|
Smith117 -> RE: Breaking my heart....seriously (5/16/2008 12:42:46 PM)
|
I think we've begun comparing apples and oranges here. On one hand, you have the violent, abusive, kidnapping-type rape. And on the other hand you have the "person close to her" kind.
In the violent type of attack, lately, it appears as though fighting is best. Many experts will tell woomen that if it appears the assailant is trying to take them somewhere else, to FIGHT. Because more often than not, if a woman is taken from one location to another, she doesn't live to tell her tale. In some cases where the attack happens all in one place, sure compliance may limit damage and help her survive. But I read the news a LOT these days and I keep seeing stories about a woman abducted and not being found for days, weeks or months....and the end result is NEVER good.
Now then, in the case of the "person close to her" kind, that is the sticky situation that appears to be the source of the great debate here. How are 12 strangers REALLY supposed to know who to believe? In those cases the past of BOTH people have to come out in a trial because more often than not, that's the only way to decide who is more believable.
I am not a legal expert, but according to my readings, there is a thing called "rape by coercion." Where the woman says no, but is in some way coerced into complying.
Now then, if you look at the way the law is written, or at least the way the experts put it into layman's terms for a news article.....ANY man who is told "no" by a woman....who then does something sweet or romantic such as a passionate kiss or asking "well I thought you loved me?" is, by technicality guilty of rape by coercion. They have, by the way the law is written, coerced the woman into having sex when her initial answer was no.
It is for this reason that this type of crime prevents such a sticky situation. Who do the 12 stangers believe? Who determines what constitutes coercion in order to determine an offense? Why in such a situation would the woman NOT be expected to stand up in a court of law, under OATH, and SWEAR to those 12 people that it was, in fact, rape.
Excusing them from having to do that does nothing but give all the power to those who, for whatever reason, would falsely accuse someone.
I know that if I walked into a bad part of town, got my ass royally kicked by a group of street thugs and had my body broken and bruised beyond recognition, I would still be expected to face those men in court to ID them and say yep, those are the POS's who did this to me.
I also know I would then have to sit there, with my body still broken, being asked by the defense attourney "Why were you in that part of town? Where you there to buy drugs? Isn't it true that you started the attack by insulting the defendant's mothers? Why should we take your single word over the story of these 5 men?
In my view, the experience of court should be a vindicating one. If the allegation you are making is true, court should be your time for vengeance, so to speak. It should be your time to stand up and shout "I'm not letting you get away with this, I will have my justice and you will pay." It should be a thing of closure. But more often than not, when someone doesn't testify, or when their story falls apart mid-way through, they are denied their justice. If someone cannot stand up in court and face their attacker, I, were I on a jury, would seriously have doubts about the truthfulness of their allegations, especially in a case where there was no other evidence. In that case YOU are the evidence. YOU are the one who determines your justice. The police and prosecutors can only do so much.
|
|
|
|
