Rape Culture exists in America

The justice system is half-assed because the accused are getting their fair shake but the accuser is not. By dividing rights, privileges and expectations along inborn differences, like gender or race, we forgot our human rights which everyone who abides by the social contract should expect, such as not victims of sexual violence, and which we all have a vested interest in protecting from being violated by anyone against anyone else. We've come a long way since the days when anyone could be a slave to a point where nobody deserves any LESS than anyone else. But as it stands, victims can"t even expect verbal/emotional support without everyone and their mother giving them unsolicited advice. Right now, their rights as humans aren't being protected and they are getting less than a fair shake. Meanwhile, the courts are doing their due diligence by the defendant who is accused of rape or sexual assault. The defendant will get justice IF they go to trial, the victim must face a trial just to get the defendant to their trial. However, with roughly (1) 60% of cases unreported and only 27% of assaults meeting the legal definition, often they fail to get their day in court, let alone justice. The judge can"t sentence criminals who aren't brought before them so they serve justice ultimately to about 3% of the estimated total number of rapists. Considering 33% of women and 16% of men report being victims of sexual assault, 3 in 100 rapists caught is quite upsetting to the 25 in 100 victims (both genders) who report being violated. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions but the numbers compel me to wonder if there are more criminals that should be caught who aren't because something prevents them from ever getting to court (which is the middle step in the justice system, between identifying/capturing and serving sentences). Namely, victim blaming and a small but relatively unchecked rape culture (more on that later). Another reason I would say the justice system is doing things "half-assed" is that it"s relying on a precedent developed largely from old English common law to old Roman Empire law that never had to deal with emotional and ethical sorts violations, considering people as property that could be damaged or stolen. The justice system is not up to date or well prepared to handle these modern problems, but to determine guilt through a strict process. However, those judgments are made only after meeting a (1) strict definition of rape and sexual assault. Why can"t people who feel they endured a destructive violation of their human rights even get a fair judgement? A trial only does right by the people who can make it there but most people are turned away at the door. Getting to trial is an ordeal in itself (medical exams, repeating statements, preliminary hearings that could last months or years) but is not guaranteed to get their grievance heard. (2) The justice system alienates victims from justice for the sake of reducing their own workload. Defendants have their rights constitutionally protected along every step of the way. More trials only results in more paperwork, not less justice for people accused of sexual violence. We have learned in recent decades that the evidence required to seek trial is often obscured by the time victims recover enough to contact the authorities and seek trial. The lag-time between crime and reporting which is unique to sexual violence is different from robbery, murder, and property damage. The half-assed part is not considering what we've learned about sexual violence and victim psychology to improve our pre-requisites for reaching trials to ensure that everyone has a chance of getting justice. With penalties for false reporting, the (1) 98% of people who tell the truth will finally get justice they deserve. I agree with my opponent that asking questions is good in COURT. It would be negligent not to interrogate both parties thoroughly. That"s the court"s JOB. But what reason does society at large have to ask those same questions? What do they gain by asking? They aren't blank slates and don't trust the courts to tell them the results. They would rather make their own judgement. Doubting one and not the other only justifies their prejudice. They want to know if the victim incited their own harm, which is already a mindset that focuses on the victim"s credibility (which the court acknowledges) and responsibility (which they do not have because they cannot control others). So I have a few questions: Why do the alleged criminals get a fair trial where they are innocent until proven guilty while spectators or common folk immediately start questioning whether the alleged victim is somehow guilty until proven somehow innocent? How is it that this dynamic happened? Does being in a "dangerous" situation (like a party) mean you give up your right to safety? (No matter how "provocative" an outfit someone wears or how much skin they expose, not even being naked would justify rape. Being drunk or being dead doesn't justify another person"s actions against your body. That"s like deserving murder because you sat on the train next to a serial killer "punishment for proximity.) Does riding a shopping cart off a roof mean that an idiot is not entitled to medical treatment when an arm gets broken? Should people live their lives deciding what they are allowed to do based on the potential risk involved? And if there is a risk of harm (being taken advantage) from others, is it reasonable to expect people to defend themselves from others rather than expecting others not to harm people in the first place? If it"s the former, then people who don"t carry weapons are allowed to be murdered. If it is the latter, people should expect to get justice in return for the harm they unduly bore from another person"s actions against them that they did not expect or desire. When taking into consideration that (1) 65%-85% rapes and sexual assaults are done by people the victim knows, it becomes quite unsettling and unrealistic to expect everyone on the planet to be on guard against their friends and loved ones. To some extent, I agree with my opponent that exact crime statistics will not be readily available to judge how effective any tactics are in combating sexual violence. It"s true that the numbers on rape and sexual assaults are blurry because of under-reporting and false claims but nevertheless deserve some weight in our broad measurement of social welfare and safety. The fact that in anonymous surveys (1) 25% of respondents (33% of women and 16% of men) report experiencing sexual violence over the last year should be concerning enough to take greater collective measures against it. Current measures don"t seem to do it. We aren't in nature any more, we have laws and a social contract specifically to protect the weak from the strong who would take advantage of others using their natural power. Rape culture is more than playful jokes, it"s broad social tolerance of victim blaming and sexual violence as normal. (3) Victim blaming fosters fear of judgement for speaking out. Whatever the real numbers are on rape of ANYONE, the underlying assumptions are what is dangerous and implies that a rape culture exists within the US. The US has a culture comprised of many different cultures and beliefs that all coexist. It would be incredibly wrong and fallacious to say that "American culture is a rape culture," as one commenter put it. However, it would be accurate to say that "a rape culture exists in the US," which is the resolution for this debate. It would be hard to believe that the US does not when considering the sheer volume of cultures, beliefs, ideals and behavior in the US. Many cultures which, I might add, were founded on similar ideologies and prejudices about gender and sexual violence. (1)https://wearawhitefeather.wordpress.com... (2)Personal observation from legal side (3)https://pbs.twimg.com...