|
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?
What evidence do you have that "weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time?" Last time I checked, most prosecutors only bring rape charges when they have the evidence to convict. That's one of the problems with prosecuting rape: because it's so hard to prove, you need a lot of evidence for it.
You can't just put a crying woman on the stand and expect to win the case. That's not how it works. Hell, in a case like that, the Judge might even throw the case out due to lack of evidence before the defense even presents a case.
You seem to have a lot of notions about how often false rape cases go to trial and how much evidence people are convicted on. Is this based on actual information, from some source you can present, or just your gut feelings about the matter?
Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.
Even if everything you say about rape cases is true, one injustice does not justify another.
|
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether they're guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone?
I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.
A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.
|
On August 24 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:
If you wish to tell her which situations to avoid in order to avoid exposing herself to potential rapists, I'd go with the kitchen. Keep her in the kitchen, if she leaves there then she's basically asking for it.
This seems reasonable. I will keep this in mind when I have a daughter.
|
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.
As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here.
|
On August 24 2012 03:40 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Holy shit you guys blew what I said out of proportion.... It's a simple fact that if you want to do dangerous shit you can get raped, just like if I walk down the same alley and get mugged that was my point... I never said she was "asking for it". This thread is full of such hero's of women... It's rather apparent this has turned from a discussion on how we define rape and what it means/fault placement to comparing fault with "gassing Jew's" as Kwark quickly pointed out.
Time to move onto another thread.
I'll take a lesson from this thread and tell my daughter (if I ever half one) that going down dark alley's is OK at night and you have nothing to worry about and it isn't her fault for being assaulted (mugged/raped etc) for doing so. We'll see how that pans out with the Mrs. No - the concept is, a person who goes down a dark alley can get stabbed, but the law states that no stabbing is allowed. Therefore, regardless of the reason why you go down a dark alley, getting stab does not void the responsibility of the stabber.
Right, there seems to be a strange identification of a prudential concern regarding behavior (that as Kwark has pointed out is empirically unfounded) having anything at all to do with a moral responsibility for being a victim of such behavior. Even IF (and it is not) it were true that walking down dark alleyways was a particularly act would not make me somehow absolve the actual person committing the act.
Prudentially, if you want to avoid being a victim of an armed bank robbery, you ought not work as a bank teller. But that's irrelevant with respect to the moral issues with bank robbery.
|
On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here.
If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.
|
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.
How many? Which ones?
Provide some evidence for your beliefs. If you're going to claim that the justice system simply does not work on rape cases, what evidence do you have for this besides your belief that the only way to prosecute them is with mind reading?
How many guilty men were set free from very deserved years in jail because of such "evidence?"
One injustice does not justify another.
On August 24 2012 03:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here. If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.
How many? Where? Which ones? Can you provide actual links, or are you just using selection bias?
|
On August 24 2012 03:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here. If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.
Then the issue therein lies with the defense lawyers.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether they're guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.
You're not getting it. The nonsense argument doesn't selectively only defend innocent people. It works whether they're innocent or not. You're saying that you shouldn't convict people in rape cases because they might potentially be innocent. What you're arguing for is letting a portion of people who would be found guilty of rape go because some of them may actually be innocent. That doesn't help the innocent people who aren't in that portion and it certainly doesn't help the women raped by the guilty people who are in that portion. It does nothing but exacerbate the problem.
If you genuinely believe that the chance of being found guilty of rape while innocent is high enough to start randomly finding people innocent regardless of the evidence then what you're arguing is simply an end to laws against rape.
|
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.
I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.
But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.
No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always.
|
On August 24 2012 03:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here. If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.
If you are honestly concerned about this, then you should be arguing to strengthen the laws against perjury, not weaken the laws against rape. For most people who are not hardened criminals, harsh sentences for perjury or false allegations will be a strong enough deterrent to avoid making a false accusation, because for most people, crime, as with any decision, is a measurement of risk vs reward.
|
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.
False convictions are indeed a tradgedy. Do you have any thoughts about the victims of unreported rapes? (An estimated 54% in the US from 2002 - 2006, according to Justice Department statistics.)
|
On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always.
Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.
|
What is rape
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
What is rape
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
I'm sorry I had to
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.
Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case.
|
On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.
You are correct, sadly. If you want to discuss the problem of legal failures in rape cases, and the problem of false reports, we can do that. But there is no need to tie the promiscuity argument to this issue, it honestly seems rather bizarre to me.
|
On August 24 2012 03:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here. If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.
is this gonna get answered or wat
|
On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case.
You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail.
|
On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".
If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury. Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get? If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials. Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.
Being innocent doesn't mean you're immune to prosecution. It simply means you're not guilty of what you're accused of.
The point of a trial is for the prosecution to present evidence of the defendant's guilt, which the defendant can pick apart. The defendant can likewise present evidence of their innocence. Being innocent doesn't mean you may not have to do these things.
Innocent people will be "gone after". The point of the justice system is to determine guilt or lack of evidence thereof, so that the innocent person is not punished without a fair hearing. This means that innocent people will be brought to trial, but they will have ample and fair opportunities to defend themselves with legitimate evidence and rational arguments.
Promiscuity of the accuser is not legitimate evidence or a rational argument of innocence, as you yourself accept. Thus, it should not be presented, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
