regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/10/85)
>In article <2515@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >> >>A short while back there was a comparison of robbery with rape. The >>comment was made that rape is much harder to prove than robbery. I >>think this belief is a perfect illustration of this myth-based attitude. >One major (maybe THE major) problem with proving rape is that there are >very often NO WITNESSES. If I go to the police and say that you robbed >me and had no bruises to show and no witnesses that you robbed me, they >would say 'sorry 'bout that, bub'. > geoff sherwood No, if you went to the police to say I robbed you, they would take a report from you, and perhaps check your pocketbook for fingerprints. If there were no other evidence than your report, at the very least they might file it under "regard" and discover that there were 10 other such reports against me, and check up on my comings and goings until evidence were found (assuming I was guilty). How often do you suppose someone reports a robbery and is accused of lying? As often as a person who reports rape? After all, if you had something against me it is just as easy to accuse me of robbery as it is to accuse me of rape. Robbery also doesn't often have witnesses. So why is rape a doubtful call, and robbery isn't? Because of all those unstable, overemotional women whose brains aren't functioning at this time of the month? I don't think so. Adrienne Regard
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (06/14/85)
In article <463@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >>One major (maybe THE major) problem with proving rape is that there are >>very often NO WITNESSES. If I go to the police and say that you robbed >>me and had no bruises to show and no witnesses that you robbed me, they >>would say 'sorry 'bout that, bub'. >> geoff sherwood > >No, if you went to the police to say I robbed you, they would take a report >from you, and perhaps check your pocketbook for fingerprints. If there >were no other evidence than your report, at the very least they might >file it under "regard" and discover that there were 10 other such reports >against me, and check up on my comings and goings until evidence were >found (assuming I was guilty). > I would assume that the police would do the same thing for rape. They sure as hell should. Do they not? >How often do you suppose someone reports a robbery and is accused of lying? >As often as a person who reports rape? After all, if you had something >against me it is just as easy to accuse me of robbery as it is to accuse me >of rape. Robbery also doesn't often have witnesses. I have no evidence either way. There are an awful lot of unproven robberies, too. Probably more so, because women are much less likely to report rape than robbery. Robbery doesn't have the same emotional trauma as rape. > >So why is rape a doubtful call, and robbery isn't? Without proof, both are doubtful calls. As they should be. Without that requirement I fear Star Chambers. All people are not rational all of the all of the time. Emotions can do strange things to the inside of your head. They make you do and say things you normally would not. At least they affect me that way (maybe I am just unusual like that). People seem to lie a lot, too. Especially when under the influence of said emotions. How do you know (from a judicial point of view) that the person who is accusing another of a crime is doing so because it really happened? Most of the time I am sure it did. But considering that you ruin an innocent life if you are wrong, I would like to make damn sure it really happened the way the accuser said. Even if it means some criminals getting off. There is a balance here, because there is no way you can be absolutely, 100% sure, of just about anything. I certainly don't advocate letting everyone off because of this, but I want the chance of being wrong to be very small. Understandably, the woman involved wants vengence in most cases, and I empathize -- but I don't want to live in a country ruled that way. Do you? >Because of all those >unstable, overemotional women whose brains aren't functioning at this time >of the month? I don't think so. > >Adrienne Regard Nor do I, nor does anyone else in this newsgroup, for that matter. It doesn't help your argument. geoff sherwood