Re: JC Woman Accuses Murphy Staffer of Rape
Posted by dtjcview on 2018/12/7 14:15:19
You picked a rare and mostly absurd example as a counterpoint. I'm not a lawmaker - so, no, I haven't considered every edge case. But the same principle could apply. If there's any risk of a rape allegation - male or female on female or male - those parties should be obligated to prove consent to avoid prosecution. Judges and juries can overturn the absurd entrapment cases and help shape the law. Like they do with every other law.
Just because you consider it a rare and/or absurd example, it doesn't make it so. This is PRECISELY why our legal system is predicated on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is an extension of the idea that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be unfairly incarcerated. The burden of proof is high, and on the accusing party, because that is the only way to more or less ensure that innocent people are not unfairly convicted.
As I said in my original reply to you, thankfully we will never see your idea become reality. It would never pass muster, because it lacks common sense, it runs contrary to our established system of law, and the courts would never uphold such a law.
Lacks common sense? For whom? Rapists? Spare me your ad hominems and empty rhetoric.
If you take a car without documented evidence of the owner's permission, you can be charged and convicted of theft. Irrespective of whether you claim the owner gave you verbal consent. How is this different?
And there are also plenty of laws where presumption of innocence is diluted. Existing rape shield laws being an obvious example.
This Post was from: http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=435120