I'm not the one who made that initial statement so I can't say why he chose that word 're-raped', I was pointing out what I think anyone reasonable would glean from that statement of being 're-raped'. I don't like using that specific term outside of its express meaning of force-able sex, so that's not up to me.
I'm not sure if you don't quite understand the idea of being re-traumatized by a court case or if you're just pretending you don't understand why female victims of rape or other sexual crimes may not want to participate in a court case (or may not have the strength or courage to do so).
Just as much as a certain crowd is hounding people for jumping to condemn Virtanen, you can see others shouting just as loud that points out exactly why victims do not come forward. Imagine, if just for a moment, that this woman WAS abused, but wasnt able to gather enough evidence. Now you've got people proclaiming that she was just in it for the money or saying she should be sued for defamation and forced to pay her abuser for the rest of her life, and even worse.
1)
Ahh, see I was put in a potentially life-ending situation several years ago by the stupidity of another person and their disregard to the safety of others.
The legal process is still on-going.
I have been made to re-live the event dozens and dozens of times, and each one is just as crappy as the previous one.
However, because I want that person to be punished for their actions that day, I have always just looked at this as part of getting justice done.
2) This is a very common occurrence - that actual victims can't produce enough evidence to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty.
This is the reason, not just a reason, but the reason, why the judicial system's entire goal is to produce a verdict on guilt and not on innocence.
The defendant may not be found guilty, but they are also not declared innocent.
There is a way to get to the point where the innocence of the defendant is proven, but that requires that after being declared "not guilty", there is a counter-suit brought forth and the original accusation be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been malicious and with intent to defame the person.
As I've stated several times, that's not going to happen with the Virtanen case, and not with the Hockey Canada case, and it wouldn't be possible in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Now, before some people jump down my throat for this, I'm not equating what happened to me with rape.
I know that some people will that specious and stupid equivalency argument, but that's not at all the case.
It was a life-altering event that could very easily been life-ending.
Traumatizing at the time and ever since? Yes.
Not rape.