|
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 Some people think you can gain something from false rape allegations. Which is why they falsely say they were raped. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Apr 8, 2015 |
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:True, i shouldn't have said it absolutely. i qualified it every other time. You can accuse people you know. For reasons such as rewriting a regretful sexual encounter as nonconsensual, to cover something up, or who knows why. But here's the thing. If you actually try and go to the police and get someone convicted, you do have a lot to lose. But you have way less to lose if you just make a general accusation in public (or private). The problem then comes from people who think that a rape accusation (be it an accusation made to the police or just made public) that didn't result in a conviction is an injustice. If you combine those two things, you end up with harassment / mob justice / etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I can't tell if this is a joke. There's a lot to gain from false rape accusations. For example, it's more socially (and in some places, legally) acceptable to get an abortion if you say you were raped, and in many cases it's also a viable damage mitigation strategy for women who are caught cheating on their SOs, especially if they are financially dependent on said SO. I think you meant to quote the person I quoted, since I agree that there's some gain to be had. But yeah. There is a possible gain from falsely alleging a rape. If the argument is that there are few false rape allegations because the negatives of making a rape allegation (all the judgment and negative attention) outweight the positives, then it follows that removing those negatives (by being more willing to believe in the veracity of accusations) will make it easier for people to make false rape allegations, which'll result in more false rape allegations. Which, hey... people can make a legitimate argument that it's the only way of prosecuting more rapists and argue why that's worth it. They might even convince me. What doesn't convince me is 'there are no negative consequences to fully believing any rape accusation because the rate of false accusations is so low that you'll be right most of the time'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What are the negative consequences from a) automatically disbelieving any rape accusation, b) automatically disbelieving most rape accusations, c) only believing rape accusations that fit with "common sense", and d) becoming completely apathetic to any accusations of rape? Surely we should compare these instead of chasing after something that is purely positive in outcomes. The right answer is e) investigate rape claims. Which, when it comes down to it, most people agree with. The disagreement is really 'what do you do when the results of the investigation don't back the person's story'. Or, in other words, to what extent do you owe an accusation some belief? I think it's perfectly understandable to believe in a story less, and start considering the possibility that the story is made up, if the facts don't line up. You don't owe your allegiance to the claim. The laughable thing about the UVa case is that there are still people saying 'well the details of the Rolling Stone story are all false but it's still possible that she was raped'. Well, yes, it is still possible. But at this point you don't really owe it to her (or anyone) to believe that she was raped. It's ok. It's crossed the line of 'believe the story'. It's ok to think she wasn't raped even if maybe she was. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not what I'm talking about. I'm asking what the overall position should be when investigating and when hearing about such cases. Should we be automatically skeptical of all cases? Should we be automatically skeptical of the majority of cases? Should we be skeptical of those cases which don't fit our picture of what the crime should look like? Should we be apathetic of all cases? You should start by believing the story but looking for corroboration of it, and allow for the possibility of skepticism if the pieces don't line up. quote:Because c) is what people have generally been endorsing- that we should disbelieve anything that doesn't fit our preconceptions of what a "real rape" looks like. So, using for example the idea that women who have been having an affair or are extramaritally pregnant have something to gain from a false accusation, should we investigate any accusation they make from the perspective that they're probably lying? I don't think this would be the usual sequence of events. What would happen is that you start investigating the claim, and in the process of investigating the claim, you find out that the woman was having an affair, or was pregnant. You didn't start from the perspective that they were lying, you just found possible reasons why they would lie. Anyway, an affair or a pregnancy aren't really alarming, unless every other part of the story doesn't check out. Acknowledging that there are potential reasons in specific cases why a woman would lie doesn't mean that the poison of such a mysoginist idea is going to spread and taint your entire analysis of the situation, y'know. You guys seem worried that any skepticism of a story will become total skepticism. Like the mere thought itself is dangerous or something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so who are these people who refuse to accept skepticism no matter what? I don't think that they exist. I think you made them up. People who refuse to accept skepticism (at least as a matter of public position) are people whose responses to the development of the UVa story (or any other story of this kind) consist of finding ways in which the story (or the approach) can still be rationalized as true. So, making statements such as: - "It doesn't matter if there are inconsistencies in the story; rape victims' stories often have inconsistencies." - "It doesn't matter if there are inconsistencies in the story; only 2-5% of rape accusations are false, so the odds are that this is true." - "It looks like none of the details about the story can be corroborated, but I still believe *something* happened to her." Or, when the story can't be rationalized as true, you try to paint everything in terms that don't make your side look bad, or that just make other people look bad: - "Oh great, now people will be mean to rape victims because they won't believe their stories. God, people are such dicks. Unlike me of course." - "MRAs will now think their wrong beliefs are true, darn it." - "God, Erdery is such a bad journalist. If she were a good journalist, my side would have won this one." There's plenty of posts like that in the old UVa thread. It's entirely possible that all these people were privately questioning the story. But at least publicly, their approach was just to close ranks and defend 'their side' (the 'pro-woman' side or however you want to moralistically define it as). Usually, when you make it clear that you have a 'side' that you will defend no matter what happens, it just makes you look less credible. And if you are never able to look at anything as a failure of your "side" and your approach to things, then that also makes you look less credible. Like, for instance, this article in which the author more or less says the CJR report is a win for her side (the side of 'good', I guess) and a defeat for the 'rape deniers' because Jackie didn't lie about it because she was a 'woman scorned', but because she wanted sympathy. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
katlington posted:Sorry if I missed it, but, do these new standards apply to other accusations of criminal behaviour? If a person is charged with a crime but found innocent do the police and prosecutors involved face consequences for their false accusations? When you are charged with a crime and found not guilty, usually 1) there was a crime (or at least an event that may or may not have been criminal in nature) and 2) the police and prosecutors believed you were responsible for it. When people talk about 'false rape accusations', they are usually talking about cases where there was no rape, and the accuser knows there was no rape. If prosecutors try to send someone to prison for a crime that they knew didn't even happen, there would probably be consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 10:59
|
|