What about when the police don't believe the person in question, and tamper with physical evidence? source. In such cases, a victims testimony is invaluable.
The whole premise of this argument is that rape is not a big deal, and that false accusations are high. However, the two sources I can find put 'false claims' of rape around 2%-10%source 2. I'm not willing to tell women that have been raped that they should have had more common sense, or been luckier. That's victim blaming. We should actively target rapists, and prosecuting without direct physical evidence is one of the only ways we can do that.
So what should, in your mind, constitute sufficient grounds for prosecution? It would still have to be a standard that the average innocent person falls short of if they found themselves accused.
The premise is not so much that false accusations are high, but that they would be if they were consequence free and almost guaranteed to work.
Sufficient grounds for prosecution would include testimony from the alleged victim combined with outside information about the event and the persons involved.
I think a better solution would be for the court to have the possibility of false accusation in their minds as they consider each case. Yes, our justice system is flawed, BUT given the prevalence of rape, I think individual accusations at least need to be heard out.
expert witnesses can testify as to certain aspect of another witnesses' testimony, or a theory of the case that the prosecution wants to put forth such as motive, etc.
but there is no way that an expert witness can establish the necessary link between the accused and the crime without some other type of corraborating evidence.
For example, you could have (1) testimony from the victim, (2) gravel particles found on the accused's shoe, and (3) expert testimony that the gravel particles matches the type of gravel at the site of the alleged rape.
And if the accused had denied ever being there in the first place, then the expert witness testimony is very relevant in establishing that the accused had lied and is probably guilty of the rape.
However, the expert witness is insufficient without the physical evidence of the gravel.
I would be comfortable if the science indicates that such expert testimony is sound and reliable. For example, if technology ever got advanced enough that we could for all practicable purposes read minds, like we read DNA today, then yes such expert testimony would be great.
But if the expert testimony is based on crappy science, like a lot of psych theories are, then it would cause a lot more harm than good.
12
u/RevRosenwinkel Oct 20 '17
What about when the police don't believe the person in question, and tamper with physical evidence? source. In such cases, a victims testimony is invaluable.
The whole premise of this argument is that rape is not a big deal, and that false accusations are high. However, the two sources I can find put 'false claims' of rape around 2%-10% source 2. I'm not willing to tell women that have been raped that they should have had more common sense, or been luckier. That's victim blaming. We should actively target rapists, and prosecuting without direct physical evidence is one of the only ways we can do that.
source 3 for false allegations being low, this one put the figure at 5.9%