|
Am I allowed to go around punching people because I know they did bad things to me, though I can't prove them? Whether or not they did doesn't alter whether or not I should go to prison for doing that. You can't go around breaking the law because you know the other person deserved it. That isn't for you to decide.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:So you really think that it would be a good thing for women who have been raped to be jailed for talking about that rape, as long as their isn't evidence for it. So if your sister, mother, daughter, whatever, were raped by someone in the usual date-rape circumstance, without violence, and without evidence, just her word against his, she should be imprisoned if she talks about it publically. Society doesn't know the truth or falsehood of her claims and so, lacking magical certainty about the truth, should not allow her to slander anyone with an unfounded allegation. If a relative of mine were raped I would be livid, they would be livid, naturally, but that only reinforces the wisdom of not allowing people to make accusations without proof.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:No one should be sued for saying "I was raped", because that statement is not an accusation. So if a woman is raped in the very common situation where there is not enough evidence to prosecute, you are fine with her saying she is raped but if anyone asks her who she should say "Since I cannot prove it, I won't say his name." This is your desired state of affairs? wateroverfire posted:Society doesn't know the truth or falsehood of her claims and so, lacking magical certainty about the truth, should not allow her to slander anyone with an unfounded allegation. If a relative of mine were raped I would be livid, they would be livid, naturally, but that only reinforces the wisdom of not allowing people to make accusations without proof. I didn't ask what your emotional reaction would be. I asked if you think it would be proper for her to be jailed if she named her rapist. Is there any forgiveness in your world if she names him right after the event? Like, if came back to her room at college crying and says "X raped me" to her roommate is that okay, or is that enough to start the ball rolling on incarcerating her?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So if a woman is raped in the very common situation where there is not enough evidence to prosecute, you are fine with her saying she is raped but if anyone asks her who she should say "Since I cannot prove it, I won't say his name." This is your desired state of affairs? Yup, I'm good with that. Replace rape with any other serious accusation and the same should apply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So if a woman is raped in the very common situation where there is not enough evidence to prosecute, you are fine with her saying she is raped but if anyone asks her who she should say "Since I cannot prove it, I won't say his name." This is your desired state of affairs? It is a necessary state of affairs, yes. I believe you can make exceptions for conversations in confidence but publicly, yes, if you can't prove it, you shouldn't accuse people of criminal activity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So if a woman is raped in the very common situation where there is not enough evidence to prosecute, you are fine with her saying she is raped but if anyone asks her who she should say "Since I cannot prove it, I won't say his name." This is your desired state of affairs? Whoah now, I think cramming words in someone's mouth so forcibly might actually qualify as rape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is a necessary state of affairs, yes. To cut short autism theatre - I agree and this is my position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yup, I'm good with that. Replace rape with any other serious accusation and the same should apply. Okay. So if you were in a roommate situation, and one of your roommates stole something from you but you couldn't prove it, you would feel like you were not able to tell your other roommates he had done this, because you can't prove it? If someone drove drunk with you in the car, would you feel that you couldn't warn other people that they had done that, so they could avoid riding with them? OwlFancier posted:It is a necessary state of affairs, yes. And you understand that this means a vast number of women who have been raped will never be able to talk about it, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
So do you just not think that slander or libel should apply to rape specifically or that they shouldn't exist as laws at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Whoah now, I think cramming words in someone's mouth so forcibly might actually qualify as rape. This is the best refresh timing I've seen in a while hahaha 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:So do you just not think that slander or libel should apply to rape specifically or that they shouldn't exist as laws at all? I think slander and libel are fine, and they do exist, and I far, far, far, far prefer the US version of them to the UK version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. So if you were in a roommate situation, and one of your roommates stole something from you but you couldn't prove it, you would feel like you were not able to tell your other roommates he had done this, because you can't prove it? If it came out I'd accused someone of these things I'd damaged their reputation with an accusation that couldn't be proven then I'd expect I could land in court or jail, yeah, and weigh that accordingly, and maybe I'd have quiet words with my friends or maybe not. What I probably would not do is, for instance, make a video of me getting drunk with an actor and then getting into a car with him and having him drive me home to draw attention to the fact that this other person is accused by me of drunk driving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If it came out I'd accused someone of these things I'd damaged their reputation with an accusation that couldn't be proven then I'd expect I could land in court or jail, yeah, and weigh that accordingly, and maybe I'd have quiet words with my friends or maybe not. Are you in the UK or the US?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Are you in the UK or the US? Neither! The U.S. standard is dumb and the law should change, to head off another multi-page 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Neither! Okay. It's a little baffling to me that people think that this would be a good state of affairs, where people fear slander and libel so much they can't warn each other about people's bad actions that aren't provable in court. That level of government restriction on speech is pretty anathema to most of the way that US jurisprudence works, and there is zero chance of it changing any time soon, for which I'm very grateful. Also, I don't think you really know what autism is. vvvvvvvvv Owlfancier, are you in the US? Also, nobody has suggested vigilantism. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And you understand that this means a vast number of women who have been raped will never be able to talk about it, right? Partially. The legal system is not suited to the vindication of rape victims, but that does not mean that the entire subject of rape can be afforded extralegal status. People accused of rape have legal rights, they cannot be waived on the basis of an accusation alone. I would suggest that a practical compromise may be afforded in that the discussion of rape should not, in many cases, require specific accusations to be leveled at other people publicly. Psychological therapy is already subject to confidentiality, and there may be ways to extend that to allow people to discuss rape in ways which may assist their processing of their experiences. This can and should come with the caveat that things discussed under confidence cannot be publicised without consent, and that anyone who does so should be liable for legal action. There is also practical leeway in that you probably won't be prosecuted for warning you friends that some guy is a rapist, nor indeed will the person in question even hear of it, most likely. There is a functional difference between that and a public harassment campaign, which the law already, mostly, manages to tread a line between. While hardly a good situation, I don't see the encouragement of a witchhunt mentality to be a better one. You cannot justify vigilantism on the basis that you can't prove your case in court. I maintain that the best way to resolve the situation is to prevent it occuring in the first place. Sex is encouraged to be unclear, we expect people to engage in a complex series of signals and suggestions to determine whether sex will occur, we also encourage people to do all of this under the influence. As long as this attitude prevails, we will have people at odds over what they do and do not want in a sexual encounter. It will turn out for the worse, rape will happen. Change the attitude, because the law cannot help. This limitation is and will continue to cause nauseating amounts of suffering, but I don't believe you can change it by changing the law, because the law cannot control things that we are all committed to keeping out of sight and leaving no evidence of. Obdicut posted:Owlfancier, are you in the US? Also, nobody has suggesting vigilantism. I'm in the UK, hence UK libel laws. They have their problems in that they protect governments and organisations, but they also protect people too. The US laws are worse at both. And I'm afraid that doing things you would get sued or prosecuted criminally to avenge a crime you cannot prove is vigilantism. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Is this a good time to bring up OJ Simpson? Or George W. Bush? There are many circumstances where a legal indictment, much less a conviction, is a practical impossibility, yet public accusation of having committed actual crimes is entirely appropriate. There is an ethical line between calling someone out for having gotten away with breaking the law (and, more importantly, calling out the institutions and societal features that have made it difficult/impossible to prosecute them for it), and instituting a campaign of harassment against them. Sulkowicz may have crossed that line, but that does not mean that the ethical side of that line doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
I agree with most of OwlFancier's post, but:OwlFancier posted:you probably won't be prosecuted for warning you friends that some guy is a rapist If you were raped by a colleague, but couldn't prove it, and you feared that he would (most likely equally-unproveably) do it again, why would you limit your actions to only warning your friends? I'm not saying this is an argument for vigilante justice or a harassment campaign (or a re-enactment video), but wouldn't you feel motivated to do something more than just warning your friends?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. So your 'presumption' thing is just 'don't believe someone absent any evidence', and is not similar to the legal presumption of innocence. It is very much like the legal presumption of innocence, and practically any other legal presumption you can point to. Legal presumptions can be rebutted, and very routinely are. Hence the presumption of innocence is often restated as "innocent until proven guilty." The presumption is innocence, but sufficient evidence of guilt will overcome it. quote:Why would you assume that some were legitimate, if you presume innocence? You'd require actually seeing the evidence in order to make such a judgement, right? Come on dude. Presumption of innocence is not some blanket denial that crimes occur, it's applied on a more individual level. There are landlords who rip people off. The fact that such landlords are out there and the law of averages would suggest that some people at your "my landlord ripped me off" convention have legit complaints. But that is of no help in determining the legitimacy of any particular complaint. Or even in determining what percentage of the total complaints are legitimate, or the appropriate response to the situation. quote:Please stop talking about legal penalties when I've made it absolutely clear we are not talking about the legal system. It just confuses the issue. In addition, I'm not sure why you're focusing on penalties. Organizing to get a law passed, for example, that would fund a tenant's advocate is not a 'legal or social' penalty. Well seeing as the creation of a tenant advocate imposes no penalty of any kind on anybody, I don't see where presumptions about any individual's guilt or innocence even come in to it. quote:So what you're saying is that your presumption of innocence is exactly the same as anyone else's: you make up your mind after you look at the evidence. You realize this is the case for everyone, right? The problem is when people make the assumption on evidence as slim as "He was black" or "He's a frat boy". Basically, I would argue that in the latter cases you describe that presumption is so frail as to be practically nonexistent. Especially because in many people's minds a person being accused or arrested or charged is enough to convince them the person must have done something wrong. Unfortunately, the presumption often seems to be the weakest when the accusations are the most serious. quote:It doesn't matter if you disagree, it is just true that the legal system just adjudicates if there is enough evidence to convict you criminally. That's all it does. It does not make a determination that you are factually innocent. You may be factually guilty, but legally innocent. No, you can't be found factually innocent, but if you are found guilty that is a finding of fact. In a jury trial the jury are very explicitly tasked with determining the facts and nothing else. The jury determines every question of fact, and the judge determines every question of law. Neither may encroach upon the other's job. In a bench trial the judge plays both parts, but in either case a guilty verdict is a determination that you are factually guilty. The system can get that determination wrong, of course, but you are mistaken if you don't think a fact determination is at the heart of it. In the criminal justice system the presumption is that you are innocent absent sufficient evidence that you are factually guilty. Someone may be factually guilty and be found not guilty, but if there was insufficient evidence to convict then pretty much by definition there is insufficient evidence to know the person is guilty. quote:Again, this is generally what people do, except often one party will not give their story, or their story is unavailable for other reasons. People do tend to apply knowledge about generalizations to specific cases: Knowing that the police in NYC often stop and frisk people unconstitutionally, I believed the people in my class at school when they said that they'd been stopped and frisked and knew other people that had. There is no possible evidence available for that, nor would there be for the vast majority of stop-and-frisks. Well that's opening a whole can of worms regarding what is or isn't constitutional (a legal, not factual determination). But in any case, with regard to the fact issue, you did have evidence. quote:So, given that making a rape accusation opens up the woman to a huge amount of attack and calumny, social ostracization, and physical threats, knowing how extremely hard it is to prove or prosecute rape, people often do believe a woman saying that she was raped. Now, you can split a hair here and say that you can believe that the person has been raped without believing the accusation against the specific person, but that's a very fine hair to split. See, this is the thing - a firsthand report from a reliable witness is evidence that should be considered. I think if a woman says she was raped that is meaningful evidence that she was. I believed Emma Sulkowicz until I saw what she was writing to Nungesser in the days and weeks that followed the alleged rape. Even now I don't claim to know, I just find that her version of events has been cast in to doubt. quote:To jump from that to any sort of social action--harassing or otherwise taking action is completely different from simply putting credence in that person's claim. Do you understand? I do understand. As I have said a few times in this post already, a firsthand account is evidence. It's not infallible evidence, but in the absence of a reason to disbelieve it, it should be given some weight. Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:It is very much like the legal presumption of innocence, and practically any other legal presumption you can point to. Legal presumptions can be rebutted, and very routinely are. Hence the presumption of innocence is often restated as "innocent until proven guilty." The presumption is innocence, but sufficient evidence of guilt will overcome it. It's not, because you're discarding it upon presentation of evidence, rather than the formal structure of a trial. quote:Come on dude. Presumption of innocence is not some blanket denial that crimes occur, it's applied on a more individual level. There are landlords who rip people off. The fact that such landlords are out there and the law of averages would suggest that some people at your "my landlord ripped me off" convention have legit complaints. But that is of no help in determining the legitimacy of any particular complaint. Or even in determining what percentage of the total complaints are legitimate, or the appropriate response to the situation. That's my point, though, about the incoherence of your argument. Why do you assume anything about the group when you can't assume anything about any individual case? why assume any landlords rip anyone off? quote:Well seeing as the creation of a tenant advocate imposes no penalty of any kind on anybody, I don't see where presumptions about any individual's guilt or innocence even come in to it. You might You're assuming some percentage of the landlords are guilty without a single one of them being found guilty. In fact, you may be assuming them guilty of a behavior that isn't even illegal, and thus isn't even legally provable. quote:Basically, I would argue that in the latter cases you describe that presumption is so frail as to be practically nonexistent. Especially because in many people's minds a person being accused or arrested or charged is enough to convince them the person must have done something wrong. Unfortunately, the presumption often seems to be the weakest when the accusations are very serious. Where are you getting this from? What is your source of data? quote:No, you can't be found factually innocent, but if you are found guilty that is a finding of fact. In a jury trial the jury are very explicitly tasked with determining the facts and nothing else. The jury determines every question of fact, and the judge determines every question of law. Neither may encroach upon the other's job. In a bench trial the judge plays both parts, but in either case a guilty verdict is a determination that you are factually guilty. The system can get that determination wrong, of course, but you are mistaken if you don't think a fact determination is at the heart of it. A guilty verdict means that they think you are factually guilty, not that you are. You are mixing up what the jury does with what the legal system does. Do you at least agree that a finding of 'not guilty' doesn't mean the person is factually not guilty? quote:In the criminal justice system the presumption is that you are innocent absent sufficient evidence that you are factually guilty. Someone may be factually guilty and be found not guilty, but if there was insufficient evidence to convict then pretty much by definition there is insufficient evidence to know the person is guilty. Even a finding of guilt isn't enough to 'know' with 100% certainty. But there are certainly lots and lots of times where someone is found not guilty but can be judged by a rational person to likely to be guilty. quote:Well that's opening a whole can of worms regarding what is or isn't constitutional (a legal, not factual determination). But in any case, with regard to the fact issue, you did have evidence. I didn't. It's exactly the same as the landlord issue. There is no specific evidence. quote:See, this is the thing - a firsthand report from a reliable witness is evidence that should be considered. I think if a woman says she was raped that is meaningful evidence that she was. I believed Emma Sulkowicz until I saw what she was writing to Nungesser in the days and weeks that followed the alleged rape. Even now I don't claim to know, I just find that her version of events has been cast in to doubt. That's fine. You are proceeding like everyone does, by evaluating the evidence and making a judgement about it. quote:I do understand. As I have said a few times in this post already, a firsthand account is evidence. It's not infallible evidence, but in the absence of a reason to disbelieve it, it should be given some weight. Which, again, is entirely different from the way it works in the legal system, where he-said-she-said is not going to be prosecutable. Whether or not you know it, you are mishmashing together the legal concept of presumption of innocence with the idea that you should look at the evidence in front of you to determine if someone has done something. Courts have all sorts of rules about the admission of evidence and how it can be used. We, as ordinary people, don't. There is no similarity between the way the legal process operates to determine legal guilt and the way we normal people operate, and that is fine, because we can't impose legal sanctions. OwlFancier, again, I find the UK laws silly and extreme, so this is likely a societal difference. Your laws make it incredibly unlikely for abuses of power to be revealed and much easier for them to be hushed up. I feel the recent scandals of celebrity rapists in the UK, and the revelation that this had been going on for a long, long time, is an example of this. Even though people knew, they couldn't talk about it for fear of being sued. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Chicken Butt posted:I agree with most of OwlFancier's post, but: Personally? Possibly, not sure. I'm sure there are events which could drive me to do all sorts of horrible things I wouldn't normally conscience. Generally I try to accept things because that has, in my experience, proven more effective at removing emotional turmoil than going for bloody vengeance or getting angry about it. But in my (allegedly) level headed state at the moment, I would say that I probably shouldn't have a legal sanction to do those things. That I might feel driven, under stress, to do things that there are laws against for a good reason, does not make those things good to permit everyone to do. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Personally? Possibly, not sure. I'm sure there are events which could drive me to do all sorts of horrible things I wouldn't normally conscience. I'm not suggesting that a person in this position should do anything illegal. I'm just wondering what exactly they should do -- I don't actually have an answer, I just think it's an interesting question. So let's take personal emotion out of it: what if someone here on SA said that this had happened to them -- what would you advise them to do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
joeburz posted:You already know the answer to this. Here and in the rolling Stone thread you find most the people think that her inability to provide evidence of rape is ironclad proof that none exists and she should shut up now and forever. all rape accusations are just tools of the matriarchy. Nah, nobody's saying that, just that due process kinda breaks down when literally the only evidence you need is the eyewitness testimony of a single party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Also there's that huge raft of facebook messages between her and the accused, before and after.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Chicken Butt posted:I'm not suggesting that a person in this position should do anything illegal. I'm just wondering what exactly they should do -- I don't actually have an answer, I just think it's an interesting question. 1) Talk to H.R. 2) Talk to the police, an attourney, or both. Probably also 3) Stop posting about it on the internet and get therapy. E/N answer: Sever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Chicken Butt posted:I'm not suggesting that a person in this position should do anything illegal. I'm just wondering what exactly they should do -- I don't actually have an answer, I just think it's an interesting question. Hrrgh, I would personally prefer not to tell people exactly how they have to deal with stuff like that given that a lot of it is rather personal and down to the individual. I imagine my personal compulsion would be to probably avoid the rapist, obviously. There is likely little to be gained from associating with them. If I knew anybody who is likely to be in a vulnerable position around them, I would probably feel compelled to warn them not to let their guard down, I do that anyway about some of the creepers I know. I would advise anybody not to drink in mixed company, as a general and universal rule, though obviously many people feel it important to do so. Further to that I don't know really what else productive can be done. It may inspire you to do charitable work aimed at assisting victims of rape though you can do that anyway. Ultimately I would tend to view a singular occurance as something I can't really do very much about. I can't make it un-happen, murdering the rapist might be fun in a visceral way but would be a very bad idea ethically and legally. Accept that something horrible happened and endeavour to find positive experiences in your life, I guess. That's how I deal with more or less everything. But as I said, everyone reacts differently to stress, I don't really think there needs to be a concrete "how to deal with x" rulebook beyond "don't do y, z, even in response to x, because the law against that exists for a reason" Do what works best for you, the goal is to alleviate the suffering that stems from tragedy, everyone does that differently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's not, because you're discarding it upon presentation of evidence, rather than the formal structure of a trial. Formal? No. But in my own personal head-trial I weigh the facts based on the available evidence that I deem relevant and reliable. In the absence of relevant and reliable evidence to the contrary I will tend to presume innocence. quote:That's my point, though, about the incoherence of your argument. Why do you assume anything about the group when you can't assume anything about any individual case? why assume any landlords rip anyone off? You're assuming some percentage of the landlords are guilty without a single one of them being found guilty. In fact, you may be assuming them guilty of a behavior that isn't even illegal, and thus isn't even legally provable. This is inane. Ironically I used to work for a nonprofit that acted as a tenant advocate. I have personally been involved in cases where landlords were found to have wrongly taken or kept money belonging to tenants. It happens sometimes. Thus, in a big enough sample of complaints, some of them are most likely going to be true. I am not assuming any particular percentage of them are true, I'm just not starting with the blanket assumption that landlords never take money from tenants. That has no impact on the assessment of the facts of any individual case. quote:Where are you getting this from? What is your source of data? What I have personally witnessed from people, including potential jurors being questioned during jury selection and posters on this very board. quote:A guilty verdict means that they think you are factually guilty, not that you are. You are mixing up what the jury does with what the legal system does. Do you at least agree that a finding of 'not guilty' doesn't mean the person is factually not guilty? Even a finding of guilt isn't enough to 'know' with 100% certainty. But there are certainly lots and lots of times where someone is found not guilty but can be judged by a rational person to likely to be guilty Certainly. For example if I was on a jury and thought the defendant was most likely guilty, I would still vote not guilty if I thought there was a realistic possibility that I was wrong. Not guilty does not mean factually innocent, nor does guilty mean factually guilty in every case. quote:I didn't. It's exactly the same as the landlord issue. There is no specific evidence. No specific evidence? There weren't specific people giving you accounts of specific events? Did the whole school form a sort of homogenous greek chorus and start wailing about getting stopped and frisked? quote:That's fine. You are proceeding like everyone does, by evaluating the evidence and making a judgement about it. Which, again, is entirely different from the way it works in the legal system, where he-said-she-said is not going to be prosecutable It most definitely can be, although it is difficult. Much easier in the civil system where they have to pick a winner and 51% certainty is as good as 99%. quote:Whether or not you know it, you are mishmashing together the legal concept of presumption of innocence with the idea that you should look at the evidence in front of you to determine if someone has done something. Courts have all sorts of rules about the admission of evidence and how it can be used. We, as ordinary people, don't. There is no similarity between the way the legal process operates to determine legal guilt and the way we normal people operate, and that is fine, because we can't impose legal sanctions. Believe me, as a former defense attorney who tried cases in front of juries I know all about the rules. I think most of them are pretty good rules, although I don't apply them nearly as strictly in forming my personal opinions. That experience also means my personal process of evaluating guilt or innocence more closely resembles the legal system than most people's. Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Also there's that huge raft of facebook messages between her and the accused, before and after. Facebook messages=consent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Formal? No. But in my own personal head-trial I weigh the facts. So does everyone else. What you're complaining about is the standard of evidence that others use. quote:
It's kind of ironic you're using the shittiest kind of evidence while talking about fair adjudication, then. quote:Certainly. For example if I was on a jury and thought the defendant was most likely guilty, I would still vote not guilty if I thought there was a realistic possibility that I was wrong. Not guilty does not mean factually innocent, nor does guilty mean factually guilty in every case. I'm glad that you can admit you were wrong. Thank you. quote:No specific evidence? There weren't specific people giving you accounts of specific events? Did the whole school form a sort of homogenous greek chorus and start wailing about getting stopped and frisked? No, they didn't given any specific evidence. The teacher asked if people had been stopped and frisked, and about five guy said they had. quote:It most definitely can be, although it is difficult. Much easier in the civil system where they have to pick a winner and 51% certainty is as good as 99%. My point is that your conflation of the presumption of legal innocence and your presumption of innocence have almost nothing to do with each other. There's a legal presumption of innocence if the guy was caught red handed and on video shooting someone in the face, right up until the point he's convicted. quote:Believe me, as a former defense attorney who tried cases in front of juries I know all about the rules. I think most of them are pretty good rules, although I don't apply them nearly as strictly in forming my personal opinions. That experience also means my personal process of evaluating guilt or innocence more closely resembles the legal system than most people's. This makes your mingling of the legal system with the social system worse, not better. The reason why there are legal rules of evidence is because the law can impose legal sanctions, not because these rules are the objectively best way of weighing evidence and figuring out the likelihood of one person or the other being right. When you cite the civil system, that casts this into even deeper relief: there isn't even a single legal standard, either for guilt or for evidence. Do you also agree with the other posters that a woman who has been raped but cannot prove it should not talk about it in public, and if she does, face sanctions? For the others that think that way: Another problem with your stance that woman are allowed to say they are raped, but should be jailed if they name the person who did it, along with the fact that you'll be throwing lots of women who were raped in jail for the 'crime' of naming their rapist, is that this then tars all men, rather than the ones who actually rape. Most men are not rapists, sex crimes tend to be carried out serially by people with a pattern of behavior. By refusing to allow women to actually name their rapists but allowing them to talk generally about it, the guilt id sitributed across the entire population, making the issue harder to deal with and more confused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If I knew anybody who is likely to be in a vulnerable position around them, I would probably feel compelled to warn them not to let their guard down If this eventually encompasses enough people, it could be characterized as a harassment campaign -- indeed, it probably would be by the rapist if your warnings got back to him, since (it's my understanding) date-rapists usually feel themselves to be blameless. I bring this up because I believe this is precisely the situation that many women who are raped on college campuses find themselves in. They know they can't prove it, but they want justice, and they don't want the rapist to continue raping. OwlFancier posted:the goal is to alleviate the suffering that stems from tragedy, everyone does that differently. What I'm suggesting is that an even stronger desire in the victim might be to prevent the person from assaulting anyone else. I have no idea what legal means could possibly be available to do that, but if you look at it that way, you can sort of see where people like Sulkowicz are coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Facebook messages=consent. That's silly, of course Facebook messages don't show consent. They do point to the state of mind of the involved parties, however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Another problem with your stance that woman are allowed to say they are raped, but should be jailed if they name the person who did it, along with the fact that you'll be throwing lots of women who were raped in jail for the 'crime' of naming their rapist, is that this then tars all men, rather than the ones who actually rape. Most men are not rapists, sex crimes tend to be carried out serially by people with a pattern of behavior. By refusing to allow women to actually name their rapists but allowing them to talk generally about it, the guilt id sitributed across the entire population, making the issue harder to deal with and more confused. The issue that prison is not an effective solution to crime is separate from the basis of crime itself. I have no particular desire to imprison women for unsubstantiated rape accusations, but I do have a desire that people have legal recourse to others using public opinion to harass them without substantiation. That doesn't have to be prison, but it should exist. Your point about generalised guilt is interesting. I know that the prosecution of specific black people for crimes has been exceptionally effective at reducing the longstanding and highly suspect idea that black people are all criminals. Perceived specific guilt of course does not at all reinforce generalised perceived guilt. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So does everyone else. What you're complaining about is the standard of evidence that others use. Sure, with the caveat that I think some people's standards are so low as to be effectively nonexistent. quote:I'm glad that you can admit you were wrong. Thank you. I will readily admit that what you seem to think I said is not correct. quote:The reason why there are legal rules of evidence is because the law can impose legal sanctions, not because these rules are the objectively best way of weighing evidence and figuring out the likelihood of one person or the other being right. Best way I know of. Sure it gets the wrong answer sometimes, but so would every other conceivable system. It's really very good. And the statement that the rules exist because legal sanctions can be imposed is silly. The need for authentic and reliable evidence is greater when the stakes are higher, sure, but a system that can achieve that is a better system. quote:Do you also agree with the other posters that a woman who has been raped but cannot prove it should not talk about it in public, and if she does, face sanctions? A woman that has been raped? No, of course not. A woman who accuses someone of being a rapist with knowledge that the accusation is not true or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statements? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The issue that prison is not an effective solution to crime is separate from the basis of crime itself. I have no particular desire to imprison women for unsubstantiated rape accusations, but I do have a desire that people have legal recourse to others using public opinion to harass them without substantiation. That doesn't have to be prison, but it should exist. How would you handle a woman who refused to be silenced and continued to make the public accusation of rape? quote:Your point about generalised guilt is interesting. I know that the prosecution of specific black people for crimes has been exceptionally effective at reducing the longstanding and highly suspect idea that black people are all criminals. Perceived specific guilt of course does not at all reinforce generalised perceived guilt. There is not a longstanding and highly suspect idea that black people are all criminals, except among horrible bigots. Thermos H Christ posted:Sure, with the caveat that I think some people's standards are so low as to be effectively nonexistent. Of course. And some people's are so high as to never be met. This is just a truism, and it also is not something that will change. It is also something true in the legal system. quote:I will readily admit that what you seem to think I said is not correct. I said there was a difference between legal and factual guilt. You said there wasn't. You now say there was. However you want to spin that, I'm glad that you can admit that there is a difference between legal and factual guilt. quote:Best way I know of. Sure it gets the wrong answer sometimes, but so would every other conceivable system. It's really very good. And the statement that the rules exist because legal sanctions can be imposed is silly. The need for authentic and reliable evidence is greater when the stakes are higher, sure, but a system that can achieve that is a better system. It is a system that finds it very hard to handle crimes where there is no evidence other than he said she said, which is the majority of rape. You don't think that an actually large percentage of rapists get prosecuted, right, as opposed to, say, assaults? To be clear, I'm not suggesting any different legal standard for rape, just an acknowledgement that the system is terrible at handling it, and is not 'very good' at giving justice to women who have been raped. quote:A woman that has been raped? No, of course not. A woman who accuses someone of being a rapist with knowledge that the accusation is not true or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statements? Yes. How do you distinguish between the two, so that you can make the second one shut up without shutting up the first? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:How would you handle a woman who refused to be silenced and continued to make the public accusation of rape? Commensurately to the harm caused to the person on the receiving end of the accusations. Compelled retraction of the accusation, with fallbacks to (and possibly including) monetary compensation, counselling, community service, or prison if necessary. Same as you would any case? Obdicut posted:There is not a longstanding and highly suspect idea that black people are all criminals, except among horrible bigots. Then perhaps we can be comparably unconcerned about the idea that all men are rapists? Obdicut posted:How do you distinguish between the two, so that you can make the second one shut up without shutting up the first? You don't, so you protect the rights of the accused in both cases, unless the allegations can be proven true. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There is not a longstanding and highly suspect idea that black people are all criminals, except among horrible bigots. Objectively untrue: http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Coard/Perceptions%20and%20Preferences%20for%20Skin%20Color.pdf Basically black people themselves have internalized this notion. If you think non-blacks haven't, you're a fool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Commensurately to the harm caused to the person on the receiving end of the accusations. Compelled retraction of the accusation, with fallbacks to (and possibly including) monetary compensation, counselling, community service, or prison if necessary. Same as you would any case? So, in the end, you are okay with imprisoning a woman who has been raped who will not stop saying that she was and naming her rapist, if she can't prove it. That this is at a remove, and that you would also fine her first and make her go into counseling for wanting to talk about having been raped and name her rapist and make her do community service for having been raped and naming her rapist, does not change that you think that a system that will imprison women who have been raped for naming their rapist if they can't prove it is a good one. quote:Then perhaps we can be comparably unconcerned about the idea that all men are rapists? That isn't what I said. What I said was that the guilt gets distributed, not that there is an idea that all men are rapist. The comparison with racism towards blacks is off-point and inaccurate and will only lead to bad discussion. Try to just focus on the actual idea without trying to make poor analogies. quote:You don't, so you protect the rights of the accused in both cases, unless the allegations can be proven true. Which leads, inevitably, to the situation where women who have been raped are punished for naming their rapist. Correct? Radbot posted:Objectively untrue: http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Coard/Perceptions%20and%20Preferences%20for%20Skin%20Color.pdf If you put it in non absolute terms, like that paper, you say something true: Black people are unfairly and unjustly suspected of being criminals, though in this case it's because of racism, unlike the suspicion of men as rapists, which is due to the actions of a minority of men. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So, in the end, you are okay with imprisoning a woman who has been raped who will not stop saying that she was and naming her rapist, if she can't prove it. That this is at a remove, and that you would also fine her first and make her go into counseling for wanting to talk about having been raped and name her rapist and make her do community service for having been raped and naming her rapist, does not change that you think that a system that will imprison women who have been raped for naming their rapist if they can't prove it is a good one. 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. 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. I consider this outcome, abhorrent as it is, to be less abhorrent than allowing anyone to harass and slander others with impunity, because they claim to have been raped, because not only does this completely undermine a fundamental reason for the existence of law, it also robs the accusation of its gravity, by reducing it to a get out of jail free card for acts short of direct bodily harm. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
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. So I get raped. I tell the police. The DA sees fit to take it to trial. I take the stand and testify under oath about the rape. Various pieces of evidence are submitted. However, in the end, the jury is split and the defendant acquitted. Upon announcement of acquittal, my rapist turns to me. "Did I rape you?" my rapist asks, cameras looking on. My claim has failed the required legal burdens of proof. My only options are to sit silently and take it while my rapist addresses me or tell the truth and go to jail. Truly a land of utopian justice according t various SA posters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
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. That is how it works for every crime. It is not utopian, but it is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:13
|
|