This, a portion of a respone to another one of my posts elsewhere on the board, deserved it's own thread, in my humble opinion.
the DNA factor
We've just passed through an historic window: From the time when DNA was never used to try to catch an alleged rapist, to a time when DNA is always used to catch an alleged rapist. While passing through that window, hundreds, perhaps thousands of rapists were tripped up by a simple, straightforward question: "If you never had sex with her, how did your DNA get inside of her?" Case Closed.
Now, you couldn't catch a retarded rapist with alzheimers with that question. DNA proves so conclusively and so easily whether sex took place or not, that the only question that remains is "was the sex consentual". Whether or not sex took place between any two people is a question barely worth asking anymore, the answer to which is no longer an unknown variable.
In other words, all accused rapists, if they say they didn't have sex with her but did, are guilty. If they say they didn't have sex with her, and didn't, they are innocent. Unless a rapist is arrogant enough (or foolhardy enough) to risk his case on the belief that he has thoroughly removed all of his DNA from the crime scene, his only practical defense if he knows that he did, in fact, have sex with his accuser is "she consented".; leaving the prosecution to prove that she did NOT consent.
This new "style" of trying rape cases makes for a kinder, gentler rapist, committing kinder, gentler rapes. even bruises count against him in court. The new rules of rape dictate that he must not beat, strangle, stab, or shoot his victim. Refraining from leaving his mark in these ways is crucial to his "she consented" defense. If there are no witnesses, no videotape, then it comes down to his word against hers.
Even if they were strangers, the issue is still consent. As long as women anywhere sleep with men they just met, the consent factor remains relevant, even in stranger-rape cases. This of course, necessitates the erasure of antiquated "rape shield" laws, since the prosecutor's best tool in such a case is "she would never sleep with a man she just met". (If she DOES have a history of doing that, well, there's still a certain measure of justice involved, since handing down a lengthy prison sentence to a man to pay for what she routinely gives away for free doesn't seem right, in the minds of most sane people, even if they sympathize with her right to choose to say no to this particular man.)
This brings us to a unique point in the history of rape:
From here on out, nearly all rape cases will be of the "he-said; she-said" variety.
And nearly all "he-said; she-said" rape cases contain "reasonable doubt".
And "reasonable doubt" is the standard for setting the accused rapist free.
THEREFORE, no more putting guys in prison for raping hott chix!
Whooo Hooooo!
Oh, there'll still be the odd psycho who can't resist beating and murdering his victim, even if it means sacrificing his own life to do so. And there'll be the odd "rape caught on tape" that proves to a jury that there was no consent. But other than that, the landscape of rape is fast a-changin'.
Yes, the DNA factor, with it's "kinder, gentler" but unprosecutable rapes, should be a good deal for all.
Men get all the sex they want, and women get to relax and enjoy their rapes, free in the assumption that they will not be beaten, mutilated, or murdered. A very fair trade-off, some would say.
But even now, some misguided judges are trying to rectify what they see as an injustice, by "legislating from the bench". They are taking the drastic measure of ridding their courtroom of the "reasonable doubt" defense in the rape cases that come up before them, dropping the standard to "preponderance". As in "If you believe him, vote not guilty, but if you believe her, vote guilty." This of course is an insane standard, and must not be tolerated! Prisons are not big enough to hold all the male victims of newly empowered women who MIGHT be telling the truth when they cry rape!
So remember, jurors, "If you didn't see him do IT,
You must AQUIT!!!!!"
---Ray
