|
On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. Show nested quote +6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win.
Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence.
If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about.
On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL.
You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified.
|
Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait.
Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask.
On 30 November 2010, Tom Flanagan, a former aide to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, called for Assange's assassination. Mr. Flanagan later retracted his comments, after a Vancouver lawyer filed a complaint with the Calgary Police against Harper,[185] and Canadian nationals filed complaint with the ombudsman of CBC news.[186]
On 1 December 2010, Republican Mike Huckabee called for those behind the leak of the cables to be executed,[187] a view partly supported by Kathleen McFarland, former Pentagon advisor under Nixon, Ford and Reagan[188] and current Fox News national security expert.
By US congress member
"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute Wikileaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I’m also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Wikileaks a foreign terrorist organization," King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening
Not to mention that the USA has forced switzerland to take control of his bank account.
|
On August 18 2012 20:38 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask. Show nested quote +On 30 November 2010, Tom Flanagan, a former aide to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, called for Assange's assassination. Mr. Flanagan later retracted his comments, after a Vancouver lawyer filed a complaint with the Calgary Police against Harper,[185] and Canadian nationals filed complaint with the ombudsman of CBC news.[186]
On 1 December 2010, Republican Mike Huckabee called for those behind the leak of the cables to be executed,[187] a view partly supported by Kathleen McFarland, former Pentagon advisor under Nixon, Ford and Reagan[188] and current Fox News national security expert. By US congress member Show nested quote +
"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute Wikileaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I’m also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Wikileaks a foreign terrorist organization," King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening
Not to mention that the USA has forced switzerland to take control of his bank account.
I wouldn't say hurting them as much as I'd say getting a bunch of politicians' panties tied up in a knot. Is any sane person really going to take huckabee seriously and demand his execution?
|
On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified.
No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless.
Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too.
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
|
good that they finally arrested this guy. Funny thing is that i had a friend that worked for WikiLeaks.
|
On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified. No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless. Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too.
It is blatantly semantics because the quote was deliberately cherry-picked out of context by feminist editors on Wikipedia. If you examine the actual source article, you can see that the guy in question considers false allegations to be a very real problem.
Still care what one guy thinks about the statistics, or can we use critical thinking skills and logic to understand what they actually mean?
On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
The point being made is that rape accusations are held to an unusually low standard of evidence, which is why it's perfect as a political weapon. For example, see how a false accusation (and one proven to be a complete and deliberate falsehood, at that) was so effective at ruining Dominque Strauss-Khanh's career.
|
On August 18 2012 10:53 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 07:52 elhonko wrote:On August 18 2012 07:05 Euronyme wrote:On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit... Authorities at the national level..... also known as the girls' attorney.. -_-' On August 18 2012 00:43 Aterons_toss wrote:On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US. Please stop being naive, you sound like a politician. Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world. Don't confuse "civilized, rich and liberal" with " not corrupt". I do agree that the current Swedish government will receive to much backlash if they gave him to the US. But if the justice system find him guilty for "rape" than that can't really be blamed on politicians and the judges don't really give a shit... after he sends 5 years in prison, who knows ? can they give him to the US than ? Honestly, wikileaks is active with or without him and people don't really give a shit, the US troops are assholes and the politicians thieves, so what ? The people stupid enough not to have realized this by now likely don't care and the people that care about this don't vote anyway. To be honest i don't believe the FBI really wants to get him just as a "revenge" for proving how incompetent the data protection branch of US is. Sorry what? Slave labour? Did I miss something? We've never employed slave labour, and never stolen natural resources. The boom of the Swedish economy came from staying neutral in WW2 and exporting our resources to both sides, and also through good education leading to competitiveness. In the early 1900s Sweden was piss poor. Our only colony was one of the tiny islands in the caribbean, which was quickly taken over by the French. This issue has nothing to do with corruption, as it doesn't need to be. USA can request him from the interpol (same as Sweden did) and he'll be handed over directly form the UK. That's easy. Now instead your idea is that the evil USA hired two ladies to say that they were raped, bought up the Swedish justice system and independent judges and courts, and even the government itself in order to accomplish the same thing as a request to the UK or interpol. Of course that sounds much more reasonable. The US doesn't have charges, and aren't even looking for him at the moment. What might happen is that they do file charges while he's under arrest in Sweden, which might lead to Sweden handing him over (after Assange's served his sentence here / been released) if the US promises not to enforce the death penalty or torture. Where did you hear five years? Source on that please. We have never had slave labour? Haven't you heard the words "piga" or "dräng"? What in the.... That's a female / male farm workers. They were always paid in some way and were always free to leave whenever. I don't even... Did you actually go to school? I'm seriously curious. Do you know what a slave is?
Do you actually think they got paid? Just because they got food doesnt mean they got paid. So if you have nothing to eat no place to live in swedish climate your free to leave? And do you think its coincidence that those words are used in the danish language for boy and girl. Clearly you have no sense of realilty. Rich people have always used poor people for slave labour no matter which country your from. And asking if people went to school when they are questioning your facts is a good way to patronize and make yourself look smarter. But in my eyes insulting other people only makes your look unsecure and immature.
Btw the definition on the word slave is: One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
Took me 2 seconds on google to get that. OHHHH look I didnt need school to get information. And ofcourse I went to school. Didnt you know as a swedish citizen you have to go to school by law? Sorry for going off topic.
I think that Assange is doing the right thing when he is'nt trusting the swedish government, just look how it went for the founders of thepiratebay. We here in sweden are just as corrupt as any other country.
|
On August 18 2012 20:53 SilSol wrote:
good that they finally arrested this guy. Funny thing is that i had a friend that worked for WikiLeaks.
? I don't think they did, did they?
|
On August 18 2012 20:11 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 17:59 Groog wrote:On August 18 2012 10:53 Euronyme wrote:On August 18 2012 07:52 elhonko wrote:On August 18 2012 07:05 Euronyme wrote:On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit... Authorities at the national level..... also known as the girls' attorney.. -_-' On August 18 2012 00:43 Aterons_toss wrote:On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US. Please stop being naive, you sound like a politician. Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world. Don't confuse "civilized, rich and liberal" with " not corrupt". I do agree that the current Swedish government will receive to much backlash if they gave him to the US. But if the justice system find him guilty for "rape" than that can't really be blamed on politicians and the judges don't really give a shit... after he sends 5 years in prison, who knows ? can they give him to the US than ? Honestly, wikileaks is active with or without him and people don't really give a shit, the US troops are assholes and the politicians thieves, so what ? The people stupid enough not to have realized this by now likely don't care and the people that care about this don't vote anyway. To be honest i don't believe the FBI really wants to get him just as a "revenge" for proving how incompetent the data protection branch of US is. Sorry what? Slave labour? Did I miss something? We've never employed slave labour, and never stolen natural resources. The boom of the Swedish economy came from staying neutral in WW2 and exporting our resources to both sides, and also through good education leading to competitiveness. In the early 1900s Sweden was piss poor. Our only colony was one of the tiny islands in the caribbean, which was quickly taken over by the French. This issue has nothing to do with corruption, as it doesn't need to be. USA can request him from the interpol (same as Sweden did) and he'll be handed over directly form the UK. That's easy. Now instead your idea is that the evil USA hired two ladies to say that they were raped, bought up the Swedish justice system and independent judges and courts, and even the government itself in order to accomplish the same thing as a request to the UK or interpol. Of course that sounds much more reasonable. The US doesn't have charges, and aren't even looking for him at the moment. What might happen is that they do file charges while he's under arrest in Sweden, which might lead to Sweden handing him over (after Assange's served his sentence here / been released) if the US promises not to enforce the death penalty or torture. Where did you hear five years? Source on that please. We have never had slave labour? Haven't you heard the words "piga" or "dräng"? What in the.... That's a female / male farm workers. They were always paid in some way and were always free to leave whenever. I don't even... Did you actually go to school? I'm seriously curious. Do you know what a slave is? Did you sleep in school? http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensk_slavhandelOf course we, just like any other western country had slaves (How do you think the Vikings built their ships?). To think otherwise is preposterous. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard. The first post argued that Sweden is built on the shoulders of slaves. The second one argues that people working at farms (dräng /piga) were slaves, and now you come with the viking era... awesome. It's been illegal since 1335. That should be a long enough time ago to considered irrelevant for contemporary politics, which was what the discussion was originally about. Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. I'd be surprised if he actually got convicted. I'm not sure how it works, but as there are two girls who've filed reports, that's the most important factor really. If there was just one girl, he would've still had to go to court, but there's no way he'd be found guilty of anything really. To the people saying he should get a guarantee not to be sent to the US. The only reason this works in Ecuador is because their country is one of the most corrupt in the world. The reason why it doesn't work in Sweden is because anyone interfering with the justice system is committing a felony. The decision would have to go through a court that decides whether the US claim (which there is currently none) is just, and whether he'd be in danger of facing execution or torture. The same kind of trial that was in England that is.
Yes, it was made illegal some 700 years ago, but Swedes were still trading slaves just as long as everyone else in the world was. I don't know what the point was with the whole slave thing, but it's a lie to say that Swedes weren't involved in the slave trade
On August 18 2012 08:05 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit... Sweden has a 9.3 out of 10 in the corruption index, placing as #4 in the world with NZ as #1 with a 9.5 score. In the democracy index Sweden scores 9.5 out of 10 also placing #4 with 0.3 points up to #1 country Norway.
It just means that the corrupt people in Sweden are better at hiding their corruption. Sure you can't bribe most police officers here to get away with a ticket like you can in Russia, but that's not the kind of corruption that is of interest for this thread. The kind of corruption that is of interest in this thread exists EVERYWHERE and it's incredibly naive to believe otherwise.
|
On August 18 2012 20:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified. No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless. Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too. It is blatantly semantics because the quote was deliberately cherry-picked out of context by feminist editors on Wikipedia. If you examine the actual source article, you can see that the guy in question considers false allegations to be a very real problem. Still care what one guy thinks about the statistics, or can we use critical thinking skills and logic to understand what they actually mean? Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
The point being made is that rape accusations are held to an unusually low standard of evidence, which is why it's perfect as a political weapon. For example, see how a false accusation (and one proven to be a complete and deliberate falsehood, at that) was so effective at ruining Dominque Strauss-Khanh's career.
Tinfoil hats all day...
The legal process hasn't proceeded to a state where all the accusations have been made public.
The reason for this is that they haven't been able to question Mr Assange due to his strange way of behaving.
He is wanted to questioning. For all you know, that might actually be it.
There is still a real chance that charges wont be pressed or that an out of court settlement is made.
I wont argue with you anymore. Just like idrA.
|
All the leaked e-mails that show assange is being targeted for wikileaks are fake and the reports about extradition talks that were even in the mainstream media are fake. Everyone who disagrees with my idiotic crap is a tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorist, because that's totally an argument, and not just showing that I'm an idiot who lacks any real arguments or even a semblance of rational thought process.
Man, I'm on fire in this thread, totally showed those conspiracy theorists that international manhunts and threats of breaking international law are nothing suspicious and happen every day, in case someone is wanted for questioning. Don't pay attention that this has never happened before and only an idiot wouldn't notice.
/thread
|
United States44389 Posts
On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about.
The fact that you condescendingly dismiss my opinion on rape culture as white knighting says far more about your attitude than mine. The fact of the matter is that rape is an incredibly prevalent thing in our culture and, when you ask men anonymously without using the word rape, 6% of college aged men admit to rape. This isn't exaggerated, this isn't "spurious allegations", these are men willingly admitting to rape because they don't think it's a big deal.
researchers David Lesak and Paul M. Miller asked 1882 college students the following questions:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Those questions seem pretty clearly rape, there's no misdirection or misleading questions here, they just describe rape without the word rape. 120 respondents, or 6% of the sample (which, by the way, was ethnically diverse, and included older students, up to the age of 71), answered yes to at least one of the questions. 76 of those men had committed more than one rape or attempted rape — these recidivists averaged 5.8 offenses. That is, writes Millar, "just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes."
1882 college students asked, over 400 rapes between them. That is an awful, awful lot of rape going on and these numbers are based upon men voluntarily answering unambiguous questions. So don't give me that bullshit about me white knighting or wanting to buying into bullshit peddled by women or the rest of your arrogant, condescending nonsense. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
|
On August 18 2012 21:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. The fact that you condescendingly dismiss my opinion on rape culture as white knighting says far more about your attitude than mine. The fact of the matter is that rape is an incredibly prevalent thing in our culture and, when you ask men anonymously without using the word rape, 6% of college aged men admit to rape. This isn't exaggerated, this isn't "spurious allegations", these are men willingly admitting to rape because they don't think it's a big deal. Show nested quote +researchers David Lesak and Paul M. Miller asked 1882 college students the following questions:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Those questions seem pretty clearly rape, there's no misdirection or misleading questions here, they just describe rape without the word rape. 120 respondents, or 6% of the sample (which, by the way, was ethnically diverse, and included older students, up to the age of 71), answered yes to at least one of the questions. 76 of those men had committed more than one rape or attempted rape — these recidivists averaged 5.8 offenses. That is, writes Millar, "just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes." 1882 college students asked, over 400 rapes between them. That is an awful, awful lot of rape going on and these numbers are based upon men voluntarily answering unambiguous questions. So don't give me that bullshit about me white knighting or wanting to buying into bullshit peddled by women or the rest of your arrogant, condescending nonsense. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
You guys went a bit off topic so I will join in:
Check this link out in the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates
"The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. I know you will have heard the figure of 6%. Everyone has. That figure is actually an attrition rate, not a conviction rate, and even as an attrition rate it is wrong – the attrition rate for rape is in the region of 12%."
So the conviction rate is not a problem at all. The problem is the lack of reporting in rape crimes, probably related to the stigma surrounding the crime as well as victim blaming culture and what not.
Also there is no way to accurately measure the attrition rate.
This probably deserves a topic of its own.
EDIT: the number 400 counts for repeated offences I guess. 4% of the sample have committed crimes. I wonder if the figure would increase or decrease when you added a sample representative of the whole population.
EDIT2: The number for the guardian article are for the UK of course.
|
the irony of all this discussion about society and culture (with focus on the area of sex relations) is that the we dont have all the facts to correctly judge whether or not that this individual julian assange is guilty or not as he is yet to appear before the court (which as i understand it is composed of a panel of proffesional judges)
the post above mine though is correct it is the non-reporting or delay in the reporting (as evidence becomes harder to gather) of rape and or other sexual behaviour which represents the biggest factor when using statistics as how do you take into account the non-reporting indivduals as well as the reporting individuals while adjusting for specific circumstances of those individuals e.g. behavioural or habitual traits (e.g. individuals that walk home through the park have an x% chance)
alot people use the term victim blaming in defense of people who make poor choices be that as it may but if i go to the ghetto with a white power t-shirt then i wouldnt be suprised if i got shot.
|
On August 18 2012 21:10 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:56 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified. No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless. Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too. It is blatantly semantics because the quote was deliberately cherry-picked out of context by feminist editors on Wikipedia. If you examine the actual source article, you can see that the guy in question considers false allegations to be a very real problem. Still care what one guy thinks about the statistics, or can we use critical thinking skills and logic to understand what they actually mean? On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
The point being made is that rape accusations are held to an unusually low standard of evidence, which is why it's perfect as a political weapon. For example, see how a false accusation (and one proven to be a complete and deliberate falsehood, at that) was so effective at ruining Dominque Strauss-Khanh's career. Tinfoil hats all day... The legal process hasn't proceeded to a state where all the accusations have been made public. The reason for this is that they haven't been able to question Mr Assange due to his strange way of behaving. He is wanted to questioning. For all you know, that might actually be it. There is still a real chance that charges wont be pressed or that an out of court settlement is made. I wont argue with you anymore. Just like idrA.
No trying to argue or sound like I have a tinfoil here, just something that has been mentioned before.
If all they want is to question him, why no interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy? This way they can decide whether to charge him or not and the case for extradition is a lot stronger.
It seems to me to be the simplest solution, which would not draw any criticism. Then if they decide to charge him, they can present their evidence,etc...
|
United States44389 Posts
On August 18 2012 22:04 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 21:56 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. The fact that you condescendingly dismiss my opinion on rape culture as white knighting says far more about your attitude than mine. The fact of the matter is that rape is an incredibly prevalent thing in our culture and, when you ask men anonymously without using the word rape, 6% of college aged men admit to rape. This isn't exaggerated, this isn't "spurious allegations", these are men willingly admitting to rape because they don't think it's a big deal. researchers David Lesak and Paul M. Miller asked 1882 college students the following questions:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Those questions seem pretty clearly rape, there's no misdirection or misleading questions here, they just describe rape without the word rape. 120 respondents, or 6% of the sample (which, by the way, was ethnically diverse, and included older students, up to the age of 71), answered yes to at least one of the questions. 76 of those men had committed more than one rape or attempted rape — these recidivists averaged 5.8 offenses. That is, writes Millar, "just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes." 1882 college students asked, over 400 rapes between them. That is an awful, awful lot of rape going on and these numbers are based upon men voluntarily answering unambiguous questions. So don't give me that bullshit about me white knighting or wanting to buying into bullshit peddled by women or the rest of your arrogant, condescending nonsense. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You guys went a bit off topic so I will join in: Check this link out in the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates"The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. I know you will have heard the figure of 6%. Everyone has. That figure is actually an attrition rate, not a conviction rate, and even as an attrition rate it is wrong – the attrition rate for rape is in the region of 12%." So the conviction rate is not a problem at all. The problem is the lack of reporting in rape crimes, probably related to the stigma surrounding the crime as well as victim blaming culture and what not. Also there is no way to accurately measure the attrition rate. This probably deserves a topic of its own. EDIT: the number 400 counts for repeated offences I guess. 4% of the sample have committed crimes. I wonder if the figure would increase or decrease when you added a sample representative of the whole population. EDIT2: The number for the guardian article are for the UK of course.
No, 6% are rapists, it's just of those the 2/3 (4% total group) most active rapists alone account for 400+ rapes. The total number of offences were higher. Either way it amounts to an extremely large number of college aged girls getting raped, according to evidence offered by the rapists themselves, roughly one rape per four men which, assuming numbers of both sexes are equal and there's an even distribution gives you a college aged female rape victim rate of 25%.
|
On August 18 2012 22:19 cristo1122 wrote:
the irony of all this discussion about society and culture (with focus on the area of sex relations) is that the we dont have all the facts to correctly judge whether or not that this individual julian assange is guilty or not as he is yet to appear before the court (which as i understand it is composed of a panel of proffesional judges)
the post above mine though is correct it is the non-reporting or delay in the reporting (as evidence becomes harder to gather) of rape and or other sexual behaviour which represents the biggest factor when using statistics as how do you take into account the non-reporting indivduals as well as the reporting individuals while adjusting for specific circumstances of those individuals e.g. behavioural or habitual traits (e.g. individuals that walk home through the park have an x% chance)
alot people use the term victim blaming in defense of people who make poor choices be that as it may but if i go to the ghetto with a white power t-shirt then i wouldnt be suprised if i got shot.
It would still be illegal to shoot you. Great argument you have there.
On August 18 2012 22:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 22:04 Scheme wrote:On August 18 2012 21:56 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. The fact that you condescendingly dismiss my opinion on rape culture as white knighting says far more about your attitude than mine. The fact of the matter is that rape is an incredibly prevalent thing in our culture and, when you ask men anonymously without using the word rape, 6% of college aged men admit to rape. This isn't exaggerated, this isn't "spurious allegations", these are men willingly admitting to rape because they don't think it's a big deal. researchers David Lesak and Paul M. Miller asked 1882 college students the following questions:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Those questions seem pretty clearly rape, there's no misdirection or misleading questions here, they just describe rape without the word rape. 120 respondents, or 6% of the sample (which, by the way, was ethnically diverse, and included older students, up to the age of 71), answered yes to at least one of the questions. 76 of those men had committed more than one rape or attempted rape — these recidivists averaged 5.8 offenses. That is, writes Millar, "just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes." 1882 college students asked, over 400 rapes between them. That is an awful, awful lot of rape going on and these numbers are based upon men voluntarily answering unambiguous questions. So don't give me that bullshit about me white knighting or wanting to buying into bullshit peddled by women or the rest of your arrogant, condescending nonsense. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You guys went a bit off topic so I will join in: Check this link out in the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates"The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. I know you will have heard the figure of 6%. Everyone has. That figure is actually an attrition rate, not a conviction rate, and even as an attrition rate it is wrong – the attrition rate for rape is in the region of 12%." So the conviction rate is not a problem at all. The problem is the lack of reporting in rape crimes, probably related to the stigma surrounding the crime as well as victim blaming culture and what not. Also there is no way to accurately measure the attrition rate. This probably deserves a topic of its own. EDIT: the number 400 counts for repeated offences I guess. 4% of the sample have committed crimes. I wonder if the figure would increase or decrease when you added a sample representative of the whole population. EDIT2: The number for the guardian article are for the UK of course. No, 6% are rapists, it's just of those the 2/3 (4% total group) most active rapists alone account for 400+ rapes. The total number of offences were higher. Either way it amounts to an extremely large number of college aged girls getting raped, according to evidence offered by the rapists themselves, roughly one rape per four men.
Your source is not talking about college rapes. In fact it explicitly states that older students, up to the age of 71, participated in the questionnaire. Unless you mean to tell me that they've been studying for 50 or so years I'm going to assume that these are rapes both from all different periods of life, although with a concentration on teenage and college years due to the sample.
|
On August 18 2012 22:19 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 21:10 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:56 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified. No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless. Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too. It is blatantly semantics because the quote was deliberately cherry-picked out of context by feminist editors on Wikipedia. If you examine the actual source article, you can see that the guy in question considers false allegations to be a very real problem. Still care what one guy thinks about the statistics, or can we use critical thinking skills and logic to understand what they actually mean? On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
The point being made is that rape accusations are held to an unusually low standard of evidence, which is why it's perfect as a political weapon. For example, see how a false accusation (and one proven to be a complete and deliberate falsehood, at that) was so effective at ruining Dominque Strauss-Khanh's career. Tinfoil hats all day... The legal process hasn't proceeded to a state where all the accusations have been made public. The reason for this is that they haven't been able to question Mr Assange due to his strange way of behaving. He is wanted to questioning. For all you know, that might actually be it. There is still a real chance that charges wont be pressed or that an out of court settlement is made. I wont argue with you anymore. Just like idrA. No trying to argue or sound like I have a tinfoil here, just something that has been mentioned before. If all they want is to question him, why no interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy? This way they can decide whether to charge him or not and the case for extradition is a lot stronger. It seems to me to be the simplest solution, which would not draw any criticism. Then if they decide to charge him, they can present their evidence,etc...
my opinion.. beside the fact that it would undermine the integrity of the Swedish judicial system to make exceptions for a rape suspect who was set to be legally extradited from the UK, questioning him in the Ecuadorian embassy would be pointless because if he was interviewed and it was decided that charges would be pressed it would still have no impact on the possibility of bringing JA to justice in Sweden since he would still be in the Ecuadorian embassy, out of reach.
|
United States44389 Posts
|
On August 18 2012 22:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 22:04 Scheme wrote:On August 18 2012 21:56 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. The fact that you condescendingly dismiss my opinion on rape culture as white knighting says far more about your attitude than mine. The fact of the matter is that rape is an incredibly prevalent thing in our culture and, when you ask men anonymously without using the word rape, 6% of college aged men admit to rape. This isn't exaggerated, this isn't "spurious allegations", these are men willingly admitting to rape because they don't think it's a big deal. researchers David Lesak and Paul M. Miller asked 1882 college students the following questions:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Those questions seem pretty clearly rape, there's no misdirection or misleading questions here, they just describe rape without the word rape. 120 respondents, or 6% of the sample (which, by the way, was ethnically diverse, and included older students, up to the age of 71), answered yes to at least one of the questions. 76 of those men had committed more than one rape or attempted rape — these recidivists averaged 5.8 offenses. That is, writes Millar, "just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes." 1882 college students asked, over 400 rapes between them. That is an awful, awful lot of rape going on and these numbers are based upon men voluntarily answering unambiguous questions. So don't give me that bullshit about me white knighting or wanting to buying into bullshit peddled by women or the rest of your arrogant, condescending nonsense. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You guys went a bit off topic so I will join in: Check this link out in the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates"The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. I know you will have heard the figure of 6%. Everyone has. That figure is actually an attrition rate, not a conviction rate, and even as an attrition rate it is wrong – the attrition rate for rape is in the region of 12%." So the conviction rate is not a problem at all. The problem is the lack of reporting in rape crimes, probably related to the stigma surrounding the crime as well as victim blaming culture and what not. Also there is no way to accurately measure the attrition rate. This probably deserves a topic of its own. EDIT: the number 400 counts for repeated offences I guess. 4% of the sample have committed crimes. I wonder if the figure would increase or decrease when you added a sample representative of the whole population. EDIT2: The number for the guardian article are for the UK of course. No, 6% are rapists, it's just of those the 2/3 (4% total group) most active rapists alone account for 400+ rapes. The total number of offences were higher. Either way it amounts to an extremely large number of college aged girls getting raped, according to evidence offered by the rapists themselves, roughly one rape per four men which, assuming numbers of both sexes are equal and there's an even distribution gives you a college aged female rape victim rate of 25%.
My reply was more directed at the sentence: The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling.
Sure 6%. Well if the sample was taken to include people up to the age of 71 as the poster above mentioned I guess the crime pattern is not abnormal in any way. The same way as the percentage of people who burgles house is small, these people will repeat the offence quite often, causing many burglaries.. Obviously the consequences of these crimes are different, but I guess my point is that there is nothing different from this crime. As I mentioned above, it seems the stigma about it is a much greater problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
