• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should men accused of rape have to the accuser prove consented?

S

SCitizen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
316
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Up to 2014, the prosecution in date rape cases has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. For the years 199? -- 2014 there has been an average of 35,000 sex crime convictions per year including about 10,000 date rape convictions per year. Even though many convictions were/are obtained on the accusers testimony alone, at least the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But things may change in the near future -- there is a growing movement to place the burden of proof on the accused.

New Zealand’s second-largest political party wants to reverse the burden of proof in rape cases if it gets into power, making defendants prove their innocence to reduce the trauma suffered by victims.

Andrew Little, the Labor Party’s justice spokesman, has outlined plans for a monumental shift in the justice system in the run-up to the country’s general elections in September.
Click to expand...

So far they lost the election, but...

Two legal experts want to see changes to Sweden sex crimes laws to require a man accused of rape to prove he had the consent of the woman with whom he had sex.
Click to expand...

In 2014, only a few crazy men are concerned about the possible innocence of those convicted without corroboration. If these reforms take place, the number of date rape convictions will increase to at least a hundred thousand per year. Will most ordinary men realize that they are in danger?
 
Last edited:
SCitizen said:
Up to 2014, the prosecution in date rape cases has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. For the years 199? -- 2014 there has been an average of 35,000 sex crime convictions per year including about 10,000 date rape convictions per year. Even though many convictions were/are obtained on the accusers testimony alone, at least the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But things may change in the near future -- there is a growing movement to place the burden of proof on the accused.
Click to expand...

That seems a tad unconstitutional to me.
 
SCitizen said:
Up to 2014, the prosecution in date rape cases has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. For the years 199? -- 2014 there has been an average of 35,000 sex crime convictions per year including about 10,000 date rape convictions per year. Even though many convictions were/are obtained on the accusers testimony alone, at least the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But things may change in the near future -- there is a growing movement to place the burden of proof on the accused.



So far they lost the election, but...



In 2014, only a few crazy men are concerned about the possible innocence of those convicted without corroboration. If these reforms take place, the number of date rape convictions will increase to at least a hundred thousand per year. Will most ordinary men realize that they are in danger?
Click to expand...

No, the system is innocent until proven guilty for a reason. The State must prove guilt, the individual should not be forced to prove innocence. It would be nothing but foolishness and ignorance to push for Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
 
tres borrachos said:
That seems a tad unconstitutional to me.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
No, the system is innocent until proven guilty for a reason. The State must prove guilt, the individual should not be forced to prove innocence. It would be nothing but foolishness and ignorance to push for Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
Click to expand...

You did notice that these are not American laws the OP is about, right?

I don't know that much about New Zealand or Sweden, but I'm a pretty solid proponent of the burden of proof being on the prosecution.
 
Paschendale said:
You did notice that these are not American laws the OP is about, right?

I don't know that much about New Zealand or Sweden, but I'm a pretty solid proponent of the burden of proof being on the prosecution.
Click to expand...

I saw this in the OP link:

U.S. military, the District of Columbia, and the state of Washington have already shifted the burden of proving consent to the accused , hence my comment.

The burden should always be on the prosecution, you are spot on there. I can't imagine why we would even consider something otherwise.
 
SCitizen said:
Up to 2014, the prosecution in date rape cases has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. For the years 199? -- 2014 there has been an average of 35,000 sex crime convictions per year including about 10,000 date rape convictions per year. Even though many convictions were/are obtained on the accusers testimony alone, at least the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But things may change in the near future -- there is a growing movement to place the burden of proof on the accused.



So far they lost the election, but...



In 2014, only a few crazy men are concerned about the possible innocence of those convicted without corroboration. If these reforms take place, the number of date rape convictions will increase to at least a hundred thousand per year. Will most ordinary men realize that they are in danger?
Click to expand...


It should be innocent until proven guilty. If New Zealanders start requiring men to prove their innocence then they are going to open the door for people to have to prove their innocence when accused of other crimes.
 
tres borrachos said:
I saw this in the OP link:

U.S. military, the District of Columbia, and the state of Washington have already shifted the burden of proving consent to the accused
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer -- I do not know what the laws there say exactly.

But given current political climate it would not be surprising if the criminal law gets the same makeover as the college law.
 
SCitizen said:
Up to 2014, the prosecution in date rape cases has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. For the years 199? -- 2014 there has been an average of 35,000 sex crime convictions per year including about 10,000 date rape convictions per year. Even though many convictions were/are obtained on the accusers testimony alone, at least the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But things may change in the near future -- there is a growing movement to place the burden of proof on the accused.



So far they lost the election, but...



In 2014, only a few crazy men are concerned about the possible innocence of those convicted without corroboration. If these reforms take place, the number of date rape convictions will increase to at least a hundred thousand per year. Will most ordinary men realize that they are in danger?
Click to expand...

I don't accept your premise that convictions are obtained on the accusers testimony alone.

That would mean that the accusation was sufficient without any corroborating evidence at all. Do you know how asinine that contention is?
 
I'm no longer young so not that caught up in the "protocol" for young people "hooking up" but seems to me that in this day with the proliferation of communication technology and devices it would be pretty simple to take a little video of you and your soon to be sex partner with both of you clearly stating you are all for it. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Just like not leaving it up to your partner to be the one who takes care of birth control options, be a little pro-active and get the verbal contract recorded. Then, if your partner claims afterwards not to have consented, you can just say, "but officer, I have it right here on my phone - watch" - bingo, bango, bongo, thanks very much, you're on your way.
 
1750Texan said:
That would mean that the accusation was sufficient without any corroborating evidence at all. Do you know how asinine that contention is?
Click to expand...

If the accuser is found more credible by the jury then yes.
 
It really is a can of worms ( no pun intended ) in many cases to prove or disprove the issue of whether sex was consensual in most of these cases , for obvious reasons and it does seem to be very one-sided in the womans favour. But my belief is that if a woman has wrongly accused a man of rape IE consented to it ( even initiated it )and then claimed they hadn't after the event , and if this was proven beyond doubt , then they should face the same prison term the man would have received had he have actually raped her.
 
tres borrachos said:
I saw this in the OP link:

U.S. military, the District of Columbia, and the state of Washington have already shifted the burden of proving consent to the accused , hence my comment.

The burden should always be on the prosecution, you are spot on there. I can't imagine why we would even consider something otherwise.
Click to expand...

I somehow doubt that DC or Washington state have actually done that. The OP likely mischaracterizes the law. For example, consent is generally an affirmative defense in rape cases, which does have to be proven by the defendant, but the standard is only by preponderance of the evidence. That's only proof that it is more likely than not that the defendant reasonably believed the encounter to be consensual. That's a big difference from shifting the overall burden to the defendant. Nor is this anything new.

I don't know much about military law, though.
 
Paschendale said:
I somehow doubt that DC or Washington state have actually done that. The OP likely mischaracterizes the law.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the link I provided mischaracterises the law in 2014. But the movement for the change is there. The quotes provided in the link are exact.
 
SCitizen said:
Perhaps the link I provided mischaracterises the law in 2014. But the movement for the change is there. The quotes provided in the link are exact.
Click to expand...

See above comment about affirmative defenses. This is nothing new nor is it shifting the burden of proof. The defendant still must only meet preponderance of the evidence while the prosecution must meet beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the same for every affirmative defense, including self defense and the defense of others.
 
Paschendale said:
I somehow doubt that DC or Washington state have actually done that. The OP likely mischaracterizes the law. For example, consent is generally an affirmative defense in rape cases, which does have to be proven by the defendant, but the standard is only by preponderance of the evidence. That's only proof that it is more likely than not that the defendant reasonably believed the encounter to be consensual. That's a big difference from shifting the overall burden to the defendant. Nor is this anything new.

I don't know much about military law, though.
Click to expand...

I also don't know much about military law.
 
I wonder what the stats are for rape in new ZEaland? Something tells me lower.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm no longer young so not that caught up in the "protocol" for young people "hooking up" but seems to me that in this day with the proliferation of communication technology and devices it would be pretty simple to take a little video of you and your soon to be sex partner with both of you clearly stating you are all for it. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Just like not leaving it up to your partner to be the one who takes care of birth control options, be a little pro-active and get the verbal contract recorded. Then, if your partner claims afterwards not to have consented, you can just say, "but officer, I have it right here on my phone - watch" - bingo, bango, bongo, thanks very much, you're on your way.
Click to expand...

Re: recording. That's not very realistic. Two horny people (and probably under the influence) won't be thinking that clearly or even care. It's why I say it's best not to hook up with strangers!! People need to exercise more self control and respect for themselves.
 
SCitizen said:
Perhaps the link I provided mischaracterises the law in 2014. But the movement for the change is there. The quotes provided in the link are exact.
Click to expand...

The issue I have is that their supporting documentation goes to a broken link, and the article is 3 years old, and apparently nothing has been done, and the entire web site has an agenda.

Do you have a more current, and from an unbiased source that talks about this?
 
SCitizen said:
Up to 2014, the prosecution in date rape cases has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. For the years 199? -- 2014 there has been an average of 35,000 sex crime convictions per year including about 10,000 date rape convictions per year. Even though many convictions were/are obtained on the accusers testimony alone, at least the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But things may change in the near future -- there is a growing movement to place the burden of proof on the accused.



So far they lost the election, but...



In 2014, only a few crazy men are concerned about the possible innocence of those convicted without corroboration. If these reforms take place, the number of date rape convictions will increase to at least a hundred thousand per year. Will most ordinary men realize that they are in danger?
Click to expand...

This is possibly the worst idea I've ever heard of. Let's just reverse the fundamentals of our justice system to make innocent people automatically guilty with no evidence and no proof whatsoever, then throw them in prison for it. ****ing disgusting, fascistic and anti-liberty.

I mean wtf? Locking people in prison with no evidence against them? Jesus christ. "I claim you raped me, now prove you didn't or go to prison."

oneworld2 said:
It really is a can of worms ( no pun intended ) in many cases to prove or disprove the issue of whether sex was consensual in most of these cases , for obvious reasons and it does seem to be very one-sided in the womans favour. But my belief is that if a woman has wrongly accused a man of rape IE consented to it ( even initiated it )and then claimed they hadn't after the event , and if this was proven beyond doubt , then they should face the same prison term the man would have received had he have actually raped her.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. Women who falsely accuse men of rape should suffer at least the same prison sentence as the man she falsely accused would have.
 
herenow1 said:
Re: recording. That's not very realistic. Two horny people (and probably under the influence) won't be thinking that clearly or even care. It's why I say it's best not to hook up with strangers!! People need to exercise more self control and respect for themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but wouldn't more self control and respect for themselves be proven by simply, quickly documenting their agreement to have sex?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree with you, but wouldn't more self control and respect for themselves be proven by simply, quickly documenting their agreement to have sex?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it self control. I would call it being smart by protecting yourself against possible disease and pregnancy. I've never had a one night stand, and I never would, married or not. I would have to know more than a persons name to be that intimate with him. When you're in a stable and loving relationship, you don't have to worry about being falsely accused of rape.
 
herenow1 said:
I wouldn't call it self control. I would call it being smart by protecting yourself against possible disease and pregnancy. I've never had a one night stand, and I never would, married or not. I would have to know more than a persons name to be that intimate with him. When you're in a stable and loving relationship, you don't have to worry about being falsely accused of rape.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you except to note that even married men occasionally get falsely accused of rape, regardless of how loving and stable their relationship may be. In such cases, both sides rely on trust and are sometimes disappointed. But as you've said previously, sometimes hormones and/or alcohol take over and so protecting yourself in the manner I suggested wouldn't be unreasonable.
 
SCitizen said:
Up to 2014, the prosecution in date rape cases has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. For the years 199? -- 2014 there has been an average of 35,000 sex crime convictions per year including about 10,000 date rape convictions per year. Even though many convictions were/are obtained on the accusers testimony alone, at least the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But things may change in the near future -- there is a growing movement to place the burden of proof on the accused.



So far they lost the election, but...



In 2014, only a few crazy men are concerned about the possible innocence of those convicted without corroboration. If these reforms take place, the number of date rape convictions will increase to at least a hundred thousand per year. Will most ordinary men realize that they are in danger?
Click to expand...

Which shows why they never should have redefined rape in the first place.

For all the ignorant out there, the laws used to define rape as sexual penetration by force. Now most states define it as sexual activity without consent, which opens the door to shifting the burden of proof.

1750Texan said:
I don't accept your premise that convictions are obtained on the accusers testimony alone.

That would mean that the accusation was sufficient without any corroborating evidence at all. Do you know how asinine that contention is?
Click to expand...

(I don't know why this has to be explained)

Whether or not you accept reality does not affect its truth. The uncorroborated testimony of one witness is fully legally sufficient in our system for any crime other than perjury or treason.
 
herenow1 said:
It's why I say it's best not to hook up with strangers!! People need to exercise more self control and respect for themselves.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is a good idea.

In 2014, most men do not modify their behavior due to fear of false conviction. But if the law passes, that fear will be very strong. The positive aspect is that the law will greatly reduce premarital relationships.

In 2014, many of those who advocate for those who those falsely convicted are accused of victim blaming. Maybe if these laws are passed, most men and some women will appreciate the advocates for Presumption of Innocence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom