|
Valatar posted:Because some people will heap the criticism without evidence that the accusation is false. If an accuser gets caught in clear perjury and gets charged with perjury, fine. But the court of the internet is notoriously bad at picking the innocent from the guilty, attacking the accuser is not something I'd ever condone. Better that all of the false accusers get off than even one honest accuser get crucified by the internet. I'd put "being raped and then called a liar by thousands" above "being wrongly convicted of rape" on the bad stuff chart, it's pretty much the worst of both rolled into one.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
They say rapesight is 20/20, but personally I'd rather be raped than roll the dice with trying to prove my innocence and/or fix my reputation. So I will Agree with the op. *hits red button in front of me* *chair swivels around*
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This seems like extremely flawed thinking. Murdering people would put you in jail, no one likes jail, hence it's unlikely people get murdered. Also people don't get addicted to destructive drugs, because what rational actor would do that? It is unlikely that people get murdered. It's rare. People get addicted to drugs because they're addictive and because their lives suck. Also, in the case of murder it is often in a fit of passion, so there is a reason in that moment, or the person gains in some way from it. It is not very likely to gain anything from a false rape accusation--nothing that a normal person would want--and it isn't something done in the moment, but requires a sustained, long narrative. But indeed, murder is quite rare, in large part due to the negative consequences. You seem to have thought I said it doesn't happen at all, which was weird of you. quote:I also don't understand why it matters that false accusation is rare - transgender people are EXTREMELY rare. Should I not care about their rights? As has already been explained, one of the main barriers to people actually accusing their rapists is fear of not being believed--fear of being accused of making a false accusation. The transgender comparison has no flip side to it, no other party. It is not a good analogy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is unlikely that people get murdered. It's rare. Not that rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Wow, gee, somehow I assumed we were talking about the society we're currently in. I'm so silly! Yes, in times when there aren't negative repercussions for murder, it's more frequent, which is my point. So, thanks! Edit: Also you messed up and included a link about serial killers in there, which are definitely very rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Wow, gee, somehow I assumed we were talking about the society we're currently in. I'm so silly! So victims of serial killers don't count?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So victims of serial killers don't count?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:It's not irrelevant when attacks aren't being reported because disproportionate fears of false accusations suppress reporting - being told your accusation is false is not uncommon. It's not the only reason attacks go unreported, but it's a factor. My own (very small sample with no guarantee of being statistically representative) talks with survivors didn't result in any mentions of fear of being accused of false accusation as their reason behind not reporting. In my case and many of the others it was more that the person did not want to expose themselves In a moment of extreme vulnerability to some strangers, even well-meaning ones. [Edit: Ironically, when I did finally get around to telling my family, it came back to me fairly quickly that one relative was telling people that I was making it up for attention. Fortunately I already hated that relative, so it really didn't bother me at the time. But yeah, even though not being believed wasn't one of my concerns, I wound up not being believed. Thankfully the people who mattered did believe me. ] Valatar fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Although I did listen to Serial, and the killer in Serial might not have been the killer, so I guess while we're obfuscating the issue with nonsense we should discuss that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So victims of serial killers don't count? They count. They're uncommon. Remember what we're talking about is if something is rare or not, not if it 'counts'. Valatar posted:My own (very small sample with no guarantee of being statistically representative) talks with survivors didn't result in any mentions of fear of being accused of false accusation as their reason behind not reporting. In my case and many of the others it was more that the person did not want to expose themselves In a moment of extreme vulnerability to some strangers, even well-meaning ones. These are not opposed; they are supportive of each other. Victims are told, if they report it, that if it goes to trial that they will be denigrated, that they will be called liars. That is an obvious outcome of a rape trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Valatar posted:My own (very small sample with no guarantee of being statistically representative) talks with survivors didn't result in any mentions of fear of being accused of false accusation as their reason behind not reporting. In my case and many of the others it was more that the person did not want to expose themselves In a moment of extreme vulnerability to some strangers, even well-meaning ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Although I did listen to Serial, and the killer in Serial might not have been the killer, so I guess while we're obfuscating the issue with nonsense we should discuss that. Is Serial any good? I've been thinking about giving it a go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Is Serial any good? I've been thinking about giving it a go. Edit: The Jinx
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
I had a very negative opinion on rape, but that was mostly as the rapee, I've heard it's actually quite a better time as the rapist, so I've decided to hold off on judging rape so harshly until I've gotten the full picture
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Valatar posted:Because some people will heap the criticism without evidence that the accusation is false. If an accuser gets caught in clear perjury and gets charged with perjury, fine. But the court of the internet is notoriously bad at picking the innocent from the guilty, attacking the accuser is not something I'd ever condone. Better that all of the false accusers get off than even one honest accuser get crucified by the internet. I'd put "being raped and then called a liar by thousands" above "being wrongly convicted of rape" on the bad stuff chart, it's pretty much the worst of both rolled into one. So is this thread about how the justice system sometimes gets it wrong or about how people are mean to each other on the internet? You seem really worried about internet shaming. To paraphrase Tyler, the Creator "don't worry about internet shaming"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:I had a very negative opinion on rape, but that was mostly as the rapee, I've heard it's actually quite a better time as the rapist, so I've decided to hold off on judging rape so harshly until I've gotten the full picture As a raper and a rapee, I can confirm that it is much better to rape than to be raped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
You could sum up your entire post with "Being falsely accused of anything is bad", obviously being falsely accused of rape sucks maybe not as much as being accused of murder but you wouldn't probably be able to find anyone who was falsely accused of something to be particular happy about that false accusation. But the people dismissing the issue because of statistical unlikeliness probably wouldn't be saying the same thing about deaths due to rare conditions in America, so there you go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:You could sum up your entire post with "Being falsely accused of anything is bad", obviously being falsely accused of rape sucks maybe not as much as being accused of murder but you wouldn't probably be able to find anyone who was falsely accused of something to be particular happy about that false accusation. Again, the problem is that you have two opposed parties: The person saying she was raped, and the person being accused of rape. Deaths due to rare conditions is not the same. I am also fine with saying we should pay far more attention to and spend far more resources on things that kill people a lot vs. rare conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, the problem is that you have two opposed parties: The person saying she was raped, and the person being accused of rape. Deaths due to rare conditions is not the same. I am also fine with saying we should pay far more attention to and spend far more resources on things that kill people a lot vs. rare conditions. That isn't a morally justifiable position when we have more than enough resources to help everyone, not just people who were raped and not just people with common disorders. You can address multiple things at a time, and the lack of robustness in our justice system is what leads to false accusations being so hard disprove. Juries are poo poo, and shouldn't handle sensitive cases like rape. This has all been said before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:As a raper and a rapee, I can confirm that it is much better to rape than to be raped. As an orthodox utilitarian, I must ask whether you found the pleasure gained from raping greater than the 'negative pleasure' associated with being raped.?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:That isn't a morally justifiable position when we have more than enough resources to help everyone, not just people who were raped and not just people with common disorders. It's perfectly morally justifiable when we don't have enough resources, which is the state in the actual (political) world we live in. Obviously I think that we should take care of rare diseases as well. And again, the problem I'm pointing out is that if you believe someone was falsely accused, then you disbelieve the person saying they were raped. it is not comparable to the rare disease thing: this is a bad analogy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's perfectly morally justifiable when we don't have enough resources, which is the state in the actual (political) world we live in. Obviously I think that we should take care of rare diseases as well. And again, the problem I'm pointing out is that if you believe someone was falsely accused, then you disbelieve the person saying they were raped. it is not comparable to the rare disease thing: this is a bad analogy. It's innocent until proven guilty. While it's a hard pill to swallow we can't let our justice system work based on the idea that the accuser is 100% telling the truth, because that's why cops are basically allowed to get away with what ever they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:It's innocent until proven guilty. While it's a hard pill to swallow we can't let our justice system work based on the idea that the accuser is 100% telling the truth, because that's why cops are basically allowed to get away with what ever they want. I'm not suggesting we let our justice system work based on the idea that the accuser is 100% telling the truth, and I have on idea why you thought I was. Nothing I've said can possibly be construed that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
In accusations of rape, the benefit of the doubt does and should go to the accused
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:In accusations of rape, the benefit of the doubt does and should go to the accused What about in accusations of making a false charge of rape? I think one of the major problems here is the conflation of the legal with the social. In accusations of rape, a huge benefit of the doubt does go to the accused. The accusation has to pass through our adversarial criminal process, and the necessary result of this is that rape, which is often he-said-she-said, is very difficult to prosecute. However, there is no need, if my friend Tamara tells me that she was raped, for me to extend any benefit of the doubt to her rapist, any more than if she told me she'd been mugged or someone had spilled her coffee. I am not the legal system. Innocent until proven guilty is a mechanism to limit legal remedies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What about in accusations of making a false charge of rape? In the social accusations of rape there's no rule of who should get the benefit of the doubt. Obviously you have no reason to doubt your friend saying that she was raped just like I have no reason to doubt my friend Mark who says he didn't rape her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:In the social accusations of rape there's no rule of who should get the benefit of the doubt. Obviously you have no reason to doubt your friend saying that she was raped just like I have no reason to doubt my friend Mark who says he didn't rape her. Yes, thank you for agreeing that in accusations of rape, the benefit of the doubt shouldn't always go to the accused. The only way this is ever true is in the specific case that, if the person is on trial, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were the rapist. Their testimony, however, should not be privileged above their accuser.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, thank you for agreeing that in accusations of rape, the benefit of the doubt shouldn't always go to the accused. I was referring to the legal prosecution of rape. quote:The only way this is ever true is in the specific case that, if the person is on trial, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were the rapist. This specific case is literally every single court trial of rape
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:I was referring to the legal prosecution of rape. Yes. That's why I pointed out it's really important to distinguish between an accusation of rape and a legal prosecution of rape, which are not the same thing. And again, even then, you should not give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, except in so far as the process already does. As in, if it's he-said-she-said and on one hand you have a guy with a history of contempt for women who jokes about rape, and on the other hand an ordinary woman, it's completely fine and just to give her more credibility than him when she says he raped her. quote:This specific case is literally every single court trial of rape And a minority of cases of rape get prosecuted. A minority of accusations get prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:In the social accusations of rape there's no rule of who should get the benefit of the doubt. Obviously you have no reason to doubt your friend saying that she was raped just like I have no reason to doubt my friend Mark who says he didn't rape her. Context matters a lot, too. If your friend tells you she was raped you have no reason to doubt her. If your friend tells you he didn't do it you have no reason to doubt him. If the alleged attacker is some dude you don't know you probably don't want to fly off the handle just because you believe your friend. If you read a clickbait article on jezebel about how a card game designer totally raped someone you probably want to reserve judgement because you really have no idea what happened or who is credible. If you're charged with investigating an account of rape you probably want to reserve judgement and be respectful to everyone involved because not doing that is almost guaranteed to gently caress up someone's life no matter how the investigation turns out. And etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And a minority of cases of rape get prosecuted. A minority of accusations get prosecuted. A large percentage of cases are closed for lack of evidence or because the complainant declines to cooperate, though. Like, what are we to make of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:A large percentage of cases are closed for lack of evidence or because the complainant declines to cooperate, though. Like, what are we to make of that. The orthodox answer is that, given that rape is he-said-she-said, that making accusations of rape opens up women to lots of attack and abuse, and that you gain nothing by it, that these represent mostly actual rapes where there isn't enough evidence, or the woman doesn't want to go through the gruelling trial and being called a liar and having her sexual history used against her. Why, what do you make of it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The orthodox answer is that, given that rape is he-said-she-said, that making accusations of rape opens up women to lots of attack and abuse, and that you gain nothing by it, that these represent mostly actual rapes where there isn't enough evidence, or the woman doesn't want to go through the gruelling trial and being called a liar and having her sexual history used against her. I dunno. Probably many represent cases where a rape occurred but there isn't enough evidence to prosecute someone, as you said. Some may represent cases where the victim doesn't want to go through the trial of cooperating for whatever reason. Some may represent cases where the facts are muddy - both parties were drunk, there were mixed signals, remorse after the fact, something like that - and on consideration the accuser decides to drop it. I'd be interested to know why the orthodox answer is orthodox.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not suggesting we let our justice system work based on the idea that the accuser is 100% telling the truth, and I have on idea why you thought I was. Nothing I've said can possibly be construed that way. Obdicut posted:It's perfectly morally justifiable when we don't have enough resources, which is the state in the actual (political) world we live in. Obviously I think that we should take care of rare diseases as well. And again, the problem I'm pointing out is that if you believe someone was falsely accused, then you disbelieve the person saying they were raped. it is not comparable to the rare disease thing: this is a bad analogy. All trials come from an accusation, the point of the trial is proving that the accusation is not false. The way rape cases are handled these days is fine in the sense that a person needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they were raped but it's tricky because in a lot of rape cases the person who has been violated isn't always emotionally stable, which is understandable considering they were raped. The trial by a jury of peers doesn't help matters, as juries are very influenced by societal pressure which can make certain accusations almost always carry a sentence even with out a robust prosecution but also swing the way of dismissing a case because of societal pressure because the person accused of the crime is considered beyond reproach in the case of the police. The internet outrage machine has made these effects 10 times worse as high stakes cases almost always spread every were and people immediately jump to conclusions causing more people than just the accused/accuse to get hurt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The orthodox answer is that, given that rape is he-said-she-said, that making accusations of rape opens up women to lots of attack and abuse, and that you gain nothing by it, that these represent mostly actual rapes where there isn't enough evidence, or the woman doesn't want to go through the gruelling trial and being called a liar and having her sexual history used against her. How do you conclude that in a majority of these undecided cases the rape actually occured? What you outlined is true and does certainly happen, but how can we accurately tell at what rate this happens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I dunno. Probably many represent cases where a rape occurred but there isn't enough evidence to prosecute someone, as you said. Some may represent cases where the victim doesn't want to go through the trial of cooperating for whatever reason. Some may represent cases where the facts are muddy - both parties were drunk, there were mixed signals, remorse after the fact, something like that - and on consideration the accuser decides to drop it. I'd be interested to know why the orthodox answer is orthodox. Well, I'd invite you to read the large amount of research done on it. you can use Google Scholar to do this. Scrub-Niggurath posted:How do you conclude that in a majority of these undecided cases the rape actually occured? What you outlined is true and does certainly happen, but how can we accurately tell at what rate this happens? By doing social research. Again, google scholar will help here if you want. However, we don't have to take rape as a special pleading case: we know that in general, false accusations of crime are low, and tend to only be high if there is some particular reason for it--insurance fraud, for example. I'm sorry, but aside from 'read the papers on the subject', I've already outlined the reasons why: There is a huge penalty for any woman accusing a man of rape, the accusation does not, in an ordinary case, benefit the woman in any way. It is basically the same reasons why there aren't a significant number of false claims of attempted murder. Venom Snake posted:All trials come from an accusation, the point of the trial is proving that the accusation is not false. The way rape cases are handled these days is fine in the sense that a person needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they were raped but it's tricky because in a lot of rape cases the person who has been violated isn't always emotionally stable, which is understandable considering they were raped. What did that have to do with me saying that if you believe someone was falsely accused, then you disbelieve the person saying they were raped, and how do you believe that is equivalent to me saying that you should always believe the accuser 100%? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:All trials come from an accusation, the point of the trial is proving that the accusation is not false. The way rape cases are handled these days is fine in the sense that a person needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they were raped but it's tricky because in a lot of rape cases the person who has been violated isn't always emotionally stable, which is understandable considering they were raped. Alternately the incident was between two college students and Title X virtually guarantees the accused is going to get screwed with minimal process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Well, I'd invite you to read the large amount of research done on it. you can use Google Scholar to do this. Or we could use this forum for discussing things to discuss it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Gotta love the "I'm right, look it up" old school D&D defense
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Gotta love the "I'm right, look it up" old school D&D defense On any complex subject like this, the only real answer is 'look it up'. How could it be otherwise? wateroverfire posted:Or we could use this forum for discussing things to discuss it! I'm sorry, I thought you asked why the orthodox answer is orthodox. The orthodox answer is orthodox because that's what criminologists have concluded as the orthodox view, and in order to learn why, you need to actually study criminology. Research and discussion are very different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:46
|
|