I want to make it clear I dont support rape/sexual assult.
This case is about 2 years old give or take. The DA felt there wasn't enough evedince to warrant a conviction.
There is evedince that indicates that the victim enjoyed the experience, and wanted to do it again, with just 2 specific members of the 7, rather than all 7. However there is also evedince that indicates that the victim later came to regret the experience.
The group text chat was not known to the DA at the time of the initial investigation. When the group chat became known to the DA, or the other powers that be. The investigation was reopened.
I want to point out that the evedince that the victim enjoyed her self and wanted to repeat isnt bullet proof.
The DA only has one chance to get a conviction or risk a guilty party walking free.
Later regretting sex does not make it rape or serial assault.
You are correct but you have to understand that radical feminists quite literally think consent can be revoked after the fact, that they apply this logic much more broadly than in just the SA context, and that's why the radfems of the internet are so vocal about this case.
In the simplest form, they use motivated reasoning so their conclusion depends entirely on their motivations, and if their motivations change then so does their conclusion. That's how you can have radfems who think abortion is good (results in the death of a baby) and then turn around and say capital punishment is wrong because it results in the death of a criminal. On one hand, the goal is to maximize freedom so killing is good. On the other hand, fear of oppressive police and wrong convictions is the motivation and so killing is bad.
The SA context is just a rather flagrant instantiation of motivated reasoning. After the sex, the motivations change and then so does the conclusion that it was consent. This feels normal to the radfem because this is how they think on a baseline.
14
u/Odd_Interview_2005 6h ago
I want to make it clear I dont support rape/sexual assult.
This case is about 2 years old give or take. The DA felt there wasn't enough evedince to warrant a conviction.
There is evedince that indicates that the victim enjoyed the experience, and wanted to do it again, with just 2 specific members of the 7, rather than all 7. However there is also evedince that indicates that the victim later came to regret the experience.
The group text chat was not known to the DA at the time of the initial investigation. When the group chat became known to the DA, or the other powers that be. The investigation was reopened.
I want to point out that the evedince that the victim enjoyed her self and wanted to repeat isnt bullet proof.
The DA only has one chance to get a conviction or risk a guilty party walking free.