|
mlmp08 posted:Now I'm imagining a world with the rule that you can't say someone raped you if you cannot prove it under penalty of confinement. Or tell her to get hosed? I mean, lots of options suggest themselves in this unlikely scenario.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I accept that the justice system will occasionally punish those whose moral guilt is questionable. Because the justice system is fallible, and incapable of recognising all crimes. Yes. In this case, given that rape is very hard to prove in many circumstances--where the woman was pressured into sex, no consent was given, but no violence was not used--this is not going to be rare, if women speak up. The most likely outcome is that women who have been raped will generally never speak up about it for fear of being sued. In addition, rapists will know that they have this protection on top of the protections afforded to them by the difficulty of criminal prosecution of the rape itself. So they are protected both socially and legally. quote:For this reason I would prefer leniency in the punishments on offer where this is more likely to be the case, but the legal option must remain present, as must escalating options if the defendant will not comply with the more lenient ones. That doesn't change anything about what I said. quote:
There is not, in the US, a standard of impunity. If you can prove that the person making the accusation is lying, you can sue them here--and in some places, there is criminal sanction. The difference is that in the UK, you have to prove the accusation true, here you have to prove it false. quote:There is no immediate resolution to this state of affairs which is appealing, so I will accept the least detestable option, and again request that people try to alleviate the conditions which lead to rape in the first place, so that we no longer need to make this compromise. Do you understand that a major factor in the prevalence of rape is women being deterred from speaking about it, and men being able to get away with it with impunity because of the lack of evidence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:How do you distinguish between the two, so that you can make the second one shut up without shutting up the first? The same way we do right now in the US. Burden on the person claiming they were slandered to prove that more likely than not the woman knew she was lying or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true. Preponderance of the evidence standard. In many/most cases that would be difficult. But in some cases it would be easy - say the guy had an airtight alibi or something. Others would be tough, but not impossible - something akin to this where there is extensive written communication between the parties around the time that would seem incompatible with the alleged victim's version of events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is how it works for every crime. It is not utopian, but it is necessary. It is literally not how it works in this land we call the USA. If you live somewhere it works that way, sucks for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you understand that a major factor in the prevalence of rape is women being deterred from speaking about it, and men being able to get away with it with impunity because of the lack of evidence? I can grant that, and even granting it, I don't find special protection from civil prosecution in the case of a claim of rape to be an acceptable way to deal with that, given that such claims can demonstrably harm the person accused and can be levelled entirely without substantiation, if legal recourse is denied to the accused. It is possible to discuss rape without accusing specific people of doing it, we have been doing so for a while now. There are also other avenues that may be pursued to address its prevalence and other reasons why it occurs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:The same way we do right now in the US. Burden on the person claiming they were slandered to prove that more likely than not the woman knew she was lying or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not. In many/most cases that would be difficult. But in some cases it would be easy - say the guy had an airtight alibi or something. Others would be tough, but not impossible - something akin to this where there is extensive written communication between the parties around the time that would seem incompatible with the alleged victim's version of events. I'm glad that you disagree with the other posters here; so to be clear, you are not calling for any changes to the current circumstances at all. As to extensive communication, that is a very difficult area to talk about with certainty, because many people remain in relationships with their rapists, or abusers of any kind. You surely must have run across this in domestic abuse cases. It also happens in date-rape. Women even have consensual sex with men who have raped them. There is a wide variety of reactions to having been raped, it is not as straightforward as you would assume. Do you think that a man could successfully sue a woman for slander for claiming he beat her, using their continued relationship and her professions of love via facebook and text for him as proof that he couldn't have beaten her, because she showed affection for him and did not express anything negative? OwlFancier posted:I can grant that, and even granting it, I don't find special protection from civil prosecution in the case of a claim of rape to be an acceptable way to deal with that, given that such claims can demonstrably harm the person accused and can be levelled entirely without substantiation, if legal recourse is denied to the accused. Please stop claiming I'm calling for special protection in the case of rape. I've made it absolutely clear that I'm in the US and the standard I'm talking about is the same for any crime. This is really disingenuous of you. Cut it out. quote:It is possible to discuss rape without accusing specific people of doing it, we have been doing so for a while now. There are also other avenues that may be pursued to address its prevalence and other reasons why it occurs. It diminishes the ability of women to talk about rape if they cannot name their rapists. They will face the same challenge that you and others here are giving them, too, of doubting their story because there is not enough evidence. And again, women may want to protect other women from specific men by naming them. I recognize that you think that your approach is the best solution, I am not accusing you of being anything other than sincere. however, it would behoove you to be up front about the limitation of that system, and one of it is definitely a chilling effect on women speaking about rape, who will be instantly asked, "Who was it?" if they talk about it publicly, and their refusal to name being used as a reason to disbelieve. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
"I wish I lived in a world where when brave informants testified against organized crime bosses, but the crime boss successfully put out hits on enough witnesses to bring down the case, those surviving informants got sued or jailed for slander."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Please stop claiming I'm calling for special protection in the case of rape. I've made it absolutely clear that I'm in the US and the standard I'm talking about is the same for any crime. This is really disingenuous of you. Cut it out. And I'm in the UK and what you are suggesting is special protection here. If you would prefer me to phrase it differently I think your libel laws are poorly suited to protecting private citizens because they are more focused on allowing the press to attack organisations and governments, and that allowing people to issue unsubstantiated harmful statements about others is unjust, even if they claim to have been raped. I already agree that the proposal will harm people who are not simply guilty of libel, who may have a morally justifiable reason for their actions, but again, I accept that this is the case, I suggest a punishment range which takes into account that this may be the case and leans towards leniency, and I find the alternative less conscionable. It is abhorrent, but less so than the alternative. This is the nature of law. It is not a perfect system, in many ways it is not even a good system because it often begs for a better solution, but it is preferable to anarchy. I do not support giving people no legal recourse to address harm done to them when legal recourse can be given. No amount of legislation can make rape a crime reliably punishable by law, but harassment and libel can be made punishable. There are other ways to alleivate the suffering caused by rape that do not involve surrendering the protection which should be afforded to everyone against unsubstantiated attacks by others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And I'm in the UK and what you are suggesting is special protection here. But I am suggesting it for all crimes, not just rape. So please stop claiming I'm asking for special protection for rape. This is not a hard concept. quote:If you would prefer me to phrase it differently I think your libel laws are poorly suited to protecting private citizens because they are more focused on allowing the press to attack organisations and governments, and that allowing people to issue unsubstantiated harmful statements about others is unjust, even if they claim to have been raped. No, they are also designed to allow free individual speech, not just about organization and governments. quote:
Please stop the stupid hyperbole. We don't have 'anarchy' in the US. The alternative to requiring the person to prove what they're accusing is true is requiring the person accused to prove that it is false in order to charge the accuser with libel. The alternative is not 'anarchy'. What I am trying to drive home about rape, and maybe why you keep getting confused and not understanding and accusing me of wanting special protection for rape, is that rape is a crime where it is very hard to prove that it happened, and so you will get much higher rates of women who have been raped being imprisoned if they don't shut up about their rape, than you will people who were assaulted, stolen from, defrauded, or what have you. quote:I do not support giving people no legal recourse to address harm done to them when legal recourse can be given. No amount of legislation can make rape a crime reliably punishable by law, but harassment and libel can be made punishable. Again, people in the US have legal recourse. Stop the hyperbole. quote:There are other ways to alleivate the suffering caused by rape that do not involve surrendering the protection which should be afforded to everyone against unsubstantiated attacks by others. What I am asking you to do is recognize that preventing women from talking about rape and naming their accuser helps to perpetuate rape culture by providing protection for rapists. I am completely okay with you saying that you acknowledge this and that it is worth it to preserve the protections that you value for people against 'unsubstantiated' accusations (note that 'attacks' makes it sound as though the accusation is untrue). That is just a difference of opinion about what we should value more in society; I value free speech more than you do. But you need to recognize and accept the consequences of your stance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Now I'm imagining a world with the rule that you can't say someone raped you if you cannot prove it under penalty of confinement. You can tell them to get hosed or tell them 'you know what you did' or 10000 other things instead of sitting silently
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:You can tell them to get hosed or tell them 'you know what you did' or 10000 other things instead of sitting silently Ah, good point! That is much better than saying "I know my rapist is a rapist but unfortunately the justice system is fallible and so my rapist will walk free. It is a shame that in this case Officer Doe mishandled DNA evidence and while I understand that by rule of law, the DNA samples were hidden from the jury, I know in my heart that my rapist is a rapist."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:"I wish I lived in a world where when brave informants testified against organized crime bosses, but the crime boss successfully put out hits on enough witnesses to bring down the case, those surviving informants got sued or jailed for slander." "Also, I think you'll find that I have gone on the record about this, and I'm not just doubling down on it because the alternative would be I think allegations of rape are worse than allegations of participation in organized crime."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What I am asking you to do is recognize that preventing women from talking about rape and naming their accuser helps to perpetuate rape culture by providing protection for rapists. I am completely okay with you saying that you acknowledge this and that it is worth it to preserve the protections that you value for people against 'unsubstantiated' accusations (note that 'attacks' makes it sound as though the accusation is untrue). That is just a difference of opinion about what we should value more in society; I value free speech more than you do. But you need to recognize and accept the consequences of your stance. I don't consider the two to be opposed. As I said, there are many ways to resolve the harm caused by rape and reduce its occurance which don't require the law you describe. It is possible to oppose both rape and libel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And I'm in the UK and what you are suggesting is special protection here. If you would prefer me to phrase it differently I think your libel laws are poorly suited to protecting private citizens because they are more focused on allowing the press to attack organisations and governments, and that allowing people to issue unsubstantiated harmful statements about others is unjust, even if they claim to have been raped. Just as an FYI, you might not be aware but the UK's libel laws were traditionally seen as extremely lax on the global stage - being based on the principle of protecting the reputation of the gentry rather than common free speech - leading to so-called "libel tourism" where claimants would almost uniformly use UK courts to pursue international libel cases because of their outdated laws. This era came to an end in 2013, when the UK finally made reforms to their libel system to bring it into line with other countries. As such, many of the elements that you seem to admire about that system are now gone, and British free speech rights have been enhanced. So long as your statements are vested in your honest opinions then there is little chance of a successful libel suit. The US still has superior protection for freedom of speech, but the divide isn't as wide as it once was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't consider the two to be opposed. As I said, there are many ways to resolve the harm caused by rape and reduce its occurance which don't require the law you describe. You are a really weird poster. I didn't say that it wasn't possible to both oppose rape and libel. Your stance still will have the effect that if women are raped, can't prove it, and talk about it, they will be sanctioned for it. This has a chilling effect on women making accusations of rape. It is not the only thing, or the most important thing, in the perpetuation of rape culture, but it is a thing. Kaal posted:Just as an FYI, you might not be aware but the UK's libel laws were traditionally seen as extremely lax on a global stage - being based on the principle of protecting the reputation of the gentry rather than common free speech - leading to so-called "libel tourism" where claimants would almost uniformly use UK courts to pursue international libel cases because of their outdated laws. This era came to an end in 2013, when the UK finally made reforms to their libel system to bring it into line with other countries. As such, many of the elements that you seem to admire about that system are now gone, and British free speech rights have been enhanced. So long as your statements are vested in your honest opinions then there is little chance of a successful libel suit. He may still be right as far as specific criminal accusations from an individual to another individual go, though, unless a 'public interest' argument could be made. I don't know, I'm not an expert.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Just as an FYI, you might not be aware but the UK's libel laws were traditionally seen as extremely lax on the global stage - being based on the principle of protecting the reputation of the gentry rather than common free speech - leading to so-called "libel tourism" where claimants would almost uniformly use UK courts to pursue international libel cases because of their outdated laws. This era came to an end in 2013, when the UK finally made reforms to their libel system to bring it into line with other countries. As such, many of the elements that you seem to admire about that system are now gone, and British free speech rights have been enhanced. So long as your statements are vested in your honest opinions then there is little chance of a successful libel suit. The US still has superior protection for freedom of speech, but the divide isn't as wide as it once was. So far as I know, the burden of proof still rests on the person making the claim which is an important point. And I do know that the UK libel laws have problems and are abused often. Obdicut posted:You are a really weird poster. I didn't say that it wasn't possible to both oppose rape and libel. Your stance still will have the effect that if women are raped, can't prove it, and talk about it, they will be sanctioned for it. This has a chilling effect on women making accusations of rape. It is not the only thing, or the most important thing, in the perpetuation of rape culture, but it is a thing. And I've already agreed that the law will have negative effects, though I disagree with your specific phrasing. I don't consider that sufficient justification to oppose it, however. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:He may still be right as far as specific criminal accusations from an individual to another individual go, though, unless a 'public interest' argument could be made. I don't know, I'm not an expert. "Honest Opinion" is a sufficient defense. "Public Interest" generally gets applied to the press rather than individuals, though it could conceivably also be applied to whistle-blowers. OwlFancier posted:So far as I know, the burden of proof still rests on the person making the claim which is an important point. And I do know that the UK libel laws have problems and are abused often Just to clarify, in the UK the burden of proof for the "Truth" defense rests with the respondent (the one who made the statement), not the claimant, but yes that part hasn't changed. That being said, the "Honest Opinion" defense is sufficient and separate from the "Truth" defense. If Emma Sulkowicz was making the same kind of allegations in Britain, she'd be quite capable of mounting a libel defense based on her statements being vested in her "Honest Opinion". Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"Honest opinion" is a sufficient defense. "Public interest" generally gets applied to the press rather than individuals, though it could conceivably also be applied to whistle-blowers. Huh, looking into it, I guess you're right. Especially with something like rape, which centers around consent, you could probably use 'honest opinion' that you had been raped. OwlFancier, do you think this is a bad change? And by quote:And I've already agreed that the law will have negative effects, though I disagree with your specific phrasing. I don't consider that sufficient justification to oppose it, however. What 'specific phrasing' do you disagree with?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
It's probably the change on the list that I agree with least. The changes to libel suits concerning non-natural persons all seem good and sensible since the system was heavily weighted against the claimant previously, and people were using it for all sorts of dumb things. But the honest opinion clause seems less defensible given that it relies on you proving that the claimant is being "honest" which seems like it would be rather difficult to discern either way and also that honesty is not the same as veracity. Ignorance is a poor defence. If you claim something publicly you are under an obligation to be accurate, not simply honest. We have plenty of idiots writing for the papers who are "honest" in the poo poo they spout but I'd still be happier if someone sued them. Obdicut posted:What 'specific phrasing' do you disagree with? quote:You are a really weird poster. I didn't say that it wasn't possible to both oppose rape and libel. Your stance still will have the effect that if women are raped, can't prove it, and talk about it, they will be sanctioned for it. This has a chilling effect on women making accusations of rape. It is not the only thing, or the most important thing, in the perpetuation of rape culture, but it is a thing. That bit specifically. I've already said it's possible to talk about it without accusing specific people. Indeed unless half a dozen people are doing all the rapes ever, productive discussion would surely involve nonspecific information because the peculiarities of any given rapist would be less relevant. Essentially I don't think that accusation is necessary to discuss the reasons why rape occurs and how to prevent it, given that you can't prevent it by accusing people anyway, not reasonably, because you can't prosecute people for it. I also dispute that even if you did need to be specific, that you would be prohibited from talking about it. Practically, you can warn people you know, and even if that gets found out and the accused were to take civil action, then the court requirement should be first simply a retraction of the statement, while the people you've warned are still going to be wary. In the context of therapy or other environments where recounting the specific experience may be necessary, there is already provision, so far as I know, for that speech being protected on the basis that it isn't to be made public, thus satisfying the need to discuss with the right of people not to be publicly accused without proof. Essentially I find your phrasing slightly too broad but agree with the general idea. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Liberace won a libel case in the UK against a tabloid columnist who wrote that he was gay, lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's probably the change on the list that I agree with least. This phraseology implies you agree with the change, by the way. Speaking of phraseology: What 'specific phrasing' do you disagree with?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This phraseology implies you agree with the change, by the way. See above, edited it in. Eh, I'm abivalent about the change. I don't entirely understand why it was added other than possibly "free speech" and don't really know what to make of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:See above, edited it in. Ambivalent means you feel very strongly about it in two directions at once. I don't think that's what you mean. quote:That bit specifically. I've already said it's possible to talk about it without accusing specific people. Okay, change what I said to "If they talk about who raped them, they will be sanctioned for it". it really doesn't change my argument at all. quote:Essentially I don't think that accusation is necessary to discuss the reasons why rape occurs and how to prevent it, given that you can't prevent it by accusing people anyway, not reasonably, because you can't prosecute people for it. I didn't say it was necessary. I laid out one reason why it is useful: because women claiming to have been raped will be doubted more if they don't name their rapist. quote:I also dispute that even if you did need to be specific, that you would be prohibited from talking about it. Practically, you can warn people you know, and even if that gets found out and the accused were to take civil action, then the court requirement should be first simply a retraction of the statement, while the people you've warned are still going to be wary. What if the woman wants to warn not just her friends, but other women too? I'm not sure why you'd think she'd just want to warn her friends. And for future thought: one of the only ways to successfully prosecute someone for rape when there isn't physical evidence is having multiple women testify as to the rape. If you suppress women from naming their rapist, this becomes much, much harder to have happen. As long as the rapist is in the least bit careful, the women will never know there are others in their circumstance and situation. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What if the woman wants to warn not just her friends, but other women too? I'm not sure why you'd think she'd just want to warn her friends. What if she's pissed and wants to make someone's life difficult. What if, for instance, she decides to coordinate a campaign of harassment against a classmate to get him kicked out of school. Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What if she's pissed and wants to make someone's life difficult. What if, for instance, she decides to coordinate a campaign of harassment against a classmate to get him kicked out of school. Makes you think. Again, I'm talking about a woman who was actually raped. Are you capable of thinking about her, or are you only capable of imagining false rape accusations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Ambivalent means you feel very strongly about it in two directions at once. I don't think that's what you mean. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambivalent That was always the definition I knew of, just mixed feelings. I dislike it because it seems like airy fairy nonesense but I am prepared to entertain the idea that perhaps it may be designed with good intent in mind. I suppose perhaps that it may help persuade some doubters but I would expect honestly that those inclined to doubt may simply be doing so because they want an excuse to oppose the woman in question, more of a post-hoc justification for an instinctive defensiveness or sexism or something, and thus would probably not be very convinced by the specific accusation either way. Better to address the reasons for arbitrary skepticism than ineffectually attempt to assuage it with specific accusations. Warning the public at large to avoid a person because they raped you is, unfortunately, not really practical without evidence. You are essentially asking for license to turn someone into a pariah without any scrutiny. It's not good but I don't think it's something you can do very much about. If you had a way of accurately identifying potential rapists then rape would automatically be less of a problem. We don't have one, and we're not going to have one barring magic or a massive cultural shift towards publicising the specifics of our sex lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
This is a strawman. Rape accusations do not automatically make someone into a pariah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is not a good analogy at all, and it is not true to say that people, other than bigots, think all black people are criminals, or all men are rapists. Again, this is simply not true. Numerous studies have been done that show the vast majority of people, including black people themselves, are latently racist against black people. I guess you could make a convincing argument that the vast majority of people are bigots?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Again, this is simply not true. Numerous studies have been done that show the vast majority of people, including black people themselves, are latently racist against black people. I guess you could make a convincing argument that the vast majority of people are bigots? Latently racist against black people does not mean that you think all, or even most, black people are criminals. Do you understand this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is a strawman. Rape accusations do not automatically make someone into a pariah. I would suggest that that is related to their degree of success. 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. Certainly accusations may not be believed and are less likely to spread that far, but if your goal is to warn the public at large that person X is a rapist and might rape them, if you do that successfully, they are going to become something of a pariah, no? If they don't, that presumably only means that you haven't warned very many people yet. If someone desires to warn the public that a person is dangerous, they desire to see that person ostracised, because being around them is a hazard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Latently racist against black people does not mean that you think all, or even most, black people are criminals. Do you understand this? Considering the test that I'm referring to literally put "criminal" in the mix when allowing you to choose whether a white face or black face was more related to the word, and that people across the board (demographically) chose black faces to slot in the "criminal" bucket, I'm going to say that you are the one not understanding this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, I'm talking about a woman who was actually raped. Are you capable of thinking about her, or are you only capable of imagining false rape accusations? What is it you want me to think about her? I'm saying you can't assume the person making an accusation is being genuine. Or is being genuine and isn't mistaken about the perpetrator. That there is a really good reason for that. If the allegations are true they need to be investigated and taken to court. Imagine if one of your students decided you'd raped him. Would you want the system to throw up its hands and say "Welp, after an exhaustive investigation where we drag you through the mud it seems like it cannot be proven that you did it but hey he's got a free speech right" while he slandered your name and potentially ruined your career with the approval of your colleagues? Imagine you recovered and found a new job but were always and forever "The Rapey Professor" on the internet. edit: Like, imagine that people were even compelled to contemplate the question "IS Obdicut a rapist?". How hosed up would you feel your life had just become?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Considering the test that I'm referring to literally put "criminal" in the mix when allowing you to choose whether a white face or black face was more related to the word, and that people across the board (demographically) chose black faces to slot in the "criminal" bucket, I'm going to say that you are the one not understanding this. No, that test does not indicate that you think all black people are criminals. What that indicates is that you more associate the word 'criminal' with a black face. If you are confused about this, please write to the HIAT people and ask them. OwlFancier posted:I would suggest that that is related to their degree of success. Sure. quote: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. Certainly accusations may not be believed and are less likely to spread that far, but if your goal is to warn the public at large that person X is a rapist and might rape them, if you do that successfully, they are going to become something of a pariah, no? If they don't, that presumably only means that you haven't warned very many people yet. Yes, this is true. And the likelihood of that person becoming a pariah is in relationship with the credibility of the accusations made. What makes it more likely is if other people then come out to back up the statement, giving their own accounts, and are found credible as well, as happened with Rolf Harris.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, this is true. And the likelihood of that person becoming a pariah is in relationship with the credibility of the accusations made. What makes it more likely is if other people then come out to back up the statement, giving their own accounts, and are found credible as well, as happened with Rolf Harris. Or, you know, once it makes the rounds on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, that test does not indicate that you think all black people are criminals. What that indicates is that you more associate the word 'criminal' with a black face. And why is this distinction important? If your brain says "criminal" when you see a black person, as the test proves, why is that different than thinking black people are criminals in general? I also love the idea that adding more uncorroborated statements to the mix somehow adds any proof or truth to the original uncorroborated testimony.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What is it you want me to think about her? I'm asking you to think about her situation> Every time I do, you switch to imagining a false accusation. quote:I'm saying you can't assume the person making an accusation is being genuine. Or is being genuine and isn't mistaken about the perpetrator. That there is a really good reason for that. If the allegations are true they need to be investigated and taken to court. 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? quote:Imagine if one of your students decided you'd raped him. Would you want the system to throw up its hands and say "Welp, after an exhaustive investigation where we drag you through the mud it seems like it cannot be proven that you did it but hey he's got a free speech right" while he slandered your name and potentially ruined your career with the approval of your colleagues? Imagine you recovered and found a new job but were always and forever "The Rapey Professor" on the internet. 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. quote:[edit: Like, imagine that people were even compelled to contemplate the question "IS Obdicut a rapist?". How hosed up would you feel your life had just become? I'd feel horrible, though confident I wouldn't face any actual sanction because I was innocent and I know that even true allegations of rape are rarely proved, and I'm innocent. By the way, I'm not a professor. Now that I've entertained your scenario, can you imagine the situation of a woman who was raped, and knows there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute it? In your desired outcome, if you speak out about this publicly, you will be jailed. how does that make you feel? wateroverfire posted:Or, you know, once it makes the rounds on Facebook. Can you give an example of someone who became a pariah after an accusation of rape made the rounds on facebook? Radbot posted:And why is this distinction important? If your brain says "criminal" when you see a black person, as the test proves, why is that different than thinking black people are criminals in general? The distinction is important because your brain doesn't 'say' criminal, it associates the word criminal more strongly with darker skin. This is obviously different from thinking that all black people are criminals in general. Again, I urge you to write to the HIAT people, or just read what they've written about the test, because the way you're using it is deeply flawed. So you don't think that multiple women making independent accusations against the same person gives any more credence to their stories? Why not? Radbot posted:I don't know, was the Duke lacrosse team originally accused on Facebook? The question would be 'did they become pariahs because of the story on facebook'. I think their status might have more to do with their prosecution than facebook. Just a hunch. OwlFancier posted:This. I agree that it is possible for truth to emerge as a result of accusation, but it is also possible for accusation to take precedence over truth. Generally, we consider protecting the innocent to be more important than punishing the guilty, in this instance I would stand by that priority. Again, you are mixing a legal principle with general society. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, that test does not indicate that you think all black people are criminals. What that indicates is that you more associate the word 'criminal' with a black face. wateroverfire posted:Or, you know, once it makes the rounds on Facebook. This. I agree that it is possible for truth to emerge as a result of accusation, but it is also possible for accusation to take precedence over truth. Generally, we consider protecting the innocent to be more important than punishing the guilty, in this instance I would stand by that priority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Can you give an example of someone who became a pariah after an accusation of rape made the rounds on facebook? I don't know, was the Duke lacrosse team originally accused on Facebook?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:As to extensive communication, that is a very difficult area to talk about with certainty, because many people remain in relationships with their rapists, or abusers of any kind. You surely must have run across this in domestic abuse cases. It also happens in date-rape. Women even have consensual sex with men who have raped them. There is a wide variety of reactions to having been raped, it is not as straightforward as you would assume. Oh I wouldn't assume it is straightforward. I realize people often react to trauma (or grief) in ways that don't make sense to others. But I can still imagine a case where evidence of that type would be strong enough to get to 51%. This might even be such a case, depending on how the parties did on the stand and such. quote:Do you think that a man could successfully sue a woman for slander for claiming he beat her, using their continued relationship and her professions of love via facebook and text for him as proof that he couldn't have beaten her, because she showed affection for him and did not express anything negative? Depends. What do I know about this woman, and was this supposed to be a single incident out of the blue or an ongoing way of life for this couple? There are some women who are highly susceptible to getting locked in to the cycle of domestic violence where they are going to reconcile with the abuser every time absent some pretty serious outside intervention. That's not to say it's their fault, just that abusers and victims are uncannily good at finding one another, and once they do the cycle begins. Almost every domestic violence case I saw, they had kissed and made up long before the case reached its conclusion. The victims were never successful in getting the charges dropped but they almost always tried. On the other hand, there are women who just aren't as vulnerable to being controlled that way (again, not saying women caught up in a cycle of abuse are to blame). If I am alive and still have access to my house tomorrow, that is rock solid proof I didn't punch my wife tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Oh I wouldn't assume it is straightforward. I realize people often react to trauma (or grief) in ways that don't make sense to others. But I can still imagine a case where evidence of that type would be strong enough to get to 51%. This might even be such a case, depending on how the parties did on the stand and such. it definitely might convince a jury; it looks bad for her. It doesn't really sway me, but I've got a lot more knowledge of rape than the average juror. Thermos H Christ 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. Do you know enough about the woman in Columbia to discern her character in this way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:08
|
|