I have not mentioned the veracity of her claims once. My statements regarding your views are based on a number of threads in which you reveal callous sentiments that are contrary to a variety of commonly accepted rights in modern, developed societies. In regards to this thread, I think others have made it perfectly clear where you said things that were, at a minimum, insensitive, but more likely indicative of both bias and prejudice. As in previous threads, you have then amended your statements to maintain a "moderate" purview in theory, only to subsequently repeat or rephrase the original opinion that resulted in raised eyebrows among the posting regulars. I have my issues with ATW, and he and I have had it out a few times, but you (and a few others) constantly dig your own holes. I'm always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but I can also recognize a pattern when I see one.
one thing i have to say in semi defense to mathloom, it amazes me how many men that have been set free in this country from prison are involved in rape cases. we don't have the most perfect system either. in most of these cases the woman was raped.
You remind me of Spoiler and put together.. The exact same halfass, judgemental, fingerpointing analysis, with a little bit of jumping to random conclusions.
Epic performance by Mathloom in this thread. Perhaps we are due for 5 or 6 twists at the end, a la The Prestige. Will hold my fingers crossed.
The bolded part is easily not true, so let's get that out of the way. I specifically am against the extra marital sex being illegal thing. You are making up something about me there. Now... Ideally, we all want a situation where rape can be proven, and also a situation where false accusations can be weeded out, with the emphasis stronger on being able to convict rapists, than being able to convict liars. Rape is a huge deal, and generally it takes a whole lot of strength to overcome it in a person's life. I think this goes without saying. Lying is usually not this big a big deal. But in this case, it is a bigger deal than usual. Because in this case, lying can land someone in jail for a long time, ruining their career, their family, their kids, etc. Since we both disagree with the extra marital sex law, let's assume for a second that it doesn't exist in the UAE. Let's narrow this down to two scenarios: 1) Rape occurred. We want to have a standard where people can be convicted of this, that is not burdensome on the accuser, and is fair to the public (potential defendants). Now in the complete absence of evidence that there was physical abuse or drugs, regardless of where in the world this happens, no one is going to be convicted just because of a claim. There is only one other possibility which exists in a handful of countries: where someone is so drunk that they are incapable of saying no, it can be considered rape. 2) Rape did not occur. If it did not occur, it should be burdensome on the accuser, and the potential defendants should have a chance of disputing this. If there is no evidence and the rape did not occur, then the defendant should go free. We don't know if rape occurred or didn't occur. But we know that there is no evidence, otherwise someone would be jailed for it and this woman would not be claiming injustice, nor would she have been jailed. We do know that there was an accusation made. There is no evidence to support the accusation despite proper procedures being followed. At this point, are you saying that the complete absence of evidence supporting the claim is not enough reason to reject the claim? Should the claim be enough to convict the guys? Essentially you are saying that the lack of evidence should NOT be a hindrance to charging people of rape, because anything more would be burdensome. In your system, I would rather leave a drunk woman lying in an alley somewhere caring less if she got raped since my mere presence could constitute rape. Is that what you want? While I'm saying that if there is any evidence whatsoever, they should be charged with rape, and if there is no evidence they shouldn't. .... and I'm the unfair one? While the UAE laws are trash in this regard, I must say your views are on the opposite spectrum of trash as well.
One of 3 possibilities according to the law which is not made clear in the article: She had extra marital sex. She drank without a liquor license. Maybe both.
Interesting two statements there. Would love to hear which sentiments you're talking about. I have absolutely no issues amending my statements, I think that's a perfectly natural thing. Whether to clarify or to correct, I will not stick to something just for the hell of it. If I miscommunicated, I'll fix it. If I was wrong, I'll fix it. What you're saying about commonly accepted rights is ridiculous. We don't differ on rights. I believe there should be a rape shield law. I believe extra marital sex shouldn't be illegal. I believe that a liquor license is a stupid reason to arrest someone. What you're talking about is culture and not rights. You're saying that my comments are insensitive? Frankly I don't give a damn about culture. If I wanted to bring culture into this, I would start off with "your culture is not better than mine", and finish off with "in my culture, it's rude to even post this article and discuss it". But I won't do that because I hate culture. We're in a place for adult discussion and my speculation is a part of that discussion. Sensitivity doesn't stop anyone on this board from saying how much they want to bang X celebrity, how they want to spill pig blood on muslim terrorist graves, how they think Jesus PBUH rode a dinosaur, or that they think Obama is a mauslim pimp who loves watermelon. This is not a place for sensitivities beyond common courtesy we show each other. This is a board of armchair presidents, CEO's, general managers, coaches, players, wives, husbands and judges at all times. If anything, your sudden unusual raising of the "insensitivity" banner raises the red flag for bias in my eyes. Your assumption that my opinion is biased on prejudiced due to nationality, geography, race, or religion raises the red flag for prejudice in my eyes.
In the United States you can be convicted of a crime on the testimony of a single witness without the requirement of any physical evidence. If the jury believes that the testimony of the witness is true (they find the witness credible) and that the evidence the witness provided through testimony was sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, then they can and should convict him and the conviction will be upheld. Raping someone without causing them physical injury is still raping them.
That's great, and is in place here as well, and I hope it is taken seriously. Given that she claims to have been drunk and drugged, I'm not sure what her testimony would amount to in this specific case. There is a reason why I said "should NOT cause a hindrance" rather than "should NOT make it final". I know raping someone without physical injury is still raping them. I wonder why this was so important for you to bring up. You seem to be hung up on the laws as if I'm defending the laws. I'm not. They are poor.
It is because you seem to be hung up on the lack of physical evidence. The woman says she was drugged and raped. Her testimony amounts to her being drugged and raped. You think she is lying based on the lack of physical evidence. I am trying to tell you that from my time working on rape cases, there can certainly be a rape without any physical evidence, and in fact that is not uncommon. Lack of physical evidence should not be a hindrance if a jury believes the woman. Certainly physical evidence can be helpful when it is present, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As I've explained, there are two things going on here. 1) On the legal side, I agree with you. Although as a non-lawyer, non-investigator, I'm curious as to whether it's fair for the absolute lack of evidence to be ignored completely? Wouldn't this allow for accusations to be thrown around arbitrarily if there are no witnesses and no evidence? 2) My personal guess as a non-expert outsider is that there was no rape. My knowledge of the UAE says that there are far too many cameras everywhere, especially in hotels, for something like this to go completely unnoticed. A quick look at the mossad murder that took place in Dubai will show you just how much surveillance is going on here. To be clear, if her testimony or any other evidence shows that there is some truth to the matter, then I change my mind immediately. I would be surprised as to why this wouldn't be pursued further if her testimony was helpful. I also wonder if her testimony is accepted in a UAE court since she was drunk and drugged before the alleged rape.
I think the problem is that you went from "there is no evidence" to "she's probably lying". All that "there is no evidence" tells us is that that there is no evidence - either way. It doesn't support her case, but it doesn't necessarily discredit it either. It's not enough to prove rape, but it's not enough to prove consentual sex either.
It's also somewhat unlikely that a woman in the UAE would go to the police and report a gang rape when she was lying about it and the sex was actually consensual. That's a pretty big risk to take when there is such a high chance your story will be dismissed outright regardless of the circumstances.
That is the tough part about being a juror. It all comes down the the determination of who is more credible, the complaining witness or the defendant. The thing is, a rape based on the inability to form consent through intoxication (whether from alcohol alone or through drink spiking) would not appear any different that consensual sex to a camera. One would also hope there are no cameras in the guest rooms, which would make them even more useless in documenting the rape or lack thereof. How would video of people entering and exiting a room be determinative as to whether a sexual act was committed in the room, and if it was whether it was consensual. If it is believed that she was drunk and drugged, then doesn't that prove she was raped if sex occurred? It would be a strange catch 22 if proving that you were drugged precluded you from testifying that you could not give consent.
I think there's an assumption that date rape drugs make women unconscious when some could just make them black out and forget everything, like drinking too much. No, I don't know or want to know it first hand.
Well the rape kit can prove sex. It might prove rape. It can't discount rape. But due to the absence of appropriate laws, the absence of a person charged with rape does not stop them from using the evidence from a rape kit to prove extra marital sex. So essentially the law here says that if someone claims to have been raped, then they will investigate. If the investigation shows that there was sex but no evidence of drugs or force or whatever, then they don't ignore the extra marital sex part even though the rape accusation is thrown out of court. I see what you're saying though, it's been repeated multiple times. Just because the rape kit didn't show rape, doesn't mean there wasn't rape.
Over in Pakistan, they're raping everybody...and getting away with it. Pakistan's Gang-Rape Verdict Travesty
