View Poll Results: Should there be sex offense convictions based on accusers word without corroboration?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes -- more then now.

    2 6.06%
  • Yes -- keep current system.

    1 3.03%
  • Yes -- in very rare cases.

    2 6.06%
  • No.

    28 84.85%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 65

Thread: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by SMTA View Post
    What is the source for this?
    Conviction rates, for starters. Lots of date rape cases get wiped clean by "it was consentual" claims. Usually the ones that result in conviction involve the victims reporting defensive wounds or other sorts of violence.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by SCitizen View Post
    There are 774,600 Registered Sex Offenders in the U.S. and its Territories. About 220,000 sex offenders are in prisons and jails and about 12,000 more are in involuntary commitment institutions. Many or most of these offenders have been convicted on the accuser's word without other corroboration. Before mid 1980s corroboration was needed for conviction. Many sex offense prosecutors consider the ability to convict without corroboration a great victory. On the other hand, only about 16% of the accused are convicted.


    In my opinion, corroborative evidence should be required for criminal convictions -- especially if the punishment is life long. Nevertheless, my opinion may be in minority.
    Hearsay? No, hearsay is not evidence and should not be sole consideration of guilt.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #23
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,803

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Hearsay? No, hearsay is not evidence and should not be sole consideration of guilt.
    Ayup - when only two people are involved, additional evidence is required for conviction.
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  4. #24
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,874

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by SMTA View Post
    Ayup - when only two people are involved, additional evidence is required for conviction.
    I had a lawyer once that referred to the two people situation as a "liar's war".

  5. #25
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 10:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,138

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    If someone is accused of anything, let alone a sex crime, without proof and they plead guilty - they're idiots. The system is designed to give benefit of the doubt, so even people who actually did do it are often better to go to trial than plead out.
    In USA any plea deal on such crimes still involves lifetime sentence. In Canada, Australia, UK, France, a plea can get the accused a few yer sentence.

  6. #26
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 10:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,138

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Every once in a while we read about someone where new evidence has absolutely shown that the person is not guilty, yet just to get it reviewed takes years. It shouldn't be that way.
    In my opinion, some prosecutors would not like it to be known that they made a mistake.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    In the absence of physical evidence proving the matter with certainty, the testimony of two witnesses should be required minimally to convict someone.

    Unfortunately, out modern system considers the testimony if a single witness sufficient to beat a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

  8. #28
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by SCitizen View Post
    There are 774,600 Registered Sex Offenders in the U.S. and its Territories. About 220,000 sex offenders are in prisons and jails and about 12,000 more are in involuntary commitment institutions. Many or most of these offenders have been convicted on the accuser's word without other corroboration. Before mid 1980s corroboration was needed for conviction. Many sex offense prosecutors consider the ability to convict without corroboration a great victory. On the other hand, only about 16% of the accused are convicted.


    In my opinion, corroborative evidence should be required for criminal convictions -- especially if the punishment is life long. Nevertheless, my opinion may be in minority.
    There was a real nasty little feud between a man in my subdivision and the HOA. One of them suborned a woman relative from another state who could cry at will to accuse him of stopping on the road and masturbating in front of the house where she was staying. The guy had an alibi because a woman in the subdivision called him worried that her husband had not come one and so he went out looking for him in the storms She knew the exact time she called him because of the show that was on TV. But more than this, his lawyer questioned her about the weather when the incident occurred and she said it was 'sunny.' Well, he brought into evidence from the papers that at the exact time she said he had done that, it was storming and trees were falling all over the place. The man was acquitted, but his defense cost him $5,000.

    If you are going to accuse someone, you had better have your ducks in a row because if you don't you could end up the culprit. I think a sex offense isn't going to have a witness because the perp is going to arrange it that way. The only other evidence is DNA, and not all sex offenses leave traces of DNA. But there are experts who are quite good at evaluating if the accuser has actually been traumatized. In a trial, both sides make their case. It is what it is, but you have to bear in mind that the nature of a sex offense is such that there will generally not be a witness. The law doesn't come down to 'if all you have is word of mouth you can't pursue the case' and it never will simply because testimony is evidence. To exclude testimony of the victim would be to exclude evidence and would be grossly unjust.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  9. #29
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    In the absence of physical evidence proving the matter with certainty, the testimony of two witnesses should be required minimally to convict someone.

    Unfortunately, out modern system considers the testimony if a single witness sufficient to beat a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.
    And do tell us how a crime which is planned by the perp to occur where there are no witnesses is going to have a witness?
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  10. #30
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by SCitizen View Post
    In most date rape cases there is evidence of intercourse, but not evidence of force or lack of consent.
    Link?
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •