Put men in prison based only on the word of a woman?

What do you think?
Should a man who is accused of rape be put in prison when the only evidence is the testimony of a woman who claims she was raped?

Regardless of how you choose to answer, keep in mind that many men are sentenced to prison when there is no other evidence except the accusations of a woman.

 

Should a woman be punished for rape when the only evidence is the testimony of the accuser?

 

I would say in most cases, if not all, there is collaborating evidence

now civil cases are different

 

""Put men in prison based only on the word of a woman? """

The underlined words say it all.....all sexism, "only " "a woman"....

 

I thought that scenario was referred to as a he-said-she-said, and is thus not prosecutable. Unfortunately it's a big wide world out there and so the justice system is rife with aberrations. Like eg I heard of a case where a (black) woman was convicted of murder, never given the opportunity to present her alibi - which was presumably airtight - because her damned assigned public defender met her for the very first time when she was brought into the courtroom at the commencement of her trial. Other particulars of that case I do not recollect. (Maybe you are familiar, kazenatsu?) It must have happened many years ago. That surely couldn't happen in today's world.

 

Absolutely not. No one should be imprisoned without due process,

 

There's no need to limit this to rape allegations. The better, more logical question is this: "Should anyone be convicted on witness testimony alone?"

 

They had due process. They were convicted by a jury of their peers with all of the protections that the rest of us have. If you want to claim that witness testimony should not be enough for a conviction, then have at it. You might be right, and that would be an interesting conversation.

 

Probably/usually no. There's always reasonable doubt when it comes to eyewitness testimony. People get it wrong all the time. Hell, there's even reasonable doubt with confessions and people falsely confess sometimes. Corroborating evidence, whether forensic or circumstantial, is critical and most police understand this and gather as much evidence as they can. Though speaking generally about this is hard and it's a case-by-case kind of thing. Is there a particular case that the OP found outrageous?

 

The OP is about on a woman's word alone. Nothing was said about witnesses and a trial. If a man is found guilty after a trial then of course he can be sent to prison.

 

The woman in question would be a witness. And please figure out basic context clues.

 

The thought of a man being sent to prison over a lie is a terrible, awful thing. But I couldn't even get past the 2nd option because none of us is qualified to judge a situation we weren't in, with none of the facts, based on intuition alone.

Sex crimes against women are a terrible, horrible thing! And I wouldn't like to see our society fall to the level of the Islamic world where they require a woman to prove that she was raped by providing 2-3 witnesses, or she is flogged or stoned to death.

So, yes, first option it is.

Women have a special privilege.

 

Agree and wonder why the OP limited it to rape...

 

You figure it out. Where in the OP is witness mentioned, or implied?

 

"Should a man who is accused of rape be put in prison when the only evidence is the testimony of a woman who claims she was raped?"

 

Yes, that is "only on the word of a women" taken verbatim from the OP.

 

The woman who claims she was raped . . . which means a witness. You asked where a witness was mentioned or implied. You should have had your answer if you had read the OP. Now you have it confirmed again.

 

I didn't mind voting "no" in this case as this is my very thought. A woman bringing a criminal case for rape, before a prosecutor is likely to touch it, is going to have other corroborating evidence.

 

The word 'only' isn't a descripter of the word 'woman', it is a descripter of the word 'word'. You don't need to create something to be offended by, anyone with a normal command of the English language would know what was being said.

No conviction should stand on a he said-she said situation. Additional evidence needs to be provided, regardless of who is doing the accusing.

 

yep, if a woman\man does not report the rape right away and get a rape kit, she\he will have a much much harder time getting justice

I also voted "no"

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
""Put men in prison based only on the word of a woman? """

The underlined words say it all.....all sexism, "only " "a woman"....

""Put men in prison based only on the word of a woman? """

The underlined words say it all.....all sexism, "only " "a woman"....

Sorry, your "defense" of sexism doesn't work....he could have stated ""people put in prison based on only one witness's testimony.""

But that wasn't the agenda, was it ? ......

 

No, actually your continued belief of what word was being described means you are looking for something to be offended by. The sentence structure, if the poster was being a sexist, would have read: 'put men in prison based on the word of only a woman'. You need to brush up on your grammar.

If they had been sexist in their statement, I would have no problem calling it.

 

That is true, but I believe there are some particulars that make this especially applicable to the crime of rape. Extra special reasons why we should be hesitant to believe the man is guilty of the specific crime of rape based on alleged victim testimony alone, where we might be willing to convict him of other types of crimes based only on a witness's testimony.

What I mean is, yes, this issue could apply to any alleged crime, but I think it especially applies to the alleged crime of rape, even more than other ones.

 

No I don't think that was the intent. I think it's more a response to the more controversial elements of the metoo movement, where people say we should believe women who claim to have been raped unquestioningly because to not be believed after having the courage to come forth is another trauma.

The reality is that a traumatic event like a rape can be disorienting, and the preceding circumstances are often disorienting as well. And then the cops will pressure her to make an identification even if she's not sure, because they don't want to risk somebody getting away with rape. And frankly, even in better circumstances, witnesses are not reliable. There have definitely been cases where the victim got it wrong and the wrong man went to prison for rape for years, even decades, before being cleared by DNA technology.

Then there is also the rare case of the vindictive person who will accuse somebody of rape to get revenge for something else.

So, I think rape allegations should be taken very seriously, but to simply say a woman should be believed unquestioningly is not good policy and that's probably what the OP was getting at. Corroboration must be sought. Pro-active measures can also be taken such as making it less invasive/traumatic to undergo a forensic rape examination, and to make it widely known that it's important to pursue one soon after rape. I don't want to shift a burden to victims too much, but I also don't want innocent people to go to prison.

 

Claimed she was raped, to a friend, to her diary, to law enforcement? 30 minutes later, 30 years later? Nothing in the OP was clear other than "only on the word of a woman." Your implications, if you have any, mean nothing if you don't state them.