Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut
There's nothing we can legally do other than say that we don't need evidence. If you can't produce concrete evidence that someone raped you, you're dumb as fuck to think that anyone's going to believe you, and nobody should. The only way you can make these cases different is to find a reliable scientific way of telling, or to make it Guilty until proven Innocent. That's all there is to it. If there's concrete evidence that a person raped you, the courts have to accept that, but if there's no evidence, I don't know what you expect.. But on the other hand, the moment a man is accused of rape, his entire life is then over simply because there's anonymity for the accuser but not the accused, which is blatantly wrong; both should be held anonymous unless the accused is convicted.
|
With all due respect, that isn't what I was getting at - the problems in the court system when it comes to rape and sexual assaults isn't so much the evidential problem as historical problems with the admissibility of claims about past conduct which have nothing in the slightest to do with the matter at hand but can nonetheless discredit the victim in the eyes of the jury. That is to say nothing of sometimes inherent prejudice in juries and some judges. "Concrete evidence" for such offences often does not exist and I feel it is somewhat naive to suggest that it does, or indeed that it does for many offences. My point was more that aside from some notable examples - of which the rape accused anonymity issue is another good one - to claim the system is biased against men is not borne out by the facts in this area at least.