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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How is anyone being victimized?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Is it because you can't answer it or because you won't?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Your choice.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

It's ok dude, in his world, the State can't accuse anybody of anything until they have a trial to establish that a crime occurred, and you can't have a trial without a defendant, so the State can't effectively operate in his world.

He has no idea what he is talking about. The State is not a disinterested party. The State brings suit against a defendant and directly accuses them of the crime. This is not a breach of justice. This is how things work. The trial isn't about whether or not the crime occurred. The trial is about proving someone guilty of a crime.

Whether or not a crime occurred is generally handled before the State even bothers to bring a case to court.

But you know... silly people.

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like your one to talk about not answering questions.

The fact that they are targeting rape victims first is incredibly suspect. Why not start with robbery victims? Why not murder? Why rape victims?

Rape victims already have a difficult time when it comes to obstacles in the legal system... why add another one? If the true intent is to "fix the system across the board", then why not start with murder?

A victim should be considered the victim. There is no logical reason to assume otherwise, until after it has been disproven.