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

MaggieD said:

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.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, some prosecutors would not like it to be known that they made a mistake.

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.

SCitizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Paleocon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

SCitizen said:

In most date rape cases there is evidence of intercourse, but not evidence of force or lack of consent.

Click to expand...

Link?

MaggieD said:

How many men/women get convicted of date rape? If all the evidence available is she said/he said, the guy isn't going to be convicted. It's the totality of the circumstances. Did she report it to the police immediately? Was she drugged? Was she drunk? Did anyone see her same? Were they on a first date? Did she spurn him? Without some back-up evidence or testimony or circumstances, no one's even going to be charged.

Click to expand...

Did you read or see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? I know of a couple of cases where men have complained that 2 or 3 woman got together, tied them up and perpetrated them. So far, none have made it to court, though.

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not true. Many, many times a person offered a plea deal with probation will go to trial to clear their name and get convicted. Juries are crazy. And Juries LOVE to convict.

d0gbreath said:

I had a lawyer once that referred to the two people situation as a "liar's war".

Click to expand...

There is a lie in every trial.

Paleocon said:

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.

Click to expand...

You think a rapist engages witnesses? Really? You think that?

Maenad said:

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?

Click to expand...

It is possible for someone to catch the person.

If there is not proof, then the person should not be punished. Not all criminals will get caught.

Maenad said:

You think a rapist engages witnesses? Really? You think that?

Click to expand...

What?

Paleocon said:

It is possible for someone to catch the person.

If there is not proof, then the person should not be punished. Not all criminals will get caught.

Click to expand...

So, sex offenses should only be prosecuted on the off chance that the perp will be 'caught in the act.' Not going to happen. The act is planned in such a way as to have no witnesses. To require a witness would be a serious miscarriage of justice for the victim.

Paleocon said:

What?

Click to expand...

I think my question was clear. Do you really think a rapist is going to go out and get witnesses? LOL.

Paleocon said:

It is possible for someone to catch the person.

If there is not proof, then the person should not be punished. Not all criminals will get caught.

Click to expand...

And how many times has that happened? Most children are molested while in the care of a trusted adult, friend, or family member, and they are generally alone. Having a witness does not constitute proof anyway because witnesses can lie.

Maenad said:

So, sex offenses should only be prosecuted on the off chance that the perp will be 'caught in the act.' Not going to happen. The act is planned in such a way as to have no witnesses. To require a witness would be a serious miscarriage of justice for the victim.

Click to expand...

Convicting a person in the absence of multiple witnesses (or other proof ) is an injustice to the accused. It is better that a guilty man go free then that an innocent man be punished.

Maenad said:

I think my question was clear. Do you really think a rapist is going to go out and get witnesses? LOL.

Click to expand...

No I didn't say that.

Maenad said:

And how many times has that happened? Most children are molested while in the care of a trusted adult, friend, or family member, and they are generally alone. Having a witness does not constitute proof anyway because witnesses can lie.

Click to expand...

Having multiple witnesses (the victim can count as a witness) proves the matter to a reasonable certainty, in the absence of witness bias.

Paleocon said:

Convicting a person in the absence of multiple witnesses (or other proof ) is an injustice to the accused. It is better that a guilty man go free then that an innocent man be punished.



No I didn't say that.



Having multiple witnesses (the victim can count as a witness) proves the matter to a reasonable certainty, in the absence of witness bias.

Click to expand...

So if you were going to rape someone, you would do it in front of multiple witnesses? Groovy.

Maenad said:

So if you were going to rape someone, you would do it in front of multiple witnesses? Groovy.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? If I were going to rape someone, I would change my mind.

Paleocon said:

What are you talking about? If I were going to rape someone, I would change my mind.

Click to expand...

But you seem to think it is quite reasonable that every rape would have a witness if it were, in fact, a rape. Really?

Maenad said:

But you seem to think it is quite reasonable that every rape would have a witness if it were, in fact, a rape. Really?

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said that it's unjust to convict people based on a mere accusation.

Do you believe that people should be convicted of rape based only on the testimony of the victim?

Maenad said:

You think a rapist engages witnesses? Really? You think that?

Click to expand...

In Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, UK(?) and France, if the only evidence is the accusers words, then they convict him of a much lesser offense. If the accused has prior offenses, or if there are witnesses saying that the accused has behaved violently at other times, then he would be found guilty as charged.

Maenad said:

You think a rapist engages witnesses? Really? You think that?

Click to expand...

In most cases there are witnesses that he behaved violently at other times.

SCitizen said:

In my opinion, some prosecutors would not like it to be known that they made a mistake.

Click to expand...

It is safe to say that there have been several prosecutors who knowingly allowed innocent people to die or spend their life in prison so the DA won't risk losing the next election. They should be charged with murder when there is good evidence that they withheld evidence or otherwise knowingly allowed an innocent person to be wrongly convicted.

Paleocon said:

That's not what I said. I said that it's unjust to convict people based on a mere accusation.

Do you believe that people should be convicted of rape based only on the testimony of the victim?

Click to expand...

Please list who has been convicted on 'a mere accusation.' Having worked with many victims, I know of no instance where there was a 'witness' to the event as rapists don't rape in front of other people. However, the victims have been questioned, and requestioned by, not only authorities, but also people who are experts at the manifestations of that type of trauma. Some were incested and impregnated by their fathers and the children were DNA tested and shown to be their father's children. You may think incest is quite OK without a witness, but in the states where I have lived and work it is illegal and if the woman is a minor, then that is statutory rape even if the victim is willing, which they are not. Deal with it. And keep it in your pants if you don't want to go to jail for rape.

SCitizen said:

In Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, UK(?) and France, if the only evidence is the accusers words, then they convict him of a much lesser offense. If the accused has prior offenses, or if there are witnesses saying that the accused has behaved violently at other times, then he would be found guilty as charged.

Click to expand...

Prior offenses are generally not admissible in US courts.

SCitizen said:

In most cases there are witnesses that he behaved violently at other times.

Click to expand...

And those people are VERY reluctant and often refuse to come forward. Most will not because they will be put on trial too.