This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- Does Warwick still have a rape culture?
- Examples of unjust laws in the UK
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Compelling personal reasona
- Abuse.
- SFE says Uploaded Evidence is incomplete but have uploaded my evidence
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Capital Punishment Survey
- Repeating second year
- Going out with a 45 year old.
- Means-tested maintanance loan with parents living overseas
- Bad dreams in Islam during ramadhan 2024
- Is Israel winning
- Over-18 dependent evidence rejected
- Returning to Uni
- Student finance compelling personal reasons query
- can't stand student finance anymore
What do we do when someone's raped but there's no evidence?
I was just thinking about how there are many people claiming to be raped, but who never get justice due to a lack of evidence. This got me thinking about an episode of the newsroom (those of you who've seen it may recall the scene, and those of that haven't need to BLOODY WATCH THE NEWSROOM RIGHT NOW!!!) which i'll quickly give the highlights of so btw
SPOILERS!!!!!
Don (the executive producer of the 10:00 pm show) turns up at the college dorm of a girl, who's claimed to have been raped. The new head of the network came across a site of hers and wants her, & the people she's claiming raped her to appear on the network's air together at the same time because he thinks it'll drive up ratings by bringing in a younger audience. Don wants her to refuse.
She explains that at a house party, after drinking too much & taking anything put in front of her she ends up throwing up into the loo and then passing out. Next thing she knows, she's being helped into a bed and her clothes being removed and then 2 guys take turns raping her. She says she went to the campus police, the police & the DA's office and had a rape kit done, but none of them considered the case. She starts the aforementioned website warning future potential victims of these guys of what they did to her, and so that other victims without enough evidence for the police to do the same which means specifically naming their attackers.
Don then tells her that one of the accused said that she (the victim) said "**** me **** me **** me! get 2 guys in here that'll **** me!" and after scoffing she replies with "yeah that sounds like me".Don explains that his BS would come out at trial to which she says there won't be a trial and that that's why she started her site. Don says the site was a bad idea because someone would use it to falsely cry rape and intentionally ruin an innocent person's life.
She says the law is plainly failing rape victims & don agrees but counters by pointing out it wasn't designed to serve victims. In reply to being asked if her believes her, Don says of course he does and that as far as he can she has no reason to lie & that the accused seemed a bit sketchy and has every reason to lie but that he's obligated to believe the accused. she says "this isn't a court room, you're not legally obligated to presume innocence" and Don says he thinks he's morally obligated
So I have a few questions that i've pondered and to which i don't have answers.
Cheers guys! I know this is a heavy topic of discussion but it's an incredibly important one so in advance, I wanna say that I appreciate you all being civil.
SPOILERS!!!!!
Don (the executive producer of the 10:00 pm show) turns up at the college dorm of a girl, who's claimed to have been raped. The new head of the network came across a site of hers and wants her, & the people she's claiming raped her to appear on the network's air together at the same time because he thinks it'll drive up ratings by bringing in a younger audience. Don wants her to refuse.
She explains that at a house party, after drinking too much & taking anything put in front of her she ends up throwing up into the loo and then passing out. Next thing she knows, she's being helped into a bed and her clothes being removed and then 2 guys take turns raping her. She says she went to the campus police, the police & the DA's office and had a rape kit done, but none of them considered the case. She starts the aforementioned website warning future potential victims of these guys of what they did to her, and so that other victims without enough evidence for the police to do the same which means specifically naming their attackers.
Don then tells her that one of the accused said that she (the victim) said "**** me **** me **** me! get 2 guys in here that'll **** me!" and after scoffing she replies with "yeah that sounds like me".Don explains that his BS would come out at trial to which she says there won't be a trial and that that's why she started her site. Don says the site was a bad idea because someone would use it to falsely cry rape and intentionally ruin an innocent person's life.
She says the law is plainly failing rape victims & don agrees but counters by pointing out it wasn't designed to serve victims. In reply to being asked if her believes her, Don says of course he does and that as far as he can she has no reason to lie & that the accused seemed a bit sketchy and has every reason to lie but that he's obligated to believe the accused. she says "this isn't a court room, you're not legally obligated to presume innocence" and Don says he thinks he's morally obligated
So I have a few questions that i've pondered and to which i don't have answers.
•
Given that this girl is telling no word of a lie, how should she seek getting justice?
•
How should the justice system change to stop similar cases like this occurring in real life?
•
Was the site a good idea?
•
Is don morally obliged to presume innocence?
Cheers guys! I know this is a heavy topic of discussion but it's an incredibly important one so in advance, I wanna say that I appreciate you all being civil.
Scroll to see replies
Ask the woman to correctly identify the length of the man's penis without it being shown.
•
If there's no evidence, the justice system can't do anything, plain and simple. The court can't tell whose lying.
•
It shouldn't change, because without evidence for a conviction, well that's not really justice now, is it?
•
No, the site is not a good idea, I believe that those accused of rape shouldn't have their names made public unless they're convicted, because false rape accusations are very real and can ruin lives.
•
Don can do what the f*** he wants, he doesn't know this woman or the victim.
Sounds like a s**t programme btw
Original post by fdc gh
Use a lie detector on the accuser and the accused.
Lie detectors aren't fool proof
Original post by Wellzi
Lie detectors aren't fool proof
Neither is any form of evidence. Does that mean nobody should ever be convicted of any crime?
Original post by fdc gh
Neither is any form of evidence. Does that mean nobody should ever be convicted of any crime?
Sorry, allow me to correct myself: lie detector results are complete bs and are inadmissible in court for a reason
Original post by Wellzi
Sorry, allow me to correct myself: lie detector results are complete bs and are inadmissible in court for a reason
Why is that? because they're not 100% accurate? Neither is anything. And lie detectors are more accurate than the accounts of eye witnesses yet they still use them.
Go to the doctors and get a DNA test within 24 hours.
Original post by fdc gh
Why is that? because they're not 100% accurate? Neither is anything. And lie detectors are more accurate than the accounts of eye witnesses yet they still use them.
It's not a case of inaccuracy, it's that the results of a lie detector are completely misleading.
They don't tell you if someones lying or not, they simply tell you that the persons body is reacting in an anxious and stressed way, and in theory some people might feel anxious when telling a lie (but not everyone hurr durr). Someone who is naturally intimidated by a f***ing interrogation over an alleged crime (ie. most normal people) will be dinged by the polygraph and thus give the illusion that they were lying, when they're actually just scared.
Also, you should never take a lie detector because if you pass, police wouldn't drop you as a suspect and if you fail, pressure mounts on you as a suspect. There's nothing to gain and a lot to lose if you take a polygraph test.
Original post by TheAlchemistress
Go to the doctors and get a DNA test within 24 hours.
The issue isn't that there was sex, it's whether it was consensual or not, so a DNA test wouldn't help btw
Original post by Wellzi
The issue isn't that there was sex, it's whether it was consensual or not, so a DNA test wouldn't help btw
Then it's hard, because it's just an exchange of words. With rape try and find marks or scratches.
Original post by Wellzi
It's not a case of inaccuracy, it's that the results of a lie detector are completely misleading.
They don't tell you if someones lying or not, they simply tell you that the persons body is reacting in an anxious and stressed way, and in theory some people might feel anxious when telling a lie (but not everyone hurr durr). Someone who is naturally intimidated by a f***ing interrogation over an alleged crime (ie. most normal people) will be dinged by the polygraph and thus give the illusion that they were lying, when they're actually just scared.
.
They don't tell you if someones lying or not, they simply tell you that the persons body is reacting in an anxious and stressed way, and in theory some people might feel anxious when telling a lie (but not everyone hurr durr). Someone who is naturally intimidated by a f***ing interrogation over an alleged crime (ie. most normal people) will be dinged by the polygraph and thus give the illusion that they were lying, when they're actually just scared.
.
All that is taking into account.
Also why would the accused by nervous but the accuser wouldn't?
Original post by fdc gh
All that is taking into account.
Also why would the accused by nervous but the accuser wouldn't?
Also why would the accused by nervous but the accuser wouldn't?
It depends on the temperament of the person. If someone has the personality where they can falsely accuse someone of rape, then they're probably good enough at lying to pass a polygraph
Original post by Wellzi
It depends on the temperament of the person. If someone has the personality where they can falsely accuse someone of rape, then they're probably good enough at lying to pass a polygraph
What about the personality where someone can rape someone? Why would they not be good at lying to pass a polygraph but a false accuser would?
Original post by Wellzi
Because falsely accusing someone is lying, so they might be good at lying, it's a scenario. There's no correlation between rape, or even murder, and the anxiety caused by a highly intense and stressful interrogation.
Yes but denying you committed a crime when you have is also lying, so they might be good at lying, that is also scenario. I honestly don't see why you think it would be easier for an accuser to fool the polygraph test than it would be for an accused.
Also I am talking about any crime here not just rape.
What does Don have to do with any of this?
1) She can't get justice because there isn't the evidence and there's no way she can get the evidence. Possibly the rapists might slip up with their story but she would have to take it to court and from what you've said, the cops didn't have enough evidence to prosecute? She does have some sort of obligation (she should want to, but if she can't come up with a good way then it's not her fault) to warn others of the dangers, but also such a website makes it very easy for false rape allegations to be spread which cannot happen.
2) The justice system can't change, the problem here is evidence (or lack of), not the courts. If a court case comes down to just one person's word against another, then there is no way you can convict.
3) Yes, but she needs to take it down before it's exploited. Tell her friends and acquaintances about what the rapists did.
4) No, not in day to day life. And you'd be foolish to believe nobody is capable of committing a crime against you until after they have, that's why your parents tell you not to go off with strangers. Whilst it's possible to believe that on the balance of probability that someone is making a true allegation, yet not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
1) She can't get justice because there isn't the evidence and there's no way she can get the evidence. Possibly the rapists might slip up with their story but she would have to take it to court and from what you've said, the cops didn't have enough evidence to prosecute? She does have some sort of obligation (she should want to, but if she can't come up with a good way then it's not her fault) to warn others of the dangers, but also such a website makes it very easy for false rape allegations to be spread which cannot happen.
2) The justice system can't change, the problem here is evidence (or lack of), not the courts. If a court case comes down to just one person's word against another, then there is no way you can convict.
3) Yes, but she needs to take it down before it's exploited. Tell her friends and acquaintances about what the rapists did.
4) No, not in day to day life. And you'd be foolish to believe nobody is capable of committing a crime against you until after they have, that's why your parents tell you not to go off with strangers. Whilst it's possible to believe that on the balance of probability that someone is making a true allegation, yet not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
A friend of mine was accused not of rape, but merely touching a girl lightly inappropriately, and the girl couldn't remember when or where the alleged crime took place, and because my friend worked in a school he was immediately suspended and his career completely derailed. I have 100% faith that my friend did no such thing, but with a mere accusation he was run through the ringer. He had to talk to police, get a lawyer, go to court, his reputation was damaged, the stress affected his blood pressure and health, etc.
Eventually he was found not guilty, naturally, but the accusation was so flimsy in my opinion it should never have gone to court. It was a massive waste of public money, everyone's time, his own money, career and well-being. The whole thing dragged on for something like 2 years.
Our legal system of innocent until proven guilty is predicated on the idea that it's better to fail to convict a guilty criminal than to falsely convict an innocent one. We have a burden of proof to make sure people are convicted only when their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, this seems not to apply to accusations of rape, and people's lives are thrown into chaos just from a he-said-she-said accusation. Rape is a very insidious crime in part because there's little you can do to prove it even happened, but we can't bend our standards of justice without hurting innocent people.
Eventually he was found not guilty, naturally, but the accusation was so flimsy in my opinion it should never have gone to court. It was a massive waste of public money, everyone's time, his own money, career and well-being. The whole thing dragged on for something like 2 years.
Our legal system of innocent until proven guilty is predicated on the idea that it's better to fail to convict a guilty criminal than to falsely convict an innocent one. We have a burden of proof to make sure people are convicted only when their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, this seems not to apply to accusations of rape, and people's lives are thrown into chaos just from a he-said-she-said accusation. Rape is a very insidious crime in part because there's little you can do to prove it even happened, but we can't bend our standards of justice without hurting innocent people.
Related discussions
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- Does Warwick still have a rape culture?
- Examples of unjust laws in the UK
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Compelling personal reasona
- Abuse.
- SFE says Uploaded Evidence is incomplete but have uploaded my evidence
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Capital Punishment Survey
- Repeating second year
- Going out with a 45 year old.
- Means-tested maintanance loan with parents living overseas
- Bad dreams in Islam during ramadhan 2024
- Is Israel winning
- Over-18 dependent evidence rejected
- Returning to Uni
- Student finance compelling personal reasons query
- can't stand student finance anymore
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
