Do we live in a rape culture?

[civver_764]

The claim that he did rape her isn't enough either. Evidence is required.

Assume the whole thing was video taped, the drinking and the sex. According to that law a jury could find the man guilty of rape.

I'm not sure you'll find many scenarios where a man can realistically say, "Gee, I just didn't know."

We're going in circles here man, the scenario I initially outlined fits this exactly. If a girl's enthusiastic consent while drunk can be considered not really consent, how is the guy supposed to know?

 

[Synobun]

Assume the whole thing was video taped, the drinking and the sex. According to that law a jury could find the man guilty of rape.

No it couldn't.

We're going in circles here man, the scenario I initially outlined fits this exactly. If a girl's enthusiastic consent while drunk can be considered not really consent, how is the guy supposed to know?

Men aren't being convicted for a girl's enthusiastic consent.

 

[Ryika]

So essentially, you can see the future and neither witness will ever change their story

If you think you can count on an accused to maintain their concession of a key element of a crime through trial, you are utterly ignorant of how the legal system works. You know how you can make sure they maintain it? By testing the kit!

I'm not sure if you're playing dense at this point or if you really don't have the capacity to understand what I write, but no, this is utter nonsense.

Testing the rape kit provides so many advantages, including ensuring the alleged crime actually occurred - which is just not a given especially if drugs and/or alcohol are involved. And you're worried about de minimis "wasting resources?" Ridiculous. Telling cops to perform triage on rape kits instead of a blanket policy, on the off-chance it's not strictly necessary to test? What kind of sense does that even make?

See, the fact that you have to bring in drugs and/or alcohol into the example shows how utterly stupid and nonsensical your position is. You're hellbent on turning an obvious example into one where it's no longer obvious, just so you can say: "See, that's why you test that rape kit!" - well d'uh, that's like telling somebody they're bleeding and then punching them in the face when they tell you that you're talking nonsense.

I'd actually like to know if there are other situations where you think cops should believe a crime occurred without availing themselves of available means to confirm it. Unless we're going to run law enforcement on people's word to save time and money. It's a novel theory of law enforcement, I'll give you that

If you have a break-in, and catch a person in that house house, who admits that they've broken into that house and who has a cut on their hand from when they moved through the window that they had smashed in before, you then don't go and do a DNA test to establish what already perfectly fits the evidence, and the perpetrator himself has already admitted, instead you take the DNA and store it for the off-chance that it becomes important later on. What an idiotic waste of money and manpower it would be to do tests in such obvious cases.

I mean maybe that's how stuff works where you're from, it certainly doesn't work like that here.