Teenage migrant 'raped and strangled 90-year-old German woman as she left church

172 posts in this topic

Not yet....

Not until we have found out if the attacker was a Whte Muslim Scotish Kebab shop owner potesting about Brexit and Nicola Sturgeons mums resemblance to Elton John...

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, T86 said:

   This is horrible!  What would have happened, had a British or American done something like that? 

 

On TT? Nothing. No muslim, no refugee, no concern.

 

23 minutes ago, T86 said:

 

How long do you think it would take before we are deported? 

 

Never ever.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jeremy said:

Er, this is a forum for English in Germany. What's all that slangy stuff?

 

Learn german. Integrate. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jeba said:

Of course not.

 

Unfortunately, it often the case that a victim of fraud or crime can´t get compensation / satisfaction due to lack of proof. But the principle of assuming innocence until proven guilty is indispensible in my view. It´s the lesser evil. What would you want that principle replaced with?

 

So this is the dilemma. In this case, we are both very sure that this woman did not consent to rape. One bit of that is based on ageist premises in the sense that we have a prejudice about sexuality of the elderly and probably, we wouldn't say "of course not" so easily if this was a younger woman with the same physical evidence - of assault and maybe of rape -  but let's ignore this for now. 

 

So, even when we are sure, both of us, we are still admitting (or I am) that a case like this may be lost under certain circumstances (in theory). Innocent until proven guilty. 

 

A person can be "proven" guilty in many ways as we define the notion of "proof" and "evidence."  (And in a court case, the onus shifts all the time anyway, it's not just one side trying to prove everything all the time.) At another level, yes, we can play with categories - war crime, "sexual" crime, crime against humanity etc. 

 

But, here, at the moment, we are choosing "proven until guilty" even if we are sure that a crime was committed. This, we probably feel we must accept - albeit unwillingly- for an overall principle of justice. This I find unjust and want to develop a better approach. What's your take? 

 

But the most ironic situation in my eyes is that we actually have no problems with ingoring that principle quite often  - with executive motions about "preventative measures", bans we bring to certain groups of people etc etc? Legally, we preserve the right to take some freedom away from people if we have "reasonable" grounds that they "may" or "will" do something. Reasonable can be played with of course. All countries do this and it comes up in various ways nowadays, ironically, in relation to refugees, Muslims, this and that. There we don't say, "proven until guilty." 

 

In the specific case of refugees, we don't say "non-refoulement" which is also related to this principle. We want to violate international law all the time - same in my country, same everywhere. 

 

Culturally, too, we have zero respect for "innocent until proven guilty" most of the time. We produce narratives of animosity toward various populations all the time. 

 

Yet, when we come to the court with rape, yes, all of a sudden we remember the famous principle. Why not a little "reasonable doubt" application there? Instead of the law looking into the mouth of a guy that we are sure committed this crime?  Why is this so unthinkable? 

 

What is the cause of intellectual, mental, psychological preference when we don't apply it to ordinary refugees or when we take it away from groups with "legalized" motions for instance, but when we think it is unthinkable to change it in a rape case?  

(This is one of the areas where the new "politics" about rape fails to convince almost everyone - in addition to two thousand others.) 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, zeino said:

And in a court case, the onus shifts all the time anyway

No, not in a crimal law case, only in civil law. And that is key to answering your objections. The principle of innocent until proven guilty only applies in criminal law. There is no right to be granted priviledges unless having done something wrong because priviledges are just that. Not everybody does have them. E. g. you can´t become Trump´s successor unless you´re born in the US.

Quote

But, here, at the moment, we are choosing "proven until guilty" even if we are sure that a crime was committed. This, we probably feel we must accept - albeit unwillingly- for an overall principle of justice. This I find unjust and want to develop a better approach. What's your take? 

I don´t see a solution. If you have one let me know. But for now I´d like the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" upheld as it is the lesser evil (compared to sentencing an innocent person).

Quote

But the most ironic situation in my eyes is that we actually have no problems with ingoring that principle quite often  - with executive motions about "preventative measures", bans we bring to certain groups of people etc etc? Legally, we preserve the right to take some freedom away from people if we have "reasonable" grounds that they "may" or "will" do something. Reasonable can be played with of course. All countries do this and it comes up in various ways nowadays, ironically, in relation to refugees, Muslims, this and that. There we don't say, "proven until guilty." 

As I said before: we´re not ignoring that principle because it doesn´t exist outside criminal law cases. Withholding a priviledge isn´t the same as sentencing someone in a criminal trial.

 

Quote

Yet, when we come to the court with rape, yes, all of a sudden we remember the famous principle. 

Again: No, not only in rape cases but in all cases of criminal law.

 

9 hours ago, zeino said:

What is the cause of intellectual, mental, psychological preference when we don't apply it to ordinary refugees or when we take it away from groups with "legalized" motions for instance, but when we think it is unthinkable to change it in a rape case?  

Your statement is based on a wrong assumption. Even an ordinary refugee will be granted the "innocent until proven guilty" benefit of the doubt in a criminal law case.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23.03.2017 09:17:20, jeba said:

No, not in a crimal law case, only in civil law. And that is key to answering your objections. The principle of innocent until proven guilty only applies in criminal law. There is no right to be granted priviledges unless having done something wrong because priviledges are just that. Not everybody does have them. E. g. you can´t become Trump´s successor unless you´re born in the US.

I don´t see a solution. If you have one let me know. But for now I´d like the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" upheld as it is the lesser evil (compared to sentencing an innocent person).

As I said before: we´re not ignoring that principle because it doesn´t exist outside criminal law cases. Withholding a priviledge isn´t the same as sentencing someone in a criminal trial.

 

Again: No, not only in rape cases but in all cases of criminal law.

 

Your statement is based on a wrong assumption. Even an ordinary refugee will be granted the "innocent until proven guilty" benefit of the doubt in a criminal law case.

 

I was looking for this thread - yes, I'm dumb enough to have lost it. 

 

The thing is, the idea of consent has already been reviewed and revised in some countries with the US colleges and some states leading and it is directly connected with the onus/innocent until proven guilty. So, in a sense, what we are discussing has already been done to a degree. Altogether it was around 40 places in the US the last time I checked it. This new onus is built on "yes means yes" instead of the old "no means no" - which Germany has adopted relatively recently, after Cologne.The disproportionately heavy burden on the victim to prove their "no" is now shifted to a degree to the alleged perpetrator as they have to bring some stuff about "yes." They will have to do a bit of work as well instead of the victim trying to argue against "I didn' hear it, they didn't say it" etc etc. 

 

Now, this is also criticized for its repercussions on sexual encounters as it is said that the safest way now is to sign a yes contract before sex. But given the rape epidemic, many of us agree that this is improvement. Makes access to law easier, the "burden" is better distributed.

 

The very related principle that women rights workers often defend (the woman's (victim's actually) statement is the base, the core)  also directs cases in a different way, where the victim does not have to start from minus one. And eliminates the need for a witness for instance, which is again a big improvement - in harassment cases, too. (In my country's law since 2004 although application needs improvement.) 

 

Are these 100% objective or "fair"? Probably not. But neither was the previous perspective - and more at the cost of the victim. We can prove this with data now. Advanced law systems admit this. Why ignore it? Law needs to consider the proportion of harm it causes . These things can lower that.

 

I actually agree with you in the sense that law is not the only answer to this. It is the mentality - in law, we are trying to formalize that mentality anyway. This is not something we can achieve only through law. It happens in people's heads mostly. That shapes so many things, including a court case unfortunately. 

 

But we are not totally helpless, things do improve. And the burden of proof is not as unmovable as we imagine it to be. So many details have been improved about that one, too. (Even the often criticized no means no is actually a redisribution of that "consent" proof in itself.)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, zeino said:

 

I was looking for this thread - yes, I'm dumb enough to have lost it. 

 

No Zeino, you are not dumb and you did not lose the thread.

My follow-up post reporting the verdict/sentence against the migrant who raped the 90 year old and subsequent commentary from others were moved from it's appropriate thread here to the (not appropriate) Child Bride discussion here:

https://www.toytowngermany.com/forum/topic/368675-germany-allowing-migrant-child-brides-laws-bent-for-migrants/?do=findComment&comment=3556764

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zeino said:

The disproportionately heavy burden on the victim to prove their "no" is now shifted to a degree to the alleged perpetrator as they have to bring some stuff about "yes." They will have to do a bit of work as well instead of the victim trying to argue against "I didn' hear it, they didn't say it" etc etc. 

I hear you but I still think the principle that in order to be sentenced in a criminal court there must be proof. Otherwise e.g. a woman could blackmail her soon to be ex-husband in divorce proceedings or her boss etc.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zeino said:

This new onus is built on "yes means yes" instead of the old "no means no" - which Germany has adopted relatively recently, after Cologne.The disproportionately heavy burden on the victim to prove their "no" is now shifted to a degree to the alleged perpetrator as they have to bring some stuff about "yes." They will have to do a bit of work as well instead of the victim trying to argue against "I didn' hear it, they didn't say it" etc etc. 

 

 

Our court system has been based on that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be punished.  Surely some people walk because guilt can not be proven.  However, if you reverse that, anybody can accuse anybody of anything and they would have to prove that they didn't do it and if unsuccessful, innocent people may go to prison.

 

If you have sex with a person, normally, there is just the two of you present.  How are you going to prove a yes or a no?  If guilt needs to be proven, surely many rapists walk because the victim can not prove that they said no and there are no physical injuries to show that they resisted.  If you reverse that, it's enough for your partner to say that they said no and you will not be able to prove differently unless you have videotaped the sexual act.

 

Actually, I have heard about at least a couple of cases where a rape case was dropped because such a video existed where it was evident that no rape was taking place.

 

Have you heard of the case of a German husband and father who was accused of rape by a 15 year old girl?  I saw this story on TV.  He was sentenced based only on her story.  He was in prison and his wife managed to get him a new (better) lawyer who started looking into his case.  He found that after this man was sentenced, the same girl had accused another man of raping her.  During that court case, she had been physically examined and was found to be a virgin.  That case was dropped.  However, the old case was not reopened until the lawyer got it reopened.  The man was eventually released but you can imagine how such a thing can screw up your life, your marriage, job, neighbours, friends etc. aside from the fact of having to sit in prison for a long time without having actually done anything.  What was done to him can never be completely un-done. 

 

So if you put the onus on the victim's story, without having proof that a crime actually took place, you will get cases like that.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jeba said:

I hear you but I still think the principle that in order to be sentenced in a criminal court there must be proof. Otherwise e.g. a woman could blackmail her soon to be ex-husband in divorce proceedings or her boss etc.

 

I hear you, too. You are stating a very basic principle we must always protect. If we lose that, we are in a fascist, dictatorial universe where truth is defined arbitrarily. What "justice" under such circumstances? Very 1984. 

 

I am only happy that law is moving toward a fairer distribution of responsibility that represents a more positive perception of survivors - not just women anyway. 

 

What pissed me of in this example was the way this was put (in news and perhaps by lawmakers) in a way that brought consent related "confession" to the forefront. There must be so much evidence (direct and circumstantial) in this case, with the assault and hospitalization process. What happens if you don't confess you know. (The perp was probably advised by his lawyer to own it anyway.) 

 

Preventing rape is not easy work. There is research that even argues that law deters only to a certain point. Rates are still high in some countries where there is capital punishment. So, there is so much to work on in so many areas, from analysing causes to making a proper understanding intact.

 

This entire "Muslim culture/testesterone" discourse will throw us years and years back. That only increases risk for us,   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeonG said:

 

Our court system has been based on that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be punished.  Surely some people walk because guilt can not be proven.  However, if you reverse that, anybody can accuse anybody of anything and they would have to prove that they didn't do it and if unsuccessful, innocent people may go to prison.

 

If you have sex with a person, normally, there is just the two of you present.  How are you going to prove a yes or a no?  If guilt needs to be proven, surely many rapists walk because the victim can not prove that they said no and there are no physical injuries to show that they resisted.  If you reverse that, it's enough for your partner to say that they said no and you will not be able to prove differently unless you have videotaped the sexual act.

 

Actually, I have heard about at least a couple of cases where a rape case was dropped because such a video existed where it was evident that no rape was taking place.

 

Have you heard of the case of a German husband and father who was accused of rape by a 15 year old girl?  I saw this story on TV.  He was sentenced based only on her story.  He was in prison and his wife managed to get him a new (better) lawyer who started looking into his case.  He found that after this man was sentenced, the same girl had accused another man of raping her.  During that court case, she had been physically examined and was found to be a virgin.  That case was dropped.  However, the old case was not reopened until the lawyer got it reopened.  The man was eventually released but you can imagine how such a thing can screw up your life, your marriage, job, neighbours, friends etc. aside from the fact of having to sit in prison for a long time without having actually done anything.  What was done to him can never be completely un-done. 

 

So if you put the onus on the victim's story, without having proof that a crime actually took place, you will get cases like that.

 

 

Yes, all very valid points indeed. I understand your argument as something two-layered actually, firstly about the necessity or the function of a yes/no perhaps and then whether it should be yes or no. 

 

There is a debate around this yes/no, where it is termed a swearing contest sometimes. (That's why I mentioned the contract criticism). But two sides saying the opposite, where do you go from that? And hasn't that been like that anyway and already, so what changes? 

 

But this isn't exactly the meaning or the purpose of this law and when we say shifting onus or distributing it more properly, we don't exactly mean it is now the defendant's duty to prove stuff based on this yes/no. Technically, there is no change in that, there cannot be. Someone (X) cannot go to a court and say "Y raped me" and then sit and watch. It doesn't automatically become Y's job to prove that they didn't. X is responsible for the credibility of their side of the story, that things happened the way they tell it happened. The accuser goes there with some form of "evidence" - otherwise they cannot reach a court at all. Yes, in rape cases, testimony of the accuser is considered evidence itself but this doesn't mean it is a final verdict. But courts do consider this to prevent potential harm (like in the case you say.) And then yes, again, the accuser needs  to prove this was rape. 

 

But definition of rape changes with this yes, now and that also affects the content of what goes on in a case. With no, in a sense, rape is an act that was not rape until the victim said "no" - lack of consent.  (We know many victims do not/cannot say no because of shock or circumstances but it is still rape). With yes, consent means inviting someone actively to sex. Until we get that invitation, there is the risk of falling into the trap of rape for us. So we should either ask or wait for an invitation but not jump on people assuming they want sex from us until they say "no". This is super important actually for a variety of reasons. 

 

Now, how can this be proved? That actually does not matter as much as we think it does. What the court needs to find out, like you say, is that "beyond a reasonable doubt"  events happened in a certain way. Yes/no is not the only thing, we can have direct evidence (like bodily evidence), circumstantial evidence (stuff that hints at rape, like X was found in a place she did not know, she was locked there and her clothes were torn, she was unconscious.) The court case will be about these, not just yes/no and a swear contest. 

 

But the onus is more fairly distributed in terms of content now because the accuser will hve to talk about talk about how they said/did not say "yes" which is easier to talk about a no that may not have occured. Questions will be asked around this yes. The defendant will be asked about this "yes". The consent business is not finished at the absence of no. And they will have to talk about the actual incidents instead of endless arguments based on moral evaluations of a victim - how this was a sign that they "wanted me", how that was a sign that "they wanted it, too."

 

This way, it is also easier to see contradictions, made up stuff etc. There is a clearer picture on which we can build "beyond reasonable doubt" . And if used properly, this is protective of both sides IMO.

 

This is what we mean we say the shift - maybe wrongly indeed as the fact that the accuser's responsibility to make her side credible has not changed. It is more about how the case goes - other than that, they are always trying to prove the opposite things anyway, be it yes or no.

 

I will comment on the case you mentioned later, that has something to do with the "innocence" concept as well. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zeino said:

Now, how can this be proved? That actually does not matter as much as we think it does. What the court needs to find out, like you say, is that "beyond a reasonable doubt"  events happened in a certain way. Yes/no is not the only thing, we can have direct evidence (like bodily evidence), circumstantial evidence (stuff that hints at rape, like X was found in a place she did not know, she was locked there and her clothes were torn, she was unconscious.) The court case will be about these, not just yes/no and a swear contest. 

 

In the case of the husband / father who was accused of rape, he didn't even have sex with the girl (she was a virgin, remember), so there is no yes or no question in that case.  It simply didn't happen.  So even if somebody was to sign a contract for all their sex, make sure their partner is always an active participant in sex, even tape all their sex, there is still the possibility that some person that you didn't have sex with at all, let alone rape is going to accuse you, maybe they are mentally ill or maybe they have a grudge against you, who knows.  So if the court thinks this person is believable, you could get convicted for something you never even as much as thought about doing, let alone did.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now