Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia
Punishing someone for breaking the law does not set a dangerous precedent. I say this as a woman first, and a lawyer second, if someone accuses an innocent man of rape, and there is clear evidence that she has lied... I want to see her prosecuted.
|
What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.
An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.
Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.
Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?
The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.
With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However...
it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.
This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.