How little evidence should be required to convict someone of rape?

Rape and other sex crimes are often hard to prove in court because they have a tendency to happen in private without direct independent eye witnesses. This is especially the case regarding alleged sex crimes where the question isn't whether or not there were sexual acts but rather whether or not it was consensual or not.

Unless someone happened to film the sex act(s) or there's another independent witness it's very likely that words will stand against words. For example, the plaintiff could claim that she explicitly told him that he was supposed to wear a condom but at some point pulled it off and ejaculated inside her. By contrast could obviously deny that she made any such demand at all. In fact i read a couple of months ago about a case where some teenager wasn't prosecuted for rape because they happened to film it.

If such a situation occurs, and it's not uncommon that they do, the critical question becomes: should people be convicted even without any independent evidence pointing towards guilt? If the judge(s) or jury find the plaintiffs story believable should they convict the alleged perpetrator?

Here's a real example of one of these types of cases:

Quote:

The then 17-year-old girl had in 2011 been on a school trip on a cruise ferry between Gothenburg and Denmark, where she had begun talking with the 36-year-old man. The girl later said that the man had raped her on one of the ferry's deck by ripping her off pantyhose and panties and by bringing up his hand in her groin. He would then have taken her panties 'as a memory". The man denied the charges and claimed that the girl had consented to what happened - that they had been "petting" and that he had gotten her panties as a souvenir because he was interested in such things. The man was charged, however, at the Gothenburg District Court for the rape. The district court found that the forensic evidence was lacking but that the girl's story received some support from witness information about how the girl behaved after the event. The District Court also wrote in its reasoning: "The question is whether a seventeen year old woman such as MÄ (girl) really made up a story and maintained it during the rather lengthy process that a criminal investigation nonetheless entails. To this should be added the court proceedings. The court finds it extremely difficult to believe that this may be the case, at least in MÄ's situation where MÄ as according to information already was a somewhat fragile person with a view to relapse of depression. " The district court continued: "Ultimately remarkable are also claims that the briefs would voluntarily have surrendered this seventeen-year-old woman to a man who just happens to have a fetishistic preferences specifically towards women's underwear."

link

He was after four years ultimately acquitted in the same court of appeal that originally convicted him and sentenced him to two years in prison. From their final judgement you can read:

Quote:

A police report was made on 13 May 2011, that is three days after the incident would have taken place. Despite this there was no crime scene investigation on the boat to secure any traces and check the aggrieved party's statement. The surveillance film from the boat was not requested. The first hearing of the injured party was held a month later, on June 13, 2011. The possibility to observe any injuries on her body had by this time fallen considerably. Any medical examination was never done despite the plaintiff's statements that she had received injuries in the groin and bled for several days after the event. The clothing that the victim had been wearing during the trip were never taken to look for traces of blood. At the first hearing of the injured party she was allowed to read out the notes she had written down on her computer about the incident. These notes were recorded by the police. No lawful hearing was thus not held in the initial stage. .... Word stands against word regarding what exactly took place between the parties and if it was voluntary on the plaintiff's side. Direct witness observations and forensic evidence is lacking. Crucial to the issue of responsibility is therefore the credibility which can be attached to the plaintiff and defendants statements.

My own opinion is that the absence of independent forensic evidence or eye witness testimony should not dramatically increase the importance of the plaintiffs and defendants statements and claims. If anything it decreases their value heavily since one isn't able to corroborate them. Coupled with the fact that the police investigation was incredibly lackluster and underwhelming he should of course not be convicted.

Strangely two courts found him guilty which at least to me implies that the judges are far too willing to believe the plaintiff's allegations. Moreover i find it detestable that the judges engage in baseless speculation regarding how "incredible" the claim that a "17 year old woman would have voluntarily given away her underwear".

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1RkR4On