wigmon
Heisman
the possibility of a jury punishing a woman who has been raped is a surefire way of guaranteeing that no woman who has been raped will ever come forward.
it's almost as if lots of people don't understand that one of the resulting problems of rape is that there is often not much evidence left behind. rape does not necessarily involve witnesses, bruises, torn clothes, or vaginal tears. and when it does, the expected defense is that the evidence is merely circumstantial and/or the product of consensual sex. furthermore, the victim's understandable and common response to rape is to immediately shower, dispatch of clothing, and close off oneself to the outside world. all of this complicates charges, prosecution, and certainly a guilty verdict, which tends to make the victim look even more like a false accuser.
i agree that there are times when the accuser is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have fabricated charges and therefore there should be a measured response; however, to state that the jury should be forced with the decision over punishing an accuser who may be truthful is utterly repugnant. the unintended consequences would be horrible, which is a massive understatement.
The possibility is over finding whether she lied or not. Again, the third outcome, jury finds she was truthful (or not enough evidence she lied) but no crime occurred. My point is this. I don't think most women who go to the police and to trial make up their stories, but some do and prosecutors never go after them. Even though Cleaves was found not guilty, his name was tarnished and probably went through a pretty tough time the past year or so. If evidence at trial shows this woman lied about her claims she should face repercussions. Allow the jury to decide during trial whether the accuser lied. And to be clear, I am not saying this is a case where the accuser would be found guilty of lying. I haven't looked at all the facts presented.
Will it prevent women who are truthful about what happened from coming forward? I would hope not. Again, I am not talking about adding any burden for them to prove they weren't lying, I would add instructions to a jury that if its shown she was lying, then you can return a verdict showing she made false accusations. We've pretty much abandoned lying to police as a crime. These types of cases aren't the only example, but I think consequences for bringing false charges or lying to police/prosecutors needs to be punished.
Now, I agree the semantics of having both the accuser and the accused on trial at the same time is nearly possible to iron out and the idea would never come to fruition and I understand why. It was more a venting of frustration of our legal system and how lying to the cops/court has pretty much turned into an unpunished crime. IT is just as frustrating that men who are guilty of sexual assaults are almost never found guilty because the standard of beyond "reasonable" doubt has been interpreted as beyond "any" doubt by too many juries. I mean we all know Jameis raped a woman who didn't have a clue what was going on and a prosecutor chose not to charge because its nearly impossible to get a unanimous decision from a jury.
Upvote
0