Surely the crime is fucking difficult to prove assuming people truly are considered innocent until proven guilty. Most rapists do not commit rape in front of an audience, hence no witnesses. And if they find his spunk in her pussy or whatever how the hell can the woman prove that she didn't have consensual sex with the man? Even if she's been beaten up, surely she has to prove that the man didn't beat her up after having consensual sex with her in which case the man has committed assault, not rape.

Does it all really come down to how convincing the woman is in court or am I missing something important here? Because if there really is no hard evidence in most cases then most rapists shouldn't be in prison. Even if they have committed the crime, nobody should be sentenced without actual hard evidence.

I'm genuinely confused.

am I missing something important here?

Yeah - you're assuming the court system of any western government follows its own laws regarding due process.

Were it not for that, there'd be fat chance in hell of a rape conviction - it may meet the preponderance criteria that jumping out of a van, grabbing someone, dragging them into the van screaming, and leaving their body knocked out and unconscious under a bridge is rape, but even with a thousand reliable witnesses, it is not actually beyond a reasonable doubt that it was just some kinky roleplay.

Rape should be a civil, rather than a criminal matter - not because of the severity of the crime (which while I don't hold the semipsychotic worship of rape that some do, I still hold to be pretty fucking severe)... but because due process in criminal matters can never be met, in any case.

At least... I haven't been able to think of any set of evidence which couldn't be written off as "kinky sceneplay." 'n that, no matter how fucking implausible it might be, is the exact difference between civil preponderance and the reasonable doubt of the criminal system.

Surely the crime is fucking difficult to prove assuming people truly are considered innocent until proven guilty. Most rapists do not commit rape in front of an audience, hence no witnesses. And if they find his spunk in her pussy or whatever how the hell can the woman prove that she didn't have consensual sex with the man? Even if she's been beaten up, surely she has to prove that the man didn't beat her up after having consensual sex with her in which case the man has committed assault, not rape.

Does it all really come down to how convincing the woman is in court or am I missing something important here? Because if there really is no hard evidence in most cases then most rapists shouldn't be in prison. Even if they have committed the crime, nobody should be sentenced without actual hard evidence.

I'm genuinely confused.

Probably comes into play when the guy actually has to testify in his own defense. Keep in mind that not everyone is smart enough to stick to the old totse "Deny everything" rule.

This lightens the woman's load when it comes to burden of proof. She doesn't have to prove every conceivable scenario didn't happen, she has to prove him a liar.

So you get some dumbass on the stand claiming he never had sex with that woman, then they pull DNA evidence, proving him a liar. His credibility is shot, and at this point, his lawyer is fucked because he was stupid enough to lie to his own lawyer, and he's fucked if the lawyer has the basic talent to take a damned easy opportunity to pick him off in front of the jury, 'cuz he's probably not smart enough to defend himself alone.

At this point, he's forced to rehash his story and can use something as feeble as claiming she consented which turns it from being the word of one person against another into one person against a proven liar. In that situation, he has to provide details... and well... good luck.

Or he could claim he didn't remember, that he was drunk or something, which only gets him a lesser charge.

It's not as easy as it sounds to get away with something when they've got evidence on you. I imagine it's also not easy to be upfront with your lawyer about exactly what it was you did. After all, even WITH confidentiality and a willing lawyer, I'm sure most rapists know full well that the guy (or worse, gal) is looking on them with disgust should they 'fess up.

Deniability only gets you so far.

Yeah - you're assuming the court system of any western government follows its own laws regarding due process.

Were it not for that, there'd be fat chance in hell of a rape conviction - it may meet the preponderance criteria that jumping out of a van, grabbing someone, dragging them into the van screaming, and leaving their body knocked out and unconscious under a bridge is rape, but even with a thousand reliable witnesses, it is not actually beyond a reasonable doubt that it was just some kinky roleplay.

Rape should be a civil, rather than a criminal matter - not because of the severity of the crime (which while I don't hold the semipsychotic worship of rape that some do, I still hold to be pretty fucking severe)... but because due process in criminal matters can never be met, in any case.

At least... I haven't been able to think of any set of evidence which couldn't be written off as "kinky sceneplay." 'n that, no matter how fucking implausible it might be, is the exact difference between civil preponderance and the reasonable doubt of the criminal system.

You could say the exact same for many other criminal offences. Oh, I didn't mug him, we were just acting it out.

I don't see how on earth you could suggest a doubt of roleplay is "reasonable" when you've got a battered woman screaming rape who has never had any prior contact with her attacker.

Saying that, currently rape law is flawed to some degree. The laws regarding rape were created when we still lived in a strictly monogamous society, heavily based on religious views against sex before marriage. They fail to take into account the pressures and realities of a promiscuous society.

Think about it....

A man is accused of rape. All the women in the courtroom are clamping their knees together, and all the men are thinking of their daughters. The guy's fucked before the trial starts.

Think about it....

A man is accused of rape. All the women in the courtroom are clamping their knees together, and all the men are thinking of their daughters. The guy's fucked before the trial starts.

That's the downside to trial by jury, ordinary people are tainted by their feelings to easily.

Rape is actually quite easy to prove. Biologically, during arousal a womans vagina will moisten and enlarge itself slightly in preparation for penetration. In rape, there is obviously no arousal, thus no enlargement. The penetration causes tears and cuts ranging from minute to obvious which WILL be discovered during the rape kit. If the mans sperm is found on or in the victim, coupled with evidence of forced entry, the only thing saving his ass would be if the woman just told people it was a "spur of the moment" kind of thing. "Raw sex" is what its called I believe.

See? Rape convictions are EASY to obtain. Doctor testifies penetration looked forced (shows pics of injuries), woman testifies she was raped, crime lab staff testify DNA is match..... thats it, the man is finished, better try and cop a deal NOW because if you want till a Guilty verdict comes down its too late. The defense is now by law no longer allowed to introduce the womans prior sexual past, so even if the girl was a $1 hooker before, none of that can ever be said in court. HOWEVER.....I believe any prior sex relationship between victim and defendent can be introduced.

ETA: The guy is DOUBLE fucked if the girl is under 18, as it usually constitutes "Rape of a minor", which carries larger penalties.

This reply is specifically for JoePedo, since if I'm reading his answers right, no rape scenario can ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Lisa Jones is a 23 year old bank teller. Every day she leaves for work at 8 am, she arrives home at 6 pm, monday thru friday. On weekends, she either visits her parents in a nearby town or goes to the gym to work out, or jogs with her dog, or she may spend time painting of browsing the Internet.

One day after work Lisa is on her way home. She arrives a little after 6pm as always, goes inside, makes herself a salad. At 8pm, as shes watching TV, the phone rings. Its her next door neighbor whos calling to request to borrow a household item (sugar, coffee, whatever). During this time, a man has broken a locked window and entered. Hearing the glass, Lisa goes to investigate, telling the neighbor she thought she just heard glass broke. When she encounters the attacker, Lisa screams and drops the phone (which her neighbor did not hang up). Lisa is slapped and punched, held down, and raped. When the man is finished, he runs out the front door and escapes.

At the hospital, a physical exam and rape kit is taken and fresh semen recovered. It matches Larry Bruce, a man out on parole for carjacking and sex assault.

Fast forward to trial.

As the Prosecution (hey I AM going to LS to be just that) closes, he points out the evidence in the case:

Photographs of the injuries to Lisas face from the slaps/punches
Photographs of the bruises to her arms and legs where she was held down
Photographs of vaginal injuries, including injuries to the labia minora and majora caused by forced penetration
The testimony of the victim testifying the sex was not consental and against her will
The DNA analysis results, which match Larry Bruces perfectly
The neighbor who testified she heard Lisas screams as she tried fighting her attacker off.
Photographs of the way of entry the attacker used to get in
The defendents prior history of sex assault

If this was my case and I was prosecuting, I'd need nothing further. I have established opportunity (broken window, entry into home, victim alone), I have established motive (prior conviction, but the motive was rape or burglary even if he had NO priors), and I have established sexual contact occurred. Moreover, thanks to the neighbor, the victim, and the testimony from the doctor who performed the rape kit, I have established the sex was non-consental.

I see absolutely no room for doubt here, and there is no way anyone can read this scenario and find "reasonable doubt". But just in case:

1] The victim and her attacker were old lovers, thus she claimed rape as a way of revenge

An investigation would surely uncover such an event, and both parties (victim and offender) claim to have never met each other)

2] The victim and attacker are CURRENT lovers and she simply obtained the injuries during a sexual trist

Again, read answer to #1

3] The woman is known to be "easy", and willing to bed anybody. The odds are good the sex was consental.

This defense would not be allowed under Rape Shield Laws, which prohibit questions with divulge the victims sexual past.

It is extremely simple: If the offender cannot prove he and the victim previously knew each other, he has no grounds to argue former sexual history.

If he cannot establish this, he has no ground to stand on for the "Sex was consental it was just rough" defense, especially with the testimonies of two people to the contrary.

Even if they WERE former lovers and the telephoning neighbor never existed, the forced entry is enough to shoot down the defense's claim that they reunited for rough sex, because if shes willing to have sex with him, shes certainly willing to let him in without making him break a window.

Note: I found out the Rape Sheild Laws prohibit questions about the womens sexual past, even if her current rapist was known to be a former lover.

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

So Joe, I'm curious. You take your time and tell me where the "reasonable doubt" in this case is.

And I partially agree rape should be a civil matter. As in, "Does the victim or her representative want to kill the rapist once hes found guilty, or do you want him to go to prison?".

Yes, I believe rape should be punishable by DEATH. Every rape, every time. (Not counting statutory rape).

You could say the exact same for many other criminal offences. Oh, I didn't mug him, we were just acting it out.

...and this could, in fact, be reasonable. People do make home movies all the time - especially now that every cell phone is a video camera. If you don't believe me, check youtube - you'll find lots of examples.

What may be evidenceable is...

- whether the money originally belonged to the alleged "victim," and..

- whether the money was returned to the alleged "victim."

Also, outside of but related to mugging is the question of the possibility of injuries inflicted which go beyond the right allowed in oral contract regarding home fictional motion picture production.

I don't see how on earth you could suggest a doubt of roleplay is "reasonable"

Because of your phrasing error, neither could I. ;) However, the standard of due process is not "did not choose to reasonably doubt," but rather, "beyond any reasonable doubt of any person."

It is a much higher standard. As to "how," I can show you.

when you've got a battered woman

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BDSM

screaming rape

The very premise of the legal system is that an accusation itself is not proof of guilt... so, scratch that one.

who has never had any prior contact with her attacker.

http://www.onenightstanddate.com/

...that scratches... all your objections. Your argument, from the hypothetical evidence you noted, failed to even meet the preponderance standard when contrasted against practices common in our society.

'n the standard is not "preponderance," it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which is a much, much, much higher burden than I suspect you think it is.

This reply is specifically for JoePedo, since if I'm reading his answers right, no rape scenario can ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Pretty close... I was actually going with "virtually no..." rather than "...no...," but it's close enough for similar discussion.

So Joe, I'm curious. You take your time and tell me where the "reasonable doubt" in this case is.

I would argue that the example you used is flawed, as "breaking and entering" is something which I would believe would tend to be evidencible, and thus could be used as concrete evidence in crimes facilitated thereby, changing the evidenciary profile and possibilities.

Shall we pretend that one's not on the list for this exchange, then?

Lisa goes to investigate, telling the neighbor she thought she just heard {something not involved in B&E}. When she encounters the attacker, Lisa screams and drops the phone...

Since hearsay is not evidence, the motion to suppress would likely render this nonevidentiary.

As the Prosecution (hey I AM going to LS to be just that) closes, he points out the evidence in the case:

YAY!

Photographs of the injuries to Lisas face from the slaps/punches

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BDSM

Photographs of the bruises to her arms and legs where she was held down

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BDSM


Photographs of vaginal injuries, including injuries to the labia minora and majora...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BDSM

caused by forced penetration

Grounds for a mistrial, prosecution cannot testify to the opinions of both victim and defendant at the time of the incident. ;)

The testimony of the victim testifying the sex was not consental and against her will

An allegation is not proof of guilt - I hope you know that much about law. ;)

The DNA analysis results, which match Larry Bruces perfectly

Not all sex is rape, and whether they had sex says nothing about the nature and character thereof.

As long as Mr. Bruce doesn't try to deny sexual activity, that evidence means nothing.

The neighbor who testified she heard Lisas screams as she tried fighting her attacker off.

Grounds for a mistrial - the neighbor is not qualified to know that Mr. Bruce qualifies as an "attacker," nor with any certainty that she was fighting at the time, nor that the screams were at that time, nor - if she was fighting - that she was trying to fight her partner off instead of fighting.

Not to mention that screams, being a communicative method, sound like hearsay. ;)

Photographs of the way of entry the attacker used to get in

I already noted above that B&E is different to my observation, ergo we can scratch that one - if you wish to discuss that which I intend to assert, anyways.

So, no such photographs, 'cause that's a different scenario.

The defendents prior history of sex assault

While this would work very well in a "preponderance" case, it says nothing to reasonable doubt - it is a verifiable fact that not all sexual encounters of someone who has committed sexual assault are themselves sexual assault, merely the ones that were, so it says nothing to the nature of this encounter, is prejudicial and irrelevant to a criminal proceeding, and should be excluded.

(and would be, no matter how hard I had to fight for it, whether at initial trial, appeal, or retrial, were I the defense attorney... on exactly those grounds)

If the offender cannot prove he and the victim previously knew each other, he has no grounds to argue former sexual history.

I would neither need nore use it. Former (or even current) sexual history does not argue against sexual assault, and concurrently, not all "one-night stands" are rape. This is irrelevant.

If he cannot establish this, he has no ground to stand on for the "Sex was consental it was just rough" defense

Anonymous sex and/or one-night stands do not preclude BDSM or any other sexual practice - in fact, the contrary could be argued, with ample anecdote.

No problem.

In rape, there is obviously no arousal

This myth is actually debunked by most sexual assault awareness advocacy groups and sites - both because it is false, and because the propogation of this myth has caused undue psychological torment to several victims of sexual assault.

Of course, the high rate of a false negative in a fundamentally flawed "test" does nothing to adress the positive result. Allow me to rectify...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prostitute+detergent+dry+vagina

We notice that prevention of lubrication is a common sexual practice, and proves nothing.

Of course, this is not the only way that a reduction in lubrication can occur. Temporary fluctuations in estrogen levels can prevent or reduce lubrication at full arousal, lesser levels of foreplay can reduce initial lubrication in consensual sex, etc, etc, etc...

So, you see, the "test" is intrinsically flawed - a negative result does not mean an absence of rape, nor does a positive result indicate the presence of rape. As it is proveably useless, it is excluded.

If this was my case and I was prosecuting, I'd need nothing further.

Well, now you know - never assume the defense attorney will be complicit with the prosecution. ;)

- any prior criminal history is proveably irrelevant to the standard of reasonable doubt, and must be excluded.

- any third-party relay of any communication by any mechanism is hearsay, and must be excluded.

- evidence of lubrication is proveably irrelevant, producing both an exorbitant array of false negatives as well as a strong possibility of frequent false positives, and must be excluded.

- absense of prior relations is irrelevant to consensuality by referencable common sexual practices in the society, and must be excluded.

- injuries are irrelevant to consensuality by common sexual practices (and indeed, enormous communities thereof, not that every practicioner is a member of a community)... and therefore, must be excluded.

- screaming and fighting are irrelevant to consensuality by said selfsame consensual common sexual practices, and thus - even if they could be established without hearsay (which they can't in your scenario, but might in another scenario) are irrelevant to consensuality, and must be excluded.

- evidence of sexual activity between two persons is irrelevant to consensuality if neither party denies sexual activity, and must be excluded.

- words such as "no" or "stop" are irrelevant to consensuality - google "safeword" sometime - and therefore, while not in the scenario you gave, have no bearing on such a case, and must be excluded.

...you got nothin', hombre. ;) 'n now you see the very, very, very powerful burden that is "reasonable doubt." It was designed to prevent the state from convicting people. It does a damn good job of it - if due process is present.

You... ain't got shit. ;)

'n just as a side note... if you do succeed to become a prosecutor, pay attention to that "false negative" bit. It's actually pretty common, and as unwinnable as any such case is*, I'd hate to see you exclude a victim from prosecution because an astoundingly frequent biological response misled you to think she wasn't raped, when she was.


--
* idiocy of the defendant, such as confessions or denying sexual activity, is otoh a different story, which I do not intend to cover.

Ah this my friend is where you are wrong. BDSM is all good and well, however you forget two VERY important legal matters:

The neighbor could NOT testify whether or not the fighting sounds sounded "genuine" because she was not there. She COULD, however, testify that her friend was screaming at someone to get off her and get out of her house. This does NOT fall under the hearsy rules because the caller had direct, personal knowledge that the victim was screaming at someone to get off her and get out.

You may as well leave every bit of the BDSM parts out. Rape Shield Laws to the rescue.

To get the defendent acquitted, you'd have to prove the sex was consental and that the injuries resulting from the rape were caused only by the act of consented, rough sex. You CANNOT prove it.

So YOU my friend, have nothing. Even if all I had was the woman and her injuries/semen inside her, I've still got a conviction on three very simple grounds:

1] Most ALL of society hates rapists with a passion. The jury will be in my hands before trial ever commences. They see the guy in the chair accused of rape, see the pictures, and hes guilty before trials over

2] I can have the doctor slam the door on your defense in just one question:

"Dr. Elliot, in your expert opinion, do these look like the types of injuries one would normally receive as a result of rape?"

3] Add the sperm inside and the victim testifying he raped her....case fucking closed.

If you think you have a reasonable defense then lets hear it. I'm amused by this.

The neighbor could NOT testify whether or not the fighting sounds sounded "genuine" because she was not there. She COULD, however, testify that her friend was screaming at someone to get off her and get out of her house. This does NOT fall under the hearsy rules because the caller had direct, personal knowledge that the victim was screaming at someone to get off her and get out.

And I have direct, personal knowledge that Bob did, in fact, say that Suzy said that Emma said that...

Hearsay.

You may as well leave every bit of the BDSM parts out. Rape Shield Laws to the rescue.

False. In this case, the 'rape shield' protects the defendant.

Can't ask her about her prior sexual history - including whether she had prior been prone to BDSM. All that can be done is to show that the evidence could have come from rough BDSM sceneplay.

:D

1) Most ALL of society hates rapists with a passion. The jury will be in my hands before trial ever commences.

"What jury?"

's not the prosecution that makes that choice.

2) I can have the doctor slam the door on your defense in just one question:

"Dr. Elliot, in your expert opinion, do these look like the types of injuries one would normally receive as a result of rape?"

...and I can lay waste to that with any question which begins with the words "On what grounds do you believe..."

...at which point the utter invalidity of both lubrication (as prior demonstrated) and other injury (fairly common with rough rape roleplay) is presented, and both your witness and your case are shredded.

I think your ruthless optomism, however, comes from a specific, remarkably fundamental absence of knowledge of the foundation of law... namely...

To get the defendent acquitted, you'd have to prove

No.

I don't.

Burden is on the prosecution, and not the defense... and you've got nothing.

And I have direct, personal knowledge that Bob did, in fact, say that Suzy said that Emma said that...

Hearsay.

I believe you're mistaken, mainly due to the fact that you seem to think there are no exceptions to the hearsay rule of law. There are indeed exceptions, at least in US law for it, the relevant exception being something referred to as "excited utterance". It's important to remember that the notion that hearsay may not be allowed under any circumstances in court... is a myth.

"What jury?

's not the prosecution that makes that choice.

Actually, it is. However, the judge and the defense are also involved in the process. The judge usually making the final decision, but the defense and the prosecution being allowed to making peremptory challenges that discard jurors without interference.

Supposedly the process is somehow balanced because of that, but it's clear that the better lawyer is more likely to have the jury they want. And that's not necessarily the prosecution.

There are indeed exceptions, at least in US law for it, the relevant exception being something referred to as "excited utterance".

Well, that's a funny thing. Y'see, a scream from a proven rape would be quite excited - namely, fear - but the scream in the course of roleplay would be a rather... mundane... utterance.

With enough money, the more to quibble about, the more the defense wins. ;)

the defense and the prosecution being allowed to making peremptory challenges that discard jurors without interference.

True, but in most jurisdictions, the decision whether to try by jury or judge is the defendant's sole priviledge (in criminal trial, and in lawsuits whose value is above twenty dollars, at least).

...more luckily still, being forced into a jury trial at all against the defendant's wishes is at least pretty strong circumstantial evidence of deliberate due process violation and prior conspiracy therunto, as the only reason to force a jury trial on an unwilling defendant is to subvert the process of law (just as the defandant's right of jury trial exists to subvert state corruption).

Well, that's a funny thing. Y'see, a scream from a proven rape would be quite excited - namely, fear - but the scream in the course of roleplay would be a rather... mundane... utterance.

"Excited" wasn't my choice of adjective. Apparently, "excited utterance" is a legal expression, and refers to utterances made under the duress of a given event. Quibbling over that in court won't get you anywhere, unless you're deliberately trying to confuse the jury. I expect that can get you in some serious hot water with the judge.

True, but in most jurisdictions, the decision whether to try by jury or judge is the defendant's sole priviledge (in criminal trial, and in lawsuits whose value is above twenty dollars, at least).

Really? I was under the impression that criminal trials MUST be by jury, regardless of what the defendent wants, through Section 2 of the 6th Amendment

And I have direct, personal knowledge that Bob did, in fact, say that Suzy said that Emma said that...

Hearsay.



False. In this case, the 'rape shield' protects the defendant.

Can't ask her about her prior sexual history - including whether she had prior been prone to BDSM. All that can be done is to show that the evidence could have come from rough BDSM sceneplay.

:D



"What jury?"

's not the prosecution that makes that choice.



...and I can lay waste to that with any question which begins with the words "On what grounds do you believe..."

...at which point the utter invalidity of both lubrication (as prior demonstrated) and other injury (fairly common with rough rape roleplay) is presented, and both your witness and your case are shredded.

I think your ruthless optomism, however, comes from a specific, remarkably fundamental absence of knowledge of the foundation of law... namely...



No.

I don't.

Burden is on the prosecution, and not the defense... and you've got nothing.

Are you fucking kidding me?? Do you HONESTLY thnk you'd get that shitbag off with some schiester namby-pamby defense about her liking ROUGH SEX?

As for this:

...and I can lay waste to that with any question which begins with the words "On what grounds do you believe..."


Is where I destroy your defense with the doctor answering: "On the grounds that I have worked at Totse Medical Center for that past 12 years, and have been the primary caregiver in over 150 forcible rapes, all with injuries and markings identicle to the current victim".

V.A.: "Let the record show Dr. Wanksalot has, in her expert capacity, identified the marks as having come from forcible rape, backed up by over 12 years of expert experience.

OVER. I could probably stop there, the jury hears that and your ass is FRIED.

Are you fucking kidding me?? Do you HONESTLY thnk you'd get that shitbag off with some schiester namby-pamby defense about her liking ROUGH SEX?

Easily.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt." It's that part of due process that you keep overlooking. Easy win.

Is where I destroy your defense

ORLY?

On the grounds that I have worked at Totse Medical Center for that past 12 years

Move to strike, irrelevant.

and have been the primary caregiver in over 150 forcible rapes

Move to strike, irrelevant.

all with injuries and markings identicle to the current victim".

Get doctor to elaborate, win.

It's that simple.

OVER. I could probably stop there, the jury hears that and your ass is FRIED.

Like I said - what jury?

You, the prosecutor, do not get to chose the outcome of my client's rights of selection between a jury and judge, and I would naturally choose the party which has the better understanding of wtf "reasonable doubt" actually means as a burden.

There is no jury, the posturing of your "expert" is irrelevant, and the doctor in question will actually have to detail the injuries - which is where your case goes to shit.

Oh, yeah, 'n just because precision and technicality is so important...

Do you HONESTLY thnk you'd get that shitbag off with some schiester namby-pamby defense about her liking ROUGH SEX?

No. ;)

I don't have to prove what she does or doesn't like. I don't even have to assert or suggest what she does or doesn't like.

All I have to do is show that any physical evidence can be explained by common practices. 'n I don't have to do a damned thing more to allow for reasonable doubt.

Luckily, evidence is on my side.

Easily.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt." It's that part of due process that you keep overlooking. Easy win.



ORLY?



Move to strike, irrelevant.



Move to strike, irrelevant.



Get doctor to elaborate, win.

It's that simple.



Like I said - what jury?

You, the prosecutor, do not get to chose the outcome of my client's rights of selection between a jury and judge, and I would naturally choose the party which has the better understanding of wtf "reasonable doubt" actually means as a burden.

There is no jury, the posturing of your "expert" is irrelevant, and the doctor in question will actually have to detail the injuries - which is where your case goes to shit.

I think not. Once the doctor details the victim has abrasion and trauma-induced vaginal injuries....and my victims testimony comes into play, your defense is PWNED. What jury trial? I think you forget a defendant has to ASK for a bench trial in order to get one, and fewer than 10% actually do. If I felt for even a second the judge won't rule my way, I'll motion for Change of Venue. If I could pull it on any witness of yours at all, I'll file for Hostile Witness and have him/her barred from the courtroom. You can make all the arguments you want about "rough sex" or the "nature of the injuries", but at the end of court I have only to prove 2 things:

1] Sex acts occurred
2] They occurred against my victims will

Both of which are laughably easy to prove. If I were you're client, I'd start plea bargaining requests right now. 8 years, plus a hefty fine, payment of all the victims therapy bills, a 1,000 ft restraining order, and registering as a sex offender for life would be suitable to me in this case.....provided you dropped this charade and pled your client guilty NOW to avoid future embarrassments.

Oh, yeah, 'n just because precision and technicality is so important...



No. ;)

I don't have to prove what she does or doesn't like. I don't even have to assert or suggest what she does or doesn't like.

All I have to do is show that any physical evidence can be explained by common practices. 'n I don't have to do a damned thing more to allow for reasonable doubt.

Luckily, evidence is on my side.

You also have to have a client who isn't an idiot and is intelligent enough to cooperate without accidentally sabotaging the cause.

Therein lies the challenge.

You also have to have a client who isn't an idiot and is intelligent enough to cooperate without accidentally sabotaging the cause.

Therein lies the challenge.

95% of the time, defense attorneys try not to put their clients on the stand. As a Prosecutor, I'd LOVEEEEEE the client to take the stand, because theres a 95% chance hes going to fuck up and give me something to hang him with.

Its obvious under this scenario, me and Joe are going to be arguing until Totse closes down. So I propose an idea:

Joe believes there is ALWAYS reasonable doubt (at least concerning sex assault cases), I say some cases are simply airtight with no escape for the defendent.

Whether Joe is another Criminal Justice college student or what, I'm not sure. I do acknowledge him as a very worthy legal opponent. Therefore I propose a challenge, with Totse as the jury. Someone who has at least a half a brain on legal matters propose a sex-offender based scenario. You must include the victim(s) and any/all circumstances surrounding him/her. You must also include all evidence (circumstancial included), you must also include any witnesses (if any) and their statements. If the offense is rape, we'll conclude a rape kit was performed, so the evidence must be included for that also (if I've lost you, just read through this thread and pick up on the evidence we listed).

I want someone BESIDES one of the two of us to do it so theres no whining the evidence is "rigged". In this scenario, Joe is obviously playing Defense, I'm obviously playing Prosecution. Think of it like.....Totse Court.

Oh I forgot to mention. When this is done, you might want to make a new thread actually called "Totse Court: JoePedo Vs. Vamp Archimiel" so we'll know where to find the damn thing.

Its obvious under this scenario, me and Joe are going to be arguing until Totse closes down. So I propose an idea:

Joe believes there is ALWAYS reasonable doubt (at least concerning sex assault cases), I say some cases are simply airtight with no escape for the defendent.

Whether Joe is another Criminal Justice college student or what, I'm not sure. I do acknowledge him as a very worthy legal opponent. Therefore I propose a challenge, with Totse as the jury. Someone who has at least a half a brain on legal matters propose a sex-offender based scenario. You must include the victim(s) and any/all circumstances surrounding him/her. You must also include all evidence (circumstancial included), you must also include any witnesses (if any) and their statements. If the offense is rape, we'll conclude a rape kit was performed, so the evidence must be included for that also (if I've lost you, just read through this thread and pick up on the evidence we listed).

I want someone BESIDES one of the two of us to do it so theres no whining the evidence is "rigged". In this scenario, Joe is obviously playing Defense, I'm obviously playing Prosecution. Think of it like.....Totse Court.

Oh I forgot to mention. When this is done, you might want to make a new thread actually called "Totse Court: JoePedo Vs. Vamp Archimiel" so we'll know where to find the damn thing.

Well admittedly I don't know much which is why I made this thread but a rape kit doesn't prove shit. I could have fucked someone just before they got raped and they hate me so much they're willing to let the actual rapist go free. OR I fucked her just after she got raped but hates me so much she'll let the actual rapist go free to convict me. Either way, it isn't proof just circumstantial evidence.

Either way, the woman doesn't have to prove in court that she isn't a big enough whore to do such things and yet I'm expected to prepare a defense that rules out those possibilities.