I hope you don’t mind continuing this discussion.
Regarding:
The question should have been “was the door locked”? Not, why didn’t YOU. It’s subtle. But it’s an important distinction.
I think you are right about it being subtle. Maybe to subtle for our law enforcement people to understand. Law enforcement is kind of a blunt tool. Hell, they kill innocent people almost every week. Getting the subtlety of taking victim’s testimony correctly is probably beyond most departments ability.
They probably already assumed that door was unlocked since it was not indicated that the rapist had to break into the room.
Regarding:
Why wasn’t the perpetrator asked “why did you rape her”? “Why did you attack a sleeping girl when you were a guest in your home” “what made you think you were entitled to do that”? etc etc
If the perpetrator was not asked these questions it was probably because he exerted his right to remain silent and lawyered up. Certainly if the accused takes the stand the prosecutor will try to ask those questions.
Regarding:
“The question I always ponder is why are women automatically disbelieved?”
Can you substantiate the idea that women are automatically disbelieved? I believed her story. I have heard other stories I believed and I find the women credible. Our criminal justice system is an adversarial system with prosecutors and defenders making their cases to a judge and jury. The defenders might even believe the victim but it is their duty to try and discredit the victim as their obligation is to provide the best defense possible even if it means tormenting the victim during cross examination. Investigators and prosecutors also have an obligation to question the victim before deciding to make an arrest or bring charges. Due diligence and the legal process is often traumatizing to victims. Justice is rare and punishment for the guilty is infrequent because our process errs on the side of preferring to let a guilty person go free to avoid possibly punishing an innocent accused.
Juries of our peers….is sort of a fantasy. Juries are selected from the community at large and then sorted by the process. Peers is not really what you get or lets say the jurist are peers of the guilty accused. Won’t they likely be sympathetic to the accused and not the victim. All it takes on one jurist to prevent a guilty verdict.
In a he said she said situation the victim can be believed by 8 jurors and 1 has a shadow of a doubt, the perp walks.
I am not saying this is right or that it can’t be made better but don’t expect it to get better fast.
TEK
