At the core, many cases of sexual assault involve 2 people, drunk, going into a room then coming out telling different stories. In the absence of physical evidence or other witnesses that's a really hard crime to prove. It's he said/she said.
Many movements recently have been trying to deal with this by lowering the standard of evidence required to find someone guilty, which is concerning because obviously you can't have accusation = guilt in any reasonable society.
10 comments
"At the core, many cases of sexual assault involve 2 people, drunk, going into a room then coming out telling different stories."
And dipshits like you tend to forget, that there would not be any stories and any assault allegations if both of those parties thought they were just having a good time.
But if you get several people describing the same kind of assault behavior from the same person, that adds up to "he said, THEY said". And you cannot have accusations (plural) adding up to "of course he is innocent". That's why we have trials.
Scotland Yard's Operation Ore backed up by GCHQ's interception of the entire telecommunications network. Relevant data intercepts they share with the FBI.
GCHQ & the NSA have cracked TOR. [/Enigma]
It's all but the scenario posited by the Tom Cruise Control film "Minority Report".
At the core, perhaps people ought to be more sober when having sex.
Most thefts are similar; in the absence of physical evidence or other witnesses, it's a really hard crime to prove too.
No, we have tried to deal with this by moving the focus to making sure the other person is eager and consenting, instead of just an indifferent "I heard no protests, so I just carried on".
About one percent of rapists end up in jail. Standard of evidence required seems WAY TOO harsh.
For women, it's generally "have accusation = guilty", yes.
That SHE is seen as guilty, that is. And no, that's pretty far from reasonable. You seldom get a smear campaign after reporting a theft...
@Swede
Sure, let’s just change the judicial standard to “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “an accusation is enough” to satisfy your bloodlust.
Thankfully, persons like myself will never allow this in America. We won’t allow idiots who watch one episode of Law and Order SVU (like yourself) change bedrock principles of our jurisdisprudence.
@Swede
Oh, something is just salty that it's precious nonces it tries to 'defend' with it's 'paedo apologetics' are being denied their pwecious 'rights'. As far as Britain's concerned, when it all came out after Jimmy Savile , we don't give a fuck for said 'apologist's snowflake fee-fees.
Nor should it, if it isn't a nonce itself.
So why is it so 'concerned' - with it's concern trolling: as per past FSTDT-infecting paedo-supporter KiddyDiddling[I]Condoner[/I]4God - about nonces' so-called 'rights', one wonders...?!
And - like Conservatroll/Chopurcockov - why is it too scared to register a screename, if it has nothing to hide...?!
Because those who aren't paedos/their apologists/enablers/supporters have nothing to fear from doing so. I refer you to GCHQ backing up Scotland Yard's Operation Ore.
Ugh, another rape-apologist concern troll. With ableism & armchair psychology in tow! (Pity for it that some of us actually know something about psychology... like how internet trolling is very often a sign of things like antisocial personality disorder, for instance.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.