gbaji wrote:
No. My point then (and now) is that there are tests that can be performed that will determine with a high degree of probability whether a sexual encounter was consentual or not.
Actually, your point then (before you changed your tune when you came to the realization of just how very wrong everyone thought you were) was that unless a woman was completely brutalized, then she wasn't actually raped.
And your point now (and then) is completely wrong. These "tests" you are blathering about exist only in your imagination, as anyone who has ever experienced or witnessed a rape kit exam can tell you. The rape exam is nothing more than your standard GYN exam which is, in addition, photographed and during which trace evidence such as hairs, fibers, fluids, etc, is collected. It can tell you whether or not there is cervical bruising or vaginal tearing, whether or not there is ***** present, or spermicide that might come off a lubricated condom, or irritation due to a latex reaction from a condom lubricated or unlubricated. It can provide hair and fiber and other DNA evidence SOMETIMES. But that's ALL they can tell you.
You're full of sh
[/black]it. Shut up before you humiliate yourself and have to backpedal as you did the last time you opted to run your yap on this subject, which you patently KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
Quote:
All they said was that the victim had injuries consistent with sexual assault and rape. But that does not mean that she had injuries exclusive to sexual assault and rape.
Guess what? There ARE no such injuries. Any injury that can happen with rape can happen with consentual sex. Vaginal tearing can happen with consentual sex if things get too vigorous or there isn't enough lubrication. Same with finger bruises on the thighs or buttocks.
If a woman had to demonstrate injuries that were EXCLUSIVE to rape, there would never be a rape case prosecuted ever again. And contrary to the absurd claim you once tried to make, hundreds of rapes happen EVERY DAY without the victim sustaining traumatic physical injury, and severity of injury is IN NO WAY the deciding point upon which a prosecution for rape is legally based.
Quote:
The key bit is the phrase "consistent with". It's probably the most misunderstood phrase out there. It has a very specific legal meaning, but an entirely different meaning to most people. The phrase "consistent with" only means that the evidence being examined does not rule out a specific thing as its cause. It does not state that that is the only cause possible. In the case of injuries, they would leagally speak of injuries consistent with a particular type of attack, or inconsistent with a particular type of attack. Unfortunately, when that phrase is passed on to the public at large, it's often misunderstood to mean that the injuries point to a particular cause. They don't. "injuries consistent with sexual assault" could easily mean she had bruises on her that could have occured as the result of a sexual assault. Or they could have occured durring a mugging. Or a fight with a boyfriend. Or any of a number of other causes.
Wrong. "Injuries consistent with sexual assualt" could not happen during a mugging or a fight with the boyfriend, unless the mugger (or boyfriend) happened to leave bruises in places or in patterns that are considered sexual (finger bruises on genitals, inner thighs, buttocks or breasts, vaginal tearing, possibly strained jaw muscles or bruised lips if there were forced oral copulation.) If they could have been left by a non-sexual assault, the diagnosis would have been "Injuries consistent with ASSAULT" not "injuries consistent with SEXUAL ASSAULT." You're talking out your ***, Gbaji.
Quote:
My point is that "consisten with" evidence does not point to cause. It simply does not rule out cause.
No, what is does is strengthens the probability that the complaint is legitimate. And that's important when dealing with a crime where the complaint frequently can be boiled down to "he said/she said." IF she says she was raped, AND the doctors can testify that a medical examination is CONSISTENT with her claim (since there is no such animal as a symptom that is EXCLUSIVE to her complaint) then the chances of the complaint sticking in court are a lot higher than if those injuries aren't found. This is why rape cases in which the woman waits to report the crime are so much harder to prosecute.
Quote:
Those are *vastly* different things in legal terms. Right now, my understanding is that they can't even be sure that a rape occured, much less who might have done it. Put that in the context of a case where every single eyewitness counters the victims story?
If your bullsh[black]it "legal" knowledge had any resemblence whatsoever to reality, 99.9% of rape cases would NEVER be prosecuted, because cases in which a woman is so brutalized that there is no possible other cause for the injury besides rape are exceedingly rare. This is why a common defense for rapists is "rough, but consentual, sex."
Again, you're arguing in favor of letting alleged rapists walk free because the burden of proof you find personally satisfactory is nearly impossible to meet, except for those dwelling in Gbaji's Fantasy Land where medical tests can differentiate between rape and rough consentual sex and every rapist actually brutalizes his victim. For those of us living in the REAL WORLD, you're full of sh[black][/black]it.
Edited, Mon Apr 24 01:49:48 2006 by Ambrya
