That is assuming that the rape actually happened however she being shocked of the arrest would imply a amicable relationship not a I don't want to press charges relationship.
Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without any proof.
Or she could just get payed off to get him into the country for a different purpose which judging by the fact that he was granted asylum seems very likely to me.
> Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without any proof.
This is such a myth and I'm really tired of hearing it. The fact is the vast majority of sexual assault and rape prosecutions and charges do not end in any conviction. Also, rates of false accusations are far, far smaller than rates sexual assault and rape, so the reality is that it is rare when something like that happens.
Most women you attempt to press for a sexual assault charge are often unable to get one on the very basis on which you seem to think they can magically send you to jail: people don't believe them, proof is often hard to come by due to the nature of sexual assault, and misogynistic cultural stereotypes are often held up as reasons why sexual assault couldn't have possibly happened.
As someone whose best friend was the victim of a false allegation (when he was playing video games with me, and she later recanted due not to witness intimidation, but being a fucking liar), which ruined his life; I've really got to call you out on this. Even after she recanted a year later the witch hunt had sprung well into action. And yes, I've seen it first hand (prison, without proof).
we have no good statistics due to issues with self reporting, non-reporting, etc. It isn't good to state things with authority that cannot actually be known.
It's very possible, for example, that the reason the 'vast majority of sexual assault and rape prosecutions and charges do not end in any conviction' is because they were either false accusations, or not clearly rape of the sort where the woman was forced into the act.
It's a amusing to watch someone both say that the majority of cases don't end in a conviction, but also that the rate of false accusations are tiny.
How does one make that conclusion based upon the evidence as presented?
The answer is simple: One simply has that opinion, and the facts are irrelevant.
Exactly on what objective evidence do you base your claim that "rates of false accusations are far, far smaller than rates sexual assault and rape"? The subject of rape and/or sexual assault is highly controversial: to give you but one example, a lot of black men were lynched in the US because they allegedly raped white women. If you were to take your claims seriously, then you would have to agree with the Ku Klux Klan on this matter. Do you really want to do that?
Having done jury service in the UK, we were instucted to base the decision on evidence. It was disturbing to see how many other members of the jury ignored that and went on "gut feeling".
Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without any proof.
Or she could just get payed off to get him into the country for a different purpose which judging by the fact that he was granted asylum seems very likely to me.