Marital rape cannot be criminalized: Govt. - Page 4

Originally posted by: LoveToLaugh

I was reacting to the "women are protected species" comment.

However, tell me why should we not believe a woman when she says she has been a victim of sexual abuse? Do women not get enough shit as it is? If you think that people believe a woman every time she "screams rape", you couldn't be more wrong. Questions are raised about what she was wearing, the time she was out, the amount of alcohol she had consumed (if any); it is bullshit. As for marital rape, most people don't believe that is even a thing. Because it is extremely hard to believe (even for the victim) that someone you know can do such a terrible thing.

I am not saying that women cannot falsely accuse someone. But it is up to the court to decide whether or not an accusation is false. Last time I checked, the law gives you a fair trial. You are allowed to fight your case no matter who accuses you.

Is it possible to believe and empathize with the victim while also believing that it is important to hear out the accused too? I think so.

Originally posted by: LoveToLaugh

I was reacting to the "women are protected species" comment.

However, tell me why should we not believe a woman when she says she has been a victim of sexual abuse? Do women not get enough shit as it is? If you think that people believe a woman every time she "screams rape", you couldn't be more wrong. Questions are raised about what she was wearing, the time she was out, the amount of alcohol she had consumed (if any); it is bullshit. As for marital rape, most people don't believe that is even a thing. Because it is extremely hard to believe (even for the victim) that someone you know can do such a terrible thing.

I am not saying that women cannot falsely accuse someone. But it is up to the court to decide whether or not an accusation is false. Last time I checked, the law gives you a fair trial. You are allowed to fight your case no matter who accuses you.

Is it possible to believe and empathize with the victim while also believing that it is important to hear out the accused too? I think so.

Originally posted by: souro

In between 'believing' and 'disbelieving' there is a neutral ground of 'I don't know yet, let's investigate and find out'. Believing even before investigation or disbelieving and refusing to investigate, both are equally wrong in my opinion.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

The neutrality you are referring to is nothing more than being fastidious. If you just pay heed to rape, molestation statistics... and how women are socially humiliated/exploited in several roles they play, how theur freedom is the man's prerogative..-. i dont think that neutrality will really matter even if the woman who screamed rape was acting and a liar...and got a free pass at expense of the man who got incarcerated on her false accusations!!

Actually, its about what happens "generally", or in about 90% of the registered cases. If a woman cries "rape" and her claims sound believable, then she should be taken at face value unless proved otherwise. That's how things should work in view of the male-female, or rich-poor, or Upper Caste-Dalit, 'power dynamics' existing in the society.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

Actually, its about what happens "generally", or in about 90% of the registered cases. If a woman cries "rape" and her claims sound believable, then she should be taken at face value unless proved otherwise. That's how things should work in view of the male-female, or rich-poor, or Upper Caste-Dalit, 'power dynamics' existing in the society.

A woman/person who's been genuinely abused, needs emotional support to cope with the trauma, and that can only be provided by somebody who believes in them. Nobody's saying to not have a free and fair investigation, but if the circumstantial evidence is in support of the victim, then most sane people would take them at face value until the opposite is proved.

Originally posted by: LoveToLaugh

I was reacting to the "women are protected species" comment.

However, tell me why should we not believe a woman when she says she has been a victim of sexual abuse? Do women not get enough shit as it is? If you think that people believe a woman every time she "screams rape", you couldn't be more wrong. Questions are raised about what she was wearing, the time she was out, the amount of alcohol she had consumed (if any); it is bullshit. As for marital rape, most people don't believe that is even a thing. Because it is extremely hard to believe (even for the victim) that someone you know can do such a terrible thing.

I am not saying that women cannot falsely accuse someone. But it is up to the court to decide whether or not an accusation is false. Last time I checked, the law gives you a fair trial. You are allowed to fight your case no matter who accuses you.

Is it possible to believe and empathize with the victim while also believing that it is important to hear out the accused too? I think so.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

A woman/person who's been genuinely abused, needs emotional support to cope with the trauma, and that can only be provided by somebody who believes in them. Nobody's saying to not have a free and fair investigation, but if the circumstantial evidence is in support of the victim, then most sane people would take them at face value until the opposite is proved.

Krystal_Watz, You say, 'Actually, its about what happens "generally", or in about 90% of the registered cases. If a woman cries "rape" and her claims sound believable, then she should be taken at face value unless proved otherwise. That's how things should work in view of the male-female, or rich-poor, or Upper Caste-Dalit, 'power dynamics' existing in the society. '

When you say, things should be taken at face value unless proved otherwise, that means, the person who she is accusing is to be taken as guilty till he proves otherwise or till he proves he is innocent. Whenever a person accuses another person, the burden of proof has to be always on the accuser. The founding principle of our judiciary is, anyone is innocent till he/she is proved to be guilty. Now if someone is to be considered to be guilty till he proves his innocence, then doesn't that mean innocent persons have to suffer and have to work hard to prove their innocence. If false cases are filed by women against men, aren't the men suffering here?

And based on what you say, poor people have the advantage of filing false cases against rich persons when the poor are envious of the rich. Again there will be lawyers who will goad the poor persons to file cases so that a rich person is stripped of money and the poor person as well as the lawyer get the cut out of it.

The laws have to be neutral and not favoring any section just because it is believed that section has advantages.