To be fair, I wouldn't know; I'm not a rapist. I always think of rapists as unattractive people who need to use devious means to have sex. Why would you steal something that you can get for free?
Hmm, well, I'm not really too sure about the research, but I saw one study saying that rapists were mainly a small, high-functioning sociopathic subset of the population who could blend in socially, and another that rapists tended to already be successful
with women. It makes sense to me that if someone isn't successful romantically in the first place that they'd have no easier time approaching someone to rape them. On the other hand, someone who already has a lot of sex may feel entitled, for example. Just because one can get sex does not mean that it's a given. Probably entitlement is not enough of a motivation for rape if someone is not a sociopath, though.
snow5379 wrote:Should ALL criminal accusations go to court? I'm thinking yes? Why don't they?
What makes you think overloading courts is a good idea? The justice system is lengthy and expensive enough as is. I don't want cases brought to court just to get thrown right out of it. That is a massive waste of time and taxpayers' money.
I have to disagree with "overloading courts" being a concern in and of itself. I wouldn't phrase it that way. I know you didn't really mean that, of course. Theoretically, all
actual crimes should be tried in court, and that would mean a lot more trials than there are in general. However, overloading the courts with cases that would not go anywhere is certainly not a good idea.
Zamfir wrote:Do Americans take ghb themselves? Here it's something people cook up at home for partying. If it's in your blood, it would be hardly evidence that someone gave it to you.
Whether or not she took it of her own volition, she would not have been competent to consent.
I don't know that much about GHB, but is it very evident if someone is out of it if they are on GHB? Probably a layperson could not for the most part identify it as the effects of GHB, so they would probably assume it is alcohol. That complicates things somewhat.
Also, she could have taken the GHB after she had sex, could have inflicted the injuries on herself, etc. That's a huge reason why rape cases suck. It can be hard to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt, because the source of the evidence is not always clear.
As for mere belief, it's hard to say what the probability of someone lying in a rape case is (maybe it could be better known with a detailed look). The FBI statistic is that ~24% of rape claims are false, but this is a very imperfect statistic. Baseline, most people probably would not lie about something like that, though. The particulars can mitigate this fact, but not entirely. (How much? I won't think about it now.)
snow5379 wrote:So let me get this straight: if you have trust in the police, who refused her a trial, you're a rape apologist? With what we know the police wouldn't give her a trial so something must be seriously wrong with her claims. Look her grab for money (which reports say she was after since day 1) is just distasteful and it really does look like the whole thing is going nowhere fast. Anyway you could try to slam him for bringing her home drunk: that would be more fruitful than arguing over evidence that may or may not exist and none of us have seen.
Also it's not the first time the victim has pulled this and has tried similar stunts in the past. She's also has a law degree. Various sources are also saying at the time of the incident she underwent an examination showing no foreign DNA on her and repeatedly texted Ebanks. You give a date rape victim your phone number right?
snow5379 wrote:You give a date rape victim your phone number right?
Yes of course you do. The plan is to convince her and everyone else that it wasn't rape, it was just some sex that was perfectly normal, maybe a bit regrettable, certainly not criminal.
I suppose that makes sense if it is still unprovable or if there is evidence that they had sex anyway. Usually leaving evidence trails is risky because you don't really know how it will turn out, but this seems so clearly useless. Also, even if it was not, he could just be a bad criminal.
Also, depending on whether she texted Ebanks before or after it might modify things slightly. Not hugely, though. Possibly not even at all.
Quotes from Snow
I'm pretty sure she's just making things up since right off the bat she was looking to gain money from it. Furthermore it's 2 years after the fact so, conveniently enough for her, the cops can't double check her nonexistent physical "evidence." Meanwhile the millionaire basketball player who probably does a different chick every week, and who has no need to rape anyone, is helping police in any way he can. I mean 1+1=?
I mean, hell, if getting drunk at a bar and hitting on the richest looking guy there could make you a millionaire because of feminist "rape culture" then there is something wrong with society and the way we look at gender and rape in general. I really hate to bring this up but if the genders here were reversed, and she was the millionaire female basketball player... but these girls read all sorts of stuff on the internet and think they can get away with anything just because of their gender. It's sad really.
Assuming that women search out rich beautiful people to frame for rape.
Referring to rape culture as 'feminist propaganda'.
That person didn't say "propaganda." They did
speak dismissively about feminist and rape culture.
I think disagreeing that rape culture exists or on whether or not feminism is correct is a difference in viewpoint and not necessarily attributable to rape apologia. That is unless you can provide incontrovertible evidence of rape culture as a phenomenon, which no one can. It's more of a social/philosophical viewpoint. I do believe there is some rape culture myself, but it's not necessarily outside of the realm of reason to disagree.
I also think that snow has been stating claims overly absolutely and without evidence. I would not necessarily go for "rape apologist," but their viewpoint is not really legitimate. They have brought up some good points. It's annoying to sort through the absoluteness, etc. though. Snow, please calm down and try to make a more balanced argument. Also, post sources.
Instead of inflating my post to epic proportions, I'm going to skip the rest.
CorruptUser wrote:At the risk of going on a tangent, what do you do in a particularly bizarre case that happened a few months ago; a woman was raped, DNA evidence was able to prove it was the guy, except he had an identical twin brother. One was clearly guilty, both had equivalently strong/weak alibis. Possibly both were guilty for all we know. Do you convict both? Neither? Put both on parole or other monitoring system? Let each serve half of the sentence? If you say 'innocent till proven guilty', both go free. And the evil twin strikes again. If neither are more likely guilty than the other, both go free again. Then the evil twin strikes again... Is society better off letting the evil twin roam free than risking jailing the good twin, or protecting the largest number of people even if that means one innocent suffers for a crime he didn't commit? It's easy to say 'innocent till proven guilty' when you won't be the next victim, just as it's easy to say 'hang them high!' when it's not your neck in the noose.
To address this, I'd have to look at the fact that I think the justice system is very flawed in the first place. It is worth taking action regarding both of them
. However, it probably should be psychological treatment for both of them at the bare minimum.