JennockFV wrote:
Okay, so let's take just one part of a statement you made:
Gbaji wrote:
Not to mention, from a legal perspective, we can only consider what can be proven to be true. Just because someone claims that someone else would have done something bad to them if they didn't do something (like submit to sex) that doesn't constitute proof
Gbaji, now I hope this never happens to you, but I would be interested in what your reaction would be if you had a person walk into your office and put a gun against your head and demand that you respond on allas with a single word reply else they blow your brains out I know it would be hard but I have a feeling you would submit.
Of course. Because I am making a choice between two things and I'm more willing to write a one word reply on Alla's than I am willing to have my brains blown out.
Quote:
This would be your choice apparently and purely just a claim of someone willing to blow your brains out.
There are two aspects of this:
1. Assuming I do choose to make a one word reply instead of having my brains blown out, then any third party observer can safely assume that I place greater (negative) weight on having my brains blown out than writing a one word reply. This is why forcing someone to write a one word reply isn't a felony that often results in life in prison and possibly even the death penalty, while blowing someones brains out is. We punish those things differently precisely because one is massively more harmful to the victim than the other, thus we expect a person will choose one over the other quite consistently.
Similarly, we place greater weight on rape than on assault. Rape is considered a more heinous crime and confers a more serious penalty. Thus, just as with the choice you presented, we would assume that someone would choose assault over rape. We'd assume that they'd be willing to suffer some physical pain and injury rather than submit to the sexual demands of their assailant. Hell, they'd do it even if just to make it harder for their assailant to succeed. Thus, if someone says they were raped, but there are no signs of struggle, we might question what really happened. And we certainly might speculate that in the specific case involved, the victim did *not* place as much weight on the sexual act as they did on the potential for physical harm.
2. A claim is a claim. If I walk into a police station accusing my co-worker of putting a gun to my head and forcing me to write a one word reply on this forum, and there's no evidence of this happening other than my word, what do you think will happen? They'll question the other person, and when he says he didn't do it, and there is no evidence to support my claim, they'll let him go. Why assume a different level of evidence is required for a rape case than for any other case? Even if what I'm claiming is absolutely true, from a legal perspective, all that matters is what I can prove is true. That's how our legal system works.
I just think that some people get caught up in some kind of absolute determination of "truth". But in any fair legal system, we can't convict people without proof. It's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. That's all I'm saying here. Again, don't read anything more into it than that. It just seems like far too many people view issues like this as "for" or "against". If I'm not willing to chuck out the rules of evidence and proof in our legal system to protect a rape victim, then I'm "against rape victims" and therefore some kind of monster who is in favor of rape. No. I'm for fair justice. If the evidence is sufficient to prove that someone committed rape, then we should punish them harshly. But if the evidence is insufficient, then we shouldn't.
What's wrong with that? I really think you're reading far more into my posts than is actually there.
