(March 6, 2018 at 1:01 am)drfuzzy Wrote:
Quote:Something went all screwy with post 40, and I'm not sure WHO said what . . . Succubus was one . . .At first glance you appear to present a good argument but analysis shows that it's full of holes.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say you aren't trolling.
The only other explanation for your stance is that you have absolutely no concept of the emotional toll that rape takes on a mature adult. My roommate was raped in college. (1982) The doctors at the hospital said that her physical damage was minimal - only minor bruising and a small tear. This was a strong, smart girl with great friends and a great family. She kept telling everyone she was fine but I was the one who kept running into her room when she woke up screaming - for months. 30 years after the rape, they caught the guy. She was terrified to even go into the courtroom, she didn't want to be in the same room with him, even after 30 years, with a loving husband and 4 lovely children. Her rapist made no threats - he had a gun, and laughed afterward, telling her that it wasn't loaded. Threats weren't needed. Being held down and violated was more than enough.
Now let's see, you're a 7-year-old who has no idea what is happening to you, except that it is terrifying and nauseating and embarrassing and painful and wrong. And your abuser makes all sorts of threats. You CAN'T tell anyone. Ever. And the child is often made to think it's their fault, and THEY will go to jail if they tell.
Now how, exactly, do "sexual encounters in the next 14 years" figure into this at all? You don't think that sexual encounters will . . . what, make everything ok? Are you so ignorant about this sort of trauma - or utterly lacking in empathy - that you think that rape isn't a big deal and that people just move on? Are you serious? Or are you a rapist?
The discussion was about people who wait decades before whining that some pervert priest raped them. In a lot of such instances the alleged perp is dead and now the victims just want a big pay day. I said in such instances I would laugh the case out of court if I was on the jury. And I would because there is no credible evidence that the victim can support the allegation.
You cleverly introduced the instance where a real crime victim was raped and filed a crime report and the cops collected the evidence and stored it. Then as time passed a guy was snagged for some crime and his DNA was ran against the cold cases and he was busted for his crime. That is completely different from the typical case involving a perp priest.
Now in the case you cited the victim didn't sue for a big payout. She didn't even want to go to court. But she was caught up in the system because years ago she filed a legitimate compliant. If she was a minor at the time of the incident she probably wouldn't even be required to testify in great detail as an adult because the DNA evidence and police report would probably be enough to get a conviction since she couldn't consent to sex as a minor. But you said she was in college so she was probably over the age of consent. She could have ignored the case if she had wanted to but that might have caused her some family problems.
So the difference is that one person is a verified crime victim who has supporting evidence. The other person is a self-alleged victim whose only evidence is other people's claims against the alleged perp and they also don't have any credible evidence. They just want the money.
Now if you were the alleged perp in such a case would you rather have someone like me on your jury or a person who is easily swayed by hysteria because someone is making a claim without any supporting evidence against you?
