[R0b0t1]

The main concern (and it's not much of a concern) is that you are charged with wiretapping or the equivalent. The penalties for this are not necessarily severe. Refuse to plea and force a trial.

If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.

If someone is actually a rapist and got off on a technicality it's your moral imperative to do something, no? Stand up to unjust laws. Evil prospers because idiots like you do nothing.

[Loughla]

>idiots like you do nothing.

That seems unnecessary ad hominem. Just completely uncalled for.

Also, you're assigning a values judgment to my statements that I genuinely thought I was clear about when I said "Not saying it's right or wrong, but it exists and is something to think about."

You have no idea what my stance is on literally anything. Trying to be superior to someone who has given you nothing to feel superior about seems sort of hateful?

Facts are facts, and consequences are consequences, regardless of right or wrong. That was my meaning. Agree with the outcomes or not, believe me or don't. That doesn't matter.

>If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.

How do you figure? If it is a surreptitious recording without consent, the person who was recorded has a pretty clear line to a civil case.

[sterlind]

it's a stretch, but the judge could bar revealing the motive for recording, or playing clips that reveal the nature of what was recorded, in order to keep the jurors from learning that it was child rape and nullifying the charge. in practice it's unlikely though.

also wait, were criminal charges brought against the rape victim for recording? did some prosecutor decide to actively assist further ruining the victim's life? civil I can understand, but what a scumbag for not exercising prosecutorial discretion if so.