- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,913
- Reaction score
- 2,086
The fact that there are conflicting stories is exactly why you cannot just label someone a rapist. People are getting hung up on the alcohol aspect of it because even if they were in a state in which voluntary intoxication laws were present, there was no trial and no conviction. It’s innocent until proven guilty. An accusation is not enough to just call someone a scumbag rapist.With all due respect, it would be much more fair to say you got hung up on the "conflicting versions" bit, since that's what you said instead of "inadequate evidence," which would be a much more fair excuse of charges not moving forward. I mean, the prosecutor notes that it's normal to have conflicting versions. One of the reasons they can't get evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" is because the law in that district has a higher reasonable doubt because of the loophole provided. The article points out that he gave "few details" but did go out of his way to say how his office was restricted by the law in pressing charges and how he'd been pushing to change it for a while. That's pretty specific in terms of what details affect this case's prosecution. Pointing that out is not getting "hung up" at all.
Also, the threshold for reasonable doubt is not a loophole. It’s the way almost half of the states work. Of course the prosecutor wants to have a lower threshold for reasonable doubt. Convictions look good on their record. It’d make the job easier. Fact of the matter is 21 states operate the way Minnesota does. 23 operate the way the prosecutor wants to operate. Calling it a loophole doesn’t make sense. (6 undecided on the issue).
Last edited: