This is the issue with our legal system. The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That means there is no other plausible explanation; not a single one that isn't so far-fetched that it can't possibly have happened.
Under this standard, they shouldn't even be allowed to bring cases to trial where only evidence is the statement of one party against another. Even if you find the accuser's version of events more compelling, or even extremely probable, by definition it's he-said/she-said, and the accused's version of events is at least possible, if not probable, barring the introduction of evidence to dispute it.
It's impossible to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt without any sort of corroborating evidence beyond a single witness's testimony. And that's when they have been comprehensive and consistent in their accusations from day one. The fact that this person changed their story multiple times undermines them even further. Because of this #believeallwomen trash, I'm seeing more and more cases that are successfully prosecuted without any evidence beyond an accusation.
And allowing the prosecution to accuse the defendent of drugging people without presenting any evidence is beyond the pale. The only upside is that the judge doing that should guarantee an appeal.
That's why "rape" is the most controversial of all crimes. Because its one that basically only ever has the "victim's" statement as evidence. Rape kits are basically a placebo, and drugs aren't as common as women want you to think.
So its a bit of a situation, because rape is a crime that should be punished and taken seriously but our legal system is basically unequipped to logically deal with it in the manner its setup for.
And history has shown that women love to just outright lie about it. One of the quintessential pieces of American Literature (To Kill a Mockingbird) uses it as the entire core of the story, and its treated so lightly that its background material and given a dozen excuses to not blame her for.
So its unfortunately an unsolvable problem. Because the only way to fairly and justly deal with it, requires women to be honorable and honest people. Which just lol.
drugs aren't as common as women want you to think.
The truth is women can't drink like men, but they try to anyways, and they make shit decisions they regret afterwards, and society offers them an easy out - "it wasn't your decision, you're not responsible for your choices."
If you were cognizant, you're responsible for what you said and did. If you were insensate, you're not responsible for what was done to you, but that's a tiny fraction of a fraction of cases.
Any judgement other than responsibility for your actions while drunk must logically also absolve women of the consequences of drunk driving.
Combine that with the fact that men drink way too much in our culture, already. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what the appeal is of getting so drunk that you don't remember the night before, and that you vomit. That sounds awful. There are about a million things I would rather do than that.
Getting a little tipsy and goofing off with friends? Sure I get the appeal of that. I haven't really done that since shortly after my college days, but I understand it. Blackout drunk or ending the night over a toilet? That sucks.
This is the issue with our legal system. The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That means there is no other plausible explanation; not a single one that isn't so far-fetched that it can't possibly have happened.
Under this standard, they shouldn't even be allowed to bring cases to trial where only evidence is the statement of one party against another. Even if you find the accuser's version of events more compelling, or even extremely probable, by definition it's he-said/she-said, and the accused's version of events is at least possible, if not probable, barring the introduction of evidence to dispute it.
It's impossible to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt without any sort of corroborating evidence beyond a single witness's testimony. And that's when they have been comprehensive and consistent in their accusations from day one. The fact that this person changed their story multiple times undermines them even further. Because of this #believeallwomen trash, I'm seeing more and more cases that are successfully prosecuted without any evidence beyond an accusation.
And allowing the prosecution to accuse the defendent of drugging people without presenting any evidence is beyond the pale. The only upside is that the judge doing that should guarantee an appeal.
That's why "rape" is the most controversial of all crimes. Because its one that basically only ever has the "victim's" statement as evidence. Rape kits are basically a placebo, and drugs aren't as common as women want you to think.
So its a bit of a situation, because rape is a crime that should be punished and taken seriously but our legal system is basically unequipped to logically deal with it in the manner its setup for.
And history has shown that women love to just outright lie about it. One of the quintessential pieces of American Literature (To Kill a Mockingbird) uses it as the entire core of the story, and its treated so lightly that its background material and given a dozen excuses to not blame her for.
So its unfortunately an unsolvable problem. Because the only way to fairly and justly deal with it, requires women to be honorable and honest people. Which just lol.
The truth is women can't drink like men, but they try to anyways, and they make shit decisions they regret afterwards, and society offers them an easy out - "it wasn't your decision, you're not responsible for your choices."
If you were cognizant, you're responsible for what you said and did. If you were insensate, you're not responsible for what was done to you, but that's a tiny fraction of a fraction of cases.
Any judgement other than responsibility for your actions while drunk must logically also absolve women of the consequences of drunk driving.
Combine that with the fact that men drink way too much in our culture, already. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what the appeal is of getting so drunk that you don't remember the night before, and that you vomit. That sounds awful. There are about a million things I would rather do than that.
Getting a little tipsy and goofing off with friends? Sure I get the appeal of that. I haven't really done that since shortly after my college days, but I understand it. Blackout drunk or ending the night over a toilet? That sucks.