CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of child

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Coyne » Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:01 am UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:But that was SCOTUS. Those pricks should know better. Old white men, eh?


Yes, they should.

If I get in your car without your permission and drive it around the block (even though you left the keys in the ignition) then I'm going to prison for car theft. The fact that I didn't damage your car is irrelevant. The fact you left your keys in it, irrelevant. "Old white men" can all agree on that, no problem.

But rape is different: She's a liar; she wasn't really raped. She's a slut. She asked for it by wearing that. She made the [man/men] do it. She consented because she begged him to wear a condom. She enjoyed it. She didn't have any business being there. He didn't hurt her physically. Besides, she can't get pregnant from rape; and if she does by some miracle, she'd better have that child and not abort it (because it's her fault she was raped). And she'd better grant the rapist visitation. And if she should get all tear-y and claim psychological damage, well, who believes in that? And if she testifies, be sure to broadcast her name far and wide, so everyone knows what a slut she is.

...and on and on and on ...

Don't think so? With respect to the Clevaland, Texas rape case, even the New York Times wrote, "Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?" [Italics added.] See? Her fault; even though she was 11 years old.

Rape is the only--literally the only--crime where the victim is often presumed by society and law to be at fault.

And that stinks.
In all fairness...

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Malice » Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:46 am UTC

Coyne wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:But that was SCOTUS. Those pricks should know better. Old white men, eh?


Yes, they should.

If I get in your car without your permission and drive it around the block (even though you left the keys in the ignition) then I'm going to prison for car theft. The fact that I didn't damage your car is irrelevant. The fact you left your keys in it, irrelevant. "Old white men" can all agree on that, no problem.


Unless you're suggesting that car thieves should be put to death, this isn't really a relevant argument. The point is that, although rape can involve serious injury, it doesn't always (consider statutory rape, for instance, which may involve consent even if that's not how the law sees it). Therefore the Supreme Court decided that rape should not automatically be a capital offense.
Image

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Green9090 » Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:17 pm UTC

Not even touching on the fact that if death is the penalty for both rape and rape + murder, it creates an incentive to do the latter because then it's (arguably) easier to get away with it.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Coyne » Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:37 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Coyne wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:But that was SCOTUS. Those pricks should know better. Old white men, eh?


Yes, they should.

If I get in your car without your permission and drive it around the block (even though you left the keys in the ignition) then I'm going to prison for car theft. The fact that I didn't damage your car is irrelevant. The fact you left your keys in it, irrelevant. "Old white men" can all agree on that, no problem.


Unless you're suggesting that car thieves should be put to death, this isn't really a relevant argument. The point is that, although rape can involve serious injury, it doesn't always (consider statutory rape, for instance, which may involve consent even if that's not how the law sees it). Therefore the Supreme Court decided that rape should not automatically be a capital offense.


No, it is exactly the point:

In both cases, the car or the woman's body, a lack of consent is involved. Yet in the case of the car, that lack of consent is a crime, period. But in the case of the woman's body, all of a sudden, people start equivocating about consent: "Well, gee, she really can't not consent, can she? Because she was [a slut/in the wrong place/wearing the wrong thing/didn't really mean it when she said, "No"/she didn't fight/after all, he didn't hurt her]."

That is the whole point of statements like Akin made which paraphrases as: "It's the woman's fault." The only crime in existence that I'm aware of, where a person's consent is questioned with a presumption that it was given. If the owner didn't tell me I could take the car, then there's no doubt consent did not exist. The very fact that I didn't say, "Yes," means that it was a crime. In the case of rape, the presumption is that she consented if she didn't say, "No," and fight for her life, and even if she did, "Did she really mean it?"

And, yes, I know about the "she's lying" argument as well. But I can do the same with the car: Tell you to, "Go ahead and take it," and then turn you in, denying I gave consent. Put you in prison by that trick. But when was the last time you ever heard a thief taking the position that, "He's lying", and having that work as a successful defense? Again, we see a complete difference in the way the crimes are evaluated: Without evidence to prove that the victim is lying, the thief is sunk. But when the woman is accused of lying, there are knowing head nods and the rapist walks. There is a much lower standard of evidence to prove an accusation of lying on a woman rape victim's part.

In short: If the thief says the owner consents, all the owner has to do is say, "No, I did not." If the rapist says the woman consented, then she must prove that she did not consent; an entirely different standard. Her word is not enough.

The two crimes are treated entirely differently for no valid reason except "old white men" are of the opinion that, "The man could never be at fault in a rape; and the woman always is at fault."
In all fairness...

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Green9090 » Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:15 am UTC

I think you missed the reason it's beside the point. That's because the point of the discussion is whether or not "rape does not necessitate death or even physical injury, therefore the death penalty is too harsh a sentence for the crime" is valid reasoning. Victim blaming has almost literally nothing to do with that argument.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Coyne » Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:31 am UTC

Green9090 wrote:I think you missed the reason it's beside the point. That's because the point of the discussion is whether or not "rape does not necessitate death or even physical injury, therefore the death penalty is too harsh a sentence for the crime" is valid reasoning. Victim blaming has almost literally nothing to do with that argument.


Well, yes and no. My original response was directed to a comment about how SCOTUS should know better, which is a little gray. But actually the "death penalty" thing is also off-topic, since this thread started out about whether rapists should be able to have custody of a child born of a rape.
In all fairness...

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Green9090 » Sun Sep 02, 2012 1:04 am UTC

Coyne wrote:
Green9090 wrote:I think you missed the reason it's beside the point. That's because the point of the discussion is whether or not "rape does not necessitate death or even physical injury, therefore the death penalty is too harsh a sentence for the crime" is valid reasoning. Victim blaming has almost literally nothing to do with that argument.


Well, yes and no. My original response was directed to a comment about how SCOTUS should know better, which is a little gray. But actually the "death penalty" thing is also off-topic, since this thread started out about whether rapists should be able to have custody of a child born of a rape.


The topic evolved naturally into discussing the death penalty- your tangent came from taking that quote about SCOTUS knowing better entirely out of context and pretending it meant something not related to the discussion. The problem with this is that nobody else in the thread got dragged along on that tangent, so we're all still wondering what you're talking about and why.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Zamfir » Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:47 pm UTC

quit the bickering

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:06 pm UTC

Don't think it's so much easier for the men falsely accused of rape than for women to go through the process of prosecuting the rapist. Keep in mind that if you claim that it's better that 99 guilty men go free than to let 1 innocent man go to prison, you believe that you should let 99 rapists go free than send 1 innocent man to prison. I personally was falsely accused of attempted rape in high school (long story), that would've been rather nasty had the police not done any preliminary investigation first before making an arrest; the girl got away with no consequences by lying out her ass about having a crush or something (I never got the whole story). So you aren't ever going to be able to convince me that there are never any cases of women lying about rape out of spite.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Spambot5546 » Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:18 pm UTC

I don't think the argument is so much "it never happens" as "it doesn't happen enough/isn't damaging enough to justify the efforts to avoid it that would make prosecuting actual rapists much more difficult."
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:10 pm UTC

If I hadn't been who I was (one of the brightest in the school, and every teacher knew it), I would've been arrested and the investigation would've occurred after the fact. If it was almost anyone else in my school, again, they would've been sent to prison/jail/juvee, and then sorted out from there. Based on an accusation without evidence. Again, so there is no confusion, only because I was the best mathematician at the school*, was there any investigation PRIOR to an arrest. Are you trying to tell me that under your system, people like me should've gone to prison on accusations alone? And that people 'less than me' should be arrested prior to any investigations?

I understand where you are coming from, but I just can't support a system that would've been so terrible for me. Especially when I'm not convinced my situation is as exceedingly rare as many will claim. Why? Because in Brazil, there are men who 'disappear' homeless children for a mere $50; if there are people out there who will straight up murder an orphan for the equivalent of a cheap pair of shoes, do you really think there aren't people will lie and destroy lives (including my own) for a thousand times that?

*I'm sure you could find parallels to 'star QB' or something like that.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Spambot5546 » Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:24 pm UTC

I'm not gonna say that everything the criminal justice system does right now is okay, or that the way they would've handled the investigation for another student is justified. Just that most of the time when people cry "but what about the falsely accused men!" they're trying to fix a relatively minor problem by exacerbating a serious one.

I've never been accused of sexual assault. I have a friend* who was. He wasn't the "best mathematician in the school" or anything. In fact if I had to list the people I know by how likely they are to rape someone I'd put him pretty close to the top. He wasn't immediately arrested, but he was immediately put under investigation. He ended up getting out of it when several people came forward with stories of the girl bragging about making up the accusation for fun. Not the sharpest tool in the false-accusations-of-rape shed, that one.


*"Friend" may be too strong a word, as you'll see by the end of this paragraph.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:38 pm UTC

If you would rather have 99 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be punished, that means that the problem of protecting a person falsely accused of rape going to prison is 99 times as important as putting as putting a single rapist in prison.

The real problem with people making the argument is not that they are trying to help a minor issue at the expense of the major one, but rather they are trying to justify the major problem. Fuck those people.

I'm not trying to argue that we shouldn't investigate and prosecute rapists. Just that the system is just as brutal to the accused as it is to the accusers. It's terrible for everyone involved, and I don't think it's impossible to have a system that is both less harsh on the accuser and the accused.

elasto
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby elasto » Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:34 pm UTC

Yeah. In some ways it reminds me of when parents are accused of mistreating their child. No matter which way the justice system chooses to err - whether to set the bar on separating the kids from the parents low or high - innocents will suffer, and suffer terribly.

Because there is such a stigma about sexual crimes, rape accusations are a virtual social death sentence no matter what the outcome. In a world where pediatricians get their windows smashed, society simply isn't mature enough to be able to really act on the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Mud sticks, no smoke without fire and all that.

Carnildo
Posts: 2023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:43 am UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Carnildo » Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:40 am UTC

Back on the original subject, I can't say that denying the rapist custody in all cases is the right decision. Consider a mother who hasn't been sober in years, a father who was convicted of rape because she was too drunk to consent but has since become a productive member of society, and a child who has been neglected. Who should get custody?

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Spambot5546 » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:21 am UTC

Carnildo wrote:Who should get custody?

The state.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:11 am UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:
Carnildo wrote:Who should get custody?

The state.


Meaning a foster home, the abominations that have prison-level rates of sexual abuse. Clearly the better alternative to the ex-con (though in the particular case given, it should be a non-issue because the child should be halfway grown by the time the rapist is out of prison).


Off topic
Spoiler:
This is the main argument I have for letting same-sex couples adopt (equal rights arguments meaning shit to people who oppose same-sex adoptions); unless you are willing to adopt every last child, go ahead and try to explain exactly how having two mothers is worse than being in foster care.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Lucrece » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:57 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Spambot5546 wrote:
Carnildo wrote:Who should get custody?

The state.


Meaning a foster home, the abominations that have prison-level rates of sexual abuse. Clearly the better alternative to the ex-con (though in the particular case given, it should be a non-issue because the child should be halfway grown by the time the rapist is out of prison).


Off topic
Spoiler:
This is the main argument I have for letting same-sex couples adopt (equal rights arguments meaning shit to people who oppose same-sex adoptions); unless you are willing to adopt every last child, go ahead and try to explain exactly how having two mothers is worse than being in foster care.


Besides, parental rights are evaluated on the fitness for the parent to raise the child in their recent state, not based on past criminal history. You can't go denying parents their offspring based on animus for whatever heinous crime they committed. Murderers don't permanently lose child custody rights after they come out of prison and show they are reformed, so why should rapists? Parental rights and visitation are about the interests of the child, not the parents. Any judge can make arrangements for how the child is to be delivered to the parent with a criminal past should direct encounter between the parents prove to be more than one parent can suffer.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

elasto
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby elasto » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:05 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:The only crime in existence that I'm aware of, where a person's consent is questioned with a presumption that it was given. If the owner didn't tell me I could take the car, then there's no doubt consent did not exist. The very fact that I didn't say, "Yes," means that it was a crime. In the case of rape, the presumption is that she consented if she didn't say, "No," and fight for her life, and even if she did, "Did she really mean it?"

And, yes, I know about the "she's lying" argument as well. But I can do the same with the car: Tell you to, "Go ahead and take it," and then turn you in, denying I gave consent. Put you in prison by that trick. But when was the last time you ever heard a thief taking the position that, "He's lying", and having that work as a successful defense? Again, we see a complete difference in the way the crimes are evaluated: Without evidence to prove that the victim is lying, the thief is sunk. But when the woman is accused of lying, there are knowing head nods and the rapist walks. There is a much lower standard of evidence to prove an accusation of lying on a woman rape victim's part.

In short: If the thief says the owner consents, all the owner has to do is say, "No, I did not." If the rapist says the woman consented, then she must prove that she did not consent; an entirely different standard. Her word is not enough.

The two crimes are treated entirely differently for no valid reason

That's not true, btw, the same standards of proof are applied in both situations, broadly speaking:

(1) People don't normally drive each other's cars because (a) insurance doesn't always/often cover doing that and (b) people are usually very protective of their cars even when covered. I'd guess the average person has sex hundreds of times more often than they lend their car.

(2) There'd need to be some evidence the car was even driven: A police ticket, a speed camera sighting or whatever. If someone takes some keys, drives the car, then returns the keys, with no physical damage done, the courts will not simply take the owner's word on it. They need to offer some proof the act of driving even occurred.

(3) If there's any doubt - for example if the owner had given permission for the other person to drive the car on previous occasions, and the driver has proof of that fact - I strongly disagree the courts would simply take the owner's word for it that there was no permission on this occasion. The owner would need to provide concrete evidence permission was denied - for example an eye witness. There are obvious parallels here with the difficulty courts have in establishing an act of rape within an existing relationship - especially if there's no physical injuries.

(4) There are strong social reasons why people occasionally lie about having given consent to sex that simply don't exist when it comes to driving cars. The police and the courts need to be slightly more cautious therefore and need to establish that it's not simply a lie told to a parent/partner that spiraled out of control.

(5) It's much easier to establish whether consent has been granted when it comes to driving a car vs having sex: If the driver had access to the keys. I disagree completely that even if someone leaves the keys in a car all the owner has to do is say 'I didn't given them permission to drive it' and it's a slam-dunk conviction: Assuming we're talking about a friend or family member driving the car, if that person says 'no, they did give me verbal permission - else why on earth would they have left the keys in the car?' and it's just one person's word against another, that ought to be a not-guilty verdict.

(Obviously if a stranger drives off a car because the keys were left inside that's a slam-dunk conviction because noone would grant a stranger permission to drive their car unless we're talking about a valet situation. Typically the person taking it won't return it, also, thereby demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't have permission to do so. It's actually ironic that people not infrequently lend their bodies to a complete stranger under circumstances they'd never lend a car - eg. only having known the person a few hours. This is one of the many reasons rape is harder to establish than car theft :/ )

Consent to sex is a purely verbal or non-verbal affair almost exclusively granted in private. When the system is and has to be people are judged innocent of crimes unless and until proven guilty, people cannot be granted the power to jail others simply on their word. People can't jail car thieves simply on their word, there needs to be, at the very least, circumstantial witness or physical evidence corroborating it - eg. a break-in. As horrific as rape is, we can't simply throw out the window this principle of innocence until proved guilty, it's too fundamental.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:48 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:
Malice wrote:
Coyne wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:But that was SCOTUS. Those pricks should know better. Old white men, eh?


Yes, they should.

If I get in your car without your permission and drive it around the block (even though you left the keys in the ignition) then I'm going to prison for car theft. The fact that I didn't damage your car is irrelevant. The fact you left your keys in it, irrelevant. "Old white men" can all agree on that, no problem.


Unless you're suggesting that car thieves should be put to death, this isn't really a relevant argument. The point is that, although rape can involve serious injury, it doesn't always (consider statutory rape, for instance, which may involve consent even if that's not how the law sees it). Therefore the Supreme Court decided that rape should not automatically be a capital offense.


No, it is exactly the point:

In both cases, the car or the woman's body, a lack of consent is involved. Yet in the case of the car, that lack of consent is a crime, period. But in the case of the woman's body, all of a sudden, people start equivocating about consent: "Well, gee, she really can't not consent, can she? Because she was [a slut/in the wrong place/wearing the wrong thing/didn't really mean it when she said, "No"/she didn't fight/after all, he didn't hurt her]."

That is the whole point of statements like Akin made which paraphrases as: "It's the woman's fault." The only crime in existence that I'm aware of, where a person's consent is questioned with a presumption that it was given. If the owner didn't tell me I could take the car, then there's no doubt consent did not exist. The very fact that I didn't say, "Yes," means that it was a crime. In the case of rape, the presumption is that she consented if she didn't say, "No," and fight for her life, and even if she did, "Did she really mean it?"

And, yes, I know about the "she's lying" argument as well. But I can do the same with the car: Tell you to, "Go ahead and take it," and then turn you in, denying I gave consent. Put you in prison by that trick. But when was the last time you ever heard a thief taking the position that, "He's lying", and having that work as a successful defense? Again, we see a complete difference in the way the crimes are evaluated: Without evidence to prove that the victim is lying, the thief is sunk. But when the woman is accused of lying, there are knowing head nods and the rapist walks. There is a much lower standard of evidence to prove an accusation of lying on a woman rape victim's part.

In short: If the thief says the owner consents, all the owner has to do is say, "No, I did not." If the rapist says the woman consented, then she must prove that she did not consent; an entirely different standard. Her word is not enough.

The two crimes are treated entirely differently for no valid reason except "old white men" are of the opinion that, "The man could never be at fault in a rape; and the woman always is at fault."


I think that maybe you're confusing gaffes that come from the Abortion debate for criminal proceedings.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Vahir » Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:05 pm UTC

elasto wrote: we can't simply throw out the window this principle of innocence until proved guilty


Exactly. People can get emotional when it comes to crimes like rape or murder, but this basic principle has to always win out. So long as there's a sufficient chance that the accused might be innocent, he has to be seen as innocent. As shocking as it may be, anyone can lie, including women, so "taking their word for it" is never a good reason to condemn someone.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby Malice » Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:36 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Don't think it's so much easier for the men falsely accused of rape than for women to go through the process of prosecuting the rapist. Keep in mind that if you claim that it's better that 99 guilty men go free than to let 1 innocent man go to prison, you believe that you should let 99 rapists go free than send 1 innocent man to prison. I personally was falsely accused of attempted rape in high school (long story), that would've been rather nasty had the police not done any preliminary investigation first before making an arrest; the girl got away with no consequences by lying out her ass about having a crush or something (I never got the whole story). So you aren't ever going to be able to convince me that there are never any cases of women lying about rape out of spite.


There is rough agreement that 2-8% of rape accusations are "unfounded" (the fluctuation depends on how that is defined). A less-than-successful Google suggests that roughly half of all rapes go unreported. Notwithstanding your personal experience, do you see the imbalance there?
Image

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby sigsfried » Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:34 am UTC

2-8% is reasonable doubt. Yes much has to be done to get people who were raped to come forward, but you can't do that by throwing away one of the most important aspects of western law, innocent until proven guilty. I suppose we could make an exception for rape, if a man is having sex with someone he thinks might accuse him falsely of rape then the obvious solution is not to have sex not to rely on the justice system. If we are to do that what level of proof do we need, do we for example take the accusers word that sex occurred? That certainly seems too extreme but would leave many of those 50% no better off.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:19 am UTC

sigsfried wrote:I suppose we could make an exception for rape, if a man is having sex with someone he thinks might accuse him falsely of rape then the obvious solution is not to have sex not to rely on the justice system.


ie: "don't stick your dick in crazy"

likewise if someone is being beaten by their spouse the obvious solution is to leave them.

people often don't take the obvious solution for various reasons when they're with abusive people.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby sigsfried » Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:56 am UTC

I don't particularly support such a position, I did make clear what we would be loosing if we make such a change but it is a change we could make. Of course it could make vicious break ups have devastating consequences.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:15 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Don't think it's so much easier for the men falsely accused of rape than for women to go through the process of prosecuting the rapist. Keep in mind that if you claim that it's better that 99 guilty men go free than to let 1 innocent man go to prison, you believe that you should let 99 rapists go free than send 1 innocent man to prison. I personally was falsely accused of attempted rape in high school (long story), that would've been rather nasty had the police not done any preliminary investigation first before making an arrest; the girl got away with no consequences by lying out her ass about having a crush or something (I never got the whole story). So you aren't ever going to be able to convince me that there are never any cases of women lying about rape out of spite.


There is rough agreement that 2-8% of rape accusations are "unfounded" (the fluctuation depends on how that is defined). A less-than-successful Google suggests that roughly half of all rapes go unreported. Notwithstanding your personal experience, do you see the imbalance there?


Unreported rapes don't make up part of the unfounded statistics. The false accusation rates are not always agreed to be in that 2-8% range*. Keep in mind that those numbers are for cases where there is proof the alleged sexual assault didn't happen, not cases where the sexual assault didn't occur but there wasn't proof it didn't happen. I was lucky that my case fell clearly in the range where there was proof it didn't happen.

And of the rapes that aren't unfounded, a significant chunk of those are cases of mistaken identity. Remember the Duke Lacrosse case? Let's assume the girl really was raped (the general consensus is that she wasn't). Only 3 members were identified as suspects, and that was out of pictures of all players (except for the 1 black player), rather than throwing pictures of nonmembers. The woman changed her story multiple times, especially about which 3 had raped her. The only person she consistently accused wasn't even at the party. But those 3 were selected. So, assuming she was raped by 3 members of the Lacrosse team, how do you know for sure that it was those 3 and not 3 different Lacrosse members?

*Though those larger numbers are obviously bullshit. 90%? Seriously? That author needs a good talking to. And by talking to, I mean excision of the stupid in his head via the methods pioneered by Dr. Guillotin.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: CNN blog notes that 31 states gives Rapists custody of c

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:43 pm UTC

when it comes to strangers the same general rule of thumb as in other crimes would seem to apply: people are terrible at picking the right person out of a lineup.
If the person isn't there at all you're likely to pick someone who looks kinda right and pretty quick your memory will edit itself to slot the person who's face you've just seen clearly into your memories.
If the person is there you're still likely to pick someone more intimidating and larger in the same lineup.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests