Can you call someone a rapist if they were never convicted of the crime?

Because alot of people are throwing that word around for Ben Roethlisberger the QB for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

For the record I think he is pretty scummy.

 

1) Yes

2) [image=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8TRIo4br3I/AAAAAAAACv4/Zh7_GcMlRKo/s400/ALOT.png]

 

Legally no, because it's defamation.

 

Ben Rapistberger is a public figure, so the threshold for defamation of him is higher. Also, I don't remember all the nuances of Evidence, but I believe that a criminal acquittal can't be used in a civil defamation suit to prove that the statement was false.

 

Hmmm, how interesting. I'm pretty sure in Britain that getting acquitted is the same as not guilty defamation wise. You've not been proven guilty so therefore if someone calls you a rapist you have no defence.

 

Basically, yes.
For him to sue someone, he'd first have to be able prove damages, and as he's a public figure, he'd have to be able to prove that someone calling him that KNEW it wasn't true to stand any chance. For a non-public figure, the bar is lower, and you have to be more careful.

I'd think the whole thing is a nonstarter until he can cite any damages for it.

 

I'd be shocked if Ben sued, and I'm not sure if that's what gersh was driving at, although, I may be mistaken.

 

Well, the thing is it's all about 'can', and there's no criminal charges associated to false statements like that, only civil ones.

Should is a whole separate matter.

 

True, "can" is in the thread title. Carry on with the legal aspects, then.

 

Sure, it's not like all rapists have been convicted.


And Dani, I love your Alot!

 

Who cares?

*is very quick to judge persons associated with such a crime*

 

I like the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we have going on here, so I don't call him a rapist.

But it seems that whether you "can" and whether you "should" are two separate issues here.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is a great principle for people in the criminal justice system to hold to, but it doesn't always reflect reality outside of that system, and it doesn't really speak to how people should necessarily regard all other people. Roman Polanski has admitted to raping a 13 year old girl, but fled the country before he could stand trial, would you refuse to call him a rapist?

 

Has he ever actually admitted to that, or just tried to do some legal dealings with the plea bargain?

 

He went to France to find the real rapist.

 

Uh, you're going to have to reword your question Lowie, because right now it sounds like you're saying that if someone admitted to being a rapist during a plea bargain they didn't "actually" admit to being a rapist.

 

Don't confuse that question of me asking if he ever admitted to as such to be the same as me thinking he didn't actually rape a girl. It's more that a. I'd not remembered the particulars of the plea bargain and quick Google search came up with rape charge being dropped in plea deal, and b. skepticism that he'd ever come that close to acknowledging that.

My question wasn't a defense of him, just a question about what he's admitted about what he's done.

And I'm not too keen on the plea bargaining system anyway, given that you can scare people into plea bargaining evidence aside, so I don't really take a plea bargain as evidence of guilt or a confession so much as playing the odds. Not the way I'd view a guilty plea. Although that's a macro point about not putting value in a plea bargain, not saying I think Polanski is himself innocent.

 

I mean, if he admitted to it, that's as good as "proven guilty" in my book.

So I would call him a rapist. As far as I know, Ben hasn't admitted to it, and he wasn't proven guilty by any other means. Sure, the jury was probably biased and maybe the evidence suggests that he did do it, but I don't know about that because I don't care enough to watch the court proceedings.

 

In your private conversations, I'm sure you can call him anything you want, even if it isn't true.

In something that's not a private communication, you might change that to "alleged rapist", just to be on the safe side.

 

Prenn, if your sister said a guy raped her and he denied it, you would give him the benefit of the doubt unless a jury proved him guilty?

 

Without looking into this case (as I don't know about it), it's become pretty common for women to go out dressed in nothing but a few strings, get smashed, have random sex and then a day later pull the rape card. Just sayin'

 

Careful now.

 

I had a friend that was raped and heard about the issues he had trying to do damage control because of accusations associated with it... so I'd honestly say if Prenn would take that stance across the board, even when it becomes more personal, then more power to him. False claims can be very problematic, so making sure it's handled right is, I think, a net good.
Although, I think there's a middle ground where there's enough evidence (more than just accusation) where one can say it's very likely true, so I'm not quite as far as Prenn on the innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, more of an innocent until strong case is made for guilt.

 

I stopped watching all sports on January 1st, 2009 so I don't know all the info on Roethlisberger.

I was a huge sports fan before that and I do remember the accusations that occurred shortly before I quit cold turkey, about some girl in Nevada.

Let's just say I wouldn't let my little sister anywhere near the guy.

I don't care about defamation and not guilty in court =/= innocence.