Responsibility

[andrewducker]

This is inspired by the comment here, where ladysysiphus says "If you have consumed enough alcohol to impair your judgement, I believe you then have to take at least some responsibility for putting yourself in a position where something like this might happen."

[Poll #619684]

Comments

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

If I was _there_, I'd _know_ whether you'd said yes, or not. I wouldn't be relying on hearsay, as to whether you were interested or not - I'd have the evidence of my senses. So there'd be no question of proof involved.

So? You have just asserted that when a man is accused of rape, his own word is sufficient to establish "reasonable doubt" that while he had sex with a comatose woman, she consented to it. Just on his say so. No other evidence required.

Why should I trust a man who argues that?

[andrewducker]

I've asserted, repeatedly, that for any crime, evidence is needed for a conviction.

I'd like you to come up with an alternate way of holding a court case.

"I hereby accuse Jane of XXXXX. There was nobody else in the room at the time, and she denies it, but I maintain that she did it, and she must pay!"

Now, in your ideal world, how should a court case proceed from this?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I've asserted, repeatedly, that for any crime, evidence is needed for a conviction

Actually, you've asserted that for this crime - rape - that if the man claims the woman consented, that's enough by itself to introduce "reasonable doubt" and acquit him. All the evidence says he raped her: but so long as he claims he didn't do it, you accept that as sufficient doubt and say he shouldn't be convicted of rape.

Now, in your ideal world, how should a court case proceed from this?

Interesting that you keep coming up with fictional scenarios in which there is no evidence beyond one person's word, and ignore the real case, in which there is evidence not dependent on one person's word. Interesting in a sickening sort of way, that is.

[andrewducker]

You have just asserted that when a man is accused of rape, his own word is sufficient to establish "reasonable doubt" that while he had sex with a comatose woman, she consented to it. Just on his say so. No other evidence required.

Nope, I'm not saying that - and if she was able to say "I was walking home with him, and then I collapsed unconscious, and then when I woke up, he was having sex with me." then that'd be it - there's no consent, he raped her. Sadly, she can't remember if that happened, or if she shouted "Take me, take me now.", and then has forgotten everything bar 3 seconds of the sex.

Why should I trust a man who argues that?

That sounds to _me_ like "you insist on a higher standard of proof than what is available, there I do not trust anything you say." Which doesn't make any sense to me.