[Godstud]

But you admit it sometimes is?

Very rarely, and not enough for some twat to rant on about it as being a "thing". This applies to EVERY crime, of course. There are always some miscarriages of justice.

Why would you be opposed to a law directing the jury not to do something if you claim the jury will not do it anyway?

FFS... Courts already do this. Get an education.

[Puffer Fish]

FFS... Courts already do this. Get an education.

Sorry, I don't believe you. I think you're just making dishonest excuses to try to brush what I'm saying off.

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish Your arguments are those of an idiot who advocates rape in marriage, and you don't understand the justice system of ANY country, let along the one you seem to be in. You think something rare is commonplace and so your complete argument is disingenuous bullshit. You post like a sexual predator.

The jury listens to the evidence during a trial, decides what facts the evidence has established, and draws inferences from those facts to form the basis for their decision. They do NOT make the law.

Judges provide instructions to juries prior to their deliberations and in the case of bench trials, judges must decide the facts of the case and make a ruling. Additionally, judges are also responsible for sentencing convicted criminal defendants. Most cases are heard and settled by a jury.

[Drlee]

@Puffer Fish

For example, if the only evidence is the woman's claim, should that be enough to be able to convict? The jury does not know because there is no law to guide them.

Normally her claim would not be enough to convict and this is clear in all criminal cases. It is a bit complicated but here is what US law says. It is not on the wife to prove anything though she may be the initiator of the allegations against the defendant; in this case her husband. She makes a claim and the state investigates the claim. If they believe that a crime was committed and that they have enough evidence to go to trial they go to a judge to get a warrant for the husbands arrest.

So. When the trial begins, it is the state who is attempting to prove the husband's guilt and the wife, though the alleged victim, is really only a witness to the alleged crime. The defendant does not have to present any evidence at all of his innocence and usually will not unless it shows clearly that he did not do it. For example, evidence that he was elsewhere and could not have committed the crime. He need not even testify and, in a case like this, very likely will not testify.

Before the trial begins and again before deliberations, the judge instructs the jury that in order to find the defendant guilty, the state must prove that he (in this case raped his wife) beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict. The state's case would fall apart and a not guilty verdict result if this standard is not met. In the case of "he said, she said" the jury would be forced to acquit. In fact, going back to the initial decision by the state to pursue charges, a case of "he said, she said" should never have resulted in a warrant for arrest because the allegations would not have been supported by another standard called "reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed". But lets ignore that for the moment.

If, during trial, the evidence presented by the prosecution (state) does not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is clear to the judge, the judge can either direct a verdict of not guilty or dismiss the charges without a verdict which stands, legally, as not guilty. If the judge believes the case should go to the jury, he gives detailed instructions to the jury about the standard for conviction, how to consider evidence and other considerations under the law. Then the jury must all agree that the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Anything less than this results in a "hung jury" and will, at the judge's discretion either cause him to dismiss the charges or order a retrial with a new jury. As a practical matter, in jury deliberations when jurors disagree the verdict will eventually be not guilty. But remember. The defendant does NOT have to prove his innocence. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the state.

I will mention at this point that in a civil case, the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt" so if the wife sued him for this rather than participating in a criminal trial the road to getting a decision in her favor would have been easier but fraught with danger lest he win and she get stuck with the bill. But then I digress. You are talking about a criminal case.

Or in another case, if some illegal object is found in a person's house, should that be enough to convict them of an illegal possession charge? Again, the law does not give any guidance on this to a jury. The jury is pretty much going to have to make up their own law, because the law does not tell them how to interpret it, in what are very common types of situations.

The law does give guidance for this.

In the first place, the way the object is discovered is key to even bringing charges. If the police wish to search for something in someone's house they almost invariably must get a warrant. The state must go to a judge, explain what they are looking for and why they are looking for it. They must further present to that judge evidence that they have to make them believe that this "object" is in the house and that it belongs to the person who owns the house or is there with the knowledge of the person who owns the house. If they can't do this, the judge will decline to give them a search warrant and they may not even enter the house. The police can't get a warrant and go on a fishing expedition to see if anything illegal is in the house. They must be clear about what they are searching for.

It is possible that while conduction a legal search, lets say, for example, for a stolen gun, the police find illegal drugs. This may or may not result in a drug charge. That is up to the judge to determine. If the police enter someone's house without a warrant and find, for example, a stolen gun, then the judge will rule that the evidence was illegally obtained and rule out the evidence so no charges would result. (There are exceptions but this is the principle.)

At least under US law, the protections you are concerned about are in place long before any one event triggers the state to act against a citizen so they need not be explained in every law. Some laws, however, do contain elements of evidence as part of the law. It is just does not need to be very detailed because the rules of evidence are already clearly established under US law.

Does this explain the situation under US law in this case?

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry, I don't believe you. I think you're just making dishonest excuses to try to brush what I'm saying off.

Then you should do more research.

In many places, the judge is required to specifically address the possibility of a false claim to a jury, but only during rape trials.

Look up “cautionary instruction”.

[Puffer Fish]

Before the trial begins and again before deliberations, the judge instructs the jury that in order to find the defendant guilty, the state must prove that he (in this case raped his wife) beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict. The state's case would fall apart and a not guilty verdict result if this standard is not met. In the case of "he said, she said" the jury would be forced to acquit. In fact, going back to the initial decision by the state to pursue charges, a case of "he said, she said" should never have resulted in a warrant for arrest because the allegations would not have been supported by another standard called "reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed".

But that is not specifically spelled out in the law, not specifically in this situation.

There are many situations in the U.S. (and even more so in the U.K. and Australia) where men have been convicted when there was no other evidence besides the testimony of the alleged victim.

I agree that what you have described is how things should be. But how things should be and how things are is often not the same thing.

[Puffer Fish]

In the first place, the way the object is discovered is key to even bringing charges. If the police wish to search for something in someone's house they almost invariably must get a warrant. The state must go to a judge, explain what they are looking for and why they are looking for it.

You're going off topic, but I will quickly say that police lie or mischaracterize things all the time to be able to get a warrant.
In the case of searching a car, a common tactic is to bring in a drug sniffing dog and then yank its leash to make it bark. Police then have probable cause to search the car. There was even a case where police dug through a woman's trash outside her home, found a used tampon, and claimed that a test on that tampon showed the presence of illegal drugs in the blood, so they were able to get a warrant. The point is, this additional legal protection is definitely not fool-proof.

The defendant does NOT have to prove his innocence. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the state.

That's almost more theoretical than reality. They arrest and convict defendants all the time when the evidence is less than 100% certain.

The state doesn't actually "prove" the defendant guilty most of the time. I think a statement like that could give a misleading message.

For example, just the other day I was reading a news story about a woman convicted of murdering her husband. Practically the only evidence against her was that she owned a gun consistent with the size bullet that her husband was shot with, and security camera video was captured of her driving towards the area where her husband worked on the day he was killed.
The prosecutors suggested a possible motive of life insurance money and financial difficulties.

I think it's easy to get confused about the meanings of exactly what words like "prove" mean.

At least under US law, the protections you are concerned about are in place long before any one event triggers the state to act against a citizen so they need not be explained in every law. Some laws, however, do contain elements of evidence as part of the law. It is just does not need to be very detailed because the rules of evidence are already clearly established under US law.

When the woman claims she was raped, that alone is often enough to trigger things.


I don't know why you went on and on. What was your point?

Of course we know all that. You seemed to be trying to make some vague attempt to imply that "the law is fair", so we don't need to worry about any issues like this. If that was the purpose of your post, then I think you failed.

[Puffer Fish]

This applies to EVERY crime, of course. There are always some miscarriages of justice.

Too bad for those men wrongly convicted of rape, right?

[Puffer Fish]

Your arguments are those of an idiot who advocates rape in marriage, and you don't understand the justice system of ANY country, let along the one you seem to be in.

And you seem to believe the justice system is somehow set up to be able to properly protect men from this.

You just blindly assume that.

This is the type of situation that really should require us to think about a general way in which it should be approached.

Not just throw our hands up into the air and say "the courts and jury will figure it out".

That is kind of like having no emergency plans in place, and just leaving it up to individuals to figure out what to do if any emergency arises. Or a contract that doesn't specify what should happen if a certain type of situation arises that would render the wording of the contract unclear.


You also claim I am the "idiot" but you are the one saying "It is rape because I say it's so".

[Pants-of-dog]

But that is not specifically spelled out in the law, not specifically in this situation. .

Until very recently, it was specifically spelled out in the law that in this specific situation of rape, the judge was obliged to tell the jury to not find the defendant guilty if the only evidence was the testimony of the person who was raped.

Now, do you have a wife or girlfriend?

Do you intend to have one?

[Drlee]

But that is not specifically spelled out in the law, not specifically in this situation.

There are many situations in the U.S. (and even more so in the U.K. and Australia) where men have been convicted when there was no other evidence besides the testimony of the alleged victim.

I agree that what you have described is how things should be. But how things should be and how things are is often not the same thing.

I explained to you how the law works. You ignored it. You came to an incorrect conclusion twice.

You base your conclusions on the odd notion that "cops lie" and such. It can happen. It rarely does. Why? Because (and this is hard for many people to realize) the prosecutors rarely have any skin in the game. The cops are not prosecutors.

You're going off topic, but I will quickly say that police lie or mischaracterize things all the time to be able to get a warrant.
In the case of searching a car, a common tactic is to bring in a drug sniffing dog and then yank its leash to make it bark. Police then have probable cause to search the car. There was even a case where police dug through a woman's trash outside her home, found a used tampon, and claimed that a test on that tampon showed the presence of illegal drugs in the blood, so they were able to get a warrant. The point is, this additional legal protection is definitely not fool-proof.

I'm going off topic? What in the fuck is the matter with you? So you are saying that police routinely commit felonies to get a warrant? Nonsense. Your supposition is absurd. Do some cops play fast and loose with the truth? A few. but it is not common. Other cops do not like it. Your entire premise is that "all cops are crooked therefor all defendants are innocent". Garbage.


So unless you have some evidence to refute what I posted of US law, I think I need not explain further. I will leave the laws of other nations to people from those nations. And I will have learned my lesson @Puffer Fish and will never expend my valuable (to me) time on you again.

A story for the adults here:

I have a very close friend who is an appeals court judge. When he was a superior court judge he heard two arraignments in the same day, back to back. In the first one two police officers testified that the accused had refused to make eye contact and that that was suspicious behavior. He grudgingly accepted that. In the second case, charging a different person with a drug offense, the same office testified that he stopped the defendant's car because "they guy was staring at me which is suspicious behavior". He dismissed the second with prejudice and went back and dismissed the first. Then left it to the county attorney who just saw all of his hard work on two cases go up in smoke to deal with the cop.

That is life in the real world.

[Politics_Observer]

@Godstud

My number 1 rule is to stay the hell out of the courtroom. The only people that really win in the courtroom are the lawyers. If you stay out of the courtroom (by not getting yourself sued or charged with a crime), you prevent the expensive costs of the courtroom and any punishments and judgments you might receive against you. That's the goal of insurance companies too. That's why they payoff people and settle out of court. That way they avoid the much more expensive costs of the courtroom. I can only imagine how much Johnny Depp and Amber Heard spent on lawyers if those lawyers weren't working on a retainer basis. Which, I sort of doubt they were in that particular case.

[Puffer Fish]

I explained to you how the law works. You ignored it.

That's not actually how the law "works".

That is how the law is "supposed to" work. There is a big difference between theory and practice.

I suggested we need more specific laws to try to help make sure the right thing happens.

[Puffer Fish]

My number 1 rule is to stay the hell out of the courtroom. The only people that really win in the courtroom are the lawyers. If you stay out of the courtroom (by not getting yourself sued or charged with a crime), you prevent the expensive costs of the courtroom and any punishments and judgments you might receive against you.

That is a Biblical principle too.

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."
Matthew 5:25

[Pants-of-dog]

That's not actually how the law "works".

That is how the law is "supposed to" work. There is a big difference between theory and practice.

I suggested we need more specific laws to try to help make sure the right thing happens.

Again, that specific law existed and people got rid of it for good reason.

Do you have a wide or girlfriend? Do you intend to?

[Puffer Fish]

"You cannot rape your wife, there's very clear case law for it" - Trump attorney aide Michael Cohen

"If you can't rape your wife, who can you rape?" - infamous quote from California State Senator Bob Wilson during a committee hearing in 1979

In 1981 there were only 2 states that did not did not have exceptions written into their rape laws in the case of marriage.
(source: But If You Can't Rape Your Wife, Who(m) Can You Rape? The Marital Rape Exemption Re-Examined, Journal Family Law Quarterly Volume: 15 Issue: 1, Spring 1981, pages 1-29, M D A Freeman, 1981 )

A Conservative District Attorney, Ken Buck, in Colorado declined to prosecute a man for rape, even though he admitted to it, because the woman had been heavily drinking before the alleged rape and had a previous sexual relationship with the alleged attacker.
The case happened in rural Weld County in around 2005.

[Godstud]

"You cannot rape your wife, there's very clear case law for it" - Trump attorney aide Michael Cohen

Said the criminal who is now in jail.

"If you can't rape your wife, who can you rape?" - infamous quote from California State Senator Bob Wilson during a committee hearing in 1979

You can't rape ANYONE, you stupid fucker.

In 1981 there were only 2 states that did not did not have exceptions written into their rape laws in the case of marriage.
(source: But If You Can't Rape Your Wife, Who(m) Can You Rape? The Marital Rape Exemption Re-Examined, Journal Family Law Quarterly Volume: 15 Issue: 1, Spring 1981, pages 1-29, M D A Freeman, 1981 )

You are not supposed to rape ANYONE!!!! How fucking stupid do you have to be, to not understand this, @Puffer Fish ? How stupid are you? Really.

Do they also say, "If you can't kill your wife, who can you kill?"? I am sure you'd also approve of this.

A Conservative District Attorney, Ken Buck, in Colorado declined to prosecute a man for rape, even though he admitted to it, because the woman had been heavily drinking before the alleged rape and had a previous sexual relationship with the alleged attacker.
The case happened in rural Weld County in around 2005.

Yes, some people are complete assholes, as you've proven yourself to be. Showing a miscarriage of justice is all you did.

You're still a misogynist and Incel. You're really a detestable human being, overall.

[Puffer Fish]

You seem to be trying to conflate two different type of situations together that are very different. Even if you want to view them both as "rape", one of them is very much far worse than another.

"No, I'm not feeling it today"
versus
"Help! No! Get off me! I never want to have sex with you! Somebody help! Aaagh!!"


In my opinion this is yet another example of the Social-Progressive Left focusing on and over-obsessing over Microaggressions.
Over something that very often borders on being a part of a domestic dispute between two persons involved in a romantic relationship.

What I think many other people may not understand is that many of these Social Progressives see it as the norm for women to go around having sex with various different men whenever they feel like it, going back and forth between different men at the same time. If that is the worldview that you see as the norm, then of course this perspective, that the woman should have to provide consent on each occasion or it is rape, makes total sense. Because committed monogamous relationships are not really the norm in this worldview.

If you have committed your life to a person, and decided to have a family with him, you are not going to be eager to go to authorities and accuse him of rape immediately based on the first indiscretion.
But that's just not the worldview that those who insist this is rape have.

[Godstud]

"No, I'm not feeling it today"
versus
"Help! No! Get off me! I never want to have sex with you! Somebody help! Aaagh!!"

Both are rape if the sex is non-consensual. How hard you fight against it isn't relevant, it's that it was done without explicit consent. This has been told to you repeatedly, so at this point I think you are engaging in willful ignorance, or just being a douchebag.

Why do you hate women so much? Did one hurt your feelings a long time ago, or are you an Incel?

[Puffer Fish]

How hard you fight against it isn't relevant, it's that it was done without explicit consent.

That wasn't the point I was making.

Her reasons for saying no matter. (And there are ways we can infer what those reasons are from the situation) It's not merely simply all just based on her yes or no.

For example, if a prostitute has had sex with a client two times before, and then she's willing to again, but he doesn't have any money and he has sex with her despite her objections, the authorities are unlikely to treat that like a normal rape. (If you're in a conservative area)