New Hampshire bill would require "corroboration" in sexual assault cases - Polidicks

[quote]It could soon become far more difficult for sexual assault survivors to prove their cases in New Hampshire, where legislators are considering a bill that would require "corroboration" for victims' testimonies if their alleged attacker has no prior record. The bill's supporters claim the legislation will help cut down on supposed false accusations and wrongful convictions. Republican Rep. William Marsh, who filed the legislation, hopes it protects adults from the lies of children. According to ABC News, Marsh created the bill after hearing the story of a New Hampshire psychotherapist who was convicted in 2016 for molesting a minor. Marsh maintains that the man was innocent, and that the criminal justice system failed him. "If the person charged is innocent, they will have little ability to defend themselves, as the only testimony is that of a young child who may not be able to provide a reliable story," Marsh said during a hearing for the bill on Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, Marsh's proposal has been met with considerable backlash. Sgt. Sean Ford of the Concord Police Department termed it "the nation's first pedophile protection act," while sexual assault advocacy groups spoke out for victims' rights.[/quote] [url]https://mic.com/articles/165752/new-hampshire-bill-would-require-corroboration-in-sexual-assault-cases?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.Ekt1Mon5L[/url]

Asking out of ignorance, how are these cases typically proven? I would guess DNA in some cases but, otherwise, what does it come down to? [editline]21st January 2017[/editline] Also: [quote]What's more, Marsh's bill is his answer to a problem that may be less common than he might think, with false accusations making up between 2% and 10% of of sexual assault allegations.[/quote] Aside from the fact that they're assuming this statistic somehow accurately portrays the true number of false accusations (as opposed to those that were [I]proven[/I] false), 2-10% is a pretty concerning percentage of people to have their lives absolutely ruined and labeled as sexual predators due to a fabrication..

As a person from New Hampshire, I don't know what to think of this.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of rape incidents, there is often not a lot of evidence left behind, especially if the perpetrator uses a condom. It makes it difficult to go after false rape allegations without hurting actual rape victims as well

While i agree there should be alot more safeguards in place against wrongful convictions this just dosent seem like it's gonna help ultimately,

so they need evidence to prove a claim? and this is a bad thing how?

[QUOTE=Wii60;51705160]so they need evidence to prove a claim? and this is a bad thing how?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]She said she hopes that, moving forward, new laws won’t silence survivors of sexual abuse, but rather empower them to tell their stories and seek justice. Semertgakis asked House committee members: “Are you expecting a little child who is being molested to get out of bed and go to the police station and say, ‘Excuse me, can you scrub my body for evidence?’ ... Or the woman walking home from work who was raped by the man who took all precautions to not leave his DNA and not have a witness. ... What should she do?”[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.concordmonitor.com/Bill-proposing-corroboration-in-sexual-assault-cases-aired-before-House-committee-7500204[/url] A case of sexual assault should not be able to be dismissed without investigation on the grounds that there was not witness or that DNA was cleaned off. It may help reduce false accusation cases, but it could mean even more REAL cases go unpunished.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51705238][url]http://www.concordmonitor.com/Bill-proposing-corroboration-in-sexual-assault-cases-aired-before-House-committee-7500204[/url] A case of sexual assault should not be able to be dismissed without investigation on the grounds that there was not witness or that DNA was cleaned off. It may help reduce false accusation cases, but it could mean even more REAL cases go unpunished.[/QUOTE] Innocent until proven guilty has some negative connotations. This is one of them. That is as true for murder and rape as it is for speeding and parking tickets. I can't comment on this law in particular, but it's generally a good thing to have a high burden of proof for criminal convictions.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51705297]Innocent until proven guilty has some negative connotations. This is one of them. That is as true for murder and rape as it is for speeding and parking tickets. I can't comment on this law in particular, but it's generally a good thing to have a high burden of proof for criminal convictions.[/QUOTE] I can agree. I think there should be full investigations on these cases before accusations become public. We've all heard how these accusations, even if false, ruins lives. But, dismissal of a case on these grounds is really bad for sexual assault cases. Like the situations in the quote above, you can't just expect a rape victim to have an eyewitness or control over if there's DNA or not Murder can have weapons, blood and all kinds of other things to corroborate cases. A sexual abuse case often won't

There are more sources for DNA than semen. A single hair is evidence. If there is no evidence, there is no case. To say otherwise is to violate core components of an individual's civil rights.

In the end I think the trying to lower times where a false case leads to a prosecution (a low % already) isn't worth taking more power away from possible victims. A rapist walking away free because he kept the victim DNA free, even if the victim identified them just sounds sickening [editline]21st January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;51705328]There are more sources for DNA than semen. A single hair is evidence. If there is no evidence, there is no case. To say otherwise is to violate core components of an individual's civil rights.[/QUOTE] If the victim sees the rapist and can identify, there should be an investigation in the person [editline]21st January 2017[/editline] No where am I saying they are immediately guilty for being identified, but there should be a look into the case without DNA/eyewitnesses

[QUOTE=KillRay;51705335]No where am I saying they are immediately guilty for being identified, but there should be a look into the case without DNA/eyewitnesses[/QUOTE] I agree that investigations should be performed, but arrests and charges should not be made without supporting evidence. Give someone a wrench, and they will figure out how to use it as a hammer. You must consider the worst possible case of legislation. Anything that allows the police to charge someone without an investigation [i]will[/i] be abused.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51705435]I agree that investigations should be performed, but arrests and charges should not be made without supporting evidence. Give someone a wrench, and they will figure out how to use it as a hammer. You must consider the worst possible case of legislation. Anything that allows the police to charge someone without an investigation [i]will[/i] be abused.[/QUOTE] Then we aren't in disagreement here. Currently they can't charge without investigation though, which is what I think I didn't point out. You can be accused, but not prosecuted. But from what I understand from this law, cases will be just thrown out without investigation (not prosecution) if there is no initial evidence or eyewitness. It just sounds extremely lazy to me at the cost of the victims.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51705468]But from what I understand from this law, cases will be just thrown out without investigation (not prosecution) if there is no initial evidence or eyewitness. It just sounds extremely lazy to me at the cost of the victims.[/QUOTE] Are you implying that they don't already do that? I can send a tip that my neighbor tortured and killed their parents. It won't be given more than a cursory investigation. The police aren't going to waste resources thoroughly investigating everything. That's not ideal, but it's the reality we live in.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51705591]Are you implying that they don't already do that? I can send a tip that my neighbor tortured and killed their parents. It won't be given more than a cursory investigation. The police aren't going to waste resources thoroughly investigating everything. That's not ideal, but it's the reality we live in.[/QUOTE] That comparison isn't similar, the reporter is outside the case and would be considered a witness. here's one a better one for you. "Police, 2 days ago I was sexually assaulted by my own parent, I have been unable to make it here since then." The reporter has showered/been cleaned and hasn't had any findable DNA left on them. Now: there would be an investigation of the living situation and parent, because a victim has reported their situation Post bill: it is immediately discarded. But, the difference here is that the one reporting is also the victim.

That is a difference, but in a situation like that, the bigger difference is that it would involve a child, and thus CPS. The barrier to get a child removed from a home is a lot lower than that of a criminal conviction. For adults, getting restraining orders is a lot easier than a criminal conviction as well. Without any evidence, and no confession, it would be unlikely to see criminal proceedings, even if the kid has been removed. Even if the police pass it off to a DA, they probably won't take the chance of harming their conviction rate. Strangely enough, I've actually witnessed that exact scenario played out in my own extended family (well.. not anymore I guess. Bunch of divorces, but you get the idea). The case was passed to prosecutors, and they didn't do anything with it because there wasn't any evidence beyond the fact that the individual in question was considered to be a bit on the creepy side. There are deep systemic problems with the criminal justice system at nearly every step outlined in the above paragraph. I'm not aware of any solutions that don't have worse drawbacks. I don't like mandating discarding cases, and am not a fan of the law as written, but pursuing cases without any basis beyond testimony that has repeatedly been shown to be unreliable is very dangerous to innocents, particularly on sensitive subjects like rape/sexual abuse. As long as a fraudulent report can be weaponized against someone, that will remain the case.

[QUOTE=srobins;51701499]Asking out of ignorance, how are these cases typically proven? I would guess DNA in some cases but, otherwise, what does it come down to?[/QUOTE] Well, a witness. But a witness shouldn't be required for sexual assault. [QUOTE=srobins;51701499]Aside from the fact that they're assuming this statistic somehow accurately portrays the true number of false accusations (as opposed to those that were [I]proven[/I] false), 2-10% is a pretty concerning percentage of people to have their lives absolutely ruined and labeled as sexual predators due to a fabrication..[/QUOTE] They're dwarfed by the number of sexual assaults that don't even get processed though.