Patrick Kane: [Updated] D.A. Decides Not to Prosecute; NHL Determines Claims "Unfounded"

[JJFIVEOH]

The DNA bit came from the defense and the defense only... And it was a pretty disgusting maneuver to say the least. Possible DNA of other individuals does not make somebody more or less likely to be raped. Unfortunately the public doesn't understand this so the defense was attempting to sway opinions.

 

Whether you like it or not, promiscuity is used as a factor. Especially in a jury trial. 

[Thwomp!]

There is a lack of credibility of any chart that claims percentages of ANYTHING that is unreported. 

 

Surveys can and have been used to compile this data.  If anything, that survey data may be on the low end.  I'm sure there's many women out there who would not disclose a rape even in a Dept. of Justice survey.

 

Maybe instead of attacking what evidence exists, the more important questions that should be asked are "Why do so many rapes go unreported?" and "Why do so many rapists get away with the crime?".  Some of the answers to those questions can be found in this very thread.

 

The simple answer is it's not worth going through hell (again) for a very small chance at conviction in a situation where you're as much or more of a defendant than the potential defendant is.

[darksabre]

Whether you like it or not, promiscuity is used as a factor. Especially in a jury trial.

A factor for what, exactly?

[JJFIVEOH]

Surveys can and have been used to compile this data.  If anything, that survey data may be on the low end.  I'm sure there's many women out there who would not disclose a rape even in a Dept. of Justice survey.

 

Maybe instead of attacking what evidence exists, the more important questions that should be asked are "Why do so many rapes go unreported?" and "Why do so many rapists get away with the crime?".  Some of the answers to those questions can be found in this very thread.

 

The simple answer is it's not worth going through hell (again) for a very small chance at conviction in a situation where you're as much or more of a defendant than the potential defendant is.

Or maybe he just didn't do anything. But you're unwilling to accept that possibility. The reason there are victim shamers is because we've turned into a society where everybody is a victim. You're going to label her a victim regardless so it really doesn't matter. Sorry, I just can't put much credence behind a study of 'unreporteds'. Especially when it doesn't even apply to this situation. 

[Thwomp!]

Whether you like it or not, promiscuity is used as a factor. Especially in a jury trial. 

 

 

A factor for what, exactly?

 

Oh, and why is female promiscuity so much of a huge factor anyway?  I never hear anything about male promiscuity in these cases. Why is promiscuity in men celebrated, while promiscuity in women is shameful and used against them in situations such as this one?

Or maybe he just didn't do anything. But you're unwilling to accept that possibility. The reason there are victim shamers is because we've turned into a society where everybody is a victim. You're going to label her a victim regardless so it really doesn't matter. Sorry, I just can't put much credence behind a study of 'unreporteds'. Especially when it doesn't even apply to this situation. 

 

I haven't once said that he did anything.  I'm saying the statistics show that even if he did do something he is almost certain to get away with it from the point that the assault occurred forward.  She still could be a victim, and a lack of charges doesn't prove that she's not.  There are many, many victims out there among us who have been raped and who have not gotten justice.  I'm also saying that just because charges were dropped does not mean that it's open season on her motives and that she should be punished for making a false accusation.  Of course her motives have been questioned from the beginning, and that's a very large part of the overall societal problem that currently exists.

Edited November 4, 2015 by EastsideOasis

[JJFIVEOH]

Oh, and why is female promiscuity so much of a huge factor anyway?  I never hear anything about male promiscuity in these cases. Why is promiscuity in men celebrated, while promiscuity in women is shameful and used against them in situations such as this one?

 

I haven't once said that he did anything.  I'm saying the statistics show that even if he did do something he is almost certain to get away with it from the point that the assault occurred forward.  She still could be a victim, and a lack of charges doesn't prove that she's not.  There are many, many victims out there among us who have been raped and who have not gotten justice.  I'm also saying that just because charges were dropped does not mean that it's open season on her motives and that she should be punished for making a false accusation.  Of course her motives have been questioned from the beginning, and that's a very large part of the overall societal problem that currently exists.

You haven't said he did do anything but you're working overtime coming with every possible spin to make her look innocent without once mentioning that she may possibly have ulterior motives. Stand up for your beliefs, take ownership of what you say. Get off the fence.

 

I don't understand why males and females are viewed differently. Personally, I couldn't care less if you like to sleep around, male or female. But when it comes down to a jury trial promiscuity could be used if there is a case determining whether or not a rape took place over a casual serial encounter. It's really a discussion for another thread. If somebody dies from a drug overdose you can bet they'll put more effort into find somebody to prosecute if the person  never used drugs as opposed to a drug addict.

[darksabre]

You haven't said he did do anything but you're working overtime coming with every possible spin to make her look innocent without once mentioning that she may possibly have ulterior motives. Stand up for your beliefs, take ownership of what you say. Get off the fence.

 

I don't understand why males and females are viewed differently. Personally, I couldn't care less if you like to sleep around, male or female. But when it comes down to a jury trial promiscuity could be used if there is a case determining whether or not a rape took place over a casual serial encounter. It's really a discussion for another thread. If somebody dies from a drug overdose you can bet they'll put more effort into find somebody to prosecute if the person  never used drugs as opposed to a drug addict.

What is the relationship between victim promiscuity and validity of a rape accusation? 

[That Aud Smell]

[Thwomp!]

You haven't said he did do anything but you're working overtime coming with every possible spin to make her look innocent without once mentioning that she may possibly have ulterior motives. Stand up for your beliefs, take ownership of what you say. Get off the fence.

 

I don't understand why males and females are viewed differently. Personally, I couldn't care less if you like to sleep around, male or female. But when it comes down to a jury trial promiscuity could be used if there is a case determining whether or not a rape took place over a casual serial encounter. It's really a discussion for another thread. If somebody dies from a drug overdose you can bet they'll put more effort into find somebody to prosecute if the person  never used drugs as opposed to a drug addict.

 

Based on the statistics, the fence is exactly where I'm arguing more people should be.  Not on one side of it or the other.   

 

The bolded is an interesting phrase that I've never heard when referring to a man.  If someone has "casual serial encounters" they can't be raped?    

[Eleven]

Whether you like it or not, promiscuity is used as a factor. Especially in a jury trial. 

 

This is 100% incorrect.  Evidence of the victim's promiscuity is completely inadmissible.  There are very narrow exceptions.  None would apply here.

Edited November 4, 2015 by eleven

[darksabre]

This is 100% incorrect.  Evidence of the victim's promiscuity is completely inadmissible.  There are very narrow exceptions.  None would apply here.

Mmmm that's what I thought. 

[JJFIVEOH]

Based on the statistics, the fence is exactly where I'm arguing more people should be.  Not on one side of it or the other.   

 

The bolded is an interesting phrase that I've never heard when referring to a man.  If someone has "casual serial encounters" they can't be raped?    

That was supposed to be 'sexual' Damn autocorrect. 

 

And don't put words in my mouth, I never said they couldn't, and it's completely besides the point. 

[Hoss]

This is 100% incorrect. Evidence of the victim's promiscuity is completely inadmissible. There are very narrow exceptions. None would apply here.

What are you? Some sort of legal scientist?

 

 

(Thank you)

[Thwomp!]

This is 100% incorrect.  Evidence of the victim's promiscuity is completely inadmissible.  There are very narrow exceptions.  None would apply here.

So shouldn't there be repercussions to Cambria for even bringing this up? Or is all fair in love, war, and defending your client?

[LGR4GM]

I think I might be done with this thread.

[Weave]

I think I might be done with this thread.

 

You've been done like 6 or 7 times.   :P

 

repeat to yourself 10 times, put the finger down, Liger.  it's not worth it.   :D

[JJFIVEOH]

I think I might be done with this thread.

 

Is there something that was said in which you take offense? 

This is 100% incorrect.  Evidence of the victim's promiscuity is completely inadmissible.  There are very narrow exceptions.  None would apply here.

 

So when they test for DNA in a rape case, finding the DNA from other men would not be admissible? Any case, not just this one in particular. 

[LGR4GM]

Edited November 4, 2015 by LGR4GM

[X. Benedict]

 

it looks like you are not done. You had at least 2 meaningless posts to contribute. 

[LastPommerFan]

I'm no lawiologist, but I'm pretty sure the DNA would be admissible, presented as a defense that it wasn't pat in the room. Then the insinuation of promiscuity is left to the jury (and almost assured).

Edited November 4, 2015 by Whiskey Bottle of Emotion

[LGR4GM]

[Hoss]

I'm no lawiologist, but I'm pretty sure the DNA would be admissible, presented as a defense that it wasn't pat in the room. Then the insinuation of promiscuity is left to the jury (and almost assured).

I'm also no lawentist, but I would think the only admissable DNA evidence to report when you went looking for a specific individuals DNA is that you found none of theirs. If you found others I don't see that as relevant in cases of alleged one-vs-one rape.

[X. Benedict]

 

I guess you are intent to try to annoy me or others by announcing you have nothing to say and then posting 10 hr. clips.

 

I don't get it, but I do think it is intentionally being rude to the community wanting to discuss it. 

[LGR4GM]

X, I have too much respect for you. As such, I will stop posting 10 hour random videos in this thread. 

[LastPommerFan]

I'm also no lawentist, but I would think the only admissable DNA evidence to report when you went looking for a specific individuals DNA is that you found none of theirs. If you found others I don't see that as relevant in cases of alleged one-vs-one rape.

 

I find it difficult to believe that the defense wouldn't be able to present evidence of the possibility that the woman was raped by someone other than the accused.