Lets say you are the head investigator to a case of a rape accusation. The woman A claims that man X has raped her. Supporting her claim is her testimony and the testimony of her closest friends. However the testimony from the man says that this never occured and he has an alibi saying that it did not occur. So far evidence is inconclusive since both sides have pieces. Does pol believe the woman or stay neutral and assume the man is innocent with the current evidence?
If its inconclusive doesnt that mean the woman lied?
Adrian Sullivan
It is unfortunate when justice isn't served but filling in the blank-type bullshit isn't good. On average, I assume more guilty men walk than innocent would be found guilty, but assuming guilt isn't the way to do things.
Daniel Campbell
But would you assume that because the evidence is inconclusive that the man is automatically guilty of the crime or innocent of it
Samuel Bennett
That is too pointed to answer. I wouldn't classify evidence solely on general credibility. I mean I don't know procedure on how witness testimony is factored, but I would investigate the claims based on the character, certainty, and reputation of the witnesses.
Samuel Barnes
Very good points
Sebastian Carter
How many of her closest friends? How credible is this? Were they even there?
How credible is this guy's alibi? Is there nobody who can testify as to his presence away from the scene of the rape?
If you're an investigator, then you can make a recommendation to press charges an go to trial based on a preponderance of evidence, in other words, "There is so much evidence in one direction here, this merits bringing it to a judge.".
Police are the executive branch, they're just there to enact policy. And US policy is to presume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
Cooper Hernandez
Innocent until proven guilty.
Since it’s her word against his, actual evidence would be needed. Is his DNA in her apartment/car or vice versa?
Believing a woman because she’s a woman is no different than believing a man because he’s a man but I don’t expect women to understand that.
Xavier Martin
Honestly? Given the shit we've seen recently, I'd go the other way and assume the woman is a lying cunt trying to ruin some guys life.
Dominic Miller
People don't tend to report rape so credibility is on the woman's side. However something like that would be decided on whoever's story holds up to speculation.
Isaiah Edwards
All accused male rapists should be in prison. It's better to jail a few innocents than to let rapists go free
If this happened more than a year ago the woman is blackmailing like celebs do. Also why didn’t any of them report asap? Was she drunk at a party now getting buyers’ remorse? Doesn’t rape mean that he had to beat her which left marks? Why did she hide those? To vague. Also it is over.
Grayson Sullivan
>alibi if it checks out scalp the lying whore and her friends
Leo Cook
Believe the woman but don’t accuse the man of a crime without sufficient evidence. Use her testimony and her friend as grounds for an investigation. Investigate in secret to avoid media bias and #MeToo frenzies. Per US law, if the prosecution posts on social media they are in violation of interfering with an investigation and the woman goes to jail. If the investigation turns up nothing, the man goes free with no loss to his reputation. If evidence is found, the man is tried. If Twitter lights up then you scrap the case and the woman goes to jail.
Cooper Edwards
>If Twitter lights up then you scrap the case and the woman goes to jail.
That is one of the most retarded statements ever.
Hudson Reyes
The actual prosecutor only needs to consider whether they have enough evidence to say it "probably" happened, to a reasonable person. The accusation on its face value is enough for some ordinary people to say, "probably." The court will just take it up for court. However, by then the damage is done, the man is already considered guilty and his entire life is destroyed. The court case is only useful to determine the official sex offense status, jail time, and fees. This video may save your life. youtube.com/watch?v=oEfxcEV4sWE
Isaac Stewart
He is innocent, until the next victim appears. Then he'll be prosecuted for both crimes.
Jose Bailey
It’s not. Read up on obstruction of criminal investigations. It’s a maximum 20 year sentence for publishing anything that could influence the results of an ongoing investigation.
I’m not saying to throw her in jail without warning. The DAY she accuses a man of rape you tell her to let the police do their job and keep quiet. It’s not just to avoid #MeToo hysteria. Suppose the man is a serial rapist with 500 victims - he may flee the country as a result of her Twitter post. He may run around hiding evidence. By making a huge and public stunt you make it impossible to reach a guilty verdict.
This isn’t a retarded new rule I’m making up. This is already law. We just need to enforce it.
Cooper Jackson
So it appears besides the EU troll that pol is for the Innocent until proven guilty since there isnt enough conclusive evidence on either side
Jason Ramirez
Of course he's innocent if he has an alibi, duh.
William Wright
>So far evidence is inconclusive The evidence is inconclusive.
Evan Wright
I say so far because the investigation isnt over yet
Investigate the alibi, obviously. If it can't be proven or refuted, then the whole case is just hearsay, I'd dismiss her case without prejudice (meaning the woman can try again if she finds some actual evidence).
Zachary Kelly
You can believe whatever you want, as long as he is presumed innocent legally.
Carter White
throw the bitch in water and see if she opens boob lasagna > it's the only test
A woman must have 5 male witnesses to have a valid testimony that she has been raped. It is very clear.
Carter Cook
Presumption of innocence and total and doesn't diminish if there are more allegations "because where there's smoke there's fire." He said she said with the accused possessing a decent alibi=no charges, tough shit.
Luke Miller
He is innocent until proven black.
James Martin
No, just means she didn't prove her case. If the man's alibi is rock solid, THEN you can say she lied.
Connor Nelson
>Supporting her claim is her testimony and the testimony of her closest friends. If they aren't direct eye witnesses, then their testimony is irrelevant, ergo he goes free. If they are, then he is fucked.
Kayden Butler
#BelieveMen. Women are not to be trusted
Josiah Diaz
^ THIS.
You don't charge people with unsubstantiated/inconclusive evidence. For whatever reason rape has skirted this idea.
Also, if she was actually raped, she would have called right after the incident. This idea that she can retroactively decide if something is rape is crazy. To me, rape has to include some sort of force, or conniving.
