Put men in prison based only on the word of a woman? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should a man be punished for rape when the only evidence is the testimony of the accuser?

Yes, if a woman claims he raped her we should totally believe her
1
5%
It depends. I would have to hear/see the testimony of the woman, and use my intuition
7
37%
The man should only be punished with a few years in prison, because he might be innocent
2
11%
No, the testimony of the alleged victim should not be enough evidence to convict a man of rape
9
47%
#15220156
What do you think?
Should a man who is accused of rape be put in prison when the only evidence is the testimony of a woman who claims she was raped?

Let's make this an opinion poll.

Regardless of how you choose to answer, keep in mind that many men are sentenced to prison when there is no other evidence except the accusations of a woman.
#15220157
Some evidence even if circumstantial otherwise it's a mockery of the process. If you only have testimony of the victim then the victim has to be grilled and vetted repeatedly to ensure they are not lying. If caught in a lie the sentencing should be as if the 'victim' was the rapist. So if the minimum sentence for rape is 6 years then the liar should get 6 years.

I think this is a good compromise. Ensures people don't make shit up, and ensures a thorough investigation if assault did happen.

The problem is arbitrary change of mind. So if there is consent before and during the act, but then is taken away days, months, or years later. Then there is no way to prove the liar is lying. Perhaps compromise on this too by introducing a minimum time frame for accusation. So if 1 month passes since the alleged rape then all accusations are null and void. This should not apply to children of course, the catholic church and their fiddly priests for example can't be allowed to take advantage of this. It should also not apply to lopsided power dynamics. So the scenario between a boss and his/her employee for example should have a much longer accusation nullification period.
#15220162
Igor Antunov wrote: If caught in a lie the sentencing should be as if the 'victim' was the rapist. So if the minimum sentence for rape is 6 years then the liar should get 6 years.

I'm not arguing with you, but just to let you know, when women are punished for making false rape accusations, it is usually only a small fraction of the prison time the man would have got.

Many times the women are not punished, because the evidence is not strong enough to prove with certainty that she was lying, even though the evidence is enough to cast serious doubt about whether she was telling the truth and whether the man is guilty.

Igor Antunov wrote:Some evidence even if circumstantial otherwise it's a mockery of the process. If you only have testimony of the victim then the victim has to be grilled and vetted repeatedly to ensure they are not lying.

Just to let you know, that might sometimes catch a woman who is lying but usually it will not. It's unrealistic if you think law enforcement somehow has a guaranteed way of telling whether every woman is lying or telling the truth.


Igor Antunov wrote:I think this is a good compromise. Ensures people don't make shit up

I think they don't want to punish an accuser too much, because it might make other women fearful of reporting rape.

Oftentimes the available evidence simply does not bring certainty. The evidence might indicate there is a 95 percent chance the woman is lying. What do we do then? She should be punished, but you can't give her the full wrath of the law because of that small chance she might have been telling the truth.
#15220165
Oh, and when we talk about physical evidence of the woman being hurt, women can sometimes fake that.

I'm aware of one story where the woman had a medical condition that caused her to bruise very easily. Police had no idea of this medical condition when they examined her and made their report. She had either inflicted the bruises on herself, or decided to make the accusations after coincidentally having just had an accidental fall. She also scratched herself, to help make it look like her boyfriend had beaten her up.

They finally found out because they caught her driving to where her ex-boyfriend was staying at, and there was no reason for her to do that except to try to plant evidence on him. In an interrogation she finally broke down and admitted the accusations were false.

She had lied to get her boyfriend put in prison because he had found out about an affair she was having with another man. She wanted him in prison because she knew the relationship was likely going to be over soon anyway, and she wanted to live with her new boyfriend in the house that her previous boyfriend had bought. Getting him put in prison would also prevent him from telling her family members about the affair she was having. With him in prison for sexual assault and domestic abuse, no one would believe him.

On top of all that, when police arrested him, they beat him up and gave him the rough treatment, because of all the bad things the woman had falsely claimed he did to her.
#15220185
Why does there need to be a poll about this ? This isnt really something that needs to be fixed.

Its extremely rare that any third party would be present in a rape, so yes, at the very core, the statement of the woman that she was raped will almost always be the basis for an investigation.

You can still find a lot of secondary evidence though, like testing the woman for having semen of the man in the vagina. And reconstructing the events before and after.

Rape is really just like every other crime. You cannot be sure you dont convict innocents. People not convicted might still actually be guilty. Only god is omniscient, any human justice system will be fallible.

And yes harder penalties do not lower crime. They only increase costs for the state. Prisons arent cheap at all.
#15220251
Puffer Fish wrote:Regardless of how you choose to answer, keep in mind that many men are sentenced to prison when there is no other evidence except the accusations of a woman.


No, this seems wrong and not true.

Puffer Fish wrote:I'm not arguing with you, but just to let you know, when women are punished for making false rape accusations, it is usually only a small fraction of the prison time the man would have got.


This is also not true.
#15220293
Negotiator wrote:Its extremely rare that any third party would be present in a rape, so yes, at the very core, the statement of the woman that she was raped will almost always be the basis for an investigation.

Then why does it seem like you did not vote in the poll?

Of course an accusation by a woman will be the basis for an investigation to be launched. That is not the question. The question is whether that alone should be the basis for criminal charges.

Negotiator wrote:You can still find a lot of secondary evidence though, like testing the woman for having semen of the man in the vagina. And reconstructing the events before and after.

I think you are deflecting from the actual issue though. In many cases there is no other real evidence, other than the testimony of the woman.

Even in the case of a DNA sample, in some cases the woman might have consensually slept with him before, perhaps coincidentally, or perhaps maybe even with the intention of framing him for rape.
These days, in the era of Feminism, women are accusing men of rape whom they have been having a consensual sexual relationship with.
Of course this is a totally different issue and this is not what I meant to discuss in this thread. But I did want to quickly bring that up because even if you can prove that the man and woman voluntarily entered together into the same private area, right before the alleged assault took place, even that will not necessarily absolve the man of rape, in certain circumstances.
#15220323
Pants-of-dog wrote:What percentage of sexual assault investigations are based solely on the testimony of the person who was assaulted?

That is a very good question, and I do not think we really know the answer to that.
I doubt any studies have been done on this.

I am aware of plenty of stories (and I could link to them if you want) of men who were convicted based only on the testimony of the woman, with very little other evidence. Probably even more cases of men who were pushed into taking a plea bargain and pled guilty, whether they were actually guilty or not.
#15220324
Here's one study

Out of 3269 complaints of sexual assault, it led to 504 adults being arrested, and charges were filed in 363 of those cases.

In the cases where charges were filed, 53.4% of those arrests ended with a guilty verdict. Of the cases ending in a guilty 81% were the product of a plea bargain.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252689.pdf (skip all the way to page 111)
It doesn't really specifically answer the question but helps give some rough idea.
#15220352
Puffer Fish wrote:That is a very good question, and I do not think we really know the answer to that.
I doubt any studies have been done on this.


So your entire argument is one based on ignorance.

I am aware of plenty of stories (and I could link to them if you want) of men who were convicted based only on the testimony of the woman, with very little other evidence. Probably even more cases of men who were pushed into taking a plea bargain and pled guilty, whether they were actually guilty or not.


No, I highly doubt you could post many of these stories. In fact, it is doubtful you would find more than a handful.

This seems like a problem that you made up.

Puffer Fish wrote:Here's one study

Out of 3269 complaints of sexual assault, it led to 504 adults being arrested, and charges were filed in 363 of those cases.

In the cases where charges were filed, 53.4% of those arrests ended with a guilty verdict. Of the cases ending in a guilty 81% were the product of a plea bargain.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252689.pdf (skip all the way to page 111)
It doesn't really specifically answer the question but helps give some rough idea.


So, out of 3269 times a woman said she was raped, only 180 or so were even locked up. This suggests that a lot of evidence is needed, which contradicts the claim you made.
#15228462
Most choose option 4 but I think option 2 suits the situation better.

Human anatomy means most sexual contacts have more detrimental effects to the female than the male.
It's only fair to "bias" the judicial process towards women to balance this off.

I only chose option 2 over option 1 because option 2 allows the process to be within the bounds of fair trial, while option 1 doesn't.
#15228464
@Puffer Fish is just merely looking for justification for his rape narrative, that he's pushing with his incel misogyny.

The poll choices are biased, and simply ridiculous. What happened to Other?

See the rape apologist's OTHER thread regarding this.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=182060

Given that fake rape criminal charges match the rate of frequency of other fake criminal charges, men getting falsely charged is not a problem. @Puffer Fish would like you to think that, though, as he pushes his PRO-rape agenda. :knife:
#15228468
Puffer Fish wrote:What do you think?
Should a man who is accused of rape be put in prison when the only evidence is the testimony of a woman who claims she was raped?

Let's make this an opinion poll.

Regardless of how you choose to answer, keep in mind that many men are sentenced to prison when there is no other evidence except the accusations of a woman.


Facts are not subject to opinion polls.

Why are conservatives so unwilling to accept anything approaching objective reality?
#15228469
Puffer Fish wrote:That is a very good question, and I do not think we really know the answer to that.
I doubt any studies have been done on this.

I am aware of plenty of stories (and I could link to them if you want) of men who were convicted based only on the testimony of the woman, with very little other evidence. Probably even more cases of men who were pushed into taking a plea bargain and pled guilty, whether they were actually guilty or not.


You have poor garbage filters.

You consistently believe crap stuff on the internet, your history shows that your are gullible when it comes to hearing things you want to hear.

Not everything you read is true. You need to develop critical reasoning and reading skills,
#15228615
Patrickov wrote:I only chose option 2 over option 1 because option 2 allows the process to be within the bounds of fair trial, while option 1 doesn't.

In other words, you will usually be inclined to believe the accusations of the woman. Unless there is something obvious that stands out that casts some doubt.

Is that correct?
#15228616
pugsville wrote:Facts are not subject to opinion polls.

Why are conservatives so unwilling to accept anything approaching objective reality?

I think you're being very out of touch with reality.

Maybe I should ask, what exactly do you mean by "facts" and "objective reality"?

Because very often those do not really exist in criminal prosecutions.

"Facts" may not be subject to opinion polls, the interpretation of those facts are. Fact: The woman says this man violated her.

Or maybe you make the assumption that they somehow "know" whether or not the man committed the criminal act, as an objective fact?
That would be extremely ignorant and naive.

Unless there was a video camera or a big group of witnesses, most convictions happen without "objective" certain knowledge that the accused committed the crime.

Maybe that is just a very psychologically unsettling fact and you don't want to believe it. You don't believe things "should" operate that way, and you can't believe they do operate that way.

Here's a simple argument that can be made. Consider this: There wouldn't be people later proven to be innocent and released from prison if that was not the way it worked.

Do you consider the woman's testimony "objective knowledge"?
Do you consider her testimony "objective knowledge" that she was raped? (I think the obvious answer to that one is no)
Are you saying that you don't believe it is possible for any man to ever be convicted based only on one person's testimony?

I can't tell for sure exactly what you are saying, but it seems you haven't really thought your position through.
#15228619
Godstud wrote:The poll choices are biased, and simply ridiculous. What happened to Other?

What other opinion could you possibly have?? Please tell us, I would like to know.

I think anyone's opinion could fit into one of the four choices. It might not fit exactly or entirely, but if everyone is only willing to express a very nuanced and detailed opinion it will be impossible to have a poll.

I didn't think the wording of this poll was ridiculous at all. Your opinion will closely match one of the options.

What exactly did you find ridiculous about it?


I don't mean to be condescending, but you know what? I think the reason some of you seem to be so offended is because this is confronting you with facts and logic, which your emotional beliefs cannot stand up to. You feel the wording in the poll is "biased" because it's forcing you to think in a way you don't want to think.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 21 May 2022 10:30, edited 1 time in total.
#15228621
Logic is the last thing you use. You're got an agenda that's obvious.

You add in caveats like:

and use my intuition

because he might be innocent

You're a misogynistic rape apologist. GFY

How Public Pensions Turn Cities into Unlivable He[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Even if we consider a fetus a person, a pregnant p[…]

By your definition, MMT is central planning of the[…]

JINO, judge in name only

Continuity is pretty important. The problem is, th[…]