Many instances of rape happen behind closed doors, with only two witnesses present: the victim and the perpetrator. This is quite unfortunate, because it leads to it being a “word against word”-matter once—if—it gets to court. Rape being such a serious crime, it’s completely understandable why that cannot suffice for a conclusive judgement. I suppose this is one of the complications of that hallowed Rechtsstaat.

In a casual social setting, it’s probably for the best to take someone at their word when they confide that they’ve been raped, since routine suspicion or dismissal is part of why some victims decide not to come forward about their experiences. I.e., this isn’t about whether we ought to have sympathy for victims and those making allegations—we should. In a court of law, much other rules must apply, however: it’s the prosecution’s job to show that the allegations are true, and if the prosecution cannot the defendant must be assumed to be innocent. This is especially important when it comes to serious allegations such as sexual assault and rape.

Thus, the nature of rape as a crime causes a compelling contradiction between the need for justice and the importance of the rule of law. It’s compelling in part because the rule of law is usually itself seen as a source of justice. Here, however, it rather seems like the rule of law stands in the way of justice; not great for the aforementioned Rechtsstaat, which must also see to it that persons aggrieved are able to secure recognition and recompense.