• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does taking civil litigation of someone’s claim of rape, challenges the accusers integrity?

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
In my line of work I receive rape victims all the time. We receive them, treat them, and allow law enforcement to spearhead the investigation. In my younger of playing sports, I’ve witnessed the accused of sexual assault/rape get punished by mere accusations.

From the outset let me say rape is wrong. Rape is immoral, unethical and evil. To rob someone’s autonomy, to keep them from utilizing their God given faculty of choice and reason is unbearably inhuman.

I believe anyone who was raped and robbed of their spirit ought to seek justice through the criminal court. However in some instances we see some individuals seeking civil litigation as opposed to criminal (See Antonio Brown rape allegation).

So the question remains if someone seeks monetary gain as opposed to seeking justice through law enforcement does it challenge the integrity of the accuser?

What I mean by integrity, I’m referring to the honesty and uprightness of the accuser. The reason why I framed it this way is because if the accuser seeks monetary gains from the accused rapist, the rapist is still free and is not judged by criminal court.

Also, in civil court if I’m not mistaken one must prove the “possibility that the criminal act must have occurred” needs less evidence than criminal to make a decision in favor of the accuser (correct me if I’m wrong). If so, couldn’t one wonder whether the claim of rape would not be legitimate?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
In civil court the standard is harm to plaintiff, proven by the preponderance of the evidence. That means that if 51% of the evidence points to the defendant as causing the harm, then the ruling will go in favor of the plaintiff. A criminal act need not be proven only harm to the plaintiff. Of course, no criminal conviction makes a judgement a tough hill to climb.

Rape cases without physical evidence or witnesses are tough. I have no doubt that many rapists go free because these things are lacking.

On the other hand, especially today, an accusation in many eyes is evidence of guilt. There is no presumption of innocence, no hearing the facts, the man is defacto guilty because he is a man. The court of public opinion is a kangaroo court and it´s symbolic lynchings are common.

Personally I feel, a civil suit for rape without a criminal conviction means the defendant is innocent.

With a criminal conviction, it is a slam dunk the other way.

Women who have been forcibly raped have been extremely, extremely, seriously harmed. It will effect them for the rest of their lives. It takes them to a very ugly place, and some don´t make it back.

If a true rape victim sues, they are entitled to whatever they can get.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
In my line of work I receive rape victims all the time. We receive them, treat them, and allow law enforcement to spearhead the investigation. In my younger of playing sports, I’ve witnessed the accused of sexual assault/rape get punished by mere accusations.

From the outset let me say rape is wrong. Rape is immoral, unethical and evil. To rob someone’s autonomy, to keep them from utilizing their God given faculty of choice and reason is unbearably inhuman.

I believe anyone who was raped and robbed of their spirit ought to seek justice through the criminal court. However in some instances we see some individuals seeking civil litigation as opposed to criminal (See Antonio Brown rape allegation).

So the question remains if someone seeks monetary gain as opposed to seeking justice through law enforcement does it challenge the integrity of the accuser?

What I mean by integrity, I’m referring to the honesty and uprightness of the accuser. The reason why I framed it this way is because if the accuser seeks monetary gains from the accused rapist, the rapist is still free and is not judged by criminal court.

Also, in civil court if I’m not mistaken one must prove the “possibility that the criminal act must have occurred” needs less evidence than criminal to make a decision in favor of the accuser (correct me if I’m wrong). If so, couldn’t one wonder whether the claim of rape would not be legitimate?
No it does not bring any question upon the accuser. However, evidence put forward can do exactly that.

Your wording is a little off. In civil litigation one must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that a jury could reach a guilty verdict if they believe the rape happening was more likely than not.

In criminal cases, the state must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In many instances of rape, this is too high of a threshold and if criminal trial were the only method of justice, then many rapists and victims would never see justice done.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
All these other dudes make me look bad that's for sure. What was anybody uninterested in tomfoolery one day, reports that, next any student they find crying because they don't want a car ride on a rainy day, oh man! There's a pattern here, check out all these Dudes. I bet some people are going to be called rapists will die not wanting contact with women who knows.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Your wording is a little off. In civil litigation one must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that a jury could reach a guilty verdict if they believe the rape happening was more likely than not.

Yeah I was trying to remember the legal jargon.
 
Top