That we should compel victims of rape to testify in court

First off, thank you for debating this with me.

Good luck and may it be a good, clean debate.

Lets first look at the definitions of the words used.

Compel:"force or oblige(someone) to do something."

Victim: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."

Rape: we all know what this is hopefully..

Testify: "to talk and answer questions about something especially in a court of law while formally promising that what you are saying is true.", "to show that something is true or real : to give proof of something."

In the United States, we have a policy of innocent until proven guilty. We also have the Due Process clause found in the 5th and 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land. The 5th amendment states: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.", and the 14th amendment says: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Due Process is defined as: "fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement."

This means that all citizens are entitled to a fair trial before they can be declared guilty.

In our courts, all witnesses are required to be under oath in the witness stand.

Rape cases are special in trials, because it is a 'he said, she said" trial, until the witnesses and proof come forward..

First, it is substantial for the victim to identify the rapist. Second, there needs to be a statement from the victim, under oath, declaring that he is the rapist. Lastly, there needs to be substantial evidence against the rapist to be convicted, if you want to follow the Constitution.

If the witness does not testify, there is frankly no way to show that the person on trial is actually the rapist. 

Con will most likely use the argument that there needs to be protection for the victim, well what about security, witness protection program, etc. There are plenty of different avenues for the. 

Unjustly putting someone in prison to protect someone else identity is bogus.

I rest my case your honor(s)

I agree that due process is an important right. There are, however, two other rights that are at least equally as important: the right to remain silent, and the right to not incriminate yourself. Forcing testimony in court means that the whole idea of rights to protect the integrity of the legal process is undermined.

There is another way, and it does not involve the violation of anybody's rights, and my opponent has mentioned it already - innocent until proven guilty. If a person cannot be convicted without the evidence of a key witness, and that witness refuses to testify, then that person simply cannot be convicted, can they? That way, nobody is unjustly put in prison. It's working fine like this right now, so frankly there is no problem to solve. If there was a problem, then proper enforcement of this existing system would work just fine.

Yes.

In the situation pro describes (which, by the way, is not the only way rape happens) there are only two clear witnesses. If the victim was really uncooperative, the case wouldn't even go to trial; there would not be enough evidence for the lawsuit to be anything but frivolous. Even if it did somehow go to trial, a conviction would be impossible to get.

If nobody reports a robbery, robbers also typically go unprosecuted. Robbers are walking free on the streets right now. In all likelihood, so are child abusers, murderers, and any kind of the worst criminals you can imagine. This debate is about whether that's a bad thing.

The role of the state is not to prosecute everyone whenever they cross the street illegally. It is to generally ensure that the public is kept safe. Somebody stole my pen the other night at the chess club. Somebody there is guilty of robbery. I'm not going to report it, however, because I don't consider it worth reporting. That's my right. If the state were to force me to report every item of my property that's ever gone missing, that would be draconian and silly.

There are all manner of reasons why rapes are not reported. Let's take a typical example - the victim is male. Many guys who are raped by girls don't report the rape out of shame. They understand they have the right to choose to put the girl away for a long time, and that they will be shielded from much of the humiliation by victim support services etc (and like pro, I'm a big fan of them). But that is their right, and not their obligation. For example, if the girl in question is the guy's own wife, the guy might still not want her to be locked up. That's something only he, and not the state, can decide. There are numerous such cases - the victim may be unsure of their recollection. The victim may have been doing something else illegal at the time. The victim may be unable to cope with the long term repercussions and may just want to forget about it. And so on. It's their choice, and we are not here to scrutinize it.

Pro wants to prosecute victims for refusing to speak up, in court, on the public record, about their experiences whenever they are raped. It's disgusting and pointless, especially in cases where there's only two witnesses, because it could never be enforced. A much better model is to empower victims to have the choice to bring their attackers to justice, rather than forcing the victim's hand. This is what I advocate in this debate.