How can you prove that rape occurred?

[Crossovo]

It sounds like a stupid question but bare with me: say if a woman accused a man of raping her, and it was confirmed that they were both in the same area when the rape occurred, how can it be proven that rape had taken place? How can it be proven false?

[Neo Art]

We have this thing called "forensic science" for a reason.

[The Norse Hordes]

We have this thing called "forensic science" for a reason.

/thread

[Call to power]

the Daily Mirror informs me that all men accused of rape are automatically guilty if a mugshot can be provided

[Crossovo]

We have this thing called "forensic science" for a reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, that can only prove that sexual intercourse took place, correct? How can you prove that the people didn't have consensual sex, rather than rape (unless that person obviously can't consent e.g. child, or obviously wouldn't consent e.g. relative etc...)?

[Alexlantis]

the Daily Mirror informs me that all men accused of rape are automatically guilty if a mugshot can be provided

That's a bit sexist. Care to prove it?

[Rhodmhire]

Place cameras on the streets where said woman was raped, and have her walk down said street in the same clothing, makeup, etc. she was wearing on the day she was apperantly raped, and wait for the supposed rapist to strike.

Because, as we all know, rape is never a one time ordeal.

[Neo Art]

We have this thing called "forensic science" for a reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, that can only prove that sexual intercourse took place, correct? How can you prove that the people didn't have consensual sex, rather than rape (unless that person obviously can't consent e.g. child, or obviously wouldn't consent e.g. relative etc...)?

Because people who are generally forced into sex against their will tend to FIGHT BACK. That leaves things like bruises, defensive wounds, torn tissue, the other guy's skin under their fingernails, and the like.

That's why we conduct physical examinations. A forensic scientist specializing in rape can identify the types of evidence typically left through a case of rape as opposed to consensual sex. That's what they DO.

[Crossovo]

Because people who are generally forced into sex against their will tend to FIGHT BACK. That leaves things like bruises, defensive wounds, torn tissue and the like.

That's why we conduct physical examinations. A forensic scientist specializing in rape can identify the types of bruises typically left through a case of rape. That's what they DO.

Is it not possible that rape can occur, without these bruises being left? For instance, if the woman was coerced against her will but chose not to try to resist as she knew it would be hopeless? Or if the woman was unconscious?

[Fartsniffage]

Because people who are generally forced into sex against their will tend to FIGHT BACK. That leaves things like bruises, defensive wounds, torn tissue, the other guy's skin under their fingernails, and the like.

That's why we conduct physical examinations. A forensic scientist specializing in rape can identify the types of evidence typically left through a case of rape as opposed to consensual sex. That's what they DO.

Don't be silly, the only way it can be proved is if there are two male witnesses.

Fucking laywers, always trying to confuse things.

[Poliwanacraca]

We have this thing called "forensic science" for a reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, that can only prove that sexual intercourse took place, correct? How can you prove that the people didn't have consensual sex, rather than rape (unless that person obviously can't consent e.g. child, or obviously wouldn't consent e.g. relative etc...)?

Luckily, trials do not involve proving things beyond all possibility of error. They involve proving things beyond a reasonable doubt. So, for example, if the woman in question is covered in bruises consistent with being forcibly held down, juries tend to think, "Hmm, it seems more than likely that she was forcibly held down." If her testimony is consistent and believable, whereas the guy's testimony is very much not, juries tend to think, "Hmm, it seems pretty likely that she's telling the truth and he's lying." This is how criminal trials work.

[Goath]

the Daily Mirror informs me that all men accused of rape are automatically guilty if a mugshot can be provided

And God bless the Daily Mirror! ;-)

All joking aside, forensic evidence can nearly always prove if there was a rape or not...or, if nothing else, whether or not there was clotius.

[The Norse Hordes]

Because people who are generally forced into sex against their will tend to FIGHT BACK. That leaves things like bruises, defensive wounds, torn tissue and the like.

That's why we conduct physical examinations. A forensic scientist specializing in rape can identify the types of bruises typically left through a case of rape. That's what they DO.

Is it not possible that rape can occur, without these bruises being left? For instance, if the woman was coerced against her will but chose not to try to resist as she knew it would be hopeless? Or if the woman was unconscious?

Are you familiar with what a rape examination entails?

Find me a woman who will go through that just for lulz.

I smell the inevitable Hiddenrun "WOMEN ARE SLUTS AND LIE ABOUT TEH RAPE AND THATS WORSE THEN ACTUAL RAPE!11!1" arguement...

[Neo Art]

Is it not possible that rape can occur, without these bruises being left? For instance, if the woman was coerced against her will but chose not to try to resist as she knew it would be hopeless? Or if the woman was unconscious?

Yes, it is possible. And those kinds of cases are notoriously hard to prove, and generally rely on either eyewitness statements or a combination of proof (IE proof of sex, and proof of a BAC that would have rendered her unconcious at the time sex was committed create the inference she was unconcious at the time).

But the same could be said for ANY crime. How do you prove a robbery was committed when nobody saw it and nobody can find the stuff that was stolen? How do you prove a murder was committed when nobody saw it and nobody can find the body or murder weapn? How do you prove a battery was committed if it left no witnesses or bruises?

How do you prove ANY crime without evidence?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

We tie the rapist up and throw him in a pond. If he floats, he's guilty.... ..... ....or is that witches?

Well, it ought to work just fine on rapists too.

[Poliwanacraca]

Because people who are generally forced into sex against their will tend to FIGHT BACK. That leaves things like bruises, defensive wounds, torn tissue and the like.

That's why we conduct physical examinations. A forensic scientist specializing in rape can identify the types of bruises typically left through a case of rape. That's what they DO.

Is it not possible that rape can occur, without these bruises being left? For instance, if the woman was coerced against her will but chose not to try to resist as she knew it would be hopeless? Or if the woman was unconscious?

Of course it's possible. It's even common. I'm not clear on what you're actually asking here, though. If you're asking if a lot of rapists do not get convicted because there isn't sufficient evidence to do so, then the answer is a very definite yes. NA has simply been telling you some of the evidence that can get a rapist convicted.

[The Norse Hordes]

Because people who are generally forced into sex against their will tend to FIGHT BACK. That leaves things like bruises, defensive wounds, torn tissue and the like.

That's why we conduct physical examinations. A forensic scientist specializing in rape can identify the types of bruises typically left through a case of rape. That's what they DO.

Is it not possible that rape can occur, without these bruises being left? For instance, if the woman was coerced against her will but chose not to try to resist as she knew it would be hopeless? Or if the woman was unconscious?

Of course it's possible. It's even common. I'm not clear on what you're actually asking here, though. If you're asking if a lot of rapists do not get convicted because there isn't sufficient evidence to do so, then the answer is a very definite yes. NA has simply been telling you some of the evidence that can get a rapist convicted.

Perhaps Im just cynical, but I smell a "WOMEN ARE LIARS CUZ THE FEEL GUILTY AND ACCUSE MEN OF BEING RAPISTS!" coming on...

[Crossovo]

Luckily, trials do not involve proving things beyond all possibility of error. They involve proving things beyond a reasonable doubt. So, for example, if the woman in question is covered in bruises consistent with being forcibly held down, juries tend to think, "Hmm, it seems more than likely that she was forcibly held down." If her testimony is consistent and believable, whereas the guy's testimony is very much not, juries tend to think, "Hmm, it seems pretty likely that she's telling the truth and he's lying." This is how criminal trials work.

A significant amount of rape is done while the woman is unconscious, or happens when the woman is too frightened or too intoxicated to resist effectively. In these cases, no bruises may be found. If no bruises were found on her, but she still claims she was raped, how can it be proven true?

[Goath]

We tie the rapist up and throw him in a pond. If he floats, he's guilty.... ..... ....or is that witches?

Well, it ought to work just fine on rapists too.

you know...i think i really like you.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Luckily, trials do not involve proving things beyond all possibility of error. They involve proving things beyond a reasonable doubt. So, for example, if the woman in question is covered in bruises consistent with being forcibly held down, juries tend to think, "Hmm, it seems more than likely that she was forcibly held down." If her testimony is consistent and believable, whereas the guy's testimony is very much not, juries tend to think, "Hmm, it seems pretty likely that she's telling the truth and he's lying." This is how criminal trials work.

A significant amount of rape is done while the woman is unconscious, or happens when the woman is too frightened or too intoxicated to resist effectively. In these cases, no bruises may be found. If no bruises were found on her, but she still claims she was raped, how can it be proven true?

If the woman is unconscious, or too intoxicated to give consent then it's automatically rape.

[Crossovo]

Of course it's possible. It's even common. I'm not clear on what you're actually asking here, though. If you're asking if a lot of rapists do not get convicted because there isn't sufficient evidence to do so, then the answer is a very definite yes. NA has simply been telling you some of the evidence that can get a rapist convicted.

I wanted to address the idea that the reason so many rapists are not convicted is because the court system is inherently corrupt or inherently sexist in some way. I don't believe this to be true, I believe that it's largely because many cases of rape are almost impossible to prove.

[Ascon]

How do you prove ANY crime without evidence?

Dan Rather may have some insights on that.

[Poliwanacraca]

Luckily, trials do not involve proving things beyond all possibility of error. They involve proving things beyond a reasonable doubt. So, for example, if the woman in question is covered in bruises consistent with being forcibly held down, juries tend to think, "Hmm, it seems more than likely that she was forcibly held down." If her testimony is consistent and believable, whereas the guy's testimony is very much not, juries tend to think, "Hmm, it seems pretty likely that she's telling the truth and he's lying." This is how criminal trials work.

A significant amount of rape is done while the woman is unconscious, or happens when the woman is too frightened or too intoxicated to resist effectively. In these cases, no bruises may be found. If no bruises were found on her, but she still claims she was raped, how can it be proven true?

As has already been said, it often can't. I'm still not sure what your point is?

[Neo Art]

If the woman is unconscious, or too intoxicated to give consent then it's automatically rape.

I don't think he was arguing otherwise. I think he was asking that if a woman is unconsious or too intoxicated to fight back, how do you PROVE that it was rape?

IE, how do you prove her lack of bruises or other forensic evidence that would otherwise indicate a rape occured is a result of said unconciousness/intoxication and not consent?

And the answer to that is, as I said, sometimes you can't. Same as any other crime committed without evidence.

[Neo Art]

Of course it's possible. It's even common. I'm not clear on what you're actually asking here, though. If you're asking if a lot of rapists do not get convicted because there isn't sufficient evidence to do so, then the answer is a very definite yes. NA has simply been telling you some of the evidence that can get a rapist convicted.

I wanted to address the idea that the reason so many rapists are not convicted is because the court system is inherently corrupt or inherently sexist in some way. I don't believe this to be true, I believe that it's largely because many cases of rape are almost impossible to prove.

....who here has made that argument? Besides, the logical fallacy of begining with the presumption that "many cases of rape are almost impossible to prove" then using that to justify failures to successfully prosecute many rape crimes, should be self evident and obvious.

In case not, here's a hint: You shouldn't begin an argument by assuming the fact necessary for your argument to work.