Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
We don't know. That's not my point. I remember a case of a woman accusing two guys of raping her in a hotel room in Banff. According to her, she had met them in a bar, had a good time and then went to sleep with one of them to their room, but then found the second guy having sex with her after the first one was done. According to the men, she had consented. The judge said something to the effect of: "clearly one of the parties is being untruthful, but this court has no way of determining which one". The guys were acquitted 100%. If they're honest, their life could have been ruined by the woman's accusation. If she was honest, then they didn't get the punishment they deserved.
The above example, for the most part, is the essence of many sexual assault cases, where a consensual private gathering had occurred in circumstances leading to a situation. But the court of public opinion to unproven allegations is not the right answer to resolve the legal shortcomings of prosecution.
|
What you're describing is not a false accusation. There are such things as totally, provably false and malicious accusations but those are rare, 2%-7% of all cases, and they are usually very easily proven false and they often result in charges against the complainant. The woman you highlight as an example is very likely not making this up as it passed the "smell test" to bring charges. Proving her case is a different thing. It's not fair for you to say people should shut up about their attacker so as to not damage the reputation of what in reality is a very small number of people.