Could be phrased better. I don’t know why you’re “correcting” them. It’s a lot of assumptions when you could assume they agree with you on this. It doesn’t really conflict.
We believe in innocent until proven guilty. That favors rapists.
The “innocent until proven guilty” threshold favours rapists in rape scenarios that look like consensual sex. It works pretty well for violent rapes, any rape that includes drugs, coerced inebriation, or assault on an unconscious person, any rape with corroborating witnesses at any key step, and any rape where there is a clear proof of refusal.
The problem is that this is only a fraction of rapes because many rapists avoid physical violence preferring “the implication” of violence instead. They also prey on victims who have low self esteem or a weak sense of what’s okay because they grew up in rape culture. These scenarios are very hard to meet the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt” because other than the victim testimony, which is often unclear and confused, there isn’t other proof. And if you start with a victim with low experience and low self esteem and you isolate them get them drunk and rape them the victims testimony is guaranteed to be unclear and confused. That’s why this scenario is so common in the first place.
But the most important aspect by far, and one we can actually point to easily with proof, is that the police, prosecutors, and judges are often extremely pro-rape culture delegitimizing victims and coddling rapists. The number of cases that ended with a slap on the wrists because “we don’t want to ruin this promising young man’s life over 5 minutes of [inserts your favorite delegitimizing euphemism here]” is just staggering". This is why the system favours rapists in a way changing laws or standards won’t solve.
If we don’t want to live in a country of old rapists and pedophiles, we’re going to have to become more comfortable running the lives of young rapists and pedophiles.
![Realization [PizzaCake]](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/58eacea0-b255-4a2d-b579-35265a7cffee.png){kind=link}
Could be phrased better. I don’t know why you’re “correcting” them. It’s a lot of assumptions when you could assume they agree with you on this. It doesn’t really conflict.
We believe in innocent until proven guilty. That favors rapists.
The “innocent until proven guilty” threshold favours rapists in rape scenarios that look like consensual sex. It works pretty well for violent rapes, any rape that includes drugs, coerced inebriation, or assault on an unconscious person, any rape with corroborating witnesses at any key step, and any rape where there is a clear proof of refusal.
The problem is that this is only a fraction of rapes because many rapists avoid physical violence preferring “the implication” of violence instead. They also prey on victims who have low self esteem or a weak sense of what’s okay because they grew up in rape culture. These scenarios are very hard to meet the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt” because other than the victim testimony, which is often unclear and confused, there isn’t other proof. And if you start with a victim with low experience and low self esteem and you isolate them get them drunk and rape them the victims testimony is guaranteed to be unclear and confused. That’s why this scenario is so common in the first place.
But the most important aspect by far, and one we can actually point to easily with proof, is that the police, prosecutors, and judges are often extremely pro-rape culture delegitimizing victims and coddling rapists. The number of cases that ended with a slap on the wrists because “we don’t want to ruin this promising young man’s life over 5 minutes of [inserts your favorite delegitimizing euphemism here]” is just staggering". This is why the system favours rapists in a way changing laws or standards won’t solve.
If we don’t want to live in a country of old rapists and pedophiles, we’re going to have to become more comfortable running the lives of young rapists and pedophiles.