Would this case [for instance] be a prime reason why the changes in rape laws now exist?
Charges of rape and sodomy dropped "...because there was no corroboration", to 3rd degree sexual abuse. Defendant's motion to "dismiss the lesser charge of 3rd degree sexual abuse" granted.
Prosecutors appealed the motion to drop the lesser charges of sexual abuse [i.e., misdeamor with max. 3 months], and were able to charge the defendant with the sexual abuse without the corroboration evidence [apparently] needed for the rape charges...
*Note* This case is from September of 1967, BEFORE the "elimination of requirement for corroboration of victim's testimony".
Based on this question from earlier:
Is anyone else having trouble posting questions?
@Common Sense... So, you're saying the claimant's accusations of larceny, child endangerment, assault are all true, and that the claimant threw in a "What the hell---let's go for rape, too" charge?
The court OBVIOUSLY was able to prove there was sexual assault, rape and sodomy, which is WHY the charges were dropped to 3rd degree sexual abuse! If the court didn't think a rape had occurred, WHY in the world would they have even charged him with the lesser 3rd degree misdemeanour charge?
HENCE, the NECESSITY to change the laws so that rapists don't get away with rape and sodomy [i.e., felonies], and dropped to 3rd degree misdemeanours, then released back into society to do it all over again!
The court had plenty of "Uncorroborated" evidence to charge him [at least] with something [at that time], but he got off "scott free" on the harsher charge of rape and sodomy...
- ?Lv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
It's pretty hard to have a 3rd party in the place when you are being raped to provide corroboration. If there were a 3rd person there, then one would hope that this person would be trying to stop the rape. However, sometimes the third person is holding the woman down to help the other to rape her - and then it is two against one. Rape laws need to work for the victim too and not always work for the rapist.
- Common SenseLv 77 years ago
Not that case specifically, but yes, the laws were changed to have more guilty findings in cases like that in which its simply the word of the accuser and in which there is no other evidence.
You are obviously approaching this with the idea that say so of the accuser is correct. That both the claim of rape and who she accuses are correct. The question is: Lacking any other evidence, how can one know such a claim in indeed correct?
There is no question that the reforms do in fact result in more convictions. The question you refer to was about whether those additional convictions justify lowering the standard to find someone guilty and the increased incidence of convicting innocent people that goes with that.
- WWGSDLv 67 years ago
No. The primary reason for relaxing standards of proof in cases of alleged rape, is the irrational degree of importance placed upon protecting vaginas from interlopers. True rape is an exceedingly rare crime, not at all worthy of the hysteria that surrounds it, and not at all justification for eliminating the presumption of innocence.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Usually if there's not enough evidence to support a more severe charge, it is reduced to one the evidence can support.
But, what you want is to ensure that a person is always convicted of whatever charge is brought against him irrespective of the evidence at hand.
You're a good little statist, are you?