|
OwlFancier posted:The fact that we have a legal system is testament to the fact that we accept wrongful convictions as a permissible possibility in return for the benefits of correct convictions. That we binned the death penalty speaks entirely to the contrary, actually.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:01 |
|
If everyone's favourite poster Discendo Vox was here he'd observe that it's nothing like morally preferable to allow 100 guilty people to go free to secure one innocent person from incarceration. The modern point of origin is from Blackstone:quote:"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" There has to be a balance, and the law makes an rear end of itself at a ratio of 100-1.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:That we binned the death penalty speaks entirely to the contrary, actually. No it doesn't. If you believed that wrongful convictions were absolutely unacceptable you couldn't prosecute any crime because that carries the inherent possibility of being wrong. You believe that wrongful convictions are acceptable up to a point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it doesn't. If you believed that wrongful convictions were absolutely unacceptable you couldn't prosecute any crime because that carries the inherent possibility of being wrong. Yes but those wrongful convictions have a chance of being overturned on new evidence, but they dont if you've been executed and are dead. The rule of law means you cannot abide by one margin of error on one crime, and a lesser margin of error for another. If it is deemed the margin of error on capital offences is completely unacceptable (which it is, because innocent people were executed), it has to be the same for all other offences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It cannot be completely off the spectrum of sexual assault in all cases because it is on the spectrum of coercion. The only way to avoid engaging in coercion is by securing not grudging consent, but enthusiastic consent. Yeah, but again, we're talking about this in the context of the overall give and take in a serious, long term relationship. A big part of being life partners with someone is doing things for them when you don't especially feel like it, because you love them and you value their happiness and from time to time you put their needs and desires above your own. And that's sustainable so long as they do the same thing for you. But it doesn't really count if you do it in a way that comes across as "grudging." The whole point is that you muster the enthusiasm, and when you can't do that, you do your best to fake it. If you're going to dinner with your SO's parents, it doesn't matter that you had a lovely day and you have a headache. You get ready and you go to that dinner and while you're there you smile and listen politely and do your best to be charming even if all you want in the world is to be at home in your PJs. If it's your SO's turn to pick the movie, you watch the movie they want to watch and you don't pout about it. If your SO needs to vent about their day, you find the will to show interest even if you have other poo poo on your mind and you're not exactly dying to know what that bitchy co-worker said today. And if someone occasionally puts on their game face and shows their partner some physical affection even though they're not really in the mood, I think we should be praising that person, not condemning their partner. There is a vast, yawning gulf between that and saying a woman can't be raped by her husband. Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Yes but those wrongful convictions have a chance of being overturned on new evidence, but they dont if you've been executed and are dead. The abolition of capital punishment is a deference to the desire to make miscarriages of justice rectifiable. It is patently not an assertion that miscarriage of justice is absolutely unacceptable. It is acceptable enough that we accept it happens, we will try to correct it if it becomes very obvious that it has happened, but we do not consider it absolutely abhorrent. Again, if wrongful conviction was an absolute evil, the commission of which completely invalidates any other aspects of the justice system, we would not have a justice system, because it is inherently fallible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it doesn't. If you believed that wrongful convictions were absolutely unacceptable you couldn't prosecute any crime because that carries the inherent possibility of being wrong. You believe that wrongful convictions are acceptable up to a point. What do you propose should be done to a legal system in order to achieve an increased prosecution rate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
Rakosi posted:The rule of law means you cannot abide by one margin of error on one crime, and a lesser margin of error for another. If it is deemed the margin of error on capital offences is completely unacceptable (which it is, because innocent people were executed), it has to be the same for all other offences. Actually this isn't necessarily troubling to the concept of the rule of law at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, I am arguing that the idea that we cannot possibly conscience the idea that one person might be wrongfully convicted of a crime and that if such a thing were to occur it would be the ultimate sin, and that any sacrifice is worth avoiding that, is a load of bollocks. Less than 15? If 1 in 15 people convicted and imprisoned for rape are innocent, you're down with that? That is seriously hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:What do you propose should be done to a legal system in order to achieve an increased prosecution rate? Pffpffffppffp I dunno. More funding to crown prosecutors to investigate crimes more thoroughly, more money to investigate historic cases in light of new evidence to more quickly rectify errors, and a more rehabilitative penal system to make wrongful conviction less destructive to the convicted (and the rightfully convicted, for that matter). More money, in general, as is the solution to a lot of things. Thermos H Christ posted:Less than 15? If 1 in 15 people convicted and imprisoned for rape are innocent, you're down with that? That is seriously hosed up. I would prefer less. But it is a difficult crime to prosecute, and I don't think the current approach of just not prosecuting it in the majority of cases is acceptable either. I guess I would be more happy with 5 in 100? To be honest I would be surprised if justice in general was more accurate than that, or even much more accurate than 1 in 15 for that matter. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It cannot be completely off the spectrum of sexual assault in all cases because it is on the spectrum of coercion. The only way to avoid engaging in coercion is by securing not grudging consent, but enthusiastic consent. Come on man, I've been tired, annoyed or otherwise "not in the mood" before when my wife was horny. I've gone through with it to make her happy. Her being happy makes me happy. She didn't rape me. I made the decisions on my own, without intimidation or coercion. And I'll do it again, as it's a minor inconveniece rather than a violation (as again, I made the decision) to me. Now I'll grant that if our roles are reversed, due to the perceived power imbalance it might be viewed differently from the outside. Though I question whether even there it would be considered rape, rather than an annoyance to make your partner happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Less than 15? If 1 in 15 people convicted and imprisoned for rape are innocent, you're down with that? That is seriously hosed up. Yea, OwlFancier, you've gone so far around the bend here that you're saying there's no problem with a 1-in-15 chance of a wrongful conviction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Until you explain why the basics of consent are "insane" you are in a bad position to dictate what is or is not a healthy sexual relationship. I would be surprised if even 0.1% of actual relationships meet your criteria for healthy relationships, as in no contact ever without explicit verbal consent, you are utterly insane. Your view on this is entirely divorced from reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The abolition of capital punishment is a deference to the desire to make miscarriages of justice rectifiable. We do the best we can by A) proving guilt, not innocence, and B) not shifting goalposts on standards of evidence depending on the crime. Yes, the justice system is inherently fallible, every justice system is, which is exactly the reason we got rid of capital punishment. It does not stop us from doing our best with the forensic tools we have available, and to that end we must always err on not convicting unless it is beyond reasonable doubt. Even then innocent people go away, and that is still terrible. Lowering the standard of proof required in such cases would just cause more innocent people to go away. My contention is that more innocent people going away is far, far worse than consequently more guilty people going away
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, OwlFancier, you've gone so far around the bend here that you're saying there's no problem with a 1-in-15 chance of a wrongful conviction. There is a lot wrong with it, but if it helped stop rape as a crime I would think it less wrong than the current state of affairs. Of course I don't suppose it would, but that's more a complaint with the inefficacy of the justice system in general than with the rate of wrongful conviction. As above, I would be surprised if more than 1 in 15 convictions was really just as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Pffpffffppffp I dunno. More funding to crown prosecutors to investigate crimes more thoroughly, more money to investigate historic cases in light of new evidence to more quickly rectify errors, and a more rehabilitative penal system to make wrongful conviction less destructive to the convicted (and the rightfully convicted, for that matter). Those things I think many would agree with, and are not really at all in keeping with the more philosophical point you responded to. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone publicly disagree with increased testing rates for rape kits, for example quote:I would prefer less. But it is a difficult crime to prosecute, and I don't think the current approach of just not prosecuting it in the majority of cases is acceptable either. What proportion of rapes are reported? Of those, how many result in prosecution, and how many of those result in a conviction? Are those rates substantially different than other crimes? If the answer to that latter question is no, i'm not really sure what we could do to change the approach in one crime that wouldn't logically apply in any other. If the answer is yes, then it would be wiser to determine what the reasons are for that, and rather than blame them on nebulous social concepts, propose solutions that will actually address the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Those things I think many would agree with, and are not really at all in keeping with the more philosophical point you responded to. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone publicly disagree with increased testing rates for rape kits, for example I believe rape is grossly underreported, in many cases because it cannot be successfully prosecuted and because of perceived or actual police indifference to the crime, as well as the social stigma attached to being a victim of it, and a lack of support for victims immediately following the crime. Addressing those would probably be a good idea. Given the nature of the crime as well, better information collation may help to build a case against serial rapists by allowing multiple victims to give evidence to the same case which would be automatically tracked and collated together. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier, why bother with burden of proof and due process for rape cases at all? How about if someone accuses you of rape you go straight to prison? After all, most of the time an accuser is telling the truth in these cases. We'd put a lot more guilty people behind bars for rape, that's for sure. A lot more innocent people, too, but why should that be a problem so long as we lock up more guilty people than innocent ones? I'm sure that if the government came along and robbed you of your freedom, years of your life, your career, your family, your reputation, etc., all over a crime you didn't commit, you'd just accept it as the cost of doing business. I mean we've got to get those guilty people, after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:OwlFancier, why bother with burden of proof and due process for rape cases at all? How about if someone accuses you of rape you go straight to prison? After all, most of the time an accuser is telling the truth in these cases. We'd put a lot more guilty people behind bars for rape, that's for sure. A lot more innocent people, too, but why should that be a problem so long as we lock up more guilty people than innocent ones? I'm sure that if the government came along and robbed you of your freedom, years of your life, your career, your family, your reputation, etc., all over a crime you didn't commit, you'd just accept it as the cost of doing business. I mean we've got to get those guilty people, after all. Because that would result in an unsustainable prison population. If you had suggested giving more weight to multiple, seemingly independent accusations, I would agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I believe rape is grossly underreported, in many cases because it cannot be successfully prosecuted and because of perceived or actual police indifference to the crime, as well as the social stigma attached to being a victim of it, and a lack of support for victims immediately following the crime. Hey look, actual proposals for more effectively investigating and prosecuting crimes that don't require us to throw out the bill of rights!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because that would result in an unsustainable prison population. Wow. That's your problem with locking up tons of innocent people - we won't have enough prison capacity to hold them all. Amazing. quote:If you had suggested giving more weight to multiple, seemingly independent accusations, I would agree with that. I didn't suggest that because we already have that. Multiple, seemingly independent witnesses who are attesting to a pattern of behavior from a defendant will obviously be seen as stronger proof than a single uncorroborated witness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:I didn't suggest that because we already have that. Multiple, seemingly independent witnesses who are attesting to a pattern of behavior from a defendant will obviously be seen as stronger proof than a single uncorroborated witness. Actually I was meaning giving more weight than we currently do. If multiple people come forward to accuse you of rape, and state prosecutors can't find any obvious link between them, you should probably end up wearing an ankle tag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Actually I was meaning giving more weight than we currently do. Oh, ok, so we're just skipping those pesky due process, speedy and public trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, right to confront your accuser types of things. Brilliant. Have you considered a career as a costumed vigilante?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because that would result in an unsustainable prison population. Lol literally the only reason why you see that as a problem is because of prison population. Lol get hosed, you are a bigger shitposter on this forum than I am by a long shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
In the unlikely event that you manage to annoy a cabal of illuminati feminists and they conspire to get the police to track you, well, that's a shame. Otherwise, given the nature of rape as a crime, corroboration between multiple witnesses seems the only way to effectively combat it. Rakosi posted:Lol literally the only reason why you see that as a problem is because of prison population. Lol get hosed, you are a bigger shitposter on this forum than I am by a long shot. You will forgive me responding to facetious posts with equally facetious answers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Come on man, I've been tired, annoyed or otherwise "not in the mood" before when my wife was horny. I've gone through with it to make her happy. Her being happy makes me happy. She didn't rape me. I made the decisions on my own, without intimidation or coercion. And I'll do it again, as it's a minor inconveniece rather than a violation (as again, I made the decision) to me. Why the obsession with rape? That's obviously not at issue in that case. You wanted to do, it, great. Nobody cares why you wanted to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Will you shut up about rape? That's obviously not at issue in that case. You wanted to do, it, great. Nobody cares why you wanted to do it. lmao Never have sex with anyone you loving creepo
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You will forgive me responding to facetious posts with equally facetious answers. Puppetmaster 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
the jury has a disposition for a rape victim that states she was coerced into sex, stated as follows: "Will you shut up about rape? You wanted to do it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, OwlFancier, you've gone so far around the bend here that you're saying there's no problem with a 1-in-15 chance of a wrongful conviction. What is your acceptable amount? A thousand? A million? A bajillionty serial-rapists walking the streets so long as no innocents are jailed?! Wampa, why would you be ok with that many rapists being free?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Ah you caught me before the edit, I didn't want to come off as too harsh. I truly do not understand when people make the jump to "well I wanted it less than my partner, I wanted to make them happy WAS I RAPED??" No. Is a sex worker consenting to have sex with random strangers because she's afraid of domestic violence from her pimp rape? Yes. Is everything in between those two scenarios rape? No. Is everything between them not rape? No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Wow sorry Control Volume, you caught me being frustrated. You caught me, sometimes I read too many case histories of sexual assault, trafficking and domestic abuse and I say something over the top. Now post a pepe at me and go have consensual sex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ah you caught me before the edit, I didn't want to come off as too harsh. I truly do not understand when people make the jump to "well I wanted it less than my partner, I wanted to make them happy WAS I RAPED??" I think the problem you're having is that rape has to be a strictly plain, legal definition and you're failing to define what you think it should be with "well everything is, and is not, possibly rape".
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I think the problem you're having is that rape has to be a strictly plain, legal definition and you're failing to define what you think it should be with "well everything is, and is not, possibly rape". I'm failing to care about mechanistic bro-axioms you think will shield you from a rape charge. As was already said, the law will never be able to catch up to the point where all sexual assault is prosecuted; the burden of proof is too high. The best approach is to educate men about consent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I believe rape is grossly underreported, in many cases because it cannot be successfully prosecuted and because of perceived or actual police indifference to the crime, as well as the social stigma attached to being a victim of it, and a lack of support for victims immediately following the crime. There are a number of studies that have looked into this sort of data, and while I don't have the time to survey it fully at the moment, I do know the conviction rate is somewhere around 60% and this rate is similar to other crimes. The reporting rate (at least according to this sits around 30%, and has fallen from roughly 50% 10 years ago, although that appears to be the case for many other crimes as well. As to how many cases that are reported end up with an arrest, or how many arrests result in a case going to trial, those appear to be more difficult to find, but it would be important to establish them and compare them to other crimes before we are to say the issue is specific to this crime or to just how the criminal justice system operates generally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm failing to care about mechanistic bro-axioms you think will shield you from a rape charge. As was already said, the law will never be able to catch up to the point where all sexual assault is prosecuted; the burden of proof is too high. The best approach is to educate men about consent. say mechanistic bro-axioms again 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I think the problem you're having is that rape has to be a strictly plain, legal definition The hell it does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In the unlikely event that you manage to annoy a cabal of illuminati feminists and they conspire to get the police to track you, well, that's a shame. If you have multiple independent witnesses attesting that someone is a rapist, you put those witnesses on the stand and convict them at trial. The whole problem is that, given the nature of rape as a crime, there usually are not multiple witnesses around who can corroborate or contradict the allegations. When the only direct evidence is the testimony of two people and their stories are contradictory, it is hard for that to rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt without some additional evidence to support or contradict one of those stories.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The hell it does. Of course it does. Rape is a crime. Crimes need a defined boundary of offence. This can be amended, but it does have to be stated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:If you have multiple independent witnesses attesting that someone is a rapist, you put those witnesses on the stand and convict them at trial. Hence why I would suggest that if multiple people accuse you of rape, that should make you under suspicion and it seems quite reasonable that you should have to wear a tag to aid in determining the veracity of any future accusations. I mean, I don't know about you, but I have so far managed to live my life without being accused of rape even by one person, I'm not sure i would like to meet the person who gets it more than once, but I would like the police to keep an eye on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:50
|
|