Am I? I took your point to be that in rape cases, the defendent might say, in their defence, "She consented". In which case, the trial comes down the question of who is lying: the defendent or the suspect — and if the suspect is lying, a crime did not take place. This is different from most (all?) other crimes.
So, I proposed a law change to always assume the victim is telling the truth.
An immediate consequence of this is that, in order to convict someone of rape, all you have to do is prove that they had sex with the victim at the time the rape occurred. I then asked you what other possible consequences could be.
and drop the "person". most rapes - outside the fucked up power dynamic of prison rape, involve a man raping a woman
But that's beside the point. I originally wrote that with "woman" and "man", but I changed it because if you're writing a law, you shouldn't write it with the assumption that only women can be raped and only men can be rapists.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 11:10 pm (UTC)Am I? I took your point to be that in rape cases, the defendent might say, in their defence, "She consented". In which case, the trial comes down the question of who is lying: the defendent or the suspect — and if the suspect is lying, a crime did not take place. This is different from most (all?) other crimes.
So, I proposed a law change to always assume the victim is telling the truth.
An immediate consequence of this is that, in order to convict someone of rape, all you have to do is prove that they had sex with the victim at the time the rape occurred. I then asked you what other possible consequences could be.
According to http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html men make up 10% of rape victims. ^O^
But that's beside the point. I originally wrote that with "woman" and "man", but I changed it because if you're writing a law, you shouldn't write it with the assumption that only women can be raped and only men can be rapists.