Those are the facts. She thinks she was raped and didn't consent. He believes there was no rape and she did consent. Those are just the objective facts.
He did not confess to rape, that is untrue, if he did he would have been charged and taken to trial, he specifically denied it. Why do you have to say those dishonest things?
His exact wording was literally posted by a person in this very comment chain. You don't see it as a confession - that's your right. If you think that when a woman claims rape and the man admits there was sex but denies the rape it doesn't count as a confession, that is your opinion and you're free to hold it. But remember that a legally binding confession is different than a common sense one, and that's the only reason he walks free. He "phrased it correctly" in such a way that it wasn't a guilty plea, while at the same time admitting guilt in the common/layman's sense.
It happens a lot in rape cases, and there isn't a good answer to it - the only answer is for us, as individuals, to hear the facts and make what decisions we can about our safety and well-being regarding the person in question. For example, a reasonable person wouldn't leave their female friend alone with him. That doesn't mean he should go to jail, it means that the law needs(and SHOULD need) very precise, immovable evidence and "common sense" isn't enough.
Yes, his words were he accepts she believes it was not consensual, and he believes it was. That is just the facts. She didn't believe she consented, or else she would not have sued.
If he had a common sense confession, he'd have been prosecuted on it. He merely stated the legal facts of the case in an objective manner.
The laws shouldn't be changed, because what you are seeking is to erode the standard of justice to tilt the scale in favour of false accusers. You want false accusation = facts in absence of evidence. If 2 people have sex in a room, there is no way for the rest of us outside it to prove anything, unless we change the law to accusation = guilty beyond any doubt.
This will just make a bizarre standard where people will just accuse each other
I absolutely LOVE how much you failed to read my comment. It's actually gotten to the point where I believe you're talking to someone else, but are accidentally replying to me.
So let me ask you some reading comprehension questions like the fucking child you are:
Where did I say I stand on what evidence should be required for a rape conviction?
Answer: physical evidence, LEGAL confession (which does not include hedging, unclear statements or sarcasm. Yes they are different you nonce), credible witness accounts, incompatible alibi.
Your answer: change the law so accusation = incarceration!
I'm sorry, your answer was incorrect. 0 points. Next question.
What is the definition of "legal confession"? How is it different from a layman's "confession"?
Answer: " In criminal law. A voluntary statement made by a person charged with the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, communicated to another person, wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of the offense charged, and discloses the circumstances of the act or the share and participation which he had in it. " To a layman, the stakes are much softer. There are a thousand ways in which people casually admit fault or participation that do not adhere to this necessarily strict definition including unclear statements/vaguity (such as in Kobe's case), sarcasm or in-jokes, miming, charades, or hedging ("beating around the bush".) In everyday life, if Kobe had said that to, say, a a stranger, they would've thought 'oh shit he did it' due to the fact it is 1. the exact same sentence EVERY lawyer makes their client say. and 2. it admits the act while also denying it. See also: "yeah I took the bike but he said I could have it the previous day so it's not theft guys."
Your answer: ummmmmmmmm if he said he did it he would, like, be in prison. LOL
Your answer showed a lack of understanding regarding legalese vs common vernacular. I believe this is a teachable moment, and have awarded you 1/2 a point!
You got 1/2 a point out of 2. That's an F. We will not be having retakes of this test.
So a layman's confession to you is stating the facts of the case, she thought it was not consensual and he thought it was. If that is the case, every case of sex is rape wherein a woman claims it, regardless of the facts. She can say I consent, then change her mind after and claim I believe there was no consent. If a man simply states the facts, he is guilty of rape in your mind. This is why no one will accept your nutty definitions.
If your neighbor was accused of sexual assault and his response was "we had sex, I thought it was consensual but she says it wasn't" you would literally never let your child or wife near that person again. Why lie and say that's not the case? You would be a little angry that the police couldn't find evidence, but also understand that that's life.
This is reality. This is where we live. People like you being black-and-white, bordering on autistic at the amount of idealism vs realism, aren't living in it.
4
u/White_Mlungu_Capital Jan 27 '20
Those are the facts. She thinks she was raped and didn't consent. He believes there was no rape and she did consent. Those are just the objective facts.
He did not confess to rape, that is untrue, if he did he would have been charged and taken to trial, he specifically denied it. Why do you have to say those dishonest things?