|
Obviously what we're doing now all over the world isn't working at all, rape victims find their accusations falling on deaf ears and rapists find themselves only marginally inconvenienced the vast majority of the time. I think pretty much everyone at this point agrees we can't go on like this, but when I sit down and try to come up with a solution that doesn't drag the rights of the accused through the mud, I come up totally empty handed, and no one I actually know seems to have any ideas either. So what are your thoughts?
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:Obviously what we're doing now all over the world isn't working at all, rape victims find their accusations falling on deaf ears and rapists find themselves only marginally inconvenienced the vast majority of the time. I think pretty much everyone at this point agrees we can't go on like this, but when I sit down and try to come up with a solution that doesn't drag the rights of the accused through the mud, I come up totally empty handed, and no one I actually know seems to have any ideas either. So what are your thoughts? Pass law defining all sex as rape. Prosecute all parties. Take the accuser more seriously, but accused has the right to a freebie if allegations turn out to be false. Mandatory go-pros to be used during all sexual encounters. The consent checklist from that Chapelle skit. Kill all men? IDK. Rape is hard crime to prosecute and hard to even investigate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
There's no real legal trickery you can implement that wouldn't undermine the entire concept of a fair trail. It's all 100% character assessment on some people that promiscuous woman = she had it coming or whatever. That's the only real remaining hurdle at this point. Absent a total surveillance society, you're never stopping all crime ever, which I'm more than happy to implement, for you, just so long as I'm the one doing the surveillance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:There's no real legal trickery you can implement that wouldn't undermine the entire concept of a fair trail. It's all 100% character assessment on some people that promiscuous woman = she had it coming or whatever. That's the only real remaining hurdle at this point. Absent a total surveillance society, you're never stopping all crime ever, which I'm more than happy to implement, for you, just so long as I'm the one doing the surveillance. When do we start?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
I think people only do rape because we make it taboo and therefore glorify it. For the sake of every potential victim, it should be legal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
I don't think being a defendant in a rape trial is a marginal inconvenience OP
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:When do we start?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Telephones posted:I think people only do rape because we make it taboo and therefore glorify it. For the sake of every potential victim, it should be legal. On private property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
rudatron posted:PM me your dick. If it's inside another person, I'm also gonna need their face. Then just keep doing that, I guess. I call it the P2P police state, it's very disruptive. Bottom up policing, if you catch my drift 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
The existing laws concerning rape could be adequate, it's rape culture that needs to change. Slowly, I think it is; whereas rape was once seen as an unavoidable part of courtship, now at least we're trashing the legacies of celebrities widely known to be serial rapists. Baby steps! When even a majority of men understand the nature of consent, that will be a landmark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Prohibition would solve 99% of rape/rape culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
As is generally the case these days, the problems are not anything intrinsic to or even emergent from our legal system. They're wholly cultural/societal/whatever you want to call it. Which makes it a hell of a lot harder to fix. Educating people on what rape is and what is and is not consent has been shown to reduce rape rates when it's been tried, so we should probably go with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
The Larch posted:As is generally the case these days, the problems are not anything intrinsic to or even emergent from our legal system. They're wholly cultural/societal/whatever you want to call it. Which makes it a hell of a lot harder to fix. Educating people on what rape is and what is and is not consent has been shown to reduce rape rates when it's been tried, so we should probably go with that. Yeah all joking aside, basically this. And not only what rape and consent are, but also what makes it wrong and teach empathy. A thing that is common to many rapists and especially child rapists is their inability to empathize with victims. They don't see what's wrong, they give themselves the excuse that they were educating their victim, or that the victim liked it, or that it wasn't so bad. People are very good at deluding themselves. That's why culture has got to change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I think that "innocent until proven guilty" will always be a burden in court, just like proving assault or robbery when there are no witnesses. In that instance, I think it's best to focus on recovery of the victim. Also, there is s huge backlog of unprocessed rape kits in this country. Adding resources to go through those would be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:teach empathy. This is one of the most important things we need to get through the thick skulls of the American people (apologies if you're talking about another country). But I see heavy resistance from the entrenched anti-humanity groups in the South & Midwest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
One day everything we perceive will be uploaded to a secret government cloud were it will be combed over by hundreds of thousands of grey bureaucrats who dole out charges appropriately. This is assuming humans even still have sex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Prohibition would solve 99% of rape/rape culture. i disagree
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Prohibition would solve 99% of rape/rape culture. "I didn't know sexually assaulting children was a crime! But obviously that 7 year old tempted that priest and knew what he was doing" - US Catholic Church. A preview of what prohibition would look like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
has anyone considered making rape legal on Private Property?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:has anyone considered making rape legal on Private Property? Well, Libertarians, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
I think clearly way needs to be found to allow the priests to keep raping children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
I mean who will want to be a priest if you can't rape children?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:has anyone considered making rape legal on Private Property? blowfish posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
All property is theft, and therefore rape on public property is the only morally acceptable rape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Prohibition would solve 99% of rape/rape culture. I mean it would certainly solve the Blackhawk's resident rapist's issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Prohibition would solve 99% of rape/rape culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
How in gently caress's name would prohibition solve even the majority of the problem of rape and rape culture?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
I'm not an expert PT6A but I do believe that rape is in fact prohibited already in pretty much all of the world
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Millennials and post-millennials are so hosed up on gender politics and proving that their snowflake-kin is superior to all other non unique-kin that nobody will have sex any more, and all rape can be reclassified is another one of those goddamned weirdo things that kids in fox costumes do, problem solved
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Millennials and post-millennials are so hosed up on gender politics and proving that their snowflake-kin is superior to all other non unique-kin that nobody will have sex any more, and all rape can be reclassified is another one of those goddamned weirdo things that kids in fox costumes do, problem solved Ok, whatever you say, grandpa. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Millennials and post-millennials are so hosed up on gender politics and proving that their snowflake-kin is superior to all other non unique-kin that nobody will have sex any more, and all rape can be reclassified is another one of those goddamned weirdo things that kids in fox costumes do, problem solved hosed up if true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Mandate that everyone has to smoke weed. Then they'll either be DTF willingly, or so couch-locked that they won't bother raping people. It's as valid as any other option - maybe more so!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Other than targeting cultural issues I think there could be more proactive efforts to train first responders and to just generally to improve the capacity and training for people who provide support to survivors. There should also be a stringent effort to root out any attempts for universities, businesses, churches, etc. to investigate and handle sexual assault efforts on their own. Sexual assault is a criminal matter and ought to be handled in a court of law. When universities or other organizations try to deal with this stuff themselves they tend to either destroy the due process rights of the accused or they sweep the problem under the rug and the survivor ends up a semester later taking classes with the person that assaulted them. Who What Now posted:Ok, whatever you say, grandpa. That reads to me more like Eliot Rogers than Grampa Simpson. Or maybe just a young Man Going His Own Way. "gently caress those sexhavers, I bet it isn't even very much fun with all this feminism crap I keep reading about."
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There should also be a stringent effort to root out any attempts for universities, businesses, churches, etc. to investigate and handle sexual assault efforts on their own. Sexual assault is a criminal matter and ought to be handled in a court of law. When universities or other organizations try to deal with this stuff themselves they tend to either destroy the due process rights of the accused or they sweep the problem under the rug and the survivor ends up a semester later taking classes with the person that assaulted them. I've always found it super bizarre that a university would have any involvement at all in a rape case. I lived with a girl who was raped and every part of the university's involvement was deeply surreal to both of us. Spoilers: guy's parents got him the best senior barrister money could buy and my friend's public prosecutors got crushed. eat the rich Cymbal Monkey fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
What about killing all straight men, then just like repopulation though IVF. Seems reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
rudatron posted:There's no real legal trickery you can implement that wouldn't undermine the entire concept of a fair trail. It's all 100% character assessment on some people that promiscuous woman = she had it coming or whatever. That's the only real remaining hurdle at this point. Absent a total surveillance society, you're never stopping all crime ever, which I'm more than happy to implement, for you, just so long as I'm the one doing the surveillance. I have a theory that that problem is the result of conservative sex-negativity crossed with the just world fallacy. Without the notion that "sexually active before marriage" equals "morally bankrupt slut", rape victims would most likely find it much easier to get people to take them seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:I have a theory that that problem is the result of conservative sex-negativity crossed with the just world fallacy. Without the notion that "sexually active before marriage" equals "morally bankrupt slut", rape victims would most likely find it much easier to get people to take them seriously. http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/how-not-talk-about-purity
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Just Say No, OP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Statistically, it's extremely unlikely that a woman is lying when she makes a rape accusation. We need to take a serious look at how burden of proof is assessed in these court cases. People talk about how the 2nd Amendment can allow individuals to cost society at large, and likewise the right to plead the 5th can potentially be entirely antisocial, exists solely for the benefit of the individual, and if you look at the rest of the world, not a very common "right." There can be exceptions to every right, there can be one here. A privileged rapist doesn't have a right to be silent about his history in court or his likely future plans to continue victimizing a historically oppressed demographic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Statistically, it's extremely unlikely that a woman is lying when she makes a rape accusation. We need to take a serious look at how burden of proof is assessed in these court cases. People talk about how the 2nd Amendment can allow individuals to cost society at large, and likewise the right to plead the 5th can potentially be entirely antisocial, exists solely for the benefit of the individual, and if you look at the rest of the world, not a very common "right." There can be exceptions to every right, there can be one here. A privileged rapist doesn't have a right to be silent about his history in court or his likely future plans to continue victimizing a historically oppressed demographic. Are you suggesting that we should lower the burden of proof for all criminal cases or that there should specifically be a lower standard for proving sexual assault? Cause I don't really like the idea of setting a precedent that the government can now legislate itself to a lower burden of proof on certain categories of crime, and justifying it by saying that at the statistical level false rape reports are false doesn't really change the fact that the system was designed so that its much easier for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted. Also the so called "right to silence" is pretty well established in many different legal systems. Most democratic countries have either an explicit provision or a strong court precedent protecting your right not to be compelled to testify against yourself or to make incriminating statements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:44
|
|