Accusations of rape when evidence shows the woman was going to have sex with the man

Not sure why you thought anyone said it was.

 

I mean, how do you even know the number of those falsely convicted is low? Of course the goal should be accuracy on both sides. Probably part of sex ed and public education should be steps that should be taken, if raped, to help prosecute the rapist, and the importance of reporting it if it happens to you.

Simply lowering the burden of proof (e.g. convicting only on she-said vs he-said), causing more false convictions, is probably not the best strategy.

 

Women always reserve the right to change their mind and that right extends to roughly 40 years after the incident. If, for example, you and a woman have what you believe to have been consensual sex in 1982 but in 2022 she suddenly realizes that she didn't consent you can still be convicted of rape, added to sexual offender registries, etc. That's a woman's right and you can't take it away from her!

 

Can you give an example of a case where someone was convicted for rape for something that happened 20 or even 10 years before the accusation happened? Much less where it was a conviction based only on the statemet of the accuser?

 

Well, Bill Cosby is one example. Last year he ended up with a civil liability decision for an incident that happened some time in the 1970s. Just because you don't get criminal charges doesn't mean that you're not going to get hung out to dry.

 

That wasn't based on only one woman's testimony, and i don't think the conviction was for something that happened in the 70s. It's hard to keep the all straight there were so many.

 

The Huth decision stems from a 1974 or 1975 incident - https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/entertainment/bill-cosby-civil-case/index.html

 

That's because she was 16.

Are you suggesting we change the statue of limitations for child rape?

 

It wasn't a criminal conviction. The case I referenced, as I said earlier, was civil and WAS based on an accusation from 40+ years before it went to court.

 

In the first post of yours i quoted, you were talking about guys being convicted. I asked for examples, and you have me an example of a child rape that wasn't even criminal.

 

I'm pretty sure that I mentioned a few different potential penalties in that post and while criminal penalties aren't imposed in civil cases it's not like you get off scott free if you are found liable.

 

Are you trying to protect people wrongly accussed, or Bill Coby?

 

If you wait 40 years to take a sexual abuse allegation to court you're most likely FOS.

 

The question is, should the law even allow it.
Even if the man would never have been convicted if it went in front of a jury, the woman might be using it to try to coerce a settlement out of the man.
More than half the time the woman wants money and the man pays out to get the woman to drop her case against him.
This is just how the justice system has come to work now, it is routine and normal. It should not be legal (in my opinion).

 

So if enough women gang up and accuse a man of individual separate rape incidents in the distant past, he must be guilty?
Even when these women may be trying to get money out of it?

Typically what happens is one woman begins accusing a rich celebrity, it gets coverage in the news, and then scores of other women who see that news coverage start coming forward.

 

I think in many states only one party has to know of audio recordings, I am not a lawyer though, so not 100% - with phones nowadays, be easy to use that, may be a crime to post it, but if only use for legal protection

 

that should be allowed in court... they would allow evidence of her rejecting him earlier in the night, the jury would have to decide what to do with that information - all evidence that may favor the defense should be allowed

 

That is my point. I am glad you agree with me.
But unfortunately there are many people who do not agree with you and me, and that is often not the way it goes in court.

I see a bit of circular logic here. The judge reasons that it's "irrelevant" because, even if the fact is true, it's still possible the woman could have still been raped. But that's true with all sorts of different evidence. Lots of times evidence doesn't really prove anything happened, with certainty, it just helps us paint an overall picture and everything combined helps us determine a likelihood - a probability - that something happened.
The judge in this situation would basically be saying if the evidence doesn't prove the woman is lying, it won't be allowed at trial. Which is totally one-sided and unfair to the accused man, of course.

I suppose the real question is one of logic mathematics and statistics: if the likelihood increases that the woman did at an earlier point want to have sex with him, how exactly does that affect the statistical probability of whether she was truly raped or not.

In my opinion, there is very much an effect on the probability, but precisely how and to what exact extent is complicated.

I previously posted another story where a judge would not allow the fact to be admitted at trial that the woman had previously accused multiple other men of rape, including her own brother. So the defense was not allowed to tell the jury about that.
Man falsely accused of Rape (in Women's Rights section, Dec 14, 2022)

 

Do you believe that it is possible for a husband to rape his wife?

 

In your scenario, the woman is seen via video leading a man into the bedroom with her arms wrapped around him flirtatiously. She met him on an internet site for casual sex hook ups and she even exchanged nude pictures with him and sent him dirty messages. You asked if all that should be completely irrelevant. What about, even though the woman was intending to have sex with him, the man became scary and violent or wanted to do something she didn’t want to do — she clearly says stop and ‘no’ and the man proceeds to rape her. It is absolutely irrelevant that she wanted to have sex with him because she stopped wanting to have sex with him at some point. As soon as the act became non-consensual, he committed the act of rape. Rape is not having sex, it’s a non-consensual act of force.

 

There's a similar trade-off in the field of diagnostics and medical decision-making. Because the reality is things in life are sometimes never certain.
Analysts try to assess the probabilities based on certain existing criteria and then look at the expected outcomes to try to determine where the threshold should be to proceed with a certain course of action. In other words, trying to maximize the chance of the good, and minimize the chance of the bad.

So we have to look at things like how bad, exactly, is it for a man who committed a rape not getting punished, and how bad is it exactly for a man to get wrongly punished for a rape he did not commit, and try to quantify the two mathematically so we can try to compare the two in a logical systematic matter. For example, we as a society might decide that we are okay with 1 man getting wrongfully punished for every 2 truly guilty men who do get punished.

The problem of unknown information also compounds the problem. For example, what is the actual accuracy of the justice process and how many men who got convicted were truly wrongfully accused? We have experts to try to estimate the rate, but how accurate are those estimations going to be? If we (as a society) knew what percentage of women who accuse a man are lying, and under what type of situations, it would be a lot easier. What we do see, the women who get caught or later admit the accusation was false, may be a tiny tip of the iceberg. We simply don't really know.

If we could perform an experiment and subject a tiny percentage of those involved to the truth serum, it might help yield some answers and paint a clearer answer about the true statistics. Unfortunately our society will probably never find it acceptable to carry out such a social experiment.
Another hypothetical idea would be to pay undercover men to go out and act like a dick to women, lie to them to get in bed with them and then leave and don't call her back, and see what percentage of those women end up trying to falsely accuse the man. There would be a court-approved camera hidden in the bedroom to be able to prove the woman had actually consensually had sex. Probably another social experiment that society would not find ethical or acceptable.

 

That is my point. Just because evidence does not prove that he didn't rape her, doesn't mean that evidence is irrelevant.
(you can reread post #43, four posts back, in this thread)

That would be creating a presumption that the woman is telling the truth, and refusing to believe the man unless he can prove it with certainty.

I mean, imagine if the woman had lots of evidence to help corroborate her story that she was likely raped, and the judge refused to allow that evidence into court because it could still be possible she wasn't raped.

I think if evidence is found that suggests that the woman wanted to have sex, that does reduce the probability that she was raped.

Why would you think evidence like that should not be considered and taken into account by the jury?

 

The British woman, who was 19 when she made the accusation had accused the men, who ranged in age from 15 to 18, of raping her in a hotel room in the resort town of Ayia Napa in July. The men were arrested that month but were later released after the police said the woman had retracted the accusations.
The woman later "admitted that she reported the incident" because the men "were recording her having sex" and "she felt insulted."

Woman Who Accused 12 Men of Rape Is Guilty of ‘Public Mischief’ in Cyprus - The New York Times (nytimes.com), Lizzy Ioannidou, Iliana Magra, December 30, 2019

She ended up only being sentenced to 4 months, and even after that her conviction was dismissed on appeal, the reasoning supposedly being that she didn't have her lawyer with her at the time she retracted her statement, and her trial was "unsafe". The judge had also refused to allow the defense to present any evidence trying to suggest the rape may have occurred.

 

You've just given another example of men who were not wrongly convicted of rape.

You seem to have a problem coming up with examples of the thing you are trying to prevent from happening.

 

The point was to show that there are reasons why a woman might falsely accuse men.