andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker
This is inspired by the comment here, where [livejournal.com profile] 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]

Date: 2005-11-26 06:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

September 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 18th, 2025 03:35 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios