|
wateroverfire posted:No one should be sued for saying "I was raped", because that statement is not an accusation. In a he said/she said case with no other evidence, he can't meet a preponderance of the evidence standard that the statement was false
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. So, in answer to my question, you definitely know that a woman continuing to show affection for an abuser is a common thing and definitely is not evidence that abuse did not occur, unless you know specific facts about the woman that shows she does not act like that. I know that she pursued every remedy available to her (filed complaint with school, went through school hearing, appealed result when she lost, pursued criminal charges until the DA told her there wasn't enough evidence). And when that didn't work she proceeded to declare all-out war in the form of a PR campaign that went global, and which she sustained for a long time, all in an attempt to take this dude down. It's not definitive by any means, but that doesn't fit at all with my experiences with women who protected their abusers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:I know that she pursued every remedy available to her (went to university hearing, appealed result when she lost, pursued criminal charges until the DA told her there wasn't enough evidence). And when that didn't work she proceeded to declare all-out war in the form of a PR campaign that went global, all in an attempt to take this dude down. It's not definitive by any means, but that doesn't fit at all with my experiences with women who protected their abusers. So if a woman had been abused, and then decided she'd had enough, tried to get charges pressed, and then went public, you think that's reasoning works against her? I was more pointing out that her messages paint a picture, to me, of a somewhat unstable woman. This means, apparently, to many that she's likely to make false rape accusations. To me, it also means she's likely to be victimized and likely to have non-standard reactions to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
When it comes to discussing the broader issue of how rape accusations are being handled on colleges it really makes no sense to bring up libel laws. For starters, this is not even a libel case, it's a harassment claim made against Columbia the institution. More importantly, it invokes title IX, claiming that the male student was targeted by a harassment campaign condoned by the university (which is obviously true independent of ones personal feelings about his guilt or innocence) and that this was due to his gender. Since the university did not condone and in fact oppossed flyers posted on campus which called the accuser a liar, he has a real case here. It's really critical we take this sort of civil suit into account, it is not the only case of a male student is bringing a case against a university by invoking title IX. The same thing that lead to the creation of campus tribunals is leading to civil cases alleging that the system has a bias against men which interferes in thier ability to get an education. It's not the sort of thing to dismiss as 'MRA bullshit' either, heres an article article from the perspective of an established feminist which explores the issue and provides a few examples of it happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So if a woman had been abused, and then decided she'd had enough, tried to get charges pressed, and then went public, you think that's reasoning works against her? Well, I'd have trouble with it the same way I'd have trouble with someone who said they'd been doing crack and heroin every day for 5 years, then one day they'd had enough so they just quit and that was it. It's probably happened to somebody, but that's just not how that usually goes down. I'd have a much easier time accepting the story if they said they quit and relapsed several times before doing tons of therapy and building a whole new life and eventually getting to where they could stay out of that situation, and even then they felt the pull sometimes. Doesn't mean a person claiming the first situation is a liar but the second one rings truer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A general public warning that person X is a rapist, is presumably going to put at least half the population a little on edge around them. Yeah, well, I'm a little on edge around half the population. I'm sure person X will survive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
I'm going to commit slander against war criminal George Bush by calling him a war criminal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Well, I'd have trouble with it the same way I'd have trouble with someone who said they'd been doing crack and heroin every day for 5 years, then one day they'd had enough so they just quit and that was it. Do you really think that's a good analogy? quote:It's probably happened to somebody, but that's just not how that usually goes down. I'd have a much easier time accepting the story if they said they quit and relapsed several times before doing tons of therapy and building a whole new life and eventually getting to where they could stay out of that situation, and even then they felt the pull sometimes. Doesn't mean a person claiming the first situation is a liar but the second one rings truer. Again, what data are you using to come to this conclusion? Leaving aside the analogy, which I think is pretty worthless, and concentrating on the reality. You are concluding it is unlikely that someone goes from being friendly, and perhaps even intimate, with someone who raped them to accusing them of rape and carrying that forwards doesn't ring true. What are you basing this on? In general, once a woman makes an accusation of rape, she is going to face the social consequences of that accusation even if she drops it or doesn't pursue it. In the student's story, it was hearing from other women that they had also been assaulted that made her change her mind about pressing charges. I don't think there is any way to discern the truth or the falsity of whether or not a rape occurred in this circumstance. Saying that her testimony is suspect because of what seems like odd behavior can be, to me, easily met with the fact that strange behavior is pretty common among rape victims, as is acting socially normal after the rape. I have no interest in trying to reach an actual condemnation of the man. Given the evidence that I've seen--and I haven't seen the testimony from the other women--I couldn't vote, on a jury, to convict him, but there might be other evidence we haven't seen. I also have no interest in trying to call her a liar, either, or say that she should face sanction or punishment for saying that she was raped, any more than I think he should be sanctioned or punished for saying that she is fabricating that charge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you really think that's a good analogy? I think I misunderstood the question. I thought you meant a person getting out of a long-term cycle of domestic abuse, in which case I think the analogy is quite appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:I think I misunderstood the question. I thought you meant a person getting out of a long-term cycle of domestic abuse, in which case I think the analogy is quite appropriate. Well, it's pretty terrible. They may seem similar on the surface, but addiction has an actual physical pathway that's associated with it. Look at this way: you're comparing behavior towards another person with reflexive behavior involving a substance. Where the abuser is in one case, a drug is in the other. Drugs and people are not similar to each other, and the affection we may feel for an abuser is not similar to the need we feel for a drug. In general, analogies are best if they match up with specifics to specifics. Your analogy fails on a number of levels, from ignoring the physical aspects of addiction to comparing a drug with a human being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
"I wish we lived in a world where if I raped/abused/burgled/assaulted someone but was sneaky enough to where they couldn't quite prove it was me, I could also sue my victim or have them jailed if they ever accused me of it in public. In fact, it just might be possible to make some good money by committing crimes against people I thought would try to tell people what a predator I am and then suing them. That sounds very just to me"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm asking you to think about her situation> Every time I do, you switch to imagining a false accusation. In the end, in the very end, what about it? That person (who is not necessarily female) is going to feel horrible. Of course. My heart goes out to any rape victim. But society cannot rely on the ability to look into that person's soul and know the objective truth of their accusation and therefore should not allow them to destroy a person's reputation based on an accusation that cannot be independantly substantiated Obdicut posted:Again, you know, if you're any sort of partially aware being, that a vast number of rapes are not prosecutable in court, because the evidence is just he-said, she-said. Why do you keep avoiding this fact? I'm not avoiding it. If you can't provide prove that someone did something to you then you shouldn't be able to publicly accuse them of it. Obdicut posted:As opposed to having them jailed? Yes. I wouldn't be the 'rapey professor' on the internet, though, because I'd have a ton of people defending me, and there wouldn't be any evidence implicating me. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd lose my job, though, or why my colleagues wouldn't stand by me. Because the mere accusation taints your reputation and will cause people to look at you in a different way. How naive can you be to not understand that. People will be like "Hmm well you know he DID spend some time with the boy and then the kid seemed upset after, and how well do I know him REALLY..." and others will skip past doubt and go straight to "U RAPIST" because something something SOCIAL JUSTICE something something LISTEN AND BELIEVE. You know you're innocent and so you think others will assume you are, too, but unless your accuser is clearly deranged or vindictive that's not how this works. They might for instance do things like vandalize your house and get you shut down after a national news magazine fabricates a story based on the unverified testimony of a boy we'll call Jack. That is a thing that might happen. Obdicut posted:By the way, I'm not a professor. My mistake. Obdicut posted:Can you give an example of someone who became a pariah after an accusation of rape made the rounds on facebook? Any name that would mean anything to you you've already read about in the national news, probably?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:"I wish we lived in a world where if I raped/abused/burgled/assaulted someone but was sneaky enough to where they couldn't quite prove it was me, I could also sue my victim or have them jailed if they ever accused me of it in public. In fact, it just might be possible to make some good money by committing crimes against people I thought would try to tell people what a predator I am and then suing them. That sounds very just to me" How lucky are we, to live in a world where that's not necessary and an enterprising person can just level embarassing accusations at people they think have money and get paid to go away?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How lucky are we, to live in a world where that's not necessary and an enterprising person can just level embarassing accusations at people they think have money and get paid to go away? Yes, that is a thing that I am glad about because free speech is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:In a he said/she said case with no other evidence, he can't meet a preponderance of the evidence standard that the statement was false Sure. Which is why the burden necessarily must rest on the accuser, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm not avoiding it. If you can't provide prove that someone did something to you then you shouldn't be able to publicly accuse them of it. How can we even prosecute rape then? Maybe a time machine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sure. Which is why the burden necessarily must rest on the accuser, right? It seems to me that you're having an existential confrontation with basic precepts of modern law. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How can we even prosecute rape then? Maybe a time machine. How are rapes prosecuted today? We could try that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
So what's the limit to ruining someone's life? Is this supposed to be something that only applies to accusations of rape? Or does it go more general?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In the end, in the very end, what about it? That person (who is not necessarily female) is going to feel horrible. Of course. My heart goes out to any rape victim. But society cannot rely on the ability to look into that person's soul and know the objective truth of their accusation and therefore should not allow them to destroy a person's reputation based on an accusation that cannot be independantly substantiated Even when I ask you to do it, you can't. You immediately switch back to the idea of a false accusation. Think about this. You say 'my heart goes out to them' and that's the extent of sympathy or empathy you can extend. Imagine you were a woman who was raped. The person who raped you is not some leering evil guy, but a normal-seeming person. He raped you in the way many women are raped, by not getting consent, and taking advantage of your passivity. It seemed totally normal for him, so he's probably going to do it some more. Do you feel no moral or ethical obligation to warn others? You also know that if you go to the police, it is very unlikely they will arrest him, or if they do they will arrest him and he will simply stay mum and they will have to release him, because it is his world against yours. Then you are a woman who made a 'false complaint' and will face the social calumny for having made the accusation in the first place. quote:I'm not avoiding it. If you can't provide prove that someone did something to you then you shouldn't be able to publicly accuse them of it. This is what we are arguing about. You are begging the question. Everyone knows that is your position: what you should do is make arguments supporting that position. By this logic, do you think that all arrests should be sealed, with the names of the people not released? quote:Because the mere accusation taints your reputation and will cause people to look at you in a different way. How naive can you be to not understand that. People will be like "Hmm well you know he DID spend some time with the boy and then the kid seemed upset after, and how well do I know him REALLY..." and others will skip past doubt and go straight to "U RAPIST" because something something SOCIAL JUSTICE something something LISTEN AND BELIEVE. You know you're innocent and so you think others will assume you are, too, but unless your accuser is clearly deranged or vindictive that's not how this works. My brother has been accused of untoward behavior as a teacher. They did an investigation, found no evidence at all to support it, talked with the parents and got the kid counseling, and my brother suffered not in the least for it. Everyone had his back and nobody turned on him at all. If it were as easy as that to destroy people's reputation, don't you think it'd be happening all the time, by vindictive people? You are treating the extraordinary cases as though they are ordinary. They are not. Rape accusations are often met by victim-blaming, saying the woman is lying just to hurt the guy, that she's a slut anyway, etc. etc. This world you are suggesting where it automatically is believed by people in the person's social circle does not exist. In the world that does exist, women who make rape accusations face a ton of social opprobrium for doing so, and the only times when men face a similar amount of opprobrium is when there is something very dramatic about the circumstances, or other women come forward with the same story, or when there is evidence to support it. In a he-said-she-said situation, the woman is not automatically believed and the man automatically disbelieved. This is even worse with the police and judicial system, who have a giant bias against believing rape victims stories, or at least in believing them enough to take action. It may be partially because police know that the likelihood of a successful prosecution of a rapist depends on pretty iron-clad evidence of rape, and that a woman who is sexually active, has been drinking, and willingly went home with a guy is almost never going to be successfully able to claim rape unless it was a violent rape and she immediately went to the hospital. quote:Any name that would mean anything to you you've already read about in the national news, probably? Do you think that maybe being on the national news was more important than being on facebook? wateroverfire posted:How are rapes prosecuted today? We could try that. Do you understand that it is nearly impossible to prosecute a non-violent rape if it is just he-said-she-said? You seem to keep having this fantasy that rape is provable; it is usually not. Most rapists would not be found guilty. Even if we fixed the massive bias against rape victims in the police and judicial system, we require evidence beyond reasonable doubt and simply one person's testimony versus another does not rise to that. Effectronica posted:So what's the limit to ruining someone's life? Is this supposed to be something that only applies to accusations of rape? Or does it go more general? I misinterpreted Effectronica and need more caffeine. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How are rapes prosecuted today? We could try that. Oh but how can you even accuse somebody of raping you if you can't prove it? If you rely on a prosecutor to gather evidence, haven't you made an allegation without proof? How can you know the quantum position of a rape wave before it collapses into a particle?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:13
|
|
Obdicut posted:By ruining someone's life, do you mean by raping them and then having them be unable to publicly say that happened? You misinterpret me. People are saying that making unprovable accusations should be criminalized in the case of rape, because it can "ruin someone's life" and "make them a pariah". So I want to know if this extends to other accusations that could have a negative effect on your life if they're believed. That is, does wateroverfire's conception of justice involve sentencing people to five years in Sing Sing for calling someone racist on twitter?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You misinterpret me. People are saying that making unprovable accusations should be criminalized in the case of rape, because it can "ruin someone's life" and "make them a pariah". So I want to know if this extends to other accusations that could have a negative effect on your life if they're believed. That is, does wateroverfire's conception of justice involve sentencing people to five years in Sing Sing for calling someone racist on twitter? Sorry for misreading you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you understand that it is nearly impossible to prosecute a non-violent rape if it is just he-said-she-said? You seem to keep having this fantasy that rape is provable; it is usually not. Most rapists would not be found guilty. Even if we fixed the massive bias against rape victims in the police and judicial system, we require evidence beyond reasonable doubt and simply one person's testimony versus another does not rise to that. So should the system itself be changed? Or should rape be prosecuted in a way different from other crimes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Even when I ask you to do it, you can't. You immediately switch back to the idea of a false accusation. Think about this. You say 'my heart goes out to them' and that's the extent of sympathy or empathy you can extend. Meh? The system has to skew one way or the other. Consistent with principals of justice you yourself would embrace in any other context, it's better for a guilty person to be protected than for an innocent person to be thrown to the wolves. The hypothetical victim may end up getting hosed by the system and that's a pity, but it's a necessary consequence unless we're willing to destroy an accused person based only on the unsubstantiated word of their accuser. There's equally worthy of consideration some hapless person who got accused of sexual assault and kicked out of school after a title IX inquisitorial hearing, lost friends, a job, etc. Obdicut posted:This is what we are arguing about. You are begging the question. Everyone knows that is your position: what you should do is make arguments supporting that position. I've made several arguments for my position. An arrest is the state taking action and, at that point, the fact that the state did a thing is public record. That's different from intentionally smearing someone's reputation. In the context of numerous articles about false or unfounded allegations causing harm to students, about colleges being sued under Title IX for violating the rights of the accused, etc, it seems irrelevant to plead that these cases are relatively rare. Additionally, the very source you linked in our last discussion about this was a metastudy in a british law journal by an author whose point was "we have no idea how rare false accusations are, for obvious reasons, and people should stop parroting that".
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:So should the system itself be changed? Or should rape be prosecuted in a way different from other crimes? He doesn't want rape to be prosecuted differently. Or he probably does but we're not talking about now. He thinks people accused of rape should have their reputations destroyed despite the allegations being unsustainable because possibly they might be true and false allegations hardly ever occur. Which we know because Social Justice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:38
|
|
wateroverfire posted:He doesn't want rape to be prosecuted differently. Or he probably does but we're not talking about now. He thinks people accused of rape should have their reputations destroyed despite the allegations being unsustainable because possibly they might be true and false allegations hardly ever occur. Which we know because Social Justice. You, on the other hand, are arguing for this because you're a serial rapist. Thankfully, we are not at the point where you can have me locked up for saying that, but you would receive no punishment for smearing the reputation of others by putting words in their mouth.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:So should the system itself be changed? Or should rape be prosecuted in a way different from other crimes? No, it shouldn't. Or at least, I can't think of any way of changing it that would help. The police and judicial system need to address their current disbelief in rape victims, but other than that, unfortunately, this just a flaw in reality. We do need to change rape culture. wateroverfire posted:Meh? The system has to skew one way or the other. Consistent with principals of justice you yourself would embrace in any other context, it's better for a guilty person to be protected than for an innocent person to be thrown to the wolves. The hypothetical victim may end up getting hosed by the system and that's a pity, but it's a necessary consequence unless we're willing to destroy an accused person based only on the unsubstantiated word of their accuser. There's equally worthy of consideration some hapless person who got accused of sexual assault and kicked out of school after a title IX inquisitorial hearing, lost friends, a job, etc. Again, I completely think it's fine for a guilty person to be protected legally. And you're lying when you say I'd embrace it in any other context: my view on accusations of rape are no different from accusations of any other crime, which I've made abundantly clear. quote:I've made several arguments for my position. An arrest is the state taking action and, at that point, the fact that the state did a thing is public record. That's different from intentionally smearing someone's reputation. Again, you fail to keep in mind that real rape accusations exist. You continually act as though only false rape accusations exist. quote:In the context of numerous articles about false or unfounded allegations causing harm to students, about colleges being sued under Title IX for violating the rights of the accused, etc, it seems irrelevant to plead that these cases are relatively rare. That is not how you determine such things. quote:Additionally, the very source you linked in our last discussion about this was a metastudy in a british law journal by an author whose point was "we have no idea how rare false accusations are, for obvious reasons, and people should stop parroting that". What we do know, absolutely, is that a rape of a woman where it is simply her word against his is not possible to prosecute. Can you admit this? wateroverfire posted:He doesn't want rape to be prosecuted differently. Or he probably does but we're not talking about now. He thinks people accused of rape should have their reputations destroyed despite the allegations being unsustainable because possibly they might be true and false allegations hardly ever occur. Which we know because Social Justice. People accused of rape don't have their reputations automatically destroyed. Women accusing people of rape are often disbelieved, often attacked for doing so, and often have their complaints dismissed by the police. You consistently ignore that there is a social price for the woman in making the rape accusation as well. You also consistently ignore that the rape of a woman without physical evidence is incredibly difficult to prosecute. You cannot, or will not, even think about what it is like to be in the position of a woman who was raped. If you want to be more credible, you should at least come up with some way that isn't so obvious where your bias lies, because your inability to think about or talk about the suffering of women, to sum it up with the banal, phony-sounding 'my heart goes out to them' as opposed to your vociferous and plaintive imaginings of the sufferings of men accused of rape, really really shows how skewed you are. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, it shouldn't. Or at least, I can't think of any way of changing it that would help. The police and judicial system need to address their current disbelief in rape victims, but other than that, unfortunately, this just a flaw in reality. We do need to change rape culture. Ah, gotcha. Agreed
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What we do know, absolutely, is that a rape of a woman where it is simply her word against his is not possible to prosecute. I've never denied it. I just think "and so we should allow her to seek vigilante justice in the court of public opinion against a person who may or may not have raped her" does not follow from that. Obdicut, what is it that you're arguing for exactly. Think of the victims... ok, sure. Now what. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Like, let's back waaaay up. Rape is a crime that's often inherently hard to prosecute, or evaulate the objective truth of, because it amounts to one person's story against another's. Okay. Because of that, some rapes happen where there's no reasonable way for justice to be done. Okay. Rape accusations are not 100% reliable for a number of reasons. If they were the first point wouldn't be a point. Okay (I think?). Therefore....what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I've never denied it. I just think "and so we should allow her to seek vigilante justice in the court of public opinion against a person who may or may not have raped her" does not follow from that. No, but "and so we should not restrict her speech any more than we restrict anyone else's speech" does. Remember that in the US, you can make an accusation about any crime. The person you accused can sue you, and if they can convince a court that it is more likely untrue than not, they will find in your favor and the person will be sanctioned. That is the barrier--just that you are more credible than the person making the accusation. Why is this insufficient protection to you? You seem to think it's insufficient because you have this fantasy that people's lives are automatically destroyed by a rape accusation, but that isn't the case. People's lives are often destroyed by rape accusations that are credible, or things that come out surrounding the rape accusation, but not simply by a naked accusation. quote:Obdicut, what is it that you're arguing for exactly. Think of the victims... ok, sure. Now what. When you say 'okay, sure', it is completely unconvincing that you're doing it. It sound petulant, like it's a big pain in the rear end to have to take the time to think about what a rape victim is going through, even though you spend lots of time thinking about the worst-case-scenario of a false accusation. The reason I'm asking you to do it is twofold: First, you seem incapable of realizing that prosecuting a large number of rapes is impossible, because of the lack of evidence. When directly asked about this, you dodge it over and over again, in an incredibly cowardly fashion. You consistently say that women should go to the police, even when it's been pointed out to you over and over that rapes are often not prosecutable--leaving aside that police are biased against rape victims. You engage in a fantasy where if women are raped they can go to the police and then the system will take care of it. I'm trying to get you to understand that this is not the case, that a woman who is raped often has no recourse to her whatsoever in terms of proving it, not even in the lower barrier of civil court. Beyond that, I want you to understand that the silencing of women who have been raped helps to perpetuate rape culture, and that women who have been raped and refuse to be silent about it, who want justice for having been raped even though they can't prove it, if they are the rare woman who is willing to face the social opprobrium and vituperation she'll get for making the rape accusation, are, in your preferred scenario, punished for doing so. By the way, you haven't made clear if you think that a civil proof of rape is enough. If a woman sues a man civilly for the damage inflicted by her rape and wins, is that enough 'proof' for you, or do you require a criminal conviction?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, but "and so we should not restrict her speech any more than we restrict anyone else's speech" does. Remember that in the US, you can make an accusation about any crime. The person you accused can sue you, and if they can convince a court that it is more likely untrue than not, they will find in your favor and the person will be sanctioned. That is the barrier--just that you are more credible than the person making the accusation. Why is this insufficient protection to you? You seem to think it's insufficient because you have this fantasy that people's lives are automatically destroyed by a rape accusation, but that isn't the case. People's lives are often destroyed by rape accusations that are credible, or things that come out surrounding the rape accusation, but not simply by a naked accusation. There are a number of high profile stories we've talked about recently that would disagree with your assertion, along with countless instances you'll never hear about just as you'll never hear about the vast majority of rapes. The protection afforded by U.S. law is no protection at all, in fact. You have to have the resources to take someone to court, and you have to prove they knowingly lied or had no concern for the truth of their allegation. For most people that means there is no recourse. Specifically in the case of rape, as you are repeatingly pointing out, many cases are he-said-she-said and there is no way to prove the other party is lying. Obdicut posted:When you say 'okay, sure', it is completely unconvincing that you're doing it. It sound petulant, like it's a big pain in the rear end to have to take the time to think about what a rape victim is going through, even though you spend lots of time thinking about the worst-case-scenario of a false accusation. It's that ultimately I don't follow your logic and I don't see the relevance of the exercise. Of course a person who is victimized wants justice. But if a case can't be proved because there's no evidence that's no basis to allow vigilantism no matter how aggrieved one party feels. Do you think a victim should be able to have friends beat the poo poo out of an alleged rapist because a case can't be proved but blood calls out for blood? That would be madness. It's no less madness for being slightly more civilized. Yes, sometimes there is no practical recourse. Obdicut posted:By the way, you haven't made clear if you think that a civil proof of rape is enough. If a woman sues a man civilly for the damage inflicted by her rape and wins, is that enough 'proof' for you, or do you require a criminal conviction? Proof enough for what? edit: To be clear, I don't think this is a standard that should apply uniquely to rape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There are a number of high profile stories we've talked about recently that would disagree with your assertion, along with countless instances you'll never hear about just as you'll never hear about the vast majority of rapes. The protection afforded by U.S. law is no protection at all, in fact. You have to have the resources to take someone to court, and you have to prove they knowingly lied or had no concern for the truth of their allegation. For most people that means there is no recourse. Specifically in the case of rape, as you are repeatingly pointing out, many cases are he-said-she-said and there is no way to prove the other party is lying. All you have to be is slightly more credible than the other person. so, if you're an ordinary person who doesn't skeeze on women, and have people in your life who can say "Nah, he's cool", then yo're likely to win because the person making the false rape accusation is likely to not have this be the only lovely thing they've done. And again, the judicial system and police are biased against rape victims, so you have that protection as well. The reason you don't hear about most rapes is they don't get reported. False rape accusations are public by nature. Your analogy is hosed from the get go, but even accepting it: The reason these cases are high profile is because they're rare. If you look at that paper that you're trying to use to support your argument (while ignoring everything else in it) and read the papers in the bibliography, you can easily see the raw number of rape accusations is way lower than the number of rapes. Again, what I am talking about is no different than for any other crime in the US. If you think that this is something that will lead to frequent bad results, why aren't they more frequent? Why aren't accusations of rape--or other crimes--much higher than they are? If it's so easy to do in the US, as you foolishly think, why doesn't it go on all the time? quote:It's that ultimately I don't follow your logic and I don't see the relevance of the exercise. Of course a person who is victimized wants justice. But if a case can't be proved because there's no evidence that's no basis to allow vigilantism no matter how aggrieved one party feels. Do you think a victim should be able to have friends beat the poo poo out of an alleged rapist because a case can't be proved but blood calls out for blood? That would be madness. It's no less madness for being slightly more civilized. Yes, sometimes there is no practical recourse. It's not just an exercise! If you actually care about the subject, it is a goddamn moral necessity to put yourself in the shoes of both the person being accused of rape--which is easy to do, and makes me feel lovely and scared and awful, as I said--but it's harder to imagine yourself as a woman who was raped, because I'm not a woman who was raped. It is still absolutely necessary if you want to actually think about how the system operates. It is necessary at any time you're evaluating a system to imagine yourself as each potential person in it. How else are you going to have the necessary perspective? I have no clue what you're making GBS threads on about with 'blood calls out for blood'. Think about it for a loving second. That would imply that a woman who was raped wanted to rape her rapist in return. Naming your rapist is not some sort of vengeance. You keep casting it as such, it was bad enough when you were talking about false rape allegations but now you're saying that a woman who has been raped naming her rapist is some vengeance seeking vigilante. quote:Proof enough for what? For her to publically say that she was raped and name her rapist, you know, the subject we're talking about, the one where you want women who name their rapist but don't rise to some level of proof to be fined, jailed, or otherwise stopped from speaking. What country do you live in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I've never denied it. I just think "and so we should allow her to seek vigilante justice in the court of public opinion against a person who may or may not have raped her" does not follow from that. People do that in a ton of ways that I am sure you would consider perfectly ok outside this context. It is curious as to why rape is the typical alamo for this type of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Chicken Butt posted:Is this a good time to bring up OJ Simpson? OJ Simpson didn't kill anybody and the reason you think he did is because of racism in the media.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
So does reporting a crime count as slandering someone if the investigation doesn't turn up enough evidence to go to trial, in the DA's opinion? What if the DA takes the case but there's a plea deal to a lesser charge? An acquittal? I'm curious just how far down the rabbit hole wateroverfire wants to take this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So does reporting a crime count as slandering someone if the investigation doesn't turn up enough evidence to go to trial, in the DA's opinion? What if the DA takes the case but there's a plea deal to a lesser charge? An acquittal? You have to sew an "F" on all your garments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So does reporting a crime count as slandering someone if the investigation doesn't turn up enough evidence to go to trial, in the DA's opinion? What if the DA takes the case but there's a plea deal to a lesser charge? An acquittal? Why would reporting a crime to the police count as slandering someone?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:32
|
|