pixy led

jonathan-cunningham:

rosietint:

jonathan-cunningham:

rosietint:

jonathan-cunningham:

rosietint:

jonathan-cunningham:

rosietint:

jonathan-cunningham:

inanevice:

gadgetry:

jonathan-cunningham:

pixyled:

cephalopodswims:

jonathan-cunningham:

Assange had no charges against him by any institution, but was still imprisoned in solitary confinement (an established form of torture). If you object to Moore bailing Assange out, you object to someone spending money to end the torture of someone…

Considering that 15 out of 16 rapists walk free, and 52% of rapists charged with rape are ruled “innocent” for reasons such as the victim (usually a woman) “shouldn’t have been out late alone/was dressed provoctively/led him on/ didn’t act like a victim/ was drinking/ can’t retract consent/didn’t fight hard enough/ has had sex with the accused before/ is promiscuous/ etc”, Assange being dubbed “not guilty” by judiciary scrutiny in NO way means he’s innocent.

So how can he clear himself of guilt?  Is there any way in your mind (and the minds of others who would prefer to see his right to due process stripped) that he can prove himself to be innocent?  I understand the imperfections of the court system, but what’s the alternative?  Punishment and implication of guilt without evidence?

There’s a lot of fury surrounding the handling of all this and you gotta understand where it comes from. Rape survivors are sick and tired of having the rapist’s word  taken over theirs. And if it were anyone but Assagne, most of the progressives I know or follow would be saying, “Well, here’s a guy who has been accused of rape by two separate women on two separate occasions; what a scumbag.”

And I am not saying Assagne is definitively a rapist scumbag, but the uproar of “Conspiracy! Smear campgain!” does a lot to drown out the legitimacy of these women’s voices. Does Assagne stand for something important? Sure. But we can acknowledge this and also acknowledge that he may very well be a pervert, and that perhaps the courts don’t exactly have the best track record with fair pursuit of rape cases. I am inclined to believe that when a woman speaks of sexual violence against her, she is telling the truth.

Of course no one ought to be tortured. Not even rapists. And certainly no one should be tortured without due process. But do you understand why the general treatment of these rape charges raises our hackles?

The accusations against Assange are not even those of rape and in fact no charges have yet been put forward. Last I checked, the two “raped” women are accusing him of not using a condom during consensual sex. Reckless behavior perhaps, but certainly not rape and definitely not a justification for the torture of solitary confinement.

This is entirely incorrect except for acknowledging that if Assange was a rapist, it still wouldn’t be okay to torture him.  First, Assange was charged with rape (emphasis on was, the charges were dropped months ago).  Second, they didn’t accuse him of not wearing a condom, they accused him of not stopping after the condom broke, which is definitely, certainly, 100% unequivocally rape.  If he can be proven to have committed that act, he should be sentenced harshly.  That said, the only evidence that this happened are the two accusations, which are not enough to get a conviction (for good reason).

And there you have it. EVEN IF HE DID ACTUALLY RAPE THEM, the women saying in a court of law that they were raped are not enough evidence to convict him.

WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK. What evidence is satisfactory? Video? Having the shit beat out of you? Oh but wait, that only proves you had the shit beat out of you. That doesn’t prove you were raped. So … that leaves … video? Eye witnesses? And how often do rape cases have video or eye witnesses? Exactly.

This is why rapists are hardly ever convicted or serve jail time. This fucking attitude right here.

It’s just SO FUCKING REASSURING to know that if I am raped, I am not sufficient evidence to get a conviction. Because I am OBVIOUSLY LYING, I’m sure. I mean, I’m just a vindictive feminist out to bring someone down, and I totally want THE ENTIRE WORLD TO KNOW about things like my sexual history, etc., which will inevitably come up in stories about my rape allegations. Hey, maybe I work for the CIA! YOU NEVER KNOW!!

RAPE ACCUSERS JUST DO IT FOR THE FUN, AMIRIGHT?

It’s obvious how emotionally attached to this issue you are, but can you name any other offense in which it would be appropriate to convict a man on two charges with one eye witness per charge?  You’re ignoring literally centuries of legal precedent to fit your idea of how the judicial system should work.

Um, people are convicted of various offenses all the fucking time with zero eye witnesses, let alone one.

Can you name one instance in which it’s okay to rape someone? Because according to how the judicial system does work, it’s okay to rape someone approximately 94 percent of the time.

And p.s.? FUCK YOU AND YOUR “EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED” COMMENT. Yeah, I am. And fucking proud of it, too.

If I understand your first statement, you believe that because evidence other than eye witness testimony is used to convict some people, any eye witness testimony should be able to convict anyone of rape.  There are numerous ways to prove various crimes, but if a crime is difficult to prove we don’t just throw the burden of proof out of the window, for reasons I think are obvious.

I didn’t say you were emotionally attached to try to insult you, only to communicate that I understand where your passion comes from.

So what then, we should just accept that rape is difficult crime to prove and move on? And we just accept that rapists walk free every single day because it’s “difficult” to prove it happened?

That solution is unacceptable, but still far superior to convicting people of rape based on a single accusation. 

That isn’t a solution. That is reality.

But, as I said, I’m glad to know that if I’m raped I better collect ALL THE EVIDENCE myself if I want my rapist convicted. Even if I don’t know what ALL THE EVIDENCE is supposed to include! Because if I am raped and I say I am raped, clearly I wasn’t, in a court of law. Unless I have ALL THE EVIDENCE. Which includes what, again? Please, do tell us all what evidence is needed to convict a rapist, since testifying that one was raped obviously isn’t enough.

…no, that’s not what I said at all.  The police, not you, are responsible for collecting evidence.  In order to convict someone of rape, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed rape.  If the only evidence against them is a single accusation, there is a reasonable doubt that he is guilty, and thus should not be convicted.

This is another problem with rape being convicted. A great number of rape kits are not even tested in many places (in the United States at least). Because of this, evidence such as DNA very well may not be available for trial.There needs to be a SERIOUS reform of this. I don’t think that an accusers word should be the sole reason for conviction still, though. I just wanted to make known that this is an issue in rape cases that we of course must factor in.