|
On August 24 2012 05:46 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:32 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here. All right, I'll stop beating you up. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ Fine, I don't know the statistics. I just know that it happens, and maybe I'm wrong to defend the innocent people to the extent that I do, but I'll admit that I'm exceptionally invested in not having innocent people go to jail, no matter how rarely it may happen. Except that you limit this specifically to rape. If you truly valued protecting the innocent from prison above all else, you would be suggesting that we should allow irrelevant nonsense "evidence" be allowed in all cases. But you don't; you suggest it only for rape cases. You justify this based on the idea that this will somehow balance the some alleged unfairness of rape trials. Despite the fact that you admit that you don't know: * That rape trials are unfair. Just because an innocent person is convicted doesn't mean the trial was unfair. The justice system is imperfect. * That rape trials result in more innocent people being convicted per capita than any other form of allegation. Your position is not based on knowledge or evidence. It's based on your belief about what happens in rape trials, likely fueled by and/or coupled with an irrational fear of a woman falsely accusing you of rape.
No no no no! I said it twice - it's not just for rape. I'm the same way in the case of murder for instance, and every crime. I'm against innocent [edit: people] being in prison. I'm really opposed to people being in prison for murders they didn't commit, and as such my stance there is similar to what I've expressed before - I would like for there to be higher standards of evidence to prosecute a man for a murder. At least in many cases, the evidence is very weak, and combined with a weak public defendant, innocent people go to jail for murders, or rapes, that they did not commit.
It's not limited to one type of crime!
> I have to be AFK for a few minutes so I'll fall behind.
|
On August 24 2012 05:50 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:46 Silidons wrote:On August 24 2012 05:26 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
Important thing to remember:
Whethere someone is nuked or not, wearing slutty clothes or wrapped all over, drunk or not, you DO NOT have any reason to rape her, much less have sex with her without her conscious intelligent consent. End of story. So it's rape if a girl is drunk, a guy asks to fuck, she says okay, undresses herself and sits upon the man. Then when she's sober she can say that she only said okay since she was drunk and so it's rape? Since "conscious intelligent consent" requires her to be sober? Are you implying that? Unfortunately, yes. This distinction has to be made, because the alternative is basically allowing an exception to the consent requirement of consensual sex. Basically, if we do not consider the scenario you described as rape, we assert that if someone is too inebriated to make a sound-mind-and-judgment decision, it's okay for somebody else to make it for them. It's unfortunate, and it would be really great to find a workaround to this, (and I'm not convinced that the scenario you described often leads to conviction) but in order to be legally consistent, it's the way it has to be.
What a ridiculous assertion. Drunk girls are resposible for all other actions they can take, the only act they aparently can't decide to engage in with ''sound-mind-and-judgment'' is sex? What if both people are drunk? should they both go to jail?
If she is concious, coherent and you suspect she isn't about to pass out. It is probably ok to have sex with her.
|
On August 24 2012 05:45 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. As the court failed to say to the misogynistic lawyer, justify your conclusions with evidence. Very well, your honor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeThis page has several studies which put the the false report rate well above the average for other crimes. Several studies put it above 40%, though I will admit it also says atleast one of those is heavily criticized. But as you can see from the section on Rumney's study review report, many studies have found shockingly high rates. I will defend my assertion that rape is the most convenient crime, with the fact that for rape or sexual assault, there needs to be no physical evidence of wrongdoing, one does have to point to the damages suffered, since in many cases it will only be psychological. It is very well suited to destroy somone with, because an accusation of rape will never be fully erased, even with an acquittal, and rape is very bad, as we all know. For my assertion that rape is unusually difficult to prove, I will offer the fact that it often concerns the matter of whether or not consent was given, leading to his word against hers scenarios. This naturally makes the testimony of the accuser particularly important. For the assertion that this leads to more lax standards I offer very little. I can only speculate on the fact that even judges are humans that want to see rapists in jail, and that it must be frustrating to see many of them walk free because of lack of evidence. The best kind of evidence, rates of false imprisonment, are very hard to come by. The statistical methodology would pose tremendous challenges. But, your honor, I do humbly ask that you consider that I offer this merely as a hypothesis, albeit one with alot of merit, and did not claim factual truth. Having said this, I think the report rate of actual rapes are a far greater problem than the false accusations. Shoot me if you want.
This is false from reality. Most unfounded accusations of rape are dismissed very quickly by the police, long before prosecutors are involved. The fact that rapists are rarely convicted means that prosecutors only take rape cases that have considerable evidence.
The fact is that few rapes are reported, of those reported, few rapes are prosecuted, and of that, few rapists are convicted, regardless of multiple offenses of them "making the same mistake over and over again." If you think judges are in a hurry to convict rapists, then you are wrong.
|
On August 24 2012 05:50 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:46 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 05:32 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here. All right, I'll stop beating you up. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ Fine, I don't know the statistics. I just know that it happens, and maybe I'm wrong to defend the innocent people to the extent that I do, but I'll admit that I'm exceptionally invested in not having innocent people go to jail, no matter how rarely it may happen. Except that you limit this specifically to rape. If you truly valued protecting the innocent from prison above all else, you would be suggesting that we should allow irrelevant nonsense "evidence" be allowed in all cases. But you don't; you suggest it only for rape cases. You justify this based on the idea that this will somehow balance the some alleged unfairness of rape trials. Despite the fact that you admit that you don't know: * That rape trials are unfair. Just because an innocent person is convicted doesn't mean the trial was unfair. The justice system is imperfect. * That rape trials result in more innocent people being convicted per capita than any other form of allegation. Your position is not based on knowledge or evidence. It's based on your belief about what happens in rape trials, likely fueled by and/or coupled with an irrational fear of a woman falsely accusing you of rape. I think you don't understand how crimes like Rape are. Rape is not a normal crime, because in court it's a "he said/she said" situation and if the woman is not showing any negative physical conditions (bruises, etc) then how can you link rape to other crimes. You can't. In most "he said/she said" situations, the woman prevails. There are stats for that.
In countries with reasonable justice system "she said" is not enough for conviction in general. It might happen, but then it is error on the side of the court, not standard modus operandi and is not based in law. So please show us the stats for that.
|
On August 24 2012 05:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:45 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. As the court failed to say to the misogynistic lawyer, justify your conclusions with evidence. Very well, your honor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeThis page has several studies which put the the false report rate well above the average for other crimes. Several studies put it above 40%, though I will admit it also says atleast one of those is heavily criticized. But as you can see from the section on Rumney's study review report, many studies have found shockingly high rates. I will defend my assertion that rape is the most convenient crime, with the fact that for rape or sexual assault, there needs to be no physical evidence of wrongdoing, one does have to point to the damages suffered, since in many cases it will only be psychological. It is very well suited to destroy somone with, because an accusation of rape will never be fully erased, even with an acquittal, and rape is very bad, as we all know. For my assertion that rape is unusually difficult to prove, I will offer the fact that it often concerns the matter of whether or not consent was given, leading to his word against hers scenarios. This naturally makes the testimony of the accuser particularly important. For the assertion that this leads to more lax standards I offer very little. I can only speculate on the fact that even judges are humans that want to see rapists in jail, and that it must be frustrating to see many of them walk free because of lack of evidence. The best kind of evidence, rates of false imprisonment, are very hard to come by. The statistical methodology would pose tremendous challenges. But, your honor, I do humbly ask that you consider that I offer this merely as a hypothesis, albeit one with alot of merit, and did not claim factual truth. Having said this, I think the report rate of actual rapes are a far greater problem than the false accusations. Shoot me if you want. This is false from reality. Most unfounded accusations of rape are dismissed very quickly by the police, long before prosecutors are involved. The fact that rapists are rarely convicted means that prosecutors only take rape cases that have considerable evidence. The fact is that few rapes are reported, of those reported, few rapes are prosecuted, and of that, few rapists are convicted, regardless of multiple offenses of them "making the same mistake over and over again." If you think judges are in a hurry to convict rapists, then you are wrong.
I actually think this is a pretty convincing line of reasoning.
|
On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
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. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty.
You seem to ignore that the freedom of innocents is closely associated with and correlated with the prosecution of the guilty. If the guilty are successfully prosecuted more often, the freedom of their victims (and the freedom of society in general of being safer from harm) is dramatically increased.
Otherwise, you'd be implying that the victims of rape are somehow not innocent and, thus, that their freedom is valued less by you personally.
|
On August 23 2012 21:39 Asmodeusx wrote:
According to our society, it's beating someone at Call of Duty.
Hahahahahahaaha this is great.
|
On August 24 2012 06:15 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
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. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. You seem to ignore that the freedom of innocents is closely associated with and correlated with the prosecution of the guilty. If the guilty are successfully prosecuted more often, the freedom of their victims (and the freedom of society in general of being safer from harm) is dramatically increased. Otherwise, you'd be implying that the victims of rape are somehow not innocent and, thus, that their freedom is valued less by you personally.
The first part makes sense, and I appreciate that.
The second part seems like a stretch, but there's definitely an element of truth in that a rape victim has their freedom severely infringed upon.
Still, the government occasionally DIRECTLY imprisons innocent people and it's a problem. Much of the resistance to my feelings about that in this thread come from the fact that the non-conviction of rapists is perhaps a bigger problem.
|
On August 24 2012 05:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:45 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. As the court failed to say to the misogynistic lawyer, justify your conclusions with evidence. Very well, your honor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeThis page has several studies which put the the false report rate well above the average for other crimes. Several studies put it above 40%, though I will admit it also says atleast one of those is heavily criticized. But as you can see from the section on Rumney's study review report, many studies have found shockingly high rates. I will defend my assertion that rape is the most convenient crime, with the fact that for rape or sexual assault, there needs to be no physical evidence of wrongdoing, one does have to point to the damages suffered, since in many cases it will only be psychological. It is very well suited to destroy somone with, because an accusation of rape will never be fully erased, even with an acquittal, and rape is very bad, as we all know. For my assertion that rape is unusually difficult to prove, I will offer the fact that it often concerns the matter of whether or not consent was given, leading to his word against hers scenarios. This naturally makes the testimony of the accuser particularly important. For the assertion that this leads to more lax standards I offer very little. I can only speculate on the fact that even judges are humans that want to see rapists in jail, and that it must be frustrating to see many of them walk free because of lack of evidence. The best kind of evidence, rates of false imprisonment, are very hard to come by. The statistical methodology would pose tremendous challenges. But, your honor, I do humbly ask that you consider that I offer this merely as a hypothesis, albeit one with alot of merit, and did not claim factual truth. Having said this, I think the report rate of actual rapes are a far greater problem than the false accusations. Shoot me if you want. This is false from reality. Most unfounded accusations of rape are dismissed very quickly by the police, long before prosecutors are involved. The fact that rapists are rarely convicted means that prosecutors only take rape cases that have considerable evidence. The fact is that few rapes are reported, of those reported, few rapes are prosecuted, and of that, few rapists are convicted, regardless of multiple offenses of them "making the same mistake over and over again." If you think judges are in a hurry to convict rapists, then you are wrong.
Just look at Baltimore And new Orleans and how many rape cases are considered unfounded or not real by police and never get looked into at all(Baltimore police were dismissing five times the amount of rape claims than other cities in 2010) The systems by far favor the man, even if the law books slightly favor woman.
|
On August 24 2012 05:50 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:46 Silidons wrote:On August 24 2012 05:26 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
Important thing to remember:
Whethere someone is nuked or not, wearing slutty clothes or wrapped all over, drunk or not, you DO NOT have any reason to rape her, much less have sex with her without her conscious intelligent consent. End of story. So it's rape if a girl is drunk, a guy asks to fuck, she says okay, undresses herself and sits upon the man. Then when she's sober she can say that she only said okay since she was drunk and so it's rape? Since "conscious intelligent consent" requires her to be sober? Are you implying that? Unfortunately, yes. This distinction has to be made, because the alternative is basically allowing an exception to the consent requirement of consensual sex. Basically, if we do not consider the scenario you described as rape, we assert that if someone is too inebriated to make a sound-mind-and-judgment decision, it's okay for somebody else to make it for them. It's unfortunate, and it would be really great to find a workaround to this, (and I'm not convinced that the scenario you described often leads to conviction) but in order to be legally consistent, it's the way it has to be.
Well you need a healthy dose of reality if you believe that. I'm sorry - but you're completely wrong. Would you tell the same to a man? Can a man say he got raped? Be it in a homosexual or heterosexual situation?
So what you're effectively saying, is that having sex with a drunk woman = rape. Every single time. Since no one (assuming you're not being a feminist and making this ONLY affect females [which I think you are doing]) can make intelligent decisions while drunk, we have to assume that each and every decision made by one who is intoxicated is against their will.
|
On August 24 2012 06:38 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:55 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:45 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. As the court failed to say to the misogynistic lawyer, justify your conclusions with evidence. Very well, your honor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeThis page has several studies which put the the false report rate well above the average for other crimes. Several studies put it above 40%, though I will admit it also says atleast one of those is heavily criticized. But as you can see from the section on Rumney's study review report, many studies have found shockingly high rates. I will defend my assertion that rape is the most convenient crime, with the fact that for rape or sexual assault, there needs to be no physical evidence of wrongdoing, one does have to point to the damages suffered, since in many cases it will only be psychological. It is very well suited to destroy somone with, because an accusation of rape will never be fully erased, even with an acquittal, and rape is very bad, as we all know. For my assertion that rape is unusually difficult to prove, I will offer the fact that it often concerns the matter of whether or not consent was given, leading to his word against hers scenarios. This naturally makes the testimony of the accuser particularly important. For the assertion that this leads to more lax standards I offer very little. I can only speculate on the fact that even judges are humans that want to see rapists in jail, and that it must be frustrating to see many of them walk free because of lack of evidence. The best kind of evidence, rates of false imprisonment, are very hard to come by. The statistical methodology would pose tremendous challenges. But, your honor, I do humbly ask that you consider that I offer this merely as a hypothesis, albeit one with alot of merit, and did not claim factual truth. Having said this, I think the report rate of actual rapes are a far greater problem than the false accusations. Shoot me if you want. This is false from reality. Most unfounded accusations of rape are dismissed very quickly by the police, long before prosecutors are involved. The fact that rapists are rarely convicted means that prosecutors only take rape cases that have considerable evidence. The fact is that few rapes are reported, of those reported, few rapes are prosecuted, and of that, few rapists are convicted, regardless of multiple offenses of them "making the same mistake over and over again." If you think judges are in a hurry to convict rapists, then you are wrong. Just look at Baltimore And new Orleans and how many rape cases are considered unfounded or not real by police and never get looked into at all(Baltimore police were dismissing five times the amount of rape claims than other cities in 2010) The systems by far favor the man, even if the law books slightly favor woman.
The lawbooks also favor the men.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
|
On August 24 2012 06:38 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:55 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:45 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. As the court failed to say to the misogynistic lawyer, justify your conclusions with evidence. Very well, your honor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeThis page has several studies which put the the false report rate well above the average for other crimes. Several studies put it above 40%, though I will admit it also says atleast one of those is heavily criticized. But as you can see from the section on Rumney's study review report, many studies have found shockingly high rates. I will defend my assertion that rape is the most convenient crime, with the fact that for rape or sexual assault, there needs to be no physical evidence of wrongdoing, one does have to point to the damages suffered, since in many cases it will only be psychological. It is very well suited to destroy somone with, because an accusation of rape will never be fully erased, even with an acquittal, and rape is very bad, as we all know. For my assertion that rape is unusually difficult to prove, I will offer the fact that it often concerns the matter of whether or not consent was given, leading to his word against hers scenarios. This naturally makes the testimony of the accuser particularly important. For the assertion that this leads to more lax standards I offer very little. I can only speculate on the fact that even judges are humans that want to see rapists in jail, and that it must be frustrating to see many of them walk free because of lack of evidence. The best kind of evidence, rates of false imprisonment, are very hard to come by. The statistical methodology would pose tremendous challenges. But, your honor, I do humbly ask that you consider that I offer this merely as a hypothesis, albeit one with alot of merit, and did not claim factual truth. Having said this, I think the report rate of actual rapes are a far greater problem than the false accusations. Shoot me if you want. This is false from reality. Most unfounded accusations of rape are dismissed very quickly by the police, long before prosecutors are involved. The fact that rapists are rarely convicted means that prosecutors only take rape cases that have considerable evidence. The fact is that few rapes are reported, of those reported, few rapes are prosecuted, and of that, few rapists are convicted, regardless of multiple offenses of them "making the same mistake over and over again." If you think judges are in a hurry to convict rapists, then you are wrong. Just look at Baltimore And new Orleans and how many rape cases are considered unfounded or not real by police and never get looked into at all(Baltimore police were dismissing five times the amount of rape claims than other cities in 2010) The systems by far favor the man, even if the law books slightly favor woman.
Aren't New Orleans and Baltimore big clusterfucks anyway? With very undermanned police, a lot of poverty and so on?
|
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for.
|
On August 24 2012 05:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:46 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 05:32 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Djzapz, Please provide evidence of the apparently pervasive nature of men being falsely imprisoned of rape. Clearly you are of the opinion that this is relatively common, despite all the evidence I have tried to show you to the contrary. Therefore, I must demand that you provide evidence for your claim that there are plenty of men who have been falsely imprisoned on rape charges. Or else I just don't see how this conversation can continue. Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here. All right, I'll stop beating you up. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ Fine, I don't know the statistics. I just know that it happens, and maybe I'm wrong to defend the innocent people to the extent that I do, but I'll admit that I'm exceptionally invested in not having innocent people go to jail, no matter how rarely it may happen. Except that you limit this specifically to rape. If you truly valued protecting the innocent from prison above all else, you would be suggesting that we should allow irrelevant nonsense "evidence" be allowed in all cases. But you don't; you suggest it only for rape cases. You justify this based on the idea that this will somehow balance the some alleged unfairness of rape trials. Despite the fact that you admit that you don't know: * That rape trials are unfair. Just because an innocent person is convicted doesn't mean the trial was unfair. The justice system is imperfect. * That rape trials result in more innocent people being convicted per capita than any other form of allegation. Your position is not based on knowledge or evidence. It's based on your belief about what happens in rape trials, likely fueled by and/or coupled with an irrational fear of a woman falsely accusing you of rape. No no no no! I said it twice - it's not just for rape. I'm the same way in the case of murder for instance, and every crime. I'm against innocent [edit: people] being in prison. I'm really opposed to people being in prison for murders they didn't commit, and as such my stance there is similar to what I've expressed before - I would like for there to be higher standards of evidence to prosecute a man for a murder. At least in many cases, the evidence is very weak, and combined with a weak public defendant, innocent people go to jail for murders, or rapes, that they did not commit. It's not limited to one type of crime! > I have to be AFK for a few minutes so I'll fall behind.
Higher standards of evidence is the exact opposite of allowing an alleged rape victim's sexual history into the trial. That's lowering the standard of evidence.
If what you're saying is true, then what you want is for the defense to bring anything to the trial, no matter how irrelevant. The defense attorney should be able to bring a mugging victim's own history of violence, if they think it'll prejudice the jury. The victim of a beating can have his statements online about <insert political issue here> brought up.
You're basically saying that we should legalize the Chewbacca defense.
That's not justice. Justice is about weighing the relevant facts, determining guilt based on that, and meteing out punishment. When you lower the standard of evidence to allow nonsense, speculation, and innuendo into the courtroom, you may as well give up on finding actual guilt altogether.
|
lol people who think that a drunk women regretting drunk sex after the fact are fucking retarded, with that logic i should go around drunk all day and have 0 responsibilities. If the girl was up for it while she was drunk thats all that matters. get some common sense and logic, rape is nonconsensual sexual penetration where the victim expresses themselves not wanting the sex before or during the act not this after sex nope didn't want it shit
|
On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for.
yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
|
There was a feminist organization at my school that said any time a woman is drunk, its rape. Sure, maybe you are drunk too. Nope, still rape. Pretty ridiculous.
|
On August 24 2012 07:09 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:53 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:46 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 05:32 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Just google it dude...
Google:
Man false accused rape
Man falsely imprisoned rape
It's not new Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. And I have tried to give you exactly how we can address that concern and all the data you could possibly desire on how we can reform the law to actually prosecute and convict rapists. Your only argument is "well this could lead to more innocent people in jail" when you yourself admit that you're not familiar with what you're talking about, and this concern is addressed in that massive link I keep posting here. All right, I'll stop beating you up. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ Fine, I don't know the statistics. I just know that it happens, and maybe I'm wrong to defend the innocent people to the extent that I do, but I'll admit that I'm exceptionally invested in not having innocent people go to jail, no matter how rarely it may happen. Except that you limit this specifically to rape. If you truly valued protecting the innocent from prison above all else, you would be suggesting that we should allow irrelevant nonsense "evidence" be allowed in all cases. But you don't; you suggest it only for rape cases. You justify this based on the idea that this will somehow balance the some alleged unfairness of rape trials. Despite the fact that you admit that you don't know: * That rape trials are unfair. Just because an innocent person is convicted doesn't mean the trial was unfair. The justice system is imperfect. * That rape trials result in more innocent people being convicted per capita than any other form of allegation. Your position is not based on knowledge or evidence. It's based on your belief about what happens in rape trials, likely fueled by and/or coupled with an irrational fear of a woman falsely accusing you of rape. No no no no! I said it twice - it's not just for rape. I'm the same way in the case of murder for instance, and every crime. I'm against innocent [edit: people] being in prison. I'm really opposed to people being in prison for murders they didn't commit, and as such my stance there is similar to what I've expressed before - I would like for there to be higher standards of evidence to prosecute a man for a murder. At least in many cases, the evidence is very weak, and combined with a weak public defendant, innocent people go to jail for murders, or rapes, that they did not commit. It's not limited to one type of crime! > I have to be AFK for a few minutes so I'll fall behind. Higher standards of evidence is the exact opposite of allowing an alleged rape victim's sexual history into the trial. That's lowering the standard of evidence. If what you're saying is true, then what you want is for the defense to bring anything to the trial, no matter how irrelevant. The defense attorney should be able to bring a mugging victim's own history of violence, if they think it'll prejudice the jury. The victim of a beating can have his statements online about <insert political issue here> brought up. You're basically saying that we should legalize the Chewbacca defense. That's not justice. Justice is about weighing the relevant facts, determining guilt based on that, and meteing out punishment. When you lower the standard of evidence to allow nonsense, speculation, and innuendo into the courtroom, you may as well give up on finding actual guilt altogether.
Look, if you were the slightest bit honest you'd stop with the BS. I've distanced myself from that argument a while ago, admitting that I was wrong on that one. Stop bashing a dead horse. I'm pretty sure I've even told you directly at LEAST once.
|
On August 24 2012 05:25 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:17 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 05:12 dani` wrote:On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:54 JinDesu wrote:If a girl is under the influence of chemicals (drugs/alcohol), it's a no, regardless of what she says. This is an overarching application, as people respond differently to chemicals, and it's better safe than sorry. You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions. ..... He is the only person who made that decision. When only one person makes a decision to have sex, that is rape. Your argument is literally no different from saying that somebody walking down a dark alley who got raped is at fault, because they made a bad decision.
Funny how its rape to penetrate a woman (while sleeping) no matter if she thinks it is or not. Neither woman is pressing charges from what I understand and one thinks she is being railroaded by the police.
|
On August 24 2012 07:43 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:59 Blurry wrote:
After thinking about it, as long as the person is still coherent, being drunk should still allow you to give consent. It is just cleaner that way. Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a drunk girl? Yes. Do girls take advantage of drunk guys? All the time. Its just that the double standard we live with doesn't allow us to think in that way and its only women who get raped according to popular belief.
Point is, sleeping with a drunk girl, as long as she isn't passed out, is morally questionable, but not rape. There is an exception, being drugged. If I'm essentially force feeding a girl shots to get her drunk and then have sex with her, that should be considered rape. Being drunk is a choice you make, and the consequences of said decision (having sex with some ugly guy) are something that the person needs to take responsibility for. yeah the double standards in society are so hard against men...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I don't like how everyone is pussyfooting around this one. Should the law favor women over men in these "gray rape" cases or not? Haven't seen anyone come out and say they believe it should, but the silence on this issue is defeaning.
Edit: for the record, I believe in equality under the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
