|
So instead of the series of legal protections we've built up over the centuries in order to protect the rights of a person who has been accused of a crime, we should throw that all out and convict people on the basis of ~feelings~? Do you think somehow that eroding constitutional rights is going to somehow not disproportionately effect minorities? 
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
I'm still laughing at the loser who killed people because he was a virgin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Yes, surely feminists seek to dismantle the current system of criminal justice and switch to a much more effective, feelings-based legal system. This is definitely a real thing that real feminists advocate for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:So instead of the series of legal protections we've built up over the centuries in order to protect the rights of a person who has been accused of a crime, we should throw that all out and convict people on the basis of ~feelings~? Hey look, the laws worked at protecting a bunch of rich kids at an elite university from the stripper they purchased! I guess that means the system is awesome and actually works. Remind me again what happened to DSK when he raped a cleaning woman? Oh yeah, the second assault on the victim began. Also explain how moving to a more evidence based set of rules (versus the one that engages our cultural biases against certain groups) would remove protections. Unless we're at the point where being able to call a woman a whore because of the way she dressed or how many men she consensually slept with is something we should be standing up for. Note that this seems incredibly similar to the whole "past bad acts" issue that you can't generally bring up against the defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
If you're only going to allow for "evidence" IE physical evidence to stand in a court of law, how many rape convictions do you think are going to actually get through? quote:Hell, I'm still utterly shocked we allow eye-witness testimony, considering how poor it is factually and how much it is altered (i.e. coached) ahead of time. So victim testimony should not be admissible according to you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:If you're only going to allow for "evidence" IE physical evidence to stand in a court of law, how many rape convictions do you think are going to actually get through? With a revised standard (to remove the intent style garbage that only clouds issues) I think you could do much better now "he said, she said" disappears. You sleep with a drunk or drugged person, it's rape if they decide to press charges. Assuming an actually sympathetic police force, you can get physical evidence for this. quote:So victim testimony should not be admissible according to you? Yes. Even a well-meaning person has their memory slide over time, and in fact the memories we recall the most are also the least reliable. Luckily there's a massive pile of evidence that happens with a violent rape, and usually is also is in drug assisted rapes. There is the issue of blackmail-style threats, but these don't result in convictions in the current legal system anyway. We need to better than adversarial justice, where both sides are interested in "winning", which by necessity puts the actual truth on the back-burner when it's the entire point of the xercise from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
If you wanna know why it's a bad idea to kill the burden of proof in rape and sexual assault cases, you only need to look at the history of lynching and racially-biased incarceration of black men. In general, when you make it easier for the U.S. to put people in jail, then *who* is being jailed will generally reflect the pre-existing disparities in the society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:If you wanna know why it's a bad idea to kill the burden of proof in rape and sexual assault cases, you only need to look at the history of lynching and racially-biased incarceration of black men. In general, when you make it easier for the U.S. to put people in jail, then *who* is being jailed will generally reflect the pre-existing disparities in the society. Not allowing character assassination is not killing the burden of proof. There's no reason you should be able to get off murder or theft because the person was "socially undesirable", either. But that defense is most commonly used in sexual assault, because as a society we are pathetic puritans who have at best a 19th century set of thoughts on what should really be allowed with sex. And are you seriously saying that what we do with rape convictions is the best we can do without violating people's civil rights? (Note that piles of people's civil rights get violated with sexual assault, but I guess the victims don't count, right?) Hell, you're basically saying we can't even try to make an equitable system, because a 1 in 5 or 6 sexual assault rate is unacceptable by any reasonable standard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:And are you seriously saying that what we do with rape convictions is the best we can do without violating people's civil rights? (Note that piles of people's civil rights get violated with sexual assault, but I guess the victims don't count, right?) Hell, you're basically saying we can't even try to make an equitable system, because a 1 in 5 or 6 sexual assault rate is unacceptable by any reasonable standard. I'm merely saying there are unintended consequences to empowering the coercive, violent arm of the state in the name of social justice. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
As long as you're willing to accept that black men are going to be vastly disproportionately effected by the increased ease of imprisoning rapists(and I assume alot of other crimes as well), I guess the system is really great!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Yes, the core of the concern that MRAs have with regards to more strenuously prosecuting rapists is its disproportionate effect on black men, a position they have taken repeatedly in such articles as
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Yes, the core of the concern that MRAs have with regards to more strenuously prosecuting rapists is its disproportionate effect on black men, a position they have taken in repeatedly such articles as
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:With a revised standard (to remove the intent style garbage that only clouds issues) I think you could do much better now "he said, she said" disappears. You sleep with a drunk or drugged person, it's rape if they decide to press charges. Assuming an actually sympathetic police force, you can get physical evidence for this. I see, so you want to lower the burden of proof instead. Great 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Nobody is advocating that a person be convicted only on the say-so of a victim. They're advocating that the character assassination of the victim not be allowed to continue, that whether or not she was wearing a dress that night not be a factor in whether she's believed. That she not be interrogated as to her sexual history and the fact that she had sexual partners not be used to discredit her account of being sexually assaulted as though the fact that she's had sex in the past in any way whatsoever impacts her ability to give consent this time. That maybe the police are trained to investigate sexual assault cases in a different manner, meaning not interrogate a victim and look for inconsistencies in the story like they do with a suspect, because victims of trauma don't have perfect linear memories of the assault all the time. They're asking that maybe cops don't default to "the victim is lying" when they have a rape reported to them. some lovely cop posted:"Well, it's supposed to be uncomfortable," the officer responded. "…If it goes to trial, this is what's going to happen… you think that was bad? Nah." They're advocating that maybe cops shouldn't be able to be the judge and jury while investigating crimes that they've already deemed to be unbelievable. You still have the same rights as the accused, but now suddenly the victim has some rights too, which go beyond the right to withdraw your accusation of being raped because the cop said he doesn't believe you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Well, you have to think about the scenario seriously. A white woman falsely accuses a black man of rape. Already the system is stacked against him in a pretty drastic way. So what are the potential consequences of further empowering the state to prosecute him? Your argument is basically that we have to sacrifice women who are "less than perfect" (i.e. sex workers, WoC, LGBT, poor, criminals, or just more libertine) in order to save black men. That's pretty hosed. And despite the implication of your statement (nice dog whistle, BTW) the whole stranger danger To Kill a Mockingbird-style setup is the minority of sexual assault. It's partner and acquaintance violence generally, and all the status quo does is allow the general bigoted culture to pollute a supposedly equal legal system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I see, so you want to lower the burden of proof instead. Great gently caress you. Sleeping with someone under the influence is already sexual assault, because consent is impossible in that situation. Not allowing an asshat like you to slut shame away the act is a good thing, because all that does is confuse the actual evidence. I'm not sure how actually forcing people to follow the law as it is written instead of allowing the invocation of societal stereotypes is lower the burden of proof. But I guess you think the current scenario is the best we can do, and since it isn't you get raped, who cares?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:gently caress you. Sleeping with someone under the influence is already sexual assault, because consent is impossible in that situation. Oh really? Because I'm pretty sure I've had a few nights start with the suggestion "Let's get drunk and gently caress like bunnies."
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Nobody is advocating that a person be convicted only on the say-so of a victim. They're advocating that the character assassination of the victim not be allowed to continue, that whether or not she was wearing a dress that night not be a factor in whether she's believed. That she not be interrogated as to her sexual history and the fact that she had sexual partners not be used to discredit her account of being sexually assaulted as though the fact that she's had sex in the past in any way whatsoever impacts her ability to give consent this time. That maybe the police are trained to investigate sexual assault cases in a different manner, meaning not interrogate a victim and look for inconsistencies in the story like they do with a suspect, because victims of trauma don't have perfect linear memories of the assault all the time. They're asking that maybe cops don't default to "the victim is lying" when they have a rape reported to them. This is everything I'm trying to say in a nicer package. The flipping of the victim into the suspect is so incredibly common with sexual assault that it's a cliche now. It's not a rape issue in particular (mostly a privilege one, as in the less Real 'Murican you are, the less people in power believe you), though it comes a lot in that venue since the vast majority of criminal cases brought involve a female victim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Oh really? Because I'm pretty sure I've had a few nights start with the suggestion "Let's get drunk and gently caress like bunnies." Guess what? You shouldn't have been doing that, and it's rape if your partner wanted to press the issue. This is poo poo they taught me in college, and in every annual SHARP class I've had to take. I guess I'm the only person who paid attention to that stuff, and took seriously the whole not taking advantage of a sex partner thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Your argument is basically that we have to sacrifice women who are "less than perfect" (i.e. sex workers, WoC, LGBT, poor, criminals, or just more libertine) in order to save black men. That's pretty hosed. And despite the implication of your statement (nice dog whistle, BTW) the whole stranger danger To Kill a Mockingbird-style setup is the minority of sexual assault. It's partner and acquaintance violence generally, and all the status quo does is allow the general bigoted culture to pollute a supposedly equal legal system. But in those cases, false (or perhaps more accurately: mistaken) accusations of rape have led to lots of black and Latino men being wrongfully imprisoned: quote:Brandon Garrett’s major contribution to the field, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong (2011) reports on the first 250 DNA exonerations in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:A university tribunal isn't part of the justice system fyi If it's publicly funded they drat well better go about it in an adversarial setting or they should get their eyeballs crushed in a lawsuit. I don't care if the bad dude was caught on camera as a puppy eating, serial raping, multibillionaire high 'n' whitey. The justice system is all about saying "butbutbut what about the poor bad dudes" and letting them off. Here, let me quote what John Adams wrote after a different mass shooting. quote:It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever. You can feel free to let me know how much land and/or slaves he owned. quote:And despite the implication of your statement (nice dog whistle, BTW) the whole stranger danger To Kill a Mockingbird-style setup is the minority of sexual assault. "It is better that 100 (1000, etc.) guilty escape than one innocent be wrongly sentenced." DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:56
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
rkajdi posted:Guess what? You shouldn't have been doing that, and it's rape if your partner wanted to press the issue. This is poo poo they taught me in college, and in every annual SHARP class I've had to take. I guess I'm the only person who paid attention to that stuff, and took seriously the whole not taking advantage of a sex partner thing. Guess what? Nuance is a thing. As it happens, Texas law covers this pretty specifically. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm quote:§ 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. Now, you're right that it would have been hard as gently caress for me to prove undocumented prior consent. However, putting myself in a situation that could theoretically lead to a *false* accusation of rape and *actually* having raped someone, as you claim, are two different things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:But the problem is that when I bring this up, I'm accused of sacrificing the real victims in this situation, and I'm told we need to give the state more prosecutorial powers than they already have. That strikes me as naive and dangerous, and especially so since it comes with the added lefty righteousness. There are not any additional prosecutorial powers. It is literally just taking away the ability to smear the victim as a defense mechanism. The victim wearing tight clothes is not a defense against a rape accusation. The victim having a sexual history is not a defense against a rape accusation. You are literally just trying to say that the woman was incapable of saying no because she had chosen to say yes at some point in the past and with a different person. These are just thinly veiled ways of saying "she was asking for it", which is not a defense against a rape accusation unless she was literally asking you to have sex with her. copper rose petal fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If it's publicly funded they drat well better go about it in an adversarial setting or they should get their eyeballs crushed in a lawsuit. I don't care if the bad dude was caught on camera as a puppy eating, serial raping, multibillionaire high 'n' whitey. The justice system is all about saying "butbutbut what about the poor bad dudes" and letting them off. Here, let me quote what John Adams wrote after a different mass shooting. Don't ascribe to the Cult of the Founders, so I personally give less than a poo poo what an old dead man thought about things two and a half centuries ago. Also, why are you bringing up the man who signed the Alien and Sedition acts into law as a civil libertarian? It lays bare the whole issue with civil liberatians-- at least half the time, they are directly defending the status quo for no reason other than principles. Sorry, those principles (i.e. negative rights circlejerking) don't actually protect the people at the bottom to keep their jobs, lives, or freedom. Hell, this is an example of exactly how they are used to gently caress over those on the bottom in the most literal way possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
I don't buy the cult of the Founders either because it's not like they all agreed on everything. Just like I can disagree with Adams on one thing and not the other. But do you seriously think those unable to afford top caliber lawyers will fare better with even fewer privileges in their favor?copper rose petal posted:These are just thinly veiled ways of saying "she was asking for it", which is not a defense against a rape accusation unless she was literally asking you to have sex with her. If juries don't take this bit seriously, then it doesn't matter what you do with the court. If they do take it seriously, there's no reason to get rid of centuries of defendants' rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:There are not any additional prosecutorial powers. It is literally just taking away the ability to smear the victim as a defense mechanism. The victim wearing tight clothes is not a defense against a rape accusation. The victim having a sexual history is not a defense against a rape accusation. You are literally just trying to say that the woman was incapable of saying no because she had chosen to say yes at some point in the past and with a different person. I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that a person's sexual history should be relevant to a criminal rape trial. A defendant still has the right to contest an accusation which means the right to dispute the testimony of a victim. If you can't cross-examine the alleged victim or dispute the details of the accusations I don't see how you can have a fair trial.I'm not necessarily claiming you specifically are saying this. quote:Don't ascribe to the Cult of the Founders, so I personally give less than a poo poo what an old dead man thought about things two and a half centuries ago. Also, why are you bringing up the man who signed the Alien and Sedition acts into law as a civil libertarian? It lays bare the whole issue with civil liberatians-- at least half the time, they are directly defending the status quo for no reason other than principles. Sorry, those principles (i.e. negative rights circlejerking) don't actually protect the people at the bottom to keep their jobs, lives, or freedom. Hell, this is an example of exactly how they are used to gently caress over those on the bottom in the most literal way possible. Just for the record can we get a list of the negative rights (I.E. Fifth, Sixth Amendment etc.) that you think should be abolished or done away with? EasternBronze fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Guess what? Nuance is a thing. As it happens, Texas law covers this pretty specifically. Look, you can bring up laws from one of the most hosed up Southern hellholes (e.g. It takes real balls to execute an innocent man) possible to defend your point and try to alleviate your conscience. I'm not going to give you that privilege. And as an example, this law doesn't even protect a woman who's been rendered drunk by someone from an assault by a third party. It's a indictment of the law more than anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that a person's sexual history should be relevant to a criminal rape trial. Sure, dispute the testimony all you want. But a victim's sexual history is not testimony and it is not relevant to a case, and whether or not you trust juries to not take it seriously is irrelevant, they often (wrongly) do. Juries are not infallible and these cases don't normally make it to trial because prosecutors know that unless they have their hands on a Perfect Virginal Rape Victim, the juries ARE going to hear about her sexual history and they ARE going to judge her for it. Which is why it's introduced in the first place, to discredit a rape victim because she's a dirty slut. So great, nobody believes a person's sexual history should be relevant to a criminal rape trial but we have people claiming that moving to disallow it will result in millions upon millions of minority men being locked up just on the say-so of an alleged victim, and the utter crumbling of the rights of the accused. But again, this is just one way in which rape victims are discouraged to report and press charges against their attacker. Read this article to learn more about how cops interrogate victims and this one for some choice quotes about a rape victim's experience reporting her attack to police. copper rose petal fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
One more sample on how rape victims are grilled about their sexual history:quote:They inquired whether she wore a bra or underwear at the party. They quizzed her relentlessly about her oral sex technique, including how wide she opened her mouth. (Why? Because, as the New York Times reports, “oral sex would indicate the 'active participation' of the woman and therefore consent,” according to one of the player's lawyers.) They asked, the paper of record continues, “whether she had apologized to another midshipman with whom she’d had intercourse for ‘being a ho.’ ” All under the auspices of "cross-examining the witness" and "exercising their rights to confront the accused". This is bullshit. It is an attempt to humiliate a victim and sends the message that if you report a rape, no matter how serious, your life and sexual history will be put on trial and you will be utterly humiliated in front of your peers and you STILL may never get justice. Think twice before doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I don't buy the cult of the Founders either because it's not like they all agreed on everything. Just like I can disagree with Adams on one thing and not the other. But do you seriously think those unable to afford top caliber lawyers will fare better with even fewer privileges in their favor? Then why bring up the civil liberties horseshit? These negative rights were set up specifically to protect those at the top from rightfully getting their interests from getting outvoted. The actual solution is to the top-end lawyers and nuance arguments out of the equation. Make justice yet another thing that money can't buy. quote:If juries don't take this bit seriously, then it doesn't matter what you do with the court. If they do take it seriously, there's no reason to get rid of centuries of defendants' rights. Assuming we're still talking the current incredibly flawed system, maybe you don't allow the jury to hear such arguments? There are already piles of arguments (past bad acts, unrelated prejudicial evidence) that not allowed in court, make victim-blaming yet another one. If by the law it a person is allowed to have sex with people, then evidence of such is irrelevant to a rape case. The reason it works is we haven't found a way to re-educate people into being better human beings yet, so juries are full of just-world degenerates who think women should just be demure and save themselves for the right man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Nah, I was more worried about the process. If someone rapes someone then they should be arrested and charged in an open court of law, using the agreed upon adversarial process. The university tribunal, on the other hand, doesn't allow the accused to face the accuser, isn't allowed to see all the evidence, and sometimes isn't even told what he is accused of or by whom. Sure #notallmen have to worry about these types of things, but those that do have zero recourse and so they will post on the internet about it. The statistics are rather clear: a quarter of women will be sexually assaulted in their lives. I believe RAINN's statistics are that only 4% of them will be convicted in a court of law (while only 10% or so even go to trial...I've heard even lower statistics for conviction rates, but I don't remember where). The problem is sexual violence and the men who commit it, not some nebulous worries about the accused not getting protections, since they already have the protections of the full legal system behind them plus a culture that doubts everything a woman says about rape--plus accuses her of complicity in violence against her! And I would bet a bunch of the guys who legitimately believe that they didn't rape and are being falsely accused of it probably did rape a woman, since people literally don't know what rape is. The woman doesn't have to be screaming or fighting for it to be rape. If she says no, that's it. Don't try and pressure her, since hey guess what if she said no it means that she doesn't want to have sex with you even if you really really want it, and even if she's lying in bed with you and you thought she was going to have sex with you that night. There's a reason why the saying is no means no. It's because people think 'no' means 'no unless I keep pressuring you!!!' or 'no unless I really really want it and you were leading me on all night' or 'no unless I think you mean really mean yes.' You see men in bars plying women they want to sleep with with drinks, because it reduces inhibitions and reduces the chance she'll say no by reducing her ability to say no (even if this isn't what they think they're doing). That's hosed up, yet it's such a common part of our culture that few recognize it as rape. People who think that if you're messing around with someone that you're consenting to sex. People think that if you like sex and enjoy having it, you're consenting to sex every time. Men basically don't know what consent is. This is what we're fighting against. So forgive me for thinking that feminists don't have a conflict of interest when it comes to treating the accused fairly, but that everyone else has a conflict of interest when it comes to treating the accuser fairly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
I anticipate ten iterations of "OH SO BUYING SOMEONE A DRINK IS RAPE NOW" in the near future. Excitement! As for the cross-examination thing, I have no issues with that, but I do think this might be an edge case where, perhaps, you get a public defender or your own lawyer and you can't be your own lawyer. I don't know what the statistics are and I suspect they haven't been well tracked, but if significant numbers of rapes are going unreported in fear of having to get screamed at by your rapist in front of an audience, that is a problem. And I'll go ahead and anticipate "so you hate the Constitution and civil trials, good to know, heh" kinds of replies: I don't, not at all. But the justice system is not some received entity that we were handed down from Mt. Vernon through the agency of Lord Washington when Zwarte Piet carried it down and was immediately clapped in irons. Surely there is some modification that can be made, some alternate regulation, which would not leave this problem (if there is one - yes, yes, alarmism, whatever) unaddressed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Well, that all sounds good. But someone explain to me how any this will stop people like Elliot Rodger?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Well, that all sounds good. But someone explain to me how any this will stop people like Elliot Rodger? I think it's at least a neighboring branch though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Nessus posted:As for the cross-examination thing, I have no issues with that, but I do think this might be an edge case where, perhaps, you get a public defender or your own lawyer and you can't be your own lawyer. I don't know what the statistics are and I suspect they haven't been well tracked, but if significant numbers of rapes are going unreported in fear of having to get screamed at by your rapist in front of an audience, that is a problem. It's not getting screamed at that is the reason rapes go unreported. It's the fact that police don't believe rape victims and are not trained to interview them differently than they interview suspects. It's that rape victims fear no one will believe them if they admit that they kissed the guy after their date and then he pushed his way inside the house and raped her, because kissing is seen as an invitation to further sexual contact no matter how many times you say no after. It's that a judge can tell a woman who's been drugged and raped repeatedly by her own husband that she needed to "forgive her attacker" and then gave him zero jail time. It's that prosecutors know that a victim's sexual history will be brought up during trial and unless they have the Perfect Victim, they won't get a conviction because juries also exist in a culture where victim blaming is the norm, so they don't even bother bringing the case to trial. It's that rape victims commit suicide after being forced to hold up the underwear they were wearing at the time of the rape during a trial after he dragged her into a park and raped her. When will you guys realize that getting screamed at is possibly the least degrading thing that can happen to a rape victim, it's the more subtle death by a thousand cuts that is the real reason victims don't report?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:It's not getting screamed at that is the reason rapes go unreported. It's the fact that police don't believe rape victims and are not trained to interview them differently than they interview suspects. It's that rape victims fear no one will believe them if they admit that they kissed the guy after their date and then he pushed his way inside the house and raped her, because kissing is seen as an invitation to further sexual contact no matter how many times you say no after. It's that a judge can tell a woman who's been drugged and raped repeatedly by her own husband that she needed to "forgive her attacker" and then gave him zero jail time. It's that prosecutors know that a victim's sexual history will be brought up during trial and unless they have the Perfect Victim, they won't get a conviction because juries also exist in a culture where victim blaming is the norm, so they don't even bother bringing the case to trial. It's that rape victims commit suicide after being forced to hold up the underwear they were wearing at the time of the rape during a trial after he dragged her into a park and raped her. All that stuff is horrible though... even so, it seems as if we might could possibly address multiple things at once. I suppose this is to some extent the goal of all the "awareness raising," isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Well, that all sounds good. But someone explain to me how any this will stop people like Elliot Rodger? How do you stop hate crimes? http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov01/hatecrimes.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
well i learned one thing, if me and my girl go out and get hosed up then have sex we are raping each other, so thanks for that
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Because we're not as enlightened and wise as you. Why is this the standard response in D&D? What the gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Because we're not as enlightened and wise as you. Yeah that's the goal anyway. The way this relates back to the Elliot Rodger thing is that these pieces of culture we've been talking about, victim-blaming, rape trials, a woman's ability to consent; they are all part and parcel of a culture that devalues women as individuals capable of autonomy and rather places them in a role subservient to men. It's the same cultural pathology that says that a man deserves a woman because he is attractive, wealthy, and intelligent that says a woman should give him sex after he takes her to dinner. The same mentality that says a man can't be helped if a woman is wearing a tight dress or red lipstick says that she should fill a prescribed role in a man's life: hot blonde girlfriend sex object. So when we talk about misogyny as a cultural phenomenon that drives a man to see his life as a series of incidents where he is not having sex with a woman, we are also addressing the ways in which this is brought to its natural conclusion: that when violence against women is actually perpetrated, we still manage to blame the woman for the event or at the very least not believe her account of it. There's no way to address each individual problem in a vacuum without combating the social norms that contribute to the thinking that excuses these behaviors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:57
|
|