Rape Logic

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

"Mr. Anderson, you allege that on the night of 14 December 2010, the defendant robbed you on the corner of 24th St. and Broadway Ave. Am I correct in this?"

"Yes. He robbed me. Took my wallet."

"He took your wallet, Mr. Anderson? You mean, surely, that he tore your pants off and physically removed your wallet with his own hands?"

"Well no, it wasn't quite like that..."

"Well what was it like, Mr. Anderson?"

"He told me to give him his wallet and threatened me."

"And did you hand over your wallet, Mr. Anderson?"

"Well... well yes I did."

"So you willingly removed your own wallet and transferred possession of said wallet to the defendant?"

"No, he robbed me! He said he had a gun!"

"Did he, Mr. Anderson? Did he really say that?"

"Yes!"

"My client denies any such thing. What do you have to say?"

"He said he had a gun, and to give him his wallet."

"And did the defendant touch or harm you in any way?"

"Well... no... nothing happened like that... I was afraid!"

"Did you tell him that?"

"What? No! What kind of question is that?"

"So here we are left to believe only your word, Mr. Anderson? Your word that you freely handed over your wallet to the defendant, with no signs of violence, no evidence of any untoward actions, and yet you insist on wasting our time with this?"

"I was robbed!"

"That is precisely the issue under question, Mr. Anderson. Simply repeating yourself doesn't help. Mr. Anderson... were you drinking on the night of 14 December 2010?"

"Well yes... I was coming home from a pub I was at with my friends."

"Really, Mr. Anderson. How much did you drink?"

"Well I don't know really... a few beers, a couple shots... there was a birthday..."

"Ah, so it would be safe to say that you were suffering from, let us say, impaired faculties?"

"I know what happened to me!"

"Do you, Mr. Anderson? I can have an expert testify before the court that even moderate alcohol consumption greatly affects memory."

"This is insane!"

"No, Mr. Anderson, this is Conservative Court."

Comments

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Jeff, this is one case where you're flat out wrong.

The same reasoning applies for calling them victims, as it does for calling the other defendant the accused; In each case, it assumes they are innocent of a crime. Making a false accusation of rape is a crime. Calling them a victim presumes that they are telling the truth (and thus did not commit a crime). In a rape case, the accused is the one on trial, not the victim.

The existence of the trial itself is all the admission necessary to show that the victims accusation has not yet been proven.

Besides which; if we are talking about ensuring justice, have you seen the stastistics for conviction for rape? Do the statistics suggest in any way that there is an unfair influence on juries to presume those accused of rape are guilty?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Do the statistics suggest in any way that there is an unfair influence on juries to presume those accused of rape are guilty?

I'm not sure if the statistics would ultimately support you or me, to be frank. If calling them "victims" assumes they're telling the truth, it then lends the idea that the accused party is lying about wanting to defend him/herself. That's why "accused" is fairer regardless of the crime - it does not make assumptions about either side.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

lolololololol no dude, people are victims regardless of whether or not someone is innocent of committing the crime.