|
Rape is a seriously damagingthing to the girl( I know very well a rape victim, she didn't "get it very well", but let's not mix things right here ). In this day and age you have sexual assault or whatever funky term that you can be charged by even accidently touching a girl in the work place when she doesn't feel like it. In america, the statistic are that the reported sexual assaults are like 1/6, as in 1 in 6 girls are sexually assaulted. Really ? That's a big load of b.s. I'm sure most of those reports are stupid sexual remarks rather than actual actions.
And the mere fact that as a girl you can a report a guy for sexually asaulting you and you can actually have a case right there is completely ridiculuos. if some1 robs me, I know the guy, I go file a report without any solid evidence, my case is dismissed instantly.
Rape is a very heavy and horrible thing that can happen to a girl/woman, but let's not forget that in this day and age, the word sexual assault has been brought to the meaning of the word "hate". "He totally hates me now", Or some retarded eufemism people use today.
And about the Assange thing, he was stayed in bed at night with a willing girl, and then she has the guts to file a report ? You get a god damn boner in the morning, you know that, as a girl, why would you stay in bed with a guy with a boner if you don't want to have sex with the man ? Are you guys for real ?
|
On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed.
If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history.
I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant.
Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs.
Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask.
|
On August 24 2012 15:19 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed.
If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time. Citation, please. This is one of those feminist myths that has no basis in fact. I can guarantee you that any modern police force that asks these questions without good cause will be broadly condemned by feminist groups and society as a whole. [1] On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
Society as a whole, inside and outside the courtroom, is putting scrutiny on the victim rather than the accused, and that's the issue that's been brought up in this thread a lot. Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims. Another feminist myth. A huge amount of scrutiny is placed on the accused, enough so that prominent privileged white men such as Dominique Strauss Kanh have had their careers wrecked by false allegations. Rape is one of the most heinous crimes in our society, and to argue otherwise is blind to reality. [2] By contrast, male-male rape victims are laughed at while victims of female-on-male rape are often told that they (should have) enjoyed it. [3] [1] http://books.google.ca/books?id=-O0zZygYdNUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false mostly page 329 where it talks about interviewing the victim
What a joke of a citation. An unsourced entry in an introductory textbook that talks about what rape victims sometimes complain about doesn't show anything.
We're talking about first-world nations here (that would be what I meant by "modern police force". Obviously things are different in places like India, or Saudi Arabia, etc. If you have to resort to a developing country for examples, then you're proving my point for me.
Slutwalk is organized and composed of feminists who believe in the "rape culture" myth that they perpetuate. Using this as an example is like using the Westboro Baptists Church protests to prove that Christians are oppressed.
Did you actually read the article? The writer argues that the police treated her with utmost respect, and the reason the rapist walked free was because she lied to the prosecution (which can easily fuck up a case beyond repair).
Again, read the actual article instead of only the sensational headline. The documentation shows that the police took the cases seriously, unverified claims by anonymous women claiming to be victims aside.
Aside from the fact that this is obviously an attack piece with no verification of claims or response from the defendants, the only thing that happened was that the alleged victim did not go to the police, and therefore, according to hospital procedure, she couldn't get a rape kit authorized. What does this have to do with the point at hand?
Again, what in the world does this prove? TL's FAQ tells people not to advertise, but that doens't mean we have a major advertising issue.
On August 24 2012 15:19 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
I tried to include a variety of sources with different perspectives. I could keep going for an indefinite amount of time/links, but I'm not sure it would satisfy you either way. Saying "oh this would never happen because then society would condemn them" doesn't mean those things don't happen. It's hard to get society at large to pay attention to something without a big media hulk making a big issue out of it. There are literally hundreds of thousands of various reports of the type you requested, but a few reports here and a few reports there just don't make as big a splash as arguing over abortion or terrorists.
You must live in some sort of weird fantasyland. In the reality that we live in, the media loves nothing more than stories with designated victims such as women. There are no major reports because they don't exist; feminists are very good at rooting out even the slightest hint of misogyny and letting everyone know about it.
Try actually providing a citation supports what you're arguing: find a citation that shows "The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time," without good cause.
On August 24 2012 15:19 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
[2] Rape has very little to do with this. If his career was ruined, it was by media attention. Bill Clinton's career was ruined by completely consensual sexual acts. If the same thing happened to some random Joe, someone that wasn't a celebrity or a prominent figure worthy of media attention, it's very likely that the random Joe would feel very few ill effects from this case apart from lost time and generic stress associated with the court system etc.
Nice of you to erase male victims of false accusations. Until you've actually gone through the hellhole that is a false rape accusation, try to refrain from victim blaming. That's not even going into the fact that random Joes are likely to wind up in prison for a crime they didn't commit to be raped every day.
On August 24 2012 15:19 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
[3] Those things are obviously terrible, but I don't see how that has any real bearing on how we should view or treat victims of male-female rape. What's more or less happened here is:
1. I said "x is an issue that group A has"
2. You respond "group A's issue is so full of shit, I mean look at group B's issues in comparison"
Continuing to direct undue scrutiny and judgment towards female rape victims does not in some way solve or alleviate the problems faced by male rape victims. They are both unfortunate issues, but putting one down does not give more "points" or credence to the other.
You are the one who argued that the same scrutiny isn't given to male-male and female-male rape cases. My response is simple: you're wrong. Don't tangent onto an oppression olympics argument when that's not being made.
|
On August 24 2012 16:54 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:28 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed.
If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. This idea that the victim is on trial doesn't start in the courtroom either. The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time. Society as a whole, inside and outside the courtroom, is putting scrutiny on the victim rather than the accused, and that's the issue that's been brought up in this thread a lot. Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims. There should be due scrutiny on both parties, just like any other crime. You walk into a police station and say "hey the other day i was walking around in the ghetto last night and got took for 1000 bucks" and youre some clean cut white guy, they are immediately gonna ask why were you there, why were you carrying that much money, were you there to purchase illegal drugs or a prostitute, etc. all sorts of invasive and personal questions. [1] Basically looking for an excuse not to raise their crime stats. [2] Doesn't only happen to rape victims. [3] Also, most male male rape victims (prison inmates) get completely ignored. So, at least in the us, that part of your post is incorrect. [4] [1] Just because something happens doesn't make it acceptable or good. [2] I hope you aren't trying to say that downplaying the occurrence of crime is some kind of legitimate police practice. [3] So rape victims should just sit by and accept it because "it happens to other people too"? Your post is basically this: 1. Both parties should be reasonably examined (that's what due scrutiny means) to get the facts of a case. 2. It's ok for police to display and use the prejudices they hold when gathering information on a crime. (Somehow this won't lead to them creating their own prejudice-injected narrative?) 3. It's understandable for police to reject victims and their stories since they don't want their numbers to look bad. (???) 4. Also, quit bitching because X happens to other people too and you don't see them bitching about it! (This is something that's been repeated in this thread at an alarming rate.) [4] Maybe I missed something, but show me where I talked about male rape victims not being ignored.
1: yep.
2: see my next post. Nothing prejudicial about asking a ton of questions related to the case and the events as they occurred. They are trying to establish a narrative of events so later they can see that everyone sticks to their original stories, and to cross check other witnesses who might have seen you and what you were wearing, for instance. The questions are relevant too, see my previous post. Everyone has the potential to be offended during the course of a police questioning, not just female rape victims.
3: Nope, but it is a problem not unique to female rape victims. A guy who claimed to have been raped by a woman would have a much harder time i assure you.
4: the reason I'm pointing out that others have it hard: it's a response to your own words. See the following:
"Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims"
I take issue with that. Male victims of rape arguably have it worse here in the us, for reasons I've gone over. Incarceration, societal bias that says A man should just suck it up, not covered by same statutory rape laws, no "rape shield".
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 14:38 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:35 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all. Because they were not able to give free consent to someone in a position of power over them. It is still rape. The power dynamic precludes any relationship as equals. Some of this reply stems from my post on page 24 on my phone out of town for work so it's kinda hard to properly quote every bit I want to. But...... Honestly Kwark, all your posts sound like anytime anyone has any sex, it's rape. The word feminist, to me. Is fucking disgusting, I loathe a feminist as much as I despise a misogynist. Be a humanist. Are you honestly going to tell me, that if I hook up with a girl at a party, and we are both drunk, then it's rape? Even if she initiates it, but drunk, it's rape? Even with 0 coersion ( which is such a dumb argument anyway, there are levels to coersion not all are rape) and just one thing leads to another, it's rape? 'the fuck outta here I can tell you right now, I have woken up with a strange women in my bed. And regretted it the next morning, can I cry rape? Nope Tell me one good fucking reason why she should be able to? Regretting a decision you made, after the fact. Then crying rape is deplorable, and honestly the female should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If you can't agree wih that, then I don't think you should be posting your overly admired posts due to mod status. I'm sorry but I think all over this thread you are out of school. Once again there are no grey area, black and white. Yes means yes, no means no. Unless the yea came from physical or verbal abuse or threats, it's not rape. Sorry. And please dont even bother bringing up " what if she is passed out cold from booze" argument. That goes without saying.
Because I said that a person in a position of trust and authority should not engage in a sexual relationship with someone over whom they have power you think that I believe whenever anyone has sex it is rape? Those situations represent an insanely low proportion of the potential sexual relationships a person could have. Of the 3 billion or so potential partners of consensual age in the world I rule out only a few dozen who, as academic, medical or professional superiors/inferiors, I would not feel comfortable having sex with.
Furthermore I don't think anybody is advocating that women who regret the consent they gave the night before should be able to successfully deny that consent and accuse men of rape. I have certainly not made any such claim so I have no idea why you're singling me out to attack that ridiculous notion. Obviously people who have not raped anyone should not be accused of rape.
If you believe feminism is about putting women first then you're clueless, it is not the female version of misogynism. Feminism strives to address the gender based issues within society which is profitable to both genders. Maybe some outliers hate men but random extremists will always pick something to hate, feminism is not exclusive to humanism, it is simply humanism informed by the very real and very significant gender issues that exist within modern society. Once a humanist learns what the fuck he's talking about he becomes a feminist because ultimately all it comes down to is giving all humans the same basic rights and dignity.
|
I do appreciate that you at least read through the random sources I gave. I'm disappointed that you didn't really take any of it to heart though and just dismissed most of them outright by having a bar of "evidence" so high that I couldn't conceivably reach it, even if I spent a huge amount of man-hours sifting through things like police reports, depositions etc.
Yes, I did actually fully read every single article, and I want to specifically address your reaction to a few of them, just because I feel like the difference between what the article says and what you read into them is immense.
The FAQ and the textbook directed at criminal investigators is a good perspective since you have people telling investigators about the traps that law enforcement often fall into with passing judgment onto victims. If it means nothing to you that there is some kind of instruction needed to not pass judgment on victims reporting crimes, then I honestly don't think you are responding to this rationally.
Your amusing remark about supposed third-world countries vs. modern police force is starkly contrasted with the existence of the Slut Walk, which you dismiss as some kind of super-extremist agenda. Even if that was case, the event was started by the exact same attitude in the local police that the Indian police suffered.
"The rallies began when Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto Police officer, suggested that to remain safe, "women should avoid dressing like sluts.""
I hate to do this, as I know you at least glanced over the articles, but I am quoting a block from one of them.
"Also in October 2008, police arrived in the middle of an assault against a second woman, tackled Below to the ground and took him outside. The woman was naked from the waist down, bruised and screaming for help when police arrived. While she waited for detectives, one of the officers returned and asked her if the incident was a "dope date," the complaint says. The officer had discovered a drug charge against the woman and seemed not to believe her, the complaint says."
Your response was "Again, read the actual article instead of only the sensational headline.". I have nothing to really say beyond that tbh.
This other response "the only thing that happened was that the alleged victim did not go to the police, and therefore, according to hospital procedure, she couldn't get a rape kit authorized." indicates to me that 1) you didn't read the article and 2) seriously wtf? Police have to "authorize" a rape kit? Based on what? That is the epitome of putting the victim on trial.
The victim was drugged. She left the site in a state of such confusion and lassitude that her friends took her to the hospital. Later when she tried to report the event, she couldn't give clear answers to the questions being asked (because her capacity as a witness to the event is basically nil), and so the officer decided over the phone that she had nothing to report and no crime was committed. That is why her rape kit was not "authorized".
Nice of you to erase male victims of false accusations. Until you've actually gone through the hellhole that is a false rape accusation, try to refrain from victim blaming.
I honestly don't understand what you're responding to in my post. Of course I'd never wish anyone to be a victim of anything, whether it's rape or false accusation of rape. What I was saying here was that celebrities and people in prominent places can have their lives and reputations ruined by things like this, whereas normal citizens, not so much. If some local person is accused of something and acquitted, it's unlikely to follow them around the rest of their life. Whereas with e.g. Michael Jackson, people still talk utter garbage about him even after he's dead.
You are the one who argued that the same scrutiny isn't given to male-male and female-male rape cases. My response is simple: you're wrong.
I was simply writing a disclaimer on my post saying that the points I was talking about were addressing male-female rape so that no one would take something I said out of context and apply it to an inappropriate situation. Guess I failed. Male-male and female-male rape have their own completely different completely separate problems.
/edit
On August 24 2012 17:20 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:54 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 16:28 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. This idea that the victim is on trial doesn't start in the courtroom either. The police often ask questions like "what were you dressed in at the time?/how short was your skirt?" when the victim is reporting the events for the first time. Society as a whole, inside and outside the courtroom, is putting scrutiny on the victim rather than the accused, and that's the issue that's been brought up in this thread a lot. Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims. There should be due scrutiny on both parties, just like any other crime. You walk into a police station and say "hey the other day i was walking around in the ghetto last night and got took for 1000 bucks" and youre some clean cut white guy, they are immediately gonna ask why were you there, why were you carrying that much money, were you there to purchase illegal drugs or a prostitute, etc. all sorts of invasive and personal questions. [1] Basically looking for an excuse not to raise their crime stats. [2] Doesn't only happen to rape victims. [3] Also, most male male rape victims (prison inmates) get completely ignored. So, at least in the us, that part of your post is incorrect. [4] [1] Just because something happens doesn't make it acceptable or good. [2] I hope you aren't trying to say that downplaying the occurrence of crime is some kind of legitimate police practice. [3] So rape victims should just sit by and accept it because "it happens to other people too"? Your post is basically this: 1. Both parties should be reasonably examined (that's what due scrutiny means) to get the facts of a case. 2. It's ok for police to display and use the prejudices they hold when gathering information on a crime. (Somehow this won't lead to them creating their own prejudice-injected narrative?) 3. It's understandable for police to reject victims and their stories since they don't want their numbers to look bad. (???) 4. Also, quit bitching because X happens to other people too and you don't see them bitching about it! (This is something that's been repeated in this thread at an alarming rate.) [4] Maybe I missed something, but show me where I talked about male rape victims not being ignored. 1: yep. 2: see my next post. Nothing prejudicial about asking a ton of questions related to the case and the events as they occurred. They are trying to establish a narrative of events so later they can see that everyone sticks to their original stories, and to cross check other witnesses who might have seen you and what you were wearing, for instance. The questions are relevant too, see my previous post. Everyone has the potential to be offended during the course of a police questioning, not just female rape victims. [1] 3: Nope, but it is a problem not unique to female rape victims. A guy who claimed to have been raped by a woman would have a much harder time i assure you. 4: the reason I'm pointing out that others have it hard: it's a response to your own words. See the following: "Yes, it is also a gender/sex issue, since the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims" I take issue with that. Male victims of rape arguably have it worse here in the us, for reasons I've gone over. Incarceration, societal bias that says A man should just suck it up, not covered by same statutory rape laws, no "rape shield". [2]
[1] Creating a narrative should be done by simple explanatory questions and statements. There is a line between trying to find out what happened and projecting a prejudiced narrative onto something. Figuring out what happened is fine, but making up a story that fits in with your particular worldview is not.
[2] I see this got me in trouble for the second time. My wording must have been bad. I wasn't saying "oh males have no problem with rape". I was saying "the particulars of my post are about male-female rape" just so someone wouldn't take something I said out of context. When I said " the same manner of questions and scrutiny aren't directed towards male-male or female-male rape victims" I should have perhaps said "a different manner of questions and scrutiny are directed towards male victims." That's more clear. Since it confused not 1 but 2 people, I'll take the fault for it.
|
On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs.
Can be. It isn't a priori relevant; you have to demonstrate relevance. In the second case you suggest, the evidence is about the lying, thus going to credibility. You can't just bring up a history of giving lavish gifts because that's not relevant to anything.
|
On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask.
Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense.
Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous.
|
On August 24 2012 13:21 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:On August 24 2012 10:39 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. I cannot give you statistics on the prevalence of courts shaming an alleged victim simply to turn the jury against her or to use humiliation as a weapon and therefore can't effectively argue the efficacy of laws stopping irrelevant arguments. I don't disagree that all relevant information should be heard by the court but there is certainly a popular perception that the promiscuity argument is used, despite its irrelevance, and there is evidence that jurors are stupid enough to buy into it (polls show people are happy to blame rape victims etc). I assume we agree that it is a disgusting and immoral tactic when used purely to exploit sexism and harass the alleged victim, you simply feel that evidence laws, when enforced, should prevent it. Yeah, I agree it's a disgusting and immoral tactic. Unfortunately, it works because jurors are idiots, but there is no way around this without compromising the rights of the accused. I don't think that evidence laws prevent all of it, due to said stupidity, but going beyond those laws is a worse harm than potentially letting a rapist go free. You can just get rid of the terrible jury system altogether, you know  It's a terrible system, but it's the best we can come up with. Despite it's... drawbacks, it also serves the benefit of limiting the power of government, which is a positive thing. The best solution I can come up with is properly educating America's citizens... smarter citizens on average means better juries on average.
No it is not the best that we can come up with. Most of continental Europe does more than well without jury system. And if the state is going totalitarian juries won't help you in the slightest, they are actually even worse as they will be cherry picked from supporters of the regime. Being judged by a person that was actually trained to follow the law is much preferable than being judged by easily swayed mob, which is something no education will ever fix. As someone said, if you are guilty you want to be judged by a jury, if you are innocent, jury is the last thing you want.
|
On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape.
It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes.
For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous.
Do you misunderstand this stuff on purpose? Nobody is saying it's ok to rape women under any circumstance.
|
On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape.
It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes.
For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous.
My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people
wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/
http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variables
Clothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why.
And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews.
It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases.
|
On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:
I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant.
Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs.
Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask.
You basically made the exact same argument that the other guy was making, right there: You essentially admitted that such evidence is biasing. The thing you haven't done is try to prove that it could be, in any way, useful.
You can give somebody lavish gifts and then not give them a gift one time. You can be massively promiscuous and sleep with every man in a five mile radius, but if you then don't sleep with one guy and he takes you anyway, or he intimidates you into saying "yes," that's rape. It doesn't matter a wink what you did in the past, because all that matters is your propensity for lying, not your propensity for sex. And being promiscuous doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not you're a proven liar, and therefore, using it in the defense establishes nothing but a jury bias, and therefore, it is evidence that cannot and should not be presented.
Similar with clothing. Maybe useful to police to help determine what went down. Not useful in a jury trial.
When being interviewed by the police, it may be useful to determine the situation, and come to understand what sort of rape it might have been. But in general, dredging up the victim's sexual history is only going to prove prejudicial to anybody who it comes up to - and cops, frankly, aren't perfect and there's no reason they might not have the same attitudes that plague courtrooms.
|
On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence.
And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think.
I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases.
Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim.
|
Vega I agree with everything you said up til this point:
"It doesn't matter a wink what you did in the past, because all that matters is your propensity for lying, not your propensity for sex."
Perhaps from the accuser's view. For the accused it is crucial to be able to bring in evidence that backs up your defense, ie, that the sex was consensual. A history of consensual sex with, for example the alleged perpetrator, is by no means irrelevant to the contention that it was consensual again. Not definitive, but not irrelevant either. To me that seems straightforward. Prone to biased interpretation yes, but part of your rights in establishing a defense.
There is also evidence that juries are less biased in such matters than you would expect.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf
|
On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:48 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin. I understand the law perfectly well. What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me. Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim.
Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless.
If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters.
|
Yeah some countries have their own definition of the word "rape" for sure. For me i think it's very clear but the laws says something else sometimes.
|
On August 24 2012 22:32 Zahir wrote:
Vega I agree with everything you said up til this point:
"It doesn't matter a wink what you did in the past, because all that matters is your propensity for lying, not your propensity for sex."
Perhaps from the accuser's view. For the accused it is crucial to be able to bring in evidence that backs up your defense, ie, that the sex was consensual. A history of consensual sex with, for example the alleged perpetrator, is by no means irrelevant to the contention that it was consensual again. Not definitive, but not irrelevant either. To me that seems straightforward. Prone to biased interpretation yes, but part of your rights in establishing a defense.
Rape shield laws don't make the defendant's sexual behavior off-limits; just the accusser. So if the defense wants to put the defendant on the stand and have him talk about all the times when they had consensual sex, they can. What they can't do is cross-examine the accuser about her prior sexual encounters with other people.
On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed.
If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless.
Why? What good is that? It doesn't put forth any rational argument; what the alleged victim was wearing is irrelevant to the question of consent.
On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:
If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters.
This isn't about women being "too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions;" it's about not being dicks to people who've just been through a traumatic experience by implying that they are somehow responsible for it. This is basic human courtesy here.
If the police need to find out what she was wearing, if that is actually relevant information, I'm pretty sure that 99 times out of 100, they can find out without asking her about it. At the very least, without asking her about it right then.
|
United States41980 Posts
Regarding Sunprince's argument that rape culture is a myth and that men today aren't raised with a massive sense of entitlement.
I have actually gotten a series of PM from IceThorn who was originally banned for comparing raping a woman who the man thinks is teasing him with someone that teases a guy starving to death of food and gets it stolen.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it.
Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then?
PM explaining why the above wasn't offensive:
KwarK that was not what i wrote at all. I wrote that if a woman if a woman literally wanted to stop after forplay, then the man could hardly be blamed if he pushed the issue (by raping her).
He explains that I misunderstood his point and he was trying to say that nobody ever would blame a man for ignoring a no if he was turned on because he thought he was getting sex. That obviously you can't just go out and rape someone but if you're really turned on and she made you turned on then you're entitled to her body and that's her fault and you, as the man, get to judge this. That being a man is like starving to death and denying a man sex is akin to teasing someone dying of starvation with food. These people legitimately exist and they don't even get that there's something off about their views. Male entitlement is a real thing.
|
On August 24 2012 05:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You're into defending the rights of innocents, and you don't want innocent men to be convicted of rape. I understand this, and agree.
You're not seeing the other side of the issue. Innocent people are raped, and their attackers need to be prosecuted. If your politics is freedom, as you say, that should include the freedom to not be sexually assaulted.
Court systems are not perfect, but for every innocent person convicted of rape, there are many more guilty attackers who are incarcerated.
If you are into freedom, the court system is the best we got, and provides freedom for the greatest number of people.
|
On August 24 2012 23:05 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 22:32 Zahir wrote:
Vega I agree with everything you said up til this point:
"It doesn't matter a wink what you did in the past, because all that matters is your propensity for lying, not your propensity for sex."
Perhaps from the accuser's view. For the accused it is crucial to be able to bring in evidence that backs up your defense, ie, that the sex was consensual. A history of consensual sex with, for example the alleged perpetrator, is by no means irrelevant to the contention that it was consensual again. Not definitive, but not irrelevant either. To me that seems straightforward. Prone to biased interpretation yes, but part of your rights in establishing a defense. Rape shield laws don't make the defendant's sexual behavior off-limits; just the accusser. So if the defense wants to put the defendant on the stand and have him talk about all the times when they had consensual sex, they can. What they can't do is cross-examine the accuser about her prior sexual encounters with other people. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 22:14 Eufouria wrote:On August 24 2012 21:26 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 18:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:On August 24 2012 17:10 Zahir wrote:On August 24 2012 16:41 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Oh, it does. But it doesn't matter. The trial is to determine if the specific act under investigation has been committed. Prior accusations, and even past convictions, are deemed irrelevant regardless of the crime. Because while it could raise the likelihood of guilt, it is prejudicial to the jury and more importantly, not evidence of this specific crime. It isn't evidence of the person having committed this specific crime. On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
In criminal law, rape culture is embodied by the fact that consent to sexual activity alleged to be rape is presumed unless the prosecution is able to prove to the jury’s satisfaction that the rape victim clearly and actively refused consent, and further that he or she did not by dress, appearance, foreplay, or otherwise, “invite” the rape.
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. Um, what? There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "let's introduce irrelevant nonsense like how she dressed, etc into court cases under the guise of evidence in order to prejudice the jury into acquital." The presumption of innocence does not mean you start allowing non-arguments into trials. On August 24 2012 13:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 13:27 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On August 24 2012 13:08 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
In other words, the author of the article believes that innocent until proven guilty = rape culture. It is ridiculous that anyone would take that article or the blog seriously. I really don't think that's what the author is saying at all. More like the victim is being put on trial vs. the defendant as a matter of socially accepted course. In every trial for every crime, it is the prosecution's job to prove that the crime took place. In the case of rape, it is necessary to prove that no consent was given. If you assume that consent was not given (as the blog actively tries to lobby for), then you are assuming that the defendant was guilty. That is completely unacceptable to our conception of innocent until prove guilty. Putting the victim on trial is not the same thing as overturning the presumption of innocence. How the victim dressed is not relevant to the case. Nor is her past sexual history. I would say those could easily be relevant factors. If someone barges into my house wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask then his clothes are most definitely relevant. The clothes someone is wearing can be evidence of their state of mind and even intentions. Almost any detail of the events can be relevant. Sexual history can be relevant too. If I have a history of giving someone lavish gifts and later, after a breakup, accuse her of stealing from my flat, the history is relevant to her defense. It shows that i freely gave and can help establish if my later claims of stealing are dubious. I grant that society Tends to view such evidence irrationally, due to their bias against "sluts", but societal bias effects everyone. As a man im straight up more likely to be viewed as a rapist, for instance. Black guys are more easily portrayed as thugs. Equality under the law, mate. That's all I ask. Are you kidding me? Those are two completely different situation. A minimally dressed woman is in no way similar to a someone wearing a black jumpsuit and a scream mask in so many levels, let me cite a few. In the case of rape, you are the one violating this woman and not the other way around. She can dress all she wants and you still have no reason to rape her. The masked man who barges in your house is that assaulter, and you would be acting on defense. Get your head straight. This is beyond ridiculous. My point is that clothes effect situations. They influence perceptions, and knowing what someone was wearing in a given scenario can be important. The police officer who came to my house after four dudes tried to rob me and pistol whipped me asked me what I was wearing, because he knew there were some criminal groups in the area who specifically target people wearing nice/expensive shoes and coat. You can be targetted simply for wearing the wrong color clothes in a gang area; knowing the clothing can help police determine who the perps might be. There are many criminals who will target people who wear certain shit, and the same holds for some rapists. I know that's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9519576/http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variablesClothes can send signals to perpetrators. They might mark you as more submissive or more "deserving" or not be a factor at all. But telling the police what you were wearing can help them determine who targeted you and why. And finally, police need to interview bystanders and knowing what you were wearing lets them ask if someone saw you and what state you were in when they saw you... Not knowing what you were wearing makes it harder to conduct such interviews. It is my understanding that clothing may not play a role in the majority of rapes, which are a result of serial rapists or people you know. However in other cases like date rape they can be a significant factor. And helping to get eyewitness accounts of the events necessitates knowing what the victim was wearing. Political correctness needs to take a backseat to solid investigative procedures in such cases. Obviously in some crimes its relevent and helpful to know what the victim in wearing. In a rape case though what does it tell you? That the girl was dressed in a way that the man found attractive, well obviously, he had sex with her. For all the useless information that you've gained by finding out what the women was wearing you may well have made her feel victimised and that is especcially important to avoid when rape is a crime with a low report rate and a high risk of psychological harm to the victim. Statistically you are actually less likely to be raped while wearing attractive or sexy clothing. See the second study I posted. My point is merely that you need a lot of info. Like I said, you need to be able to interview witnesses and tell them what everyone was wearing. I would hardly call that useless. Why? What good is that? It doesn't put forth any rational argument; what the alleged victim was wearing is irrelevant to the question of consent. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 22:38 Zahir wrote:
If your argument is that police officers are misogynist dicks and women too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions, I guess that's your opinion and youre entitled to it. I would agree that police are understaffed, overworked and under a lot of pressure, and furthermore only human. I think they should be able to ask relevant questions is all. Sometimes dress is clearly irrelevant and I'd hope they don't bring it up in those cases, but in principle they should be able to ask when it matters. This isn't about women being "too frail to stand up to their battery of insinuating questions;" it's about not being dicks to people who've just been through a traumatic experience by implying that they are somehow responsible for it. This is basic human courtesy here. If the police need to find out what she was wearing, if that is actually relevant information, I'm pretty sure that 99 times out of 100, they can find out without asking her about it. At the very least, without asking her about it right then.
I agree. I don't think police should ever blame the victim. Apparently their logic in asking rapidly has to do with the relative inaccuracy of memory over time. A traumatized person can be driven to try and forget their awful experience, or even drop the case altogether. Important to get details as soon as possible while sparing the victim any unnecessary grief. It's a delicate balance and I'm not surprised police often find it difficult to tread.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/procedures_intrv.html
I'm not seeing anything in your posts that advocates unequal treatment, so I have no real quarrel with you. All of society needs to be more sensitive towards even potential rape victims - of all genders -I don't dispute that. I am simply in favor of equal treatment for both genders under the law. I think true equality comes from equal rights and responsibilities. What I do not like about unequal laws is that they legitimize, in a way, the view that men are inherently more brutal or something, and that women are somehow... Less. The statutory rape laws I pointed out for instance. A male teenager can have sex with an older chick and the law says thats fine, but somehow female teens need more protection. Like their decisions somehow do not matter as much as ours and we know what's best. Or maybe it's that a milf is automatically doing her boy toy a favor but if a guy does the same thing with a chick who's underage he's a sicko perv. Either way, Double standard. "rape shield" falls under this too. I do not like being told that women need to be protected from the harsh judgements of society in a way that men do not.
I just do not like double standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
