Therumancer said:
The thing with rape discussions is that it usually comes down to demands for dual standards that favor women. We see this in the court system where it's basically argued that in a case where rape is the accusation that the defendant (the accused) should have to prove a negative (nearly impossible) and their own innocence, as opposed to the burden of proof being placed on the accuser and prosecution.
Rape can be a very difficult crime to prosecute because victims rarely come forward immediately and often have accidentally destroyed very crucial evidence. I have a feeling that shows like CSI have done great harm to the justice system because of the expectations that they create in jurors for every case to be proven by overwhelming forensic evidence. That is not reality.
In many rape cases, it is a question of a woman saying a man raped her vs. a man who says either that they did not have sex or if they did, that said sex was consensual. In those instances, it's often up to the jury to decide what they believe. In that regard, cultural perspectives can play a big role.
Therumancer said:
Politics in these cases have created some massive travesties of justice, as rape is one of the few crimes where people have been convicted (sometimes regularly) on what amounts to purely circumstantial evidence
I would like to point out something: circumstantial evidence is not bad evidence and in fact, is often all the evidence that exists in criminal cases. The big difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence is that circumstantial evidence requires an inference between itself and the fact it attempts to prove. For example, If you look outside the window and see that it is raining outside, you have direct evidence that it is raining. If instead however, you are inside and you hear the door open and shut, and your mother comes walking into the house, wearing a raincoat, boots and with a wet umbrella, that is circumstantial evidence that it is raining outside.
Usually, with circumstantial evidence, the goal is to introduce multiple pieces of evidence, that taken together marginalize all inferences except the one that the prosecutor is trying to prove. For example, if Bob has gunpowder residue on his hands the night of the murder, that does not by itself prove that he killed anyone. He could have been at the gun range. But if Bob was scene in the vicinity of the murder shortly after it happened. And he was running. And the caliber of the gun used to kill the victim matches the gun Bob owns. And Bob knew the victim. And Bob had recently been fired from his job by the victim. Now take all this evidence (All of which is circumstantial) and look at it together, and suddenly we have a pretty strong case that Bob murdered the victim.
Therumancer said:
Feminism sucks because it by and large represents a dual standard, and the arguement that girls should be able to do things that get guys branded freaks or wierdos.
I would like to point out that "Feminism" does not represent a dual standard. Or I should say that if someone is advocating a dual standard, it is not "Feminism." Feminism, by definition is about equal rights for men and women. If you are advocating for disparity of rights between men and women, regardless of which side that disparity favors, you are by definition NOT a Feminist, regardless of what you chose to call yourself.
