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

There are plenty of stories of convictions based on a victim's testimony. They're not that hard to find. It's not very rare.

If it happens at all, what makes you think it is not common ?

I'm going to ask you to try to use some common sense here.

You really think they would believe her in 5% of cases but not 90% of cases, in that type of situation?

I really want to warn people about something. Just because a certain concept does not make sense and seems crazy to you does not mean that it is not happening. A lot of people seem to be very dismissive of things because they cannot imagine it could be happening. It's a form of denial of reality.
I think this is one of the main reasons these sort of problems often don't get addressed or solved in society.

If you have these sort of discussions in a political forum, you will find plenty of people who do believe a man should be convicted based on the testimony of a woman, that there is nothing wrong or unusual about that. So before you deny that this could be happening, please pay attention to other people's beliefs in this thread.

 

I think that is a good point. It should be similar as to the difference between murder 1 and manslaughter. A women can tempt a man just so far then who is to say she might just like it rough? Yes, they will always say he could stop any time but then....so could she. His sentence should be lighter as she had a little responsibility. It could be considered defrauding.

 

I don't recall stating that rape convictions based only on the victim's testimony was either common or rare and will be the first to admit that I don't know. What is your guess?


Re:

I don't understand what you are asking or who you mean by "her"

Re:

Again, I don't know who these people who are dismissive of "things". What "things"?
Would you please provide an example?

Re:

What have I written that indicates I am indifferent to the beliefs of others? An interest in the beliefs of others is why I've asked so many questions.

Thanks,

 

That is one point, but my main point was that if we have a good idea that she wanted to have sex with him, but then she claims rape, the chance that she might not be telling the truth is higher. It should affect how we treat that case.

A man needs to be able to have some defense against a woman's accusations, and if the testimony from multiple witnesses that the woman seemed to have wanted sex from the man isn't enough, then what is?
This is practically like a woman declaring to a crowded room of people "I'm going to have sex with this man!" Then they all see her acting sexually to the man and leading him into the bedroom. But then she claims she later changed her mind and that once there she was raped. Are we, as a society, expected to throw the man in prison based off just that? (I realize this is an extremist example but I'm trying to paint a picture to clearly illustrate a point)

 

There are over 1,000,000 convicted sex offenders in USA. About 800,000 of them are on the registry and 230,000 of them are in penal institutions such as prisons and psychiatric institutions. Since 1980, many of them have been convicted on the accuser's word alone.

It is easy to see that American Justice System convicts many people without real proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is likely that many of those convicted are innocent. Sadly, many Progressives do not view this as injustice.

 

A man convicted on such testimony is about 50% likely to be innocent. Nevertheless, many Progressives believe that convicting this man would serve the Greater Good.

 

Where did you hear that?

Is that what they say, or is it what you claim they think.

 

I have read in many places and heard on several news programs that a man can be convicted of Sexual Assault on the accuser's word alone. The laws have changed to allow such convictions mostly in mid-1970s.

Many Progressives do support the idea that men should be convicted on the accuser's word alone. Thus, they believe that convicting innocent people is acceptable for the Greater Good.

 

So, no source then?

I see.....'many progressives'....... I was hoping to see a study or something, but we'll have to settle for your word, and your understanding what 'many' means.

 

As I have mentioned, I am not a lawyer. That is the opportunity I have missed. Here.

I do not have precise data.