[ggg9990]

False accusation is a particular problem for sex crimes because the legality of the act depends on consent.

You can't explain away a dead body saying "he asked me to murder him." But you can explain away evidence of sexual intercourse by saying "it was consensual."

[dragonwriter]

> False accusation is a particular problem for sex crimes because the legality of the act depends on consent.

That's true of criminal assaults in general; striking someone with their consent is usually not a crime.

> You can't explain away a dead body saying "he asked me to murder him."

You can in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal. And even where it's not, a combination of no intent to kill plus consent can render an act that otherwise would be murder (even with either of those factors alone) into a non-criminal.

Sexual assault isn't different because consent matters, it differs because juries are more sympathetic to the accused (at least, accused from certain backgrounds) when it comes to determining whether there is sufficient grounds to believe consent may have been present or to dismiss such a belief.

[solidsnack9000]

In the absence of evidence that indicates non-consent — signs of a struggle, injuries, presence of date rape drugs — evidence of sexual intercourse doesn’t need to be explained. Actually, even in the presence of clear evidence of non-consent, evidence of sexual intercourse doesn’t need to be explained — it’s the evidence that creates the impression of an assault that needs to be explained.

It seems wrong to take evidence of sexual intercourse alone, and a statement by a plaintiff claiming that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual, as a basis for a conviction. That amounts to just deciding to believe one side and not the other. If that what’s happening, why look for any evidence at all?