Lawmaker To Rape Victims: ‘Prove It’

A new bill by a New Hampshire Republican would force rape victims—including underage children—to give extra proof of assault before a case goes to trial.

Though sexual assault is rarely reported—and even then, only occasionally prosecuted—its victims have had it way too easy for far too long, according to a New Hampshire Republican representative. He’s made it his first legislative order of business to pass a bill that would require more proof than just a victim’s testimony before a rape case could be brought to trial.

Sponsored by Rep. William Marsh, the vaguely-worded HB 106 requires a victim’s testimony in a sexual assault case to have “corroboration,” at least in cases where the defendant has no prior sexual assault convictions.

Though the corroboration rule in rape prosecution has a well-documented history, the term is not defined in this bill’s language. At a hearing on Tuesday in the state’s House Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Marsh said it could mean an eyewitness account, or physical evidence like computer files, photographs or hotel receipts, or medical evidence like documented injuries, or behavioral changes in the alleged victim.

Marsh—a newly-elected opthamologist and homeschooling father of five, who enjoys marching in his local town’s 4th of July parade, dressing in colonial garb, and shooting a musket, according to his online bio—introduced the bill to right what he sees as a history of wrongful conviction.

Meanwhile, law enforcement and victims’ advocacy groups lined up on Tuesday to testify that it would enable rapists and child molestors.

“It’s really nothing short of the nation’s first pedophile protection act,” Sgt. Sean Ford of the Concord Police Department told the AP.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/19/lawmaker-to-rape-victims-prove-it.html

uhm......

baffled..................

if person "x" accused person "y" of stealing from them much greater evidence than merely saying so would be required.........

dunno what exactly to make of this......

Lord Foul wrote:uhm......

baffled..................

if person "x" accused person "y" of stealing from them much greater evidence than merely saying so would be required.........

dunno what exactly to make of this......

Does a women need medical injuries or a witness to prove that she has been raped?

For example, if she is passed out and has given no consent for sex, that is rape.

She would be screwed (no pun intended) under such a proposed law

The implications would be worse for a child, that is sexually abused without injuries.

true mate ...BUT particularly in the case of an adult, you are entirely dependant upon the probity of the plaintiff if you only take the "it happened because i say it did " approach.....and I am willing to bet there is more than one man in jail/ marked forever, by the lies of a vengeful/evil woman

Lord Foul wrote:true mate ...BUT particularly in the case of an adult, you are entirely dependant upon the probity of the plaintiff if you only take the "it happened because i say it did " approach.....and I am willing to bet there is more than one man in jail/ marked forever, by the lies of a vengeful/evil woman

I agree buddy that some men have been jailed for the lies of women, but it pails into comparison the number of women raped who have never seen their offenders convicted. What concerns me further here. Is where more and more people have been coming forward to report rapes and sexual assaults that this will instead put people off from reporting. As they will see even less chance of obtaining a conviction.

What of historic rapes? we have seen plenty of those in the news lately. Presumably the likes of Saville and Rolf Harris would never have been exposed if the ruling was applied here.

Often in the case of rape there IS no proof, it's in these kind of trials where a judge and a jury has to go off who to believe and who not to believe.

It will also make it harder for people, including children, to speak about rape.

Presumably no man will ever be found guilty of rape in this state if no actual concrete proof is offered.