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

[eschatological]

People are convicted solely on eyewitness testimony all the time. And the criteria for which eyewitness to believe in conflicting eyewitness testimony is literally on the judge/jury to decide who is more believable. People have been locked up for murder, and even given the death penalty, in the U.S., based solely on eyewitness testimony.

It's not an anti-feminist agenda, it's a poor solution to the fact that most crimes are only witnessed by the criminal and the victim. Rape is a sensitive issue because it's a crime of physical over-powering, it can leave no physical signs on the body, and it is overwhelmingly a crime that is under-reported and under-adjudicated because victims are too afraid to come forth or too ashamed. Rape is, after all, not a property crime, but the most intimate invasion of bodily integrity short of murder. Those who survive it are often just as shocked as people who survive being shot.

Normally, in rape cases, the victim is believed precisely because it has, historically, been very painful and emotional to admit to being raped. Much like people don't accuse gay people of faking their homosexuality because who would want to put up with the emotional trauma of coming out of the closet, most criminal justice proponents believe that if you're willing enough to make an allegation like rape, then that automatically lends credence to your testimony. Maybe you want to argue that women are malicious creatures looking just to destroy men, but character evidence needs to show that's actually her character. It doesn't hold much water to most people if you want to only point to one singular event, since usually such a characteristic would be provable through her other actions.

Also, this isn't hearsay. Hearsay is literally evidence you "hear someone say," IE you didn't witness yourself. Rape victims allege that they very much witnessed their rape.

[Seranthor]

Those who survive it are often just as shocked as people who survive being shot.

And herein is why I am having a very difficult time believing the veracity of her claim... she's on a media/victory tour, doesn't seem like the actions of a victim, it seems like the actions of a conquering victor.

[jimboa24]

People are convicted solely on eyewitness testimony all the time. And the criteria for which eyewitness to believe in conflicting eyewitness testimony is literally on the judge/jury to decide who is more believable. People have been locked up for murder, and even given the death penalty, in the U.S., based solely on eyewitness testimony.

It's not an anti-feminist agenda, it's a poor solution to the fact that most crimes are only witnessed by the criminal and the victim. Rape is a sensitive issue because it's a crime of physical over-powering, it can leave no physical signs on the body, and it is overwhelmingly a crime that is under-reported and under-adjudicated because victims are too afraid to come forth or too ashamed. Rape is, after all, not a property crime, but the most intimate invasion of bodily integrity short of murder. Those who survive it are often just as shocked as people who survive being shot.

Normally, in rape cases, the victim is believed precisely because it has, historically, been very painful and emotional to admit to being raped. Much like people don't accuse gay people of faking their homosexuality because who would want to put up with the emotional trauma of coming out of the closet, most criminal justice proponents believe that if you're willing enough to make an allegation like rape, then that automatically lends credence to your testimony. Maybe you want to argue that women are malicious creatures looking just to destroy men, but character evidence needs to show that's actually her character. It doesn't hold much water to most people if you want to only point to one singular event, since usually such a characteristic would be provable through her other actions.

Also, this isn't hearsay. Hearsay is literally evidence you "hear someone say," IE you didn't witness yourself. Rape victims allege that they very much witnessed their rape.

Except you can't go to trial with nothing, no other evidence than a single eyewitness. And the difference between murder and rape is the victim can't testify in murder cases. In rape cases, the topic is sex, and the problem is, the so-called victim may have numerous reasons to accuse someone of rape. A scorned woman will often go to extreme lengths to "get back" at a guy for dumping or cheating on her. A girl who is embarrassed by her boyfriend because of social reasons may lie to family or friends if they find out about him to avoid her embarrassment. And here's a big one with huge consequences: a woman may lie about being raped to gain an advantage over her ex in a custody hearing. If this "accusation IS the evidence" bullshit catches on, she would be stupid not to.

[Tackhisis]

Hearsay is literally evidence you "hear someone say,"

The victim's testament is just an allegation of crime. Without additional proofs (including witnesses) it is absolutely worthless for a criminal case.

[Schattenlied]

That's a one sided way to view things. What you're suggesting is that the legal system should be designed so that men can rape women and women have no recourse. It's always going to be a he said she said situation and you're advocating for rapists to be free no matter what. How is that acceptable?

And you are advocating for a system where an innocent person can be throw in jail and have their life destroyed on the word of literally anyone they have had sex with.


Evidence. is. necessary.


There is no "being careful" to avoid it, unless you record yourself having sex with every person you fuck they can just say "That person raped me!" and you go to prison without anyone proving you committed a crime... Break up with your girlfriend and they aren't too happy about it? "he raped me!", you go to prison... Your catch your girlfriend cheating? "He raped me!", you go to prison.

You honestly want a system that can be abused by bitter exes to destroy someone's life that easily?

We don't put people accused of murder in prison based on word of mouth, evidence is required, why should it be any different for people accused of rape, or any other crime for that matter? At least when a murder is committed there is almost always evidence that a crime happened at all, unlike some of these rape cases.

Evidence is needed, always, innocent until proven guilty isn't a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

[eschatological]

Except you can't go to trial with nothing, no other evidence than a single eyewitness. And the difference between murder and rape is the victim can't testify in murder cases. In rape cases, the topic is sex, and the problem is, the so-called victim may have numerous reasons to accuse someone of rape. A scorned woman will often go to extreme lengths to "get back" at a guy for dumping or cheating on her. A girl who is embarrassed by her boyfriend because of social reasons may lie to family or friends if they find out about him to avoid her embarrassment. And here's a big one with huge consequences: a woman may lie about being raped to gain an advantage over her ex in a custody hearing. If this "accusation IS the evidence" bullshit catches on, she would be stupid not to.

Not true at all. I've been a criminal defense lawyer, and you can indict a person solely on eyewitness testimony if people believe the eyewitness. You can get them convicted too. A scorned woman is something provable in court, usually. If she doesn't act scorned, but your argument was that she was and made up a rape, you're going to have a hard time believing things. It is very hard to plan a conspiracy and get away with it. If such a scorned woman is setting up a guy to fuck him over, you can usually show evidence of it in court.

In a murder, the only physical evidence is often the injuries sustained by the murder victim. But usually those injuries don't tell the story (unlike what CSI would have you believe). You can tell a person is shot, for example, but you can't tell who shot the person unless they're caught red-headed, leave other evidence behind, or....or someone sees it. There are many cases where murderers walk free because the only witness is a drug addict, likewise people get convicted of shit they didn't do because a witness was mistaken but eminently believable on the stand, and DNA had to later exonerate the defendant.

The victim's testament is just an allegation of crime. Without additional proofs (including witnesses) it is absolutely worthless for a criminal case.

Except it's not an allegation, an allegation is something a prosecutor makes. It's testimony to a crime, the victim is saying "this crime happened." Whether or not to believe that testimony has long been a part of the judicial/jury role. The thread's title is misleading in that way, because people have been making those kind of judgments for the entire history of our judicial system. People are convicted without "hard" or "scientific" evidence all the time. The fact that people think this isn't true, that you have to have hard proof, is something people in the criminal justice system call "the CSI effect."

- - - Updated - - -

We don't put people accused of murder in prison based on word of mouth, evidence is required, why should it be any different for people accused of rape, or any other crime for that matter?

We put people in prison for murder by word of mouth all the time. Very rarely is there definitive, hard evidence that X person killed Y person.

[Schattenlied]

We put people in prison for murder by word of mouth all the time. Very rarely is there definitive, hard evidence that X person killed Y person.

But there is some evidence, testimony is attempting to tie someone to evidence, not just "he did it, you gotta believe me!"

At least when a murder happens there is evidence that a crime was committed to begin with, you know, because there is a dead person... If there is no physical evidence of rape other than "they had sex" that doesn't count as evidence of a crime, it just means sex happened.

[Arewn]

And you are advocating for a system where an innocent person can be throw in jail and have their life destroyed on the word of literally anyone they have had sex with.

In fact, it is worse then that.
They need not even have sex. They could literally accuse anyone, and say it happened a few months ago so that they can't verify it that sex even took place.
As long as the accuser is on top of their schedule, they could literally accuse anyone they want.
"Hm, this person is going to the club, and then returning home alone. All I have to do is talk to them, and then after the fact say that they got me drunk, brought me to their home, and had sex with me against my will".

[eschatological]

But there is some evidence, testimony is attempting to tie someone to evidence, not just "he did it, you gotta believe me!"

At least when a murder happens there is evidence that a crime was committed to begin with, you know, because there is a dead person... If there is no physical evidence of rape other than "they had sex" that doesn't count as evidence of a crime, it just means sex happened.

Self-defense cases are literally "he said, he said" cases for murder and violence, despite there being physical evidence. Physical evidence is often "neutral" in terms of who's to blame for a thing. Take the Zimmerman case. The physical evidence could be taken either way, there was no way to know who the aggressor was from the evidence. He had injuries indicating he had been hit, but the point is, he could have gotten them after he initiated the fight with Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman made the case through eyewitnesses that he didn't initiate the fight, and that he was just defending himself.

The law is something I've spent over a decade studying and then practicing. Convicting someone on eyewitness testimony is not unusual. I laid out the reasons why rape victims are often thought to be "believable," it would be on the defense's shoulders to argue why a particular victim isn't believable.

[Holofernes]

From what i understood the only evidence is a text message in which she asked him out for having sex. I dont get how the judge could decide that it was rape in this circumstances. they were a couple she evidently asked for having sex, they had sex. Now what has happend and wether something happened that could be considered as rape (fucking your girlfriend is not rape imo, and it doesnt become a rape by breaking up later) is only known to the sex partners, and perhaps god, but for sure not to the judge. So this verdict wont probably last long.

a lot of men, me included, have had experience with ex-gf go crazy when breaking up. Its not an decision to make easily and i have no clue how the judge came to his.

[Nilinor]

Self-defense cases are literally "he said, he said" cases for murder and violence, despite there being physical evidence. Physical evidence is often "neutral" in terms of who's to blame for a thing. Take the Zimmerman case. The physical evidence could be taken either way, there was no way to know who the aggressor was from the evidence. He had injuries indicating he had been hit, but the point is, he could have gotten them after he initiated the fight with Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman made the case through eyewitnesses that he didn't initiate the fight, and that he was just defending himself.

The law is something I've spent over a decade studying and then practicing. Convicting someone on eyewitness testimony is not unusual. I laid out the reasons why rape victims are often thought to be "believable," it would be on the defense's shoulders to argue why a particular victim isn't believable.

Neutral evidence is still evidence that something happened. At which point you use occam's razor to figure out which said is factual, and which is not.

Your last line also basically says "Guilty till proven innocent" which is not how courts run. The only evidence in this case outside of "he said she said" was the text from her saying she wants to have sex. You can spin it any way you want, and whether you seen it done or not is not the issue here, what is the issue is what is written in the law, which is innocent till proven guilty, and 0 evidence besides the testimony of a bias'd source is not grounds for conviction.

[jimboa24]

Not true at all. I've been a criminal defense lawyer, and you can indict a person solely on eyewitness testimony if people believe the eyewitness. You can get them convicted too. A scorned woman is something provable in court, usually. If she doesn't act scorned, but your argument was that she was and made up a rape, you're going to have a hard time believing things. It is very hard to plan a conspiracy and get away with it. If such a scorned woman is setting up a guy to fuck him over, you can usually show evidence of it in court.

In a murder, the only physical evidence is often the injuries sustained by the murder victim. But usually those injuries don't tell the story (unlike what CSI would have you believe). You can tell a person is shot, for example, but you can't tell who shot the person unless they're caught red-headed, leave other evidence behind, or....or someone sees it. There are many cases where murderers walk free because the only witness is a drug addict, likewise people get convicted of shit they didn't do because a witness was mistaken but eminently believable on the stand, and DNA had to later exonerate the defendant.

First of all, I never watched CSI. I fucking hated that show; it was full of bullshit and was stupid and poorly written. Secondly, you're comparing apples and oranges. This is a proposed system in which accusing someone of rape, and nothing more than accusing someone of rape, is enough to automatically find a man guilty of rape. We're not talking about a hypothetical situation where an eyewitness sees someone murder someone else (a situation in which, by the way, someone else is the victim, and the victim and the witness are not one and the same), and is brought on as the main piece of evidence in a trial. Oh, and you can't bring nothing else except a witness to trial - you at least have to have SOME circumstantial evidence to go with it. If Joe Schmoe wanders into a police precinct, says he saw Mary Sue kill Leisure Larry, it's not like the D.A. can take that without doing ANY digging and immediately go to trial and convict Mary the next week.

Thirdly, we're not even talking about a trial. The Canadian judge is saying that if a woman says a man raped her, she is to be believed no matter what, no questions asked, no matter how much time has passed, and no matter what the man has to say in his defense. Her word, and her word alone is not only enough to hang him on, it shouldn't even be considered to be false under any circumstances. If she says a guy raped her, then he did it. Period. Hang him now, please.

That isn't justice. That's a witch hunt. That's giving women the power to point at a man and have him imprisoned, no questions asked. In fact, how DARE you question her, you sexist, unfeeling chuavanistic pig! Maybe YOU raped someone too? Let's ask your bitter ex spouse and/or girlfriend about her thoughts on the matter.

[Kaeth]

People are convicted without "hard" or "scientific" evidence all the time. The fact that people think this isn't true, that you have to have hard proof, is something people in the criminal justice system call "the CSI effect."

And the fact that our criminal justice system works as you describe "all the time" means that miscarriage of justice is systemic. You're as much as admitting that "guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legal precedent.

[Stormdash]

The judge heard both sides and ruled accordingly. Isn't the how the judiciary should work?

That's not a very complete answer. What is the standard by which the judge measured the legal sufficiency of proof of fact? That's the whole concept of 'burden of proof' -- who has to prove something, and how thoroughly. I would think that as a nation with a history of english common law, Canada would have settled on the general premise of the prosecutor needing to prove something beyond/to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt. But that's damn near impossible with a literal, unqualified "he said, she said". There has to be more to the state's case than that, some attendant circumstance that make "he said" so incredible that it can be dismissed.

[stomination]

So what you're saying is that if a women gets raped that's just her fault then? For not having a camera and witnesses?

There just needs to be more evidence than he said she said. It's a very grey area where your going to actually catch some rapist but at the same time your going to get quite a few innocent people.

[eschatological]

First of all, I never watched CSI. I fucking hated that show; it was full of bullshit and was stupid and poorly written. Secondly, you're comparing apples and oranges. This is a proposed system in which accusing someone of rape, and nothing more than accusing someone of rape, is enough to automatically find a man guilty of rape. We're not talking about a hypothetical situation where an eyewitness sees someone murder someone else (a situation in which, by the way, someone else is the victim, and the victim and the witness are not one and the same), and is brought on as the main piece of evidence in a trial. Oh, and you can't bring nothing else except a witness to trial - you at least have to have SOME circumstantial evidence to go with it. If Joe Schmoe wanders into a police precinct, says he saw Mary Sue kill Leisure Larry, it's not like the D.A. can take that without doing ANY digging and immediately go to trial and convict Mary the next week.

Thirdly, we're not even talking about a trial. The Canadian judge is saying that if a woman says a man raped her, she is to be believed no matter what, no questions asked, no matter how much time has passed, and no matter what the man has to say in his defense. Her word, and her word alone is not only enough to hang him on, it shouldn't even be considered to be false under any circumstances. If she says a guy raped her, then he did it. Period. Hang him now, please.

That isn't justice. That's a witch hunt. That's giving women the power to point at a man and have him imprisoned, no questions asked. In fact, how DARE you question her, you sexist, unfeeling chuavanistic pig! Maybe YOU raped someone too? Let's ask your bitter ex spouse and/or girlfriend about her thoughts on the matter.

Except that it's not all the time, nor automatic.

Say this woman is indeed lying through her teeth about consensual sex. That doesn't mean all "he said, she said" cases fall into that pattern. It doesn't even mean the majority of them do. That's a narrative created by MRA types. FBI stats show that false rape claims are maybe around 8% of all rape allegations.

As a former defense attorney, I don't want the system to be "guilty until proven innocent." But that's simply how it is, in many situations. But here's the rub: how do you improve it? Just discount eyewitness testimony that can't be corroborated? That means all those "neutral evidence" cases go out the window and guilty people go free. That makes it harder to prosecute actual crimes, and harder for actual victims to come forward, especially in "private crimes" like rape.

[Faerillis]

Looks like I didn't read most of the thread or the argument. Comment removed.

[eschatological]

And the fact that our criminal justice system works as you describe "all the time" means that miscarriage of justice is systemic. You're as much as admitting that "guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legal precedent.

While the system is definitely broken, I wouldn't suggest that "guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legal standard (you misused the word precedent here). If anything, the brokenness of the system is layered. Private defense attorneys have an advantage over prosecutors, and prosecutors have an advantage over public defenders, based solely on time and resources. The system favors those with more time, and more resources.

As a public defender, I often had about 500 cases in my case load for a given year. 95% of those never went to trial. Most NYC prosecutors had about 300-400. A private attorney might pick up a handful of criminal cases in a year.

[scody]

I mean... the girl's testimony was just annoying to read. It was like.. her story came from all the other stories out there. She was saying how the guy was mad, and how he was talking down to her. And the judge was eating it all up. The judge takes it even further and says "no no no, rape is all about power, and this guy was enjoying it.". It was as if this judge had already decided that the guy had committed an act of sexual assault towards this woman, without listening to his. The case, in my opinion, should not have been so one sided. The lady says in her testimony (and reads to the court) her texts saying how they would have "hot sex", and then later tells her friend something along the lines of "I never actually said no to him... so I'm not sure if I wanted it or not.". How in the world does that mean rape? Sure, even if he did get a bit forceful in bed (who knows for sure, right?) she still never seemed to fight it off, or say no. Her mental thinking "I should just take it so he doesn't hurt me."?????? Not once did she mention in her testimony that she fought him off, or tried to stop him, but instead... take it so he doesn't hurt me?

I'm no expert on the justice system, but I just feel like the whole thing was handled poorly, the judge made the wrong decision, and said all the wrong things (assuming precedents work the same in Canada as they do in the US). I'm not going to say who was telling the truth, and who wasn't, I'm just saying you don't tell a guy that you're gonna have hot sex with him, and then yell rape.

[eschatological]

One thing I will say about consent: I'm totally against the idea that consent can be revoked non-communicatively, except in cases of extreme impairment. That is to say, without words, or without actions expressing revocation of previously-given consent.

However, the prosecution argued that consent never existed before the sex act occured, that she was berated and broken down by the time it started. If true, it should be reasonable to expect that the defendant shouldn't expect sexual consent out of that interaction. Of course, he's arguing something less believable - that they agreed to have sex earlier in the night, he walked her home just to break up with her, and then they had "goodbye sex." I dunno, I don't walk to a girl's apartment just to break up with her, especially if I've only been seeing her for 2 weeks. Again, it all comes down to believability.