Guilty verdict in "he said she said" case changes the landscape of Criminal Justice

[Chrysia]

None of what you said implies you have to have sex, or are owed sex. In other words, if you're unsure if a person can give consent, you can take a pass.

So, basically, if you see them drinking at all you should never, ever have sex? You're literally saying a cultural norm that has existed for goodness only knows how long should be viewed as rape.

BTW, even in cultures where rape isn't treated as a serious crime (or not one at all), it's still viewed differently than consensual sex, at least as far as I've been able to find through my admittedly amateur study of the topic.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm saying it's been happening for a long time and the benefits of believing witnesses outweighs the miniscule harm of them potentially lying under oath, since the latter can be prosecuted, and it's hard to pull off a perfect lie. This isn't the movies, people don't just "get away with it."

People do, in fact, get away with shit all the time. That's actually one of the main complaints of modern feminism, because rape in particular has such a low conviction rate. This is true specifically because eye-witness and victim testimony alone are rarely viewed as enough to secure a conviction. Why this judge decided one additional piece of circumstantial evidence + the testimony was enough is beyond me.

[eschatological]

Then I guess you're stilling clinging to the youthful naivety of having your V card. The club absolutely does that to bring in sex, the lure to spend all of that money, to ensure a maximized number of women to men, is all in the promise that "Come here, spend your money, you might have sex!"

Nobody spends that much money on liquor without the belief that it will lead to fucking.

Again, the allure of sex doesn't ipso facto mean you get sex. Maybe you intend to have sex, but that's irrelevant to whether you have a right to have sex with someone, just because you bought her drinks and got her drunk. It is ludicrous to suggest that you're owed it after spending money on liquor. This is what the consent debate has been about for 20 years.

Sex is a privilege, not a right.

[Chrysia]

Again, the allure of sex doesn't ipso facto mean you get sex. Maybe you intend to have sex, but that's irrelevant to whether you have a right to have sex with someone, just because you bought her drinks and got her drunk. It is ludicrous to suggest that you're owed it after spending money on liquor. This is what the consent debate has been about for 20 years.

Sex is a privilege, not a right.

Literally nobody is defending the guys who target specific women and intentionally get them shitfaced to obtain "consent." We're all talking about guys who go to the bar, hang out, usually get approached by the woman, have no idea how much she had to drink before they got there, share a couple drinks and then take her home or go to her place.

[eschatological]

So, basically, if you see them drinking at all you should never, ever have sex? You're literally saying a cultural norm that has existed for goodness only knows how long should be viewed as rape.

With someone you barely know? That would be my point of view, yes, but then again, I usually only have sex in pretty committed relationships. Is that regressive? I don't think so, I just think I have a sense of personal responsibility and don't want to ever regret anything I do. I admit, I'm pretty cautious in this regard.

Plus, that cultural norm has existed since maybe the last century. Before then, drinking that led to sex was seen as a man's right over women, IE the drinking part of it was irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally nobody is defending the guys who target specific women and intentionally get them shitfaced to obtain "consent." We're all talking about guys who go to the bar, hang out, usually get approached by the woman, have no idea how much she had to drink before they got there, share a couple drinks and then take her home or go to her place.

I'm sorry, is that what this case is about? From what I understand, they knew each other beforehand, and no one was approached by anyone, they met on purpose.

Edit: Even if it was the hypothetical case, I would argue it's your responsibility to not simply accept the behavior of a stranger as indicative of who they are and what they want in a situation where you are purposefully impaired.

[Theodarzna]

Again, the allure of sex doesn't ipso facto mean you get sex. Maybe you intend to have sex, but that's irrelevant to whether you have a right to have sex with someone, just because you bought her drinks and got her drunk. It is ludicrous to suggest that you're owed it after spending money on liquor. This is what the consent debate has been about for 20 years.

Sex is a privilege, not a right.

Nobody is saying it is a right,

I will say that no guy has ever bought me an 18 dollar small drink without the belief that it will potentially lead to him getting his dick wet. The point of clubs is to flush people with alcohol, lower inhibitions and for a most people,

No the consent debate, is mostly a debate between old foogies and Feminist cunts who dislike that guys put drinks into me and it makes me more open to fucking, and they don't like the idea that I might enjoy sex and that women in general might enjoy sex. Nobody said its something someone just gets, people characterize it as some entitlement because they don't like that people are having a free love uninhibited sex while they can't get laid.

[eschatological]

Nobody is saying it is a right,

I will say that no guy has ever bought me an 18 dollar small drink without the belief that it will potentially lead to him getting his dick wet. The point of clubs is to flush people with alcohol, lower inhibitions and for a most people,

No the consent debate, is mostly a debate between old foogies and Feminist cunts who dislike that guys put drinks into me and it makes me more open to fucking, and they don't like the idea that I might enjoy sex and that women in general might enjoy sex. Nobody said its something someone just gets, people characterize it as some entitlement because they don't like that people are having a free love uninhibited sex while they can't get laid.

This is just drivel. The consent debate is that being impaired is not a true indication of one's consent or desires across the board. Maybe in your specific case, you consent while being drunk, at the same time, I don't think you're the one bringing up rape cases. I enjoy sex thoroughly, and I prefer liberated women who also enjoy sex, and I don't for a moment assume that who they are when they're drunk is who they really are and what they say when they're drunk is what they really believe.

[Theodarzna]

This is just drivel. The consent debate is that being impaired is not a true indication of one's consent or desires across the board. Maybe in your specific case, you consent while being drunk, at the same time, I don't think you're the one bringing up rape cases. I enjoy sex thoroughly, and I prefer liberated women who also enjoy sex, and I don't for a moment assume that who they are when they're drunk is who they really are and what they say when they're drunk is what they really believe.

Nice virtue signaling, we now are recognize you as the good caring soul that you are.

The consent debate boils down to harpies pissed off people are fucking when they aren't fucking. One too many salacious articles about hookup culture and finally the Social Conservatives and Feminists joined forces to find someway to try and make college as dull and sterile as their lives tend to be.

[Daedius]

Soon to come in the future:

People will have to fill out government forms before they commit to consensual sex (!)

[Deleted]

Why? Men and women have different duties and responsibilities in society, how can that make it equal?

The 1950s call....

[Xeones]

Ururyar acknowledged he and Gray had sex. The two had been hooking up for two weeks, since they’d met at a union meeting at York, where he was studying political science and she sociology. The night of the assault, she’d texted him from a bar to “come drink and then we can have hot sex.” He came, they shut the place down and then walked back to his place.

So... this was ignored or what?

[fengosa]

Ururyar acknowledged he and Gray had sex. The two had been hooking up for two weeks, since they’d met at a union meeting at York, where he was studying political science and she sociology. The night of the assault, she’d texted him from a bar to “come drink and then we can have hot sex.” He came, they shut the place down and then walked back to his place.

So... this was ignored or what?

None of that means she consented to sex at the time of the act.

[Xeones]

None of that means she consented to sex at the time of the act.

So any man accused of rape is guilty, gotcha.

Better start passing some laws to get some federal forms to fill out every time people intend to have sex.

[eschatological]

Nice virtue signaling, we now are recognize you as the good caring soul that you are.

The consent debate boils down to harpies pissed off people are fucking when they aren't fucking. One too many salacious articles about hookup culture and finally the Social Conservatives and Feminists joined forces to find someway to try and make college as dull and sterile as their lives tend to be.

Again, using buzzwords and ad hominem attacks to try and tear down an argument when you have no reasonable debate against it. No one is arguing for college to be dull and sterile. My years in college, which are now more than a decade in the past, certainly weren't. What is being argued here, though, is that you should be responsible with anyone who is potentially impaired. Just like a contract signed on a bar napkin with a drunk person isn't valid, the issue is that any voluntarily impairment is not a defense against crimes committed, nor is it an indication of consent given. Keep in mind, "crimes committed" includes lying about a sexual encounter you had while drunk and called rape.

[Mistame]

As for breakup sex, I'd say it's not the rule of breakups, it's the exception.

I'm pretty sure it's much more common than you think. Hell, nearly every woman I've dated (and there have been a lot) not only asked for "break-up sex" (for "old time's sake"), but came back later for strings-free sex. But while my experience doesn't really dictate prevalence, neither does yours.

But there was evidence, at the bar, of the hostility of the defendant towards the victim, so that takes away from that idea.

And who's to say it wasn't justified? If they're dating and she's acting stupid because she's drunk, he has every right to berate her for it.

Honestly, if the determination here that this was "rape" is due to the fact that she was inebriated, then by logical deduction, she too should be charged with rape. Additionally, even if you set aside the fact that she asked for sex prior to meeting at the bar, the fact that she drunk enough to not be able to "give consent" also brings into question the validity of her statements. After all, stirring shit when being on the receiving of a break-up is something that's part of what the majority of women do.

And while lack of evidence doesn't prove a crime didn't happen, it doesn't prove that it did, either. Even a quick perusing of the statements to any sane person lends to the notion that she was pissed that he broke up so cried rape.

[Alakallanar]

And in this case, the judge didn't find the defendant's testimony credible. IE, he admits to "berating" her at the bar (because it was witnessed by other people there), and then he decided to walk her home, during which he 1) magically settled this argument, 2) reached her apartment only to break up with her, and 3) then had goodbye sex with her. Unfortunately for him, that's not how a reasonable person acts.

But there was evidence, at the bar, of the hostility of the defendant towards the victim, so that takes away from that idea.

Where did you find that? In the articles I have read there was only talk about "berating" (which she claims and he denies) on the way back to the apartment, not at the bar.

Around 2 a.m., the two said goodbye to one of Gray’s friends, and suddenly, Ururyar’s demeanour changed, Gray testified. On the way back to his apartment, Ururyar insulted her repeatedly, calling her “needy,” “an embarrassment,” “a slut” and a “drunk.” Along the way, her self-esteem crumbled, she said.

[fengosa]

So any man accused of rape is guilty, gotcha.

Better start passing some laws to get some federal forms to fill out every time people intend to have sex.

No it depends on the case, in this case the evidence strongly supports the accuser.

[Mistame]

No it depends on the case, in this case the evidence strongly supports the accuser.

There is no "evidence", outside of the circumstantial "evidence" of her testimony.

[Kraenen]

Do you know what a Club is? I know its a WoW forum but come on, you really have no fucking clue what they are there for?

They're there to get drunk and dance

[Mehrunes]

And in this case, the judge didn't find the defendant's testimony credible. IE, he admits to "berating" her at the bar (because it was witnessed by other people there), and then he decided to walk her home, during which he 1) magically settled this argument, 2) reached her apartment only to break up with her, and 3) then had goodbye sex with her. Unfortunately for him, that's not how a reasonable person acts.

How does a reasonable person break up then? In the club? During the walk home? Via phone? And oh noes, people solve their arguments. Now that's unheard of. The world is in constant turmoil because humankind is apparently incapable of making amends. Breakup sex is also a new concept. Humans have sex only for procreation.

The State is aware of it, because the victim is alleging it. Lack of physical evidence doesn't mean the lack of a crime. If all my clients got off if there was no physical evidence, I'd be a wildly successful attorney. Take a simple mugging (without a weapon) - these are almost *always* convicted on solely the eyewitness account of the victim. The stolen goods are gotten rid of or passed off, and all the police do is show picture arrays to victims who point to people they think did it.

Is this a good way to prosecute those crimes? I don't think so. And I've spent lots of time in court talking about the unreliability of photo arrays. Rape by a known associate is an even harder sell, because it's not a matter of figuring out who did it.

I thought it was clear I was referring to the part about rape being under-reported and victims not coming forth, because that would make the most sense for my reply in that context (most other sentences from that part make zero sense actually). I guess I was wrong. And you're comparing two different crimes. You mentioned the reasonable person already. A reasonable person doesn't just randomly part with their possession and give them to random strangers with exceptions of donating things to homeless people and the like. So it's much more likely that the transfer of property happened through illegal means. And while convicting people with the goods already gone is already in the grey zone, it's possible to check if the owner actually no longer has the property in question or got rid of it themself in some way (well, not all are traceable, but it's still something). On the other hand, casual sex is a thing that exists. Even one night stands with complete strangers. So in this case it's impossible to say that a reasonable person would not have sex.

Testimony is evidence. It is governed by FRE 701 in the U.S. For that reason, there are many raisable objections to testimony - in this case, you'd probably suggest the objection should be raised that the witness is incompetent to answer (because she was drunk) or it requires her to speculate on the defendant's state of mind, or his knowledge of her state of mind, or any numerous things. I don't specifically know the rules of evidence in Canada, but I feel fairly reassured that testimony is a form of evidence in Canada.

I know it's evidence. I didn't say it's not evidence. I said it's not proof (as in by default).

I'm sure the defendant's character was raised. I'm also sure the nature of their relationship was raised. All this is determinative in a "finding of fact" which is what a trial court does.

I was talking in general, just like you were in that paragraph (referring to women).

The believability of a rape victim is general, much like most victims are believable unless they have a clear ulterior motive. In a specific case, things can reinforce or undermine that belief. It is not automatic that they are always believed, but that is generally where the perception is. And, btw, this perception is even more strongly held by juries - the defendant probably chose a judge trial specifically because juries are very prejudiced against accused rapists.

Well, if the victim wasn't believed at all the prosecutors wouldn't touch the case. Still, there should be balance between believing the victim and assuming guilt. The healthiest attitude would be believing that the crime happened and not particularly that they've got the right guy right off the bat. Depending on circumstances, the victim may not remember the perpetrator properly and the like. it may be a bit unnatural line of thinking, but presumption of innocence necessitates it. And trial by jury is cancer.

You're being naive if you think I don't believe in "Innocent until proven guilty."

It's almost as if you presented the opposite as being how things work, defended it via saying how guilty people will walk free otherwise and had a defeatist attitude about it. You know what, my bad, I have no clue why I got such an idea.

The sad truth is, though, that prosecutors have the ultimate say in whether to pursue a case, and in a liberal place like where I worked (NYC), prosecutors rarely went to trial without thinking the defendant was guilty. I have, for that reason, spent most of my career defending guilty people. You say "Make it work by enforcing innocent until proven guilty" yet testimonial evidence has been sufficient evidence for guilt for over 200 years, because our system is based on trusting people to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The burden on the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but once you say a prosecution witness is lying, and you want to impeach them, the burden shifts to the defense to prove they're lying. The assumption is they're telling the truth because they fear perjuring themselves.

You don't have to lie to be of no use as source of proof. Lying is conscious action, telling incorrect bullshit is not. The witnesses tell merely their versions of events. Human memory is generally flimsy. And yes, I know people have been convicted only with evidence in form of testimony of someone who remembered things wrongly. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's not a mockery of justice.

Furthermore, I don't know why you are bringing up Blackstone's formulation when the specific rules of evidence regarding testimony are specifically put in place to protect that presumption of innocence.

I brought it up because of the second sentence and start of the third one from the paragraph I quoted in that section. The ones about "oh noes, guilty people will walk free otherwise".

[Theodarzna]

They're there to get drunk and dance

Talk to any club promoter, the reason they go out head hunting for women, groups of us even, is they know the allure of maybe getting to have sex is enough to get guys to spend 20 bucks a pop on a mix drink.