Presumption of Innocence?
Interesting update on the rape by deception case: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1187907.html (or here in English, with much less details). I knew that the girl tried to accuse him in rape first, and when it didn't work, they changed the story. But it turns out that the details are much more complicated. Firstly, my impression was that it was the girl who changed her evidence from rape to deception. Nope -- this deception story was 100% fabricated by the lawyers of both sides! It had nothing to do with the account of the events, both versions. (As I understood from one of the lawyers, this is common practice in plea bargain cases -- the sides "compromise" on a story that has nothing in common with what's really happened!)
So, it was not a rape by deception. It was a rape case -- a woman claimed to have been raped and the man claimed the sex was consensual. And it went to court. So, what happened? She testified; the defense attorney wanted to interrogate her some more; the prosecution gave it some thought, and decided that it would be unwise. They (not clear which side!) came up with the compromise, which was accepted.
And it's hard to tell what really happened. From reading large parts of the girl's testimony, I remain undecided. Ironically, the most serious piece of evidence against the guy, for me, is the fact that he accepted the plea bargain! The girl's testimony was so weak, that, in my opinion, they should have pushed for full acquittal! The fact that he accepted the bargain speaks against him. On the other hand, it is also very understandable... so, I don't know. I don't know. But it all lead me to an interesting question: should there be a presumption of innocence in rape charges?
Wait, wait. First of all: legally, I'm sure there should be!! Meaning, that the prosecution should prove their case, and the judge (or jury) should acquit, unless they are certain in the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The usual deal. Only, there is often a hell lot of doubt in rape cases... a lot more than for all other crimes. So what's "reasonable"? That's a tough one.
But another question is even more interesting: speaking not legally, but ethically, from the viewpoint of a casual observer: should we automatically side with the victim? I mean, remember the old days -- back then, if a woman was raped, she was automatically labeled as a whore, pretty much regardless of the evidence, and her life was ruined. Since then, the deal has flipped: nowadays, if a woman accuses someone in rape, he is automatically labeled as rapist scum -- regardless if it goes to court, or not, and even regardless if he ends up acquitted, or not! The public sides with the woman, and the man's life is ruined, in any case!
Both these approaches sound a little off, to say the least.
But what should we do? The problem is, usually when we say "presumption of innocence" we imagine situations like: someone is murdered, and we don't know who did it. So the prosecution should prove that it was done by X. Until they do, we assume that X is not guilty, and it was someone else, someone unknown. That sounds reasonable. There is no doubt that the crime took place -- we just don't know who did it, so we presume that this particular person is not guilty.
But it's different with rape. There are two sides of the story there, and there is just no such thing as a presumption of innocence: presuming the innocence of one side automatically means accusing the other!! Either we presume the guy to be a rapist, or we presume that the girl falsely accuses him (which is a very serious crime, too!) There simply is no good option.
So I'll have to say that the best thing is to drop the "presumption of innocence" attempts altogether, and to remain undecided by default. At the same time, if you actually happen to have a personal conversation with one of the sides (or their relatives, etc.) I think it is a good idea to simply support that side, as common courtesy. Imagine: a friend of a friend accuses someone you know in rape. When you are with her, you should sympathize and console her. When you are with the guy, who claims to have been falsely accused, you should sympathize and console him as well! I know it sounds ridiculous... but I don't see a better option!
Thoughts?
So, it was not a rape by deception. It was a rape case -- a woman claimed to have been raped and the man claimed the sex was consensual. And it went to court. So, what happened? She testified; the defense attorney wanted to interrogate her some more; the prosecution gave it some thought, and decided that it would be unwise. They (not clear which side!) came up with the compromise, which was accepted.
And it's hard to tell what really happened. From reading large parts of the girl's testimony, I remain undecided. Ironically, the most serious piece of evidence against the guy, for me, is the fact that he accepted the plea bargain! The girl's testimony was so weak, that, in my opinion, they should have pushed for full acquittal! The fact that he accepted the bargain speaks against him. On the other hand, it is also very understandable... so, I don't know. I don't know. But it all lead me to an interesting question: should there be a presumption of innocence in rape charges?
Wait, wait. First of all: legally, I'm sure there should be!! Meaning, that the prosecution should prove their case, and the judge (or jury) should acquit, unless they are certain in the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The usual deal. Only, there is often a hell lot of doubt in rape cases... a lot more than for all other crimes. So what's "reasonable"? That's a tough one.
But another question is even more interesting: speaking not legally, but ethically, from the viewpoint of a casual observer: should we automatically side with the victim? I mean, remember the old days -- back then, if a woman was raped, she was automatically labeled as a whore, pretty much regardless of the evidence, and her life was ruined. Since then, the deal has flipped: nowadays, if a woman accuses someone in rape, he is automatically labeled as rapist scum -- regardless if it goes to court, or not, and even regardless if he ends up acquitted, or not! The public sides with the woman, and the man's life is ruined, in any case!
Both these approaches sound a little off, to say the least.
But what should we do? The problem is, usually when we say "presumption of innocence" we imagine situations like: someone is murdered, and we don't know who did it. So the prosecution should prove that it was done by X. Until they do, we assume that X is not guilty, and it was someone else, someone unknown. That sounds reasonable. There is no doubt that the crime took place -- we just don't know who did it, so we presume that this particular person is not guilty.
But it's different with rape. There are two sides of the story there, and there is just no such thing as a presumption of innocence: presuming the innocence of one side automatically means accusing the other!! Either we presume the guy to be a rapist, or we presume that the girl falsely accuses him (which is a very serious crime, too!) There simply is no good option.
So I'll have to say that the best thing is to drop the "presumption of innocence" attempts altogether, and to remain undecided by default. At the same time, if you actually happen to have a personal conversation with one of the sides (or their relatives, etc.) I think it is a good idea to simply support that side, as common courtesy. Imagine: a friend of a friend accuses someone you know in rape. When you are with her, you should sympathize and console her. When you are with the guy, who claims to have been falsely accused, you should sympathize and console him as well! I know it sounds ridiculous... but I don't see a better option!
Thoughts?