Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Your central point seems to be that we can proceed on the assumption that when it comes to rape, we can assume that (just about) everyone is as guilty as everyone else.

Just how is that "known?" Is there a 97% conviction rate while 3% are found not guilty, that the idea? If so, what's the problem? If not, then apparently there isn't sufficient evidence to confidently claim that 97% of all rape allegations are true.

If there is "reasonable" doubt, then an accused gets off.

I there is reasonable doubt about only 3% being false, then it is fallacious to claim that it is "known."

The key phrase there is "according to one UK government report". Other studies have said the instances of false accusations of rape is as high as 40%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

I think it is relevant. Rather the true figure is 3% or 40% or somewhere in between, someone accused of a serious crime has the right to due process.

Not sure what the "it" is that you think is relevant, but I agree 100% with your conclusion.

But for me, it would be irrelevant, even if it were "known" that 99% of all rape charges were true. That wouldn't change a thing about what you should "presume" about the other 1.%

Either prove it, or gtfo.

I'm sure you realize that quote was not mine, Layman. I'm not sure what this guy was trying to sell...but I certainly was not buying.

Like you, I think the burden of proof of a charge falls with the prosecution.

Yeah, Frank, but no way I know of to change it. Not sure how I ended up clicking on one of your posts when responding.

No problemo, Layman. I don't think anybody here agreed with him.

Why do you say "him?"

A babe once told me she had been raped the night before. I said: "Reallly? What happened?"

It was kinda like pullin teeth, but what she ended up saying was that some guy she knew came by her house at 2:00 A.M. drunk and knocked on her door. She let him in. Then at some point he led her into the bedroom and screwed her, when she really didn't want to. She didn't say "no" or complain, though, because "he was bigger than me."

The bigger question is what should happen to "babe" when she for one, made such a false allegation and two, actually committed rape herself. If the poor guy was drunk, then she has taken advantage and raped him. She should spend life in prison.

Think it's only a figure of speech. The reality is we're guilty until proven innocent though. If you're only charged with a crime, but haven't been found guilty in a trial, then you shouldn't be under arrest, incarcerated until that trial, or suffer any other ill-effects of the charge. But we are.

Frank Apisa answered this early on, but apparently his remarks weren't explicit enough to lay the matter to rest, so I'll have a try.

"Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with actual innocence or guilt of a crime. It simply means that the legal burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate guilt. There are systems of jurisprudence which are just the reverse: a judge presumes guilt and the defendant must prove innocence. This was notably the case in Europe in the Dark Ages.

This is just as true for rape cases as it is for any other crime.

Under an innocent until proven guilty system, a defendant doesn't need to call witnesses, testify himself, or even present a defense at all, and this can't legally be held against him. The prosecution must present a case which establishes guilt according to the standard of proof that applies (typically "beyond a reasonable doubt").

Under a guilty until proven innocent system, the defendant must prove his innocence, typically by calling a large number of witnesses who swear he couldn't have done it. If he can't do that, the presumption of guilt means automatic conviction.

Yeah, PP, and the way I read it, at least, the OP was advocating a return to that standard in rape cases.

I share that sentiment, in special cases, just not rape cases.

I think it should apply, for example, whenever I accuse someone of stealing $1,000 from me and insist that they should immediately return it.

medium-density wrote: "If it's true that only a small minority of rape accusations are deemed false, and if it's true that there is chronic under-reporting of rapes by victims, and if it's true that the conviction rate for rapists is nonetheless astonishingly low, would these not constitute examples of limitations which follow (in part) from using the innocent until proven guilty principle?"

Deemed false by whom? You said earlier that only a tiny percentage of rape accusations are false, but now you're saying that the conviction rate is low. What then is the basis for asserting the overwhelming accuracy of the accusations?

The job of the police is to determine whether threshold evidence of a crime exists warranting an arrest, and to collect evidence. A policeman making an arrest might or might not theoretically believe that the arrestee is guilty; that in any case would be his personal opinion. His professional opinion is merely that sufficient evidence exists to make an arrest, and to hold the criminal suspect until his initial appearance before a judge.

On the one hand, you wrote above that the presumption of innocence is a farce, citing "stop and frisk" laws abused by presumptuous and overzealous police; on the other hand, you advocate trusting the judgment of the police enough to skip a trial altogether and go straight to the sentencing, at least in cases of rape.

Incidentally, we have to be careful when talking about conviction rates. Does this refer to convictions as a percentage of:

(1) Total rapes (including unreported) assumed from crlme victimization surveys?

(2) Rapes reported to the police?

(3) Cases where an arrest is made?

(4) Cases where a prosecutor decides that evidence is sufficient to move forward?

(5) Cases which make it into the court system (including plea deals without jury trial)?

(6) Cases which go to trial by jury?

In Britain, for example, the rape conviction rate in case (6) is 58 percent, which is actually high compared to the same statistic for some other violent crimes:

"A report in to the effectiveness of juries, published by the Ministry of Justice last month, confirmed that rapists are more likely to be convicted than acquitted, with higher success rates than those for rates for grievous bodily harm, threats to kill, manslaughter and attempted murder."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

Now, that may itself be misleading, to the extent that prosecutors cherry-pick cases they consider winnable; but on the other hand prosecutors commonly do that with all cases, regardless of the charge.

So the question comes down to why a case might be winnable. These days DNA evidence is common in cases that make it to trial; but there is still the issue of consensuality. If someone has traces of a rape drug in their system or bodily injuries consistent with forced penetration and/or defensive injuries, that's likely to make a better case. On the other hand, if two individuals get really drunk and the woman wakes up the next day after passing out, finds evidence of sexual activity, but doesn't recall giving consent, that may make for a poor case for prosecution, even if she was in fact raped.

P.P.S. As far as crime victimization surveys and unreported rapes are concerned, it's necessary to specify the survey question and terminology. Not everything called "sexual assault" for example means rape or attempted rape, or child molestation.

Some definitions of sexual assault (and this is particularly true in some academic studies and among some feminist organizations) include any unwanted touching of a "sexual" nature.

While I don't defend the unwanted act by a stranger at a bar of pinching or slapping a woman's ass or putting an arm around her waist or shoulder while whispering compliments or come-ons in her ear, some of the very high reported statistical rates of "sexual assault" originating with feminist advocacy groups do include the broadest gamut of acts without making this clear.

Innocence is respected but in Spain, as probably in your countries too cause spanish is known to be one of the «softest», police can «retain» any citizen for 24 hours to investigate further. Taking on account actual gender violence victims were attacked by their abusers as soon as they got free as a revenge, it becames protocol to keep them in and give some light to the problem

I'm still waiting for the actual report that proves the first wrong

After two years and counting, I'm still waiting for a report that proves the claim. Claims like that do require a certain amount of substantiation. Do you also agree that that unsubstantiated claim should be taken as proof of guilt. Sounds like you do.

I read a Canadian study that only 2.5% of statistics cited by feminists have any basis in reality.