Rights of accused open for everyone

[FromTheSouth]

This thread is for the debaters only. The round opens today and will close on Friday at 6:00 PM CST Friday. The debaters can switch sides if both agree and PM me their agreement.

Milkyway will be affirming the topic and Lee, negating

Resolved: the rights of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the accused in felony cases.

 

[Lee]

Good luck milky lad.

In Detroit in 1994 the headlines were taken up by the story of three different basketball players who had all been accused of rape. These men were Derrick Coleman, Chris Webber and Jalen Rose and all three cases were subsequently dropped against the men. This of course was hushed over that the charges were dropped, at this time a study was conducted for the Washington Times by “two leading universities” (http://www.misandryreview.com/?p=12657) and written up by Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School which found out that 40% of all men accused of rare were found to be falsely accused. The definition of false as used in the study is, "the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred." Indeed, it includes only cases in which the complainant herself "admitted they are false." That's amazing that in these cases in 1994 40% of the rape charges were announced to be false by those who made the accusation.

That is of course is just relying on data from 1994 in America and not worldwide or relating to another crime, one thing I couldn't find was how many people have been to court accused of crimes and were later found innocent. One would assume this percentage is at least about 40% as the study from 1994 found out. So lets look at this from a statistical side of things, out of One hundred cases we can assume there would be one hundred victims and one hundred accused. Using my 40% theory of that there would be One Hundred and forty people who have not committed a crime, and sixty have. Would it be fair to have all the victims treated at a higher standard than those who have been accused, as I looked at that would mean forty people are falsely accused. If that's the case should we average things out and put the forty people who claim to be 'victims' into the criminal side? That would make it one hundred each but on different sides to what we started. Sounds complicated? Yup it's meant to be!

Lets put it in basic terms “Innocent until proven guilty” but we know full well that this should be the case,but is simply not. It's as though society has deemed it “guilty until proved innocent.!” I want go into stats as pointed out done by the prison reform website. I don't need to point out that men get more of a raw deal than women in this, that those held in remand are worse off than those actually convicted nor do I need to go into further details where this is essentially wrong, at the end of the day the people are accused not proven guilty.

I also want to clarify my stance that victims SHOULD have their rights as precedence over those who have been found guilty by a court of law as far as I see if you break the law you void your contract to have rights, but I won't go into that either. HOWEVER when accused you are technically innocent so this should be an equal to that of the victim.

I leave on this:

Think of it from your point of view, you've been arrested because someone matching your description raped a female. You've never even met this female before and you know you didn't rape her, you're fired from your job, your girlfriend leaves you, your family refuse to speak to you. You're at rock bottom, you're in a cell 22 hours of the day with 30 minutes excersise. Your name is in the paper with your name and face splashed in it, you make the evening news, people make a FB group about how much they hate you, there's 100,000 people join it. You're found innocent....what happens? Girl may take you back, family may talk to you, job won't take you back, news will briefly mention you were innocent and the FB group still exists. Is this morally right?

 

[HBK-aholic]

While this is hard to argue due to the amount of people found innocent, and therefore also turn out to be 'victims' in one sense, I definitely think the rights of the victim should come first. I'll use the example Lee brought up regarding rape trials. Very often, before any evidence is taken into account at all, the victim seems to be the one on trial. Her reputation is brought up, people try and discredit what she says. Her sex life can be spoken about - what does that have to do with anything? This is the reason the rape conviction rate is so low - before any evidence is looked at, the woman is looked at, as is a lot of things in her life. Often, the jury have made their mind up due to the fact *Shock, horror* She had a skirt on, or she's had sex before. And this is before any type of evidence is looked at, such as DNA evidence.

In this case, I think the rights of the victim should come first - is it fair to put her through this? While there is the possibility it wasn't the person on trial who raped her, the victim should NOT be put through such a horrible trial.

 

[antfarm612]

While this is hard to argue due to the amount of people found innocent, and therefore also turn out to be 'victims' in one sense, I definitely think the rights of the victim should come first. I'll use the example Lee brought up regarding rape trials. Very often, before any evidence is taken into account at all, the victim seems to be the one on trial. Her reputation is brought up, people try and discredit what she says. Her sex life can be spoken about - what does that have to do with anything? This is the reason the rape conviction rate is so low - before any evidence is looked at, the woman is looked at, as is a lot of things in her life. Often, the jury have made their mind up due to the fact *Shock, horror* She had a skirt on, or she's had sex before. And this is before any type of evidence is looked at, such as DNA evidence.

In this case, I think the rights of the victim should come first - is it fair to put her through this? While there is the possibility it wasn't the person on trial who raped her, the victim should NOT be put through such a horrible trial.

Do you really think if there was DNA evidence proving that the woman was raped by the defendant, and vaginal bruising proving it was non-consentual, that the jury would rule not guilty because she's had sex before?

I have to believe the opposite when it comes to rape. Remember the Duke Lacrosse trial? Everyone was absolutely SURE that they did it, and that they were getting off easy because they were white. Turns out that bitch was a stone-cold liar. What about Tupac? I don't remember there being ANY physical evidence that he molested her, but they took her word over his and he went to prison.

Anyway, I believe that the defendant should always come first. Unless you can prove, PROVE, as in FACT, that they are guilty, they should be not be found guilty. Now, I can't emphasis this enough. If the only evidence the prosecution has is eye-witness testimony, that should not be enough to find someone guilty, because newsflash: PEOPLE LIE. When it comes to murder, unless there is cold, hard, physical proof that the defendant is guilty, they should not be found guilty.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Do you really think if there was DNA evidence proving that the woman was raped by the defendant, and vaginal bruising proving it was non-consentual, that the jury would rule not guilty because she's had sex before?

I don't believe I said that. What I said was, before any evidence is looked at, the woman is made to look like she cannot be trusted, or shouldn't be. Her name is dragged through the mud due to something she's done before, and which has absolutely NO bearing on the case at all. That's what I have a problem with - she's made out to look or feel as if she's done something wrong.

I have to believe the opposite when it comes to rape. Remember the Duke Lacrosse trial? Everyone was absolutely SURE that they did it, and that they were getting off easy because they were white. Turns out that bitch was a stone-cold liar. What about Tupac? I don't remember there being ANY physical evidence that he molested her, but they took her word over his and he went to prison.

Do you have ANY idea how rare that is? I mean, the conviction rate for rape is 5%. You practically have to have witnesses who watched the rape, CCTV footage, vaginal bruising and scarring, and be very very very good at public speaking. It's unbelievably difficult to gain a conviction.

Anyway, I believe that the defendant should always come first. Unless you can prove, PROVE, as in FACT, that they are guilty, they should be not be found guilty. Now, I can't emphasis this enough. If the only evidence the prosecution has is eye-witness testimony, that should not be enough to find someone guilty, because newsflash: PEOPLE LIE. When it comes to murder, unless there is cold, hard, physical proof that the defendant is guilty, they should not be found guilty.

But unless you're 'lucky' enough to have a rapist who severely raped you, that means we're leaving rapists to wonder the streets. If you're not going to listen to eye-witness testimony, what does that leave in cases such as rape? Where it's SO easy for someone to say "She consented". It's just as easy for a rapist to lie and say he didn't do it, as it is for a woman to say he did - don't forget that.

 

[antfarm612]

If you're not going to listen to eye-witness testimony, what does that leave in cases such as rape? Where it's SO easy for someone to say "She consented".

It means that unless you can prove the defendant is guilty, they are not guilty, which is a principal this country was founded on.

It's just as easy for a rapist to lie and say he didn't do it, as it is for a woman to say he did - don't forget that.

That's exactly my point, and why testimony should not be the deciding factor in a case. I'm not saying the jury shouldn't listen to testimony, they certainly should, I'm saying that unless the testimony proves, as in for a fact, an undisputable fact, that the defendant is guilty, they should not be found guilty.