Puffer Fish wrote:They're basically just automatically believing the woman's version of the story.
There is not really any other evidence here.
Like I explained, the woman might not be trying to lie, but is telling the story from her perspective.
She could pass a lie detector test and say the same thing under the truth serum, and it is still theoretically possible that the man could be innocent of rape.
If you watched that video, you could see how the same words could be interpreted very differently.
If the man and woman both say they remember words being said, that doesn't exactly mean it was those exact words which were said. That is what they remember the meaning of the words to have been. The words they are remembering might be very similar to what was said, but not exactly the same, and those differences could be in certain crucial ways.
What do you think the sort of evidence that comes up in a court case on sexual assault?
Is your criticism then that the standards are too lenient?https://time.com/5413814/he-said-she-said-kavanaugh-ford-mitchell/
Although corroboration is no longer a requirement in sex-assault prosecutions, it is valuable in every type of criminal case. Corroboration comes in many forms. Today, we use DNA whenever we can, but for a variety of reasons, survivors often delay reporting sex assaults (if they ever report at all, though, most never do) and DNA is often unavailable. So we look to less technical, but equally important evidence, such as eyewitnesses at the bar or party in question. We pull video surveillance, doctors’ reports, text messages, phone calls, social media posts, memoirs, calendars and yearbooks. Such evidence can substantiate — or refute — an alleged attack, even if no eyewitnesses saw the attack itself.
There may also be evidence that doesn’t directly prove what happened that day but may support or undermine the credibility of witnesses. We examine any motive to lie, such as divorce and custody proceedings, financial interests, romantic revenge or career prospects. We listen to testimony, noting when a witness is direct and helpful versus belligerent and evasive.
And we know that many sex offenders are recidivists. For example, according to a 2002 study, 90% of assaults on college campuses are committed by 6% of the males, with each assailant committing an average of five to six assaults. If a boy did it once, he probably did it again. So we search for additional victims of the same assailant.
At the core of the “he said, she said” myth is the idea that “ladies lie.” But studies show that rape claims are false at exactly the same rate as claims of any other crime, about 2–6% of the time. You’re just as likely to be falsely accused of mugging someone as raping them.
Either way, there are methods of discerning the truth in a court of law. We need to understand that when two people tell different stories — whether about a sex crime or an armed robbery — we can use common sense, reasoning and investigation to figure out what happened.
Because it's not like she accused him and they went right ma'am, off to jail you go Mr. Hynes. From the summary of the case in the article alone she sounds a lot more credible than her and his own defense he even acknowledges he refusal to have sex with him but tries to say that the oral sex was consensual. This sounds less credible.
THe court necessarily hears both sides of the story.
What do you think the defense was doing in this case?
If your idea of prosecuting rape is that there must be video evidence showing the exact science like with the Chauvin trial, then you're asking for something that is basically an impossibility for many crimes, and on what pretense? That it's too great a risk to prosecute when there isn't no doubt, as opposed to a beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think what is particularly weak here is you're talking not even directly to the facts of the case, the woman's testimony, or anything but only vaguely referencing issues that you think could occur in such a case but not actually arguing that it is the case here.
And we see in your next post is that really the hang up you have here is the belief that woman lie, not that it's just possible that she is lying but again, you don't even attack the woman's credibility here. Just because you think something is possible, doesn't make it plausible and one has to use evidence which corroborates your claim.
The idea of it being simply he said she said, seems to be based in your own impression that the court simply heard her accusation and accepted it which is far from the truth of how any court case goes.
On the other hand, besides attacking her credibility, you are not even making a defense of Hyne based on the facts.
However it seems there is another layer, you aren't simply implying that women make false accusations but also seemingly buffering this claim with the sense that women simply rationalize to themselves that they were raped when they weren't, such that they experience it as true but it isn't because they conflate regret and other emotions with the experience of being raped.
Which in itself is pretty absurd, women definitely experience the difference between a shit root or someone acting shitty and being forced into sexual acts. So yet again we have a claim that is asserted and no real defense of why it is somehow more plausible than women being able to have a proper sense of their own emotional state and experience of things.
Somehow sex with the prick of a person is conflated with sexual assault.
It sounds like you just got a hang up about women and accusations of sexual assault more so than a credible point.
ALl of which has made the thread lose sight of the very ramifications and limitations of affirmative consent legislation as inadequate and problematic in undermining women's agency as it doesn't properly track to what consent is.
Even when it comes to the issue of false allegations, generally they are proved on the basis of some ulterior motive.
The suitable one here instead of an alibi/cover story, would be the effort to show some sort of malicious intent. That she was so pissed off about the taxi thing, that they consensual oral sex and then she reported that she was raped.
This is pretty much what you're suggesting in your last post, and once again not specifically to this case, but just a vague assertion that women are prone to such emotional and malicious false allegations. Which tends to hint at the sense that you simply have a distrust of women and trust of men in the issue of men being accused. So when people go yeah the facts of this case do support the conviction, you're shocked.
-For Ethical Politics