But what if he says you said he could use the car “any time?” What if you gave him a key to the car? Actually, I think this is a pretty good analogy. The police will think of this scenario in connection with typical car theft (by a stranger) in the same way they are likely to think of accusations of rape by an acquaintance vs. rape by a stranger–it will be a lot harder for them to prove that your friend “stole” the car if there is a history of your letting him use it. (The fact that he got into an accident is sort of a red herring–indeed, it might make the police suspect you are just trying to avoid responsibility for the accident yourself.) Note that none of this affects whether you did or did not give your friend permission to use your car–it goes to how difficult it might be to prove that you didn’t.</p>
<p>Let me add, though, that the situation in which somebody is accused of stealing a car and is able to make even a facially sensible claim that they had permission to take it is probably extremely rare. Accusations of rape by an acquaintance must be much more common–and thus ought to be taken more seriously. They’re still not so easy to prove, though.</p>
<p>In our country the burden of proof in criminal cases is on the accuser. This more than anything else makes rape difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That is why it is so much more important that woman do as much as possible to protect themselves and not put themselves in a position that increases the opportunities for a rapist. The fact the victim may like to have consentual sex with strangers is irrelavent. It is just very difficult without witnesses to prove that someone did something you did not consent to when the act (sex) is not illegal in it’s own right. The cases recently that have so much media coverage are the ones where the accused provided the evidence needed to convict (pictures and video).</p>
<p>And if they have consented then it isn’t rape. Mom2 the whole issue with the scenario you are thinking about is the concept of consent. I think most people presume that these types of he said/she said cases are few and far between and that in some states the laws are becoming clearer what the inability to give consent entails e.g. was the person falling down drunk, was the person passed out, was the person slipped drugs. It’s more about that than whether the man and woman knew each other of what she has done in the past…and as hunt or younghoss pointed out even that can be a landmine for the prosecutor because if the woman’s history is not considered, then how can they consider the male’s history? - and as mini and others are pointing out serial rapists are something to be more concerned with than he said/she said scenarios.</p>
Well, we may decide to make it legally irrelevant, but in terms of understanding whether there was consent in a particular case it probably is relevant, just as patterns of prior behavior by the accused can shed light on the likelihood of his intent. Since rape is a crime that involves the mental state of two people (consent for one, intent for the other), any facts that might illuminate those mental states is relevant. We may, however, for policy reasons, want to exclude some of those facts from consideration. We should only do this, though, if the accused can still get a fair trial without those facts. That makes this particular issue pretty hard.</p>
<p>Also, in response to momofthreeboys, I think a problem is that the accusations against the serial rapists probably look like he said/she said situations, because he will say there was consent. So what do you do the second or third or fourth time the same guy is accused of non-consensual sex, and there’s really no strong evidence either way?</p>
<p>I think women have been hearing this message and will continue to hear this message forever. However, I would like to have more focus paid on teaching young men what rape is, and specifically the concept of enthusiastic and sober consent being important before proceeding - which protects them, too. Young adults, regardless of gender, do not have fully developed brains and don’t always make good decisions.</p>
<p>I think that’s a false issue hunt. I think three or four reports of rape IS strong evidence. And I think you know this. </p>
<p>The real problem is the fact that the schools are discouraging rather than encouraging reporting. They have reasons for this, but none of them are good enough for me and none of those reasons should be good enough for anyone. </p>
<p>The likelihood that anyone would be falsely accused is slim. The likelihood that Someone would be accused that many times by different women? Falsely? Come ON</p>
<p>The “legal” burden of proof is probably the reason why a lager number of girls, who know that they’ve been raped, don’t seek “emotional” counseling. It’s my opinion, that good girls (smart college girls who heard the warnings about drinking, studying in a boy’s rooms, etc) are less likely to come forward, because they were “supposed to know better”. These are girls who carry the shame of rape in isolation. Which, again my opinion, is the larger and more important issue.</p>
<p>Exactly! (Emphasis mine.) This is the problem with virtually all of the analogies people try to draw.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also a good point.</p>
<p>This is analagous to a woman who becomes pregnant while using birth control properly. The FIRST THING that most people assume is that she wasn’t. If she says she was, they assume that she is either stupid or a liar. In actual fact, all methods of birth control have a failure rate, even when used correctly. A woman who gets pregnant using a diaphragm will be told that she “must” have done something wrong, so she may continue to use it, and get pregnant again. Very few doctors seem to know or will point out that women with certain anatomies are not good candidates for this method of birth control. So she is likely to internalize the blame.</p>
The likelihood is apparently between 2% and 6%. I guess that’s slim, but it’s enough that you can’t just act on an accusation.
I very much agree that the fact that a person has been accused on multiple occasions of rape is highly suggestive, even if it wasn’t proven on any of those occasions. But if it wasn’t proven, and he was acquitted each time, how are you going to use this in the next case? How, exactly, is it different from evidence that the accuser consented to sex in multiple prior seemingly similar situations?</p>
<p>I refreshed my memory on this, and typically, in a criminal rape trial, the prosecution would not be able to introduce evidence of prior arrests of the defendant, and the defense would not be able to introduce evidence of the sexual history of the victim (under so-called “rape shield” laws). There are some exceptions to rape shield laws, including previous sexual activity with the defendant. Here’s a piece about the law in New York: [Muldoon</a> & Getz](<a href=“http://muldoongetz.com/issue86.html]Muldoon”>http://muldoongetz.com/issue86.html)
These are both examples of things we withhold from juries for policy reasons, and because we fear that juries may react emotionally and not dispassionately to this kind of evidence.</p>
<p>Hunt, prior accusations doesn’t necessarily make a legal difference, but the school doesn’t have to meet quite the same burden of proof. A college probably shouldn’t kick a kid out over a genuine he said/she said situation. If there are several I’d be pretty comfortable considering that strong evidence for expulsion.</p>
This is where I start to get uncomfortable. While it’s true that colleges aren’t required to use the same burden of proof as criminal prosecutions, I believe they should ensure fairness when the sanction is serious, and expulsion for college for rape is pretty serious. It seems to me that it would be unfair to expel an accused because of multiple allegations that were unproven if you are going to, at the same time, exclude evidence of prior consensual sex by the accuser in similar situations. I would note that these issues aren’t easy, and anybody who thinks they are hasn’t thought about it enough yet.</p>
<p>^^I agree, but I believe that a college or university is going to react, in most cases, in a way that harms no one including themselves in the absence of very clear evidence. I don’t think colleges or any business are going to put themselves in legal jeopardy by being over zealous with punitive action. In general they will typically take a conservative approach. I’m against any expansion of the federal government into legal matters utilizing Title IX, but also not terribly concerned that the federal mandate will replace the local or state judicial system and local and state laws in criminal matters and trounce on people’s legally protected rights whether accuser or accused. To do so would be opening the university up to legal action, which I’m guessing is something administration would be loath to do.</p>