|
On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea."
Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there.
|
Reed:
As I have shown countless times in this thread, our rape laws are completely impotent at dealing with rape in every context whatsoever. Rapes are underreported, when they are reported, they are under-prosecuted, and even when they are prosecuted they are under-convicted.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/813681-rape-juries-conviction-more-likely
"The report, written by Professor Cheryl Thomas from University College London, analysed all four thousand jury rape verdicts in England and Wales between 2006 and 2008. It found 55% of rape cases resulted in conviction."
This idea that there are lots of innocent men convicted of rape is absolute nonsense and has no empirical basis whatsoever. Judges and Juries are in absolutely no hurry at all convict rapists even after multiple accusations of rape over and over again. To think our justice system deters rape at all means that you're not informed about reality.
http://www.soulfulchemistry.com/default/exonerations-in-us.pdf
The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist.
Me too. I think i misunderstood this part of your post though because it seems to support my position that rape cases should have the same level of defendants rights as other cases.
I saw no stats in that article to support what you said. Only opinions.
|
On August 25 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:
As I have shown countless times in this thread, our rape laws are completely impotent at dealing with rape in every context whatsoever. Rapes are underreported, when they are reported, they are under-prosecuted, and even when they are prosecuted they are under-convicted.
This idea that there are lots of innocent men convicted of rape is absolute nonsense and has no empirical basis whatsoever. Judges and Juries are in absolutely no hurry at all convict rapists even after multiple accusations of rape over and over again. To think our justice system deters rape at all means that you're not informed about reality.
The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist.
The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved.
I think this is a bit over the top.
Prosecuting rape is difficult because evidence for rape is difficult in many cases. The presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must prove that no consent was given beyond reasonable doubt. There are many cases where it is simply not possible to do so.
The only just solution in these cases is to let the defendant go. That's how our justice system works: if the state can't make its burden, the trial is over.
The law "is impotent and unfair to rape victims" because it's hard to be fair to them without also undermining the presumption of innocence. It's not a question of the "absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape;" we cannot take a victim of any crime solely at their word.
Are there societal problems around rape? Absolutely. But the legal system is designed to protect the rights of the defendant first and foremost. Regardless of the crime. To change that would be to undermine our very system of justice.
|
On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there.
Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy.
And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it.
|
On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it.
Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are.
People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other.
Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all.
|
Reading this thread has convinced me that TL is frequented by several potential, or past, rapists.
|
On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all.
Based on Rumney's review study, a summary of which can be found here I would say there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the false report rate of rape is probably higher than the rate for all crimes. I base this on the fact that the absolute minimum is 2%, identical to the average for all crimes. Many studies find much higher rates.
I don't know if this can be considered a problem though, I don't know if there is anything that can or should be done about it.
|
On August 25 2012 07:02 Zahir wrote:Reed: Show nested quote +As I have shown countless times in this thread, our rape laws are completely impotent at dealing with rape in every context whatsoever. Rapes are underreported, when they are reported, they are under-prosecuted, and even when they are prosecuted they are under-convicted. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/813681-rape-juries-conviction-more-likely"The report, written by Professor Cheryl Thomas from University College London, analysed all four thousand jury rape verdicts in England and Wales between 2006 and 2008. It found 55% of rape cases resulted in conviction." Show nested quote +This idea that there are lots of innocent men convicted of rape is absolute nonsense and has no empirical basis whatsoever. Judges and Juries are in absolutely no hurry at all convict rapists even after multiple accusations of rape over and over again. To think our justice system deters rape at all means that you're not informed about reality. http://www.soulfulchemistry.com/default/exonerations-in-us.pdfShow nested quote +The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist. Me too. I think i misunderstood this part of your post though because it seems to support my position that rape cases should have the same level of defendants rights as other cases. I saw no stats in that article to support what you said. Only opinions.
Why would you bring up statistics from the UK? Their law system could be better with rape convictions than US. I have no idea. That's an awful data point considering we're both from the US. (Oh and btw, 55% is really low anyway).
Did you read that statistics report from soulful chemistry? It's not that the rape didn't occur (or was mistaken for consensual), it's that the rapist was misidentified:
Almost 90% of the false convictions in the rape exonerations were based in large part on
eyewitness misidentifications. Cross-racial misidentification is a special danger. About 50%
of the exonerated rape defendants are black men who were misidentified by white victims,
but only 10% or less of all rapes involve black perpetrators and white victims. As a result,
black men are greatly over-represented among defendants who are falsely convicted and
exonerated for rape.
You clearly did misunderstand that part of my post, because the fact is that right now the accuser has almost no rights whatsoever. Rather than any questions being posed at the rapist of how he could mistake consensual sex for rape, all the questions are leveled at the rape victim about what she wore, what her behavior was, and why she just had to be so ambiguous with her consent.
My article that I keep posting has like a bajillion footnotes at the bottom with all the statistics. I have no idea how you could miss them.
|
its so hard to define something that is internalized from 2 seperate places 
|
On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all.
Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens.
Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't.
|
On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't.
This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them.
You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights.
|
On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights.
They are?
At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases. You showed me how rape has serious problems with racism and misidentification in the system (at least it did 10 years ago), but not how it favors rape victims. Because it doesn't. Not at all.
I'm a bit confused on your wording here. Are you saying that male victims of rape are not protected the same or are you saying that accused rapists are not protected the same? Because if you're talking about male victims of rape then you have to understand that only recently did the FBI actually cover rape of male victims under their statistics. So yes that is bullshit, but I don't see anyone who's arguing against equal treatment of male rape victims compared to female rape victims. Edit: And isn't this a complete non-sequitor of what we are talking about?
Edit: I hope you realize that's it's not a double standard for accused rapists and rape victims to be treated differently. Accusers and accused are almost never treated the same, especially with any kind of violence, because there needs to be protections against intimidation of the accuser.
|
On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights.
Tangential? You brought it up. You brought up the point about false rape conviction statistics, then when they were shown to be inconclusive, now it's "tangential"?
How convenient.
As for the question of unequal treatment, you yourself could not actually find evidence of rape shield laws that are gender specific.
Please stop bringing up arguments, then abandoning them once they're found to be BS, only to bring them up again once you think we've forgotten about them.
His point was that there is no proof that false allegations in rape cases are a significant concern compared to false allegations in other cases. Thus, there is no reason to be more concerned about false accusations in rape cases than in any other case. All such crimes are given the same standards, with defendants given the same rights.
What defendants don't have the right to do is bring irrelevant and prejudicial facts into evidence.
|
On August 25 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 25 2012 05:26 Zahir wrote:"Critics of the traditional evidentiary rules, however, point to the change that has occurred in sexual mores since those rules originally were fashioned. They argue that although a woman is more likely to engage in premarital or extramarital sexual activity today, she is not likely to do so indiscriminately; her decision to consent or not to consent to sexual relations on a particular occasion is discrete and unaffected by her past behavior, so that what she has done in the past has no bearing whatsoever on her future conduct." This argu- ment, however, is specious. An item of evidence, to be relevant, need not establish conclusively the desired inference; it need only make that inference more probable or less probable than it would be without the offered item of evidence. Regardless of the prevailing sexual mores"of society, it is still reasonable to conclude that a woman who never has engaged in sexual intercourse will be less likely to consent to intercourse on a particular occasion than a woman who is not a virgin. To state it another way, a woman who previously has engaged in consensual sexual intercourse will be more likely to consent to intercourse than one who has not. There- fore, it must be concluded that the fact of previous consensual sex- ual intercourse does have some probative value on the issue of con- sent." Probative value depends upon the degree of similarity between the circumstances of the previous acts of sexual intercourse and the circumstances of the case in question. Various factors such as the time the previous acts occurred, the places they occurred, the per- sons involved, and the circumstances leading up to the acts will be of importance. For example, the fact that an unmarried complain- ant engaged in consensual sexual relations in her home with her boyfriend is not highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a stranger in his automobile. But the fact that an unmarried complainant engaged in consensual sex- ual relations in her home with a man she had met in a singles bar earlier the same evening may be highly probative of the issue of consent in a case involving sexual intercourse with a defendant whom she had met earlier the same evening at a singles bar." http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=wmlrAgain, i urge you to look through some of these sources, because they provide a multitude of examples and reasoning, some of which may be more convincing to you. Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher. Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights. They are? At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases.
No. The systems of law favor defendants. They aren't "rapists" until they've been convicted. This is just as true for rape as it is for murder, theft, etc.
The trial comes after the accusation, not before. The trial determines guilt, not the accusation. You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse.
|
On August 25 2012 09:05 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:41 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 05:36 TheFrankOne wrote:
[quote]
Dude, I looked at your previous posts and you have posted a lot of things in this thread its hard to go through you posts here, I am curious if you have any information indicating that the false conviction rate is higher for rape than other crimes, hell even if just the conviction rate is higher.
Edit @ Above Post: That was some trippy shit but the point is that viewing people as things to be used, for any purpose including only as a companion or baby factory rather than independent beings with their own thoughts and goals (causes? didn't really get that part about ultimate purposes and whatnot since the point of life is mostly to keep that self-sustaining chemical reaction that is you going for as long as possible) is objectification. Also you missed the part where the post you responded to started with "in this context" which I think refutes your whole response. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-commonThat's the best source I could find. Of all the studies surveyed, the lowest rate of false allegations for rape was 2%, median about 10% and high around 50%. The average false allegation rate for all crimes is about 2%. Take your pick. Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights. They are? At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases. No. The systems of law favor defendants. They aren't "rapists" until they've been convicted. This is just as true for rape as it is for murder, theft, etc. The trial comes after the accusation, not before. The trial determines guilt, not the accusation. You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse.
No, I meant what I said. They favor rapists (and they're rapists once they commit a rape, obviously, not when they're convicted for it). They also favor accused rapists, but my statement is no less true.
And what I have been trying to point out all throughout this thread is that yes it is more true for rape than it is for murder, theft, etc. People just find it hard to believe because it is so completely outrageous. But it is nonetheless true.
|
On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:05 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with." That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights. They are? At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases. No. The systems of law favor defendants. They aren't "rapists" until they've been convicted. This is just as true for rape as it is for murder, theft, etc. The trial comes after the accusation, not before. The trial determines guilt, not the accusation. You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. No, I meant what I said. They favor rapists (and they're rapists once they commit a rape, obviously, not when they're convicted for it). They also favor accused rapists, but my statement is no less true.
A half-truth is worse than a lie. It's rhetoric disguised as truth to make it go down easier.
The system of laws exists to protect the defendant, to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that innocent people aren't punished. Don't let yourself be focused so much on what is happening with the rapists that you allow miscariages of justice and witchhunts to be conducted.
On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:
And what I have been trying to point out all throughout this thread is that yes it is more true for rape than it is for murder, theft, etc. People just find it hard to believe because it is so completely outrageous. But it is nonetheless true.
It's not hard to believe. The problem is that there's just not much that can be done about it. Why?
Because proving rape in many cases is hard. In many cases, it is simply impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape occured. The only ways to convict in such cases are to either lower the burden of proof in a rape case, or to deny a rape defendant the right to face his accuser. Both of these in the US are unconstitutional, and as far as I'm concerned, doing either would be antithetical to the pursuit of justice.
Rape is a bad thing. But while we're trying to punish the guilty, let's not allow our standards of justice to be compromised.
|
What half-truth. There's nothing "half" about it.
On August 25 2012 09:17 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:05 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:On August 25 2012 06:52 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Did you actually read that article? They basically said what I would say from your description: that the numbers are inconclusive. For example, the statements, "In fact, the US literature on the subject provides almost any estimate for false accusations of rape you care to choose," and "The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with."
That's a pretty clear way of saying, "we have no idea." Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there. Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights. They are? At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases. No. The systems of law favor defendants. They aren't "rapists" until they've been convicted. This is just as true for rape as it is for murder, theft, etc. The trial comes after the accusation, not before. The trial determines guilt, not the accusation. You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. No, I meant what I said. They favor rapists (and they're rapists once they commit a rape, obviously, not when they're convicted for it). They also favor accused rapists, but my statement is no less true. A half-truth is worse than a lie. It's rhetoric disguised as truth to make it go down easier. The system of laws exists to protect the defendant, to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that innocent people aren't punished. Don't let yourself be focused so much on what is happening with the rapists that you allow miscariages of justice and witchhunts to be conducted. Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:
And what I have been trying to point out all throughout this thread is that yes it is more true for rape than it is for murder, theft, etc. People just find it hard to believe because it is so completely outrageous. But it is nonetheless true. It's not hard to believe. The problem is that there's just not much that can be done about it. Why? Because proving rape in many cases is hard. In many cases, it is simply impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape occured. The only ways to convict in such cases are to either lower the burden of proof in a rape case, or to deny a rape defendant the right to face his accuser. Both of these in the US are unconstitutional, and as far as I'm concerned, doing either would be antithetical to the pursuit of justice. Rape is a bad thing. But while we're trying to punish the guilty, let's not allow our standards of justice to be compromised.
Ugh. Here's the part of my post from the previous page:
The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist. The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved. This is a legal problem and this is a cultural problem. And whenever it's brought up there's tons of men immediately dismissing it as not a problem. That's also a problem. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
We prove rape all the time and rapists still go free. Okay? And this idea that there is "nothing we can do about it" is very much part of the problem.
|
On August 25 2012 07:03 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:
As I have shown countless times in this thread, our rape laws are completely impotent at dealing with rape in every context whatsoever. Rapes are underreported, when they are reported, they are under-prosecuted, and even when they are prosecuted they are under-convicted.
This idea that there are lots of innocent men convicted of rape is absolute nonsense and has no empirical basis whatsoever. Judges and Juries are in absolutely no hurry at all convict rapists even after multiple accusations of rape over and over again. To think our justice system deters rape at all means that you're not informed about reality.
The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist.
The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved. I think this is a bit over the top. Prosecuting rape is difficult because evidence for rape is difficult in many cases. The presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must prove that no consent was given beyond reasonable doubt. There are many cases where it is simply not possible to do so. The only just solution in these cases is to let the defendant go. That's how our justice system works: if the state can't make its burden, the trial is over. The law "is impotent and unfair to rape victims" because it's hard to be fair to them without also undermining the presumption of innocence. It's not a question of the "absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape;" we cannot take a victim of any crime solely at their word. Are there societal problems around rape? Absolutely. But the legal system is designed to protect the rights of the defendant first and foremost. Regardless of the crime. To change that would be to undermine our very system of justice.
Very well said.
|
On August 25 2012 09:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 09:17 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 09:05 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 08:33 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 25 2012 07:10 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 07:07 Zahir wrote:On August 25 2012 06:53 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
Did you actually read his post? because he admits as much right there.
Well I'm just glad someone else is reading the articles lol all this google and cp isn't easy. And yeah I know the stats are inconclusive. Which means you can't dismiss that false rape allegations are as big a problem as other false allegations. Can't say it is, but shouldn't dismiss it. Are other false allegations a big problem? Because I wasn't under the impression that they are. People lie. People lie to police and prosecutors. But unless you can provide actual evidence that this is more likely to happen in rape cases, and that this leads to more false convictions, then your point is moot. Your data is inconclusive, and thus there is no reason to accept one number over the other. Until actual conclusive data comes along, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem at all. Technically he needs to go further than that. Even though there are false accusations of all crimes, you need to show that these are not handled quickly by the police before prosecutors get involved (which is what usually happens btw). Prosecutors are far less likely to take rape cases, so just because there's a false report of rape does not mean anything actually happens. Even if there is a higher incidence of false reports of rape than other crimes (which is believable imo) does not mean there is any problem. It would only be a problem if these lead to false convictions, which they don't. This is all kind of tangential to me. For me the problem is not the rate of false accusations, it's the unequal treatment. Men often aren't covered under the same rape protection laws as women. Ive already pointed out Rape shield, statutory rape laws that fall into this category. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to perpetuate double standards, not me for wanting to reduce them. You say false allegations are not a big problem. If not, why do defendants have so many rights encoded into the laws of our land. Unless false allegations against accused rapists are somehow inherently not a big deal when compared with false allegations of say, murder, then all such crimes should be prosecuted using the same standards and according defendants with the same rights. They are? At the moment the written laws, systems of law, and culture favor rapists in these cases. No. The systems of law favor defendants. They aren't "rapists" until they've been convicted. This is just as true for rape as it is for murder, theft, etc. The trial comes after the accusation, not before. The trial determines guilt, not the accusation. You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. No, I meant what I said. They favor rapists (and they're rapists once they commit a rape, obviously, not when they're convicted for it). They also favor accused rapists, but my statement is no less true. A half-truth is worse than a lie. It's rhetoric disguised as truth to make it go down easier. The system of laws exists to protect the defendant, to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that innocent people aren't punished. Don't let yourself be focused so much on what is happening with the rapists that you allow miscariages of justice and witchhunts to be conducted. On August 25 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:
And what I have been trying to point out all throughout this thread is that yes it is more true for rape than it is for murder, theft, etc. People just find it hard to believe because it is so completely outrageous. But it is nonetheless true. It's not hard to believe. The problem is that there's just not much that can be done about it. Why? Because proving rape in many cases is hard. In many cases, it is simply impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape occured. The only ways to convict in such cases are to either lower the burden of proof in a rape case, or to deny a rape defendant the right to face his accuser. Both of these in the US are unconstitutional, and as far as I'm concerned, doing either would be antithetical to the pursuit of justice. Rape is a bad thing. But while we're trying to punish the guilty, let's not allow our standards of justice to be compromised. Ugh. Here's the part of my post from the previous page: Show nested quote +The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist. The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved. This is a legal problem and this is a cultural problem. And whenever it's brought up there's tons of men immediately dismissing it as not a problem. That's also a problem. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/ We prove rape all the time and rapists still go free. Okay? And this idea that there is "nothing we can do about it" is very much part of the problem.
Repeatedly posting the same link over and over is not going to make me follow it. Indeed, seeing it now for what has to be the 20th time makes me never want to even go to the site.
The standard for "proof" in legal matters is conviction. If a defendant was set free, was acquited, then by definition, rape was not proven.
There is a difference between "I know he's guilty" and "I can prove he's guilty in a court of law." If the prosection can't make their case for a jury, then it wasn't proven to the degree that the law requires.
And if there's something you believe that can be done to improve things without screwing with the defendant's rights, bring them forth.
|
On August 25 2012 09:41 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 07:03 NicolBolas wrote:On August 25 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:
As I have shown countless times in this thread, our rape laws are completely impotent at dealing with rape in every context whatsoever. Rapes are underreported, when they are reported, they are under-prosecuted, and even when they are prosecuted they are under-convicted.
This idea that there are lots of innocent men convicted of rape is absolute nonsense and has no empirical basis whatsoever. Judges and Juries are in absolutely no hurry at all convict rapists even after multiple accusations of rape over and over again. To think our justice system deters rape at all means that you're not informed about reality.
The idea that "there is nothing we can do that's legal" is also absolute bullshit. Rape trials are not just the man saying "It was consensual" and the woman saying "No it wasn't," and then everyone going home for some tea. There's an actual story with actual collaboration involved, and I'm incredibly tired of people acting as if cross-examinations and everything don't exist.
The law is impotent and unfair to rape victims because it is designed like that, under the absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape. Also we live in a rape culture where rape victims are blamed almost constantly for being raped over and over again, something we see in this very thread. So Juries and Judges are extraordinarily lenient when it comes to rape cases, even when there is physical evidence involved. I think this is a bit over the top. Prosecuting rape is difficult because evidence for rape is difficult in many cases. The presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must prove that no consent was given beyond reasonable doubt. There are many cases where it is simply not possible to do so. The only just solution in these cases is to let the defendant go. That's how our justice system works: if the state can't make its burden, the trial is over. The law "is impotent and unfair to rape victims" because it's hard to be fair to them without also undermining the presumption of innocence. It's not a question of the "absolutely false notion that women commonly lie about rape;" we cannot take a victim of any crime solely at their word. Are there societal problems around rape? Absolutely. But the legal system is designed to protect the rights of the defendant first and foremost. Regardless of the crime. To change that would be to undermine our very system of justice. Very well said.
No. Not very well said. Terribly said and horribly misleading. The notion that we can do nothing about this is exactly why nothing is being done about this. There is no particular reason why the law has to be impotent in terms of rape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
