesn't mean she was lieing. If in a murder case it was CERTAIN that either defendant A or defendant B killed the victim and it couldn't possibly have been anyone else, they still both could walk away 'innocent' if there wasn't enough evidence to definitive say who is telling the truth and who is lieing. Yet in that case they would be allowing them to walk free knowing full well that ONE of them comitted murder.

Should it be improved? Do you know what the rates for murder, gbh and kidnapping are? I don't know what they are, but from the links I posted it doesn't seem out of line with other crimes If it turned out that conviction rates for murder were 5%, would you think the 6% for rape was still in need of an increase? Or both were?

I see what you mean about calling the woman a liar, but I suppose at least now we have all the information we're going to get about the case rather than a list of allegations. Would you want a trial held to determine if she was lying? I think that would be fair, but then there is pressure from various groups to not do anything that might discourage rape victims from coming forwards. If she was telling the truth, then one of the biggest issues (apart from letting her attacker go free) is why she decided to wait two years to report it. Perhaps you see that as fishy as well, that she didn't run immediately after the wedding night rape, or after she'd been raped after giving birth.

[Anna150]

(Original post by Hopple)
Should it be improved? Do you know what the rates for murder, gbh and kidnapping are? I don't know what they are, but from the links I posted it doesn't seem out of line with other crimes If it turned out that conviction rates for murder were 5%, would you think the 6% for rape was still in need of an increase? Or both were?

I see what you mean about calling the woman a liar, but I suppose at least now we have all the information we're going to get about the case rather than a list of allegations. Would you want a trial held to determine if she was lying? I think that would be fair, but then there is pressure from various groups to not do anything that might discourage rape victims from coming forwards. If she was telling the truth, then one of the biggest issues (apart from letting her attacker go free) is why she decided to wait two years to report it. Perhaps you see that as fishy as well, that she didn't run immediately after the wedding night rape, or after she'd been raped after giving birth.

I think the outcome was the right one. There wasn't enough evidence to convict the husband. My issue is with the public reaction to it. If there was actual evidence to suggest she was lying (eg. sending texts admitting it) then yes i'd want a trial. Otherwise, whether or not you think it's fair, it would be pointless because they'd never find her guilty anyway.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Anna150)
I think the outcome was the right one. There wasn't enough evidence to convict the husband. My issue is with the public reaction to it. If there was actual evidence to suggest she was lying (eg. sending texts admitting it) then yes i'd want a trial. Otherwise, whether or not you think it's fair, it would be pointless because they'd never find her guilty anyway.

You could say that her allegations should never had been taken to trial either, on that basis The article says the jury decided in under an hour.

[JCC-MGS]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
Nah, because a jury which is placed there to judge him in the administration of justice and has seen all the evidence - found him not guilty

That doesn't mean it didn't happen. The article itself states that little discussion was had, with our average rate of convictions for rape as low as it is, our society's general mistrust of women alleging rape and how difficult it is to prove that a rape occurred doesn't suggest to me that the findings of the jury represent objective truth. I'm not saying that it did happen, but the trial and the defendant testimony prove little to my mind.

[Evangelica]

The case being dismissed doesn't necessarily mean that she was lying, simply that there was not enough evidence to determine if she was telling the truth. In many cases where women have been proved to be lying, they receive jail sentences. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...lse-rape-claim