Dia on 16/12/2017 at 15:05
Oh God here we go again.
Quote Posted by icemann
Often there isn't even a shred of evidence, being hearsay or just the words of one individual which are often impossible to prove one way or the other, but that does not matter to the mob of angry people who yell "OFF WITH THIS HEAD". Half the time those accused are later proven to have been innocent, but the damage is already done. Either the persons life is COMPLETELY ruined and is never the same afterward, or the person commits suicide, or like in the above example, the police themselves are guilty of not considering a person innocent and put them in jail for x amount of years before the truth was revealed. Where is the justice in that?
'Often there isn't even a shred of evidence'.... 'Half the time those accused are later proven to have been innocent, but the damage is already done.' Sorry, but
lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen or that the woman's charge was 'false'. Please do
not confuse lack of evidence with a 'false' charges; there is a difference. Lack of evidence does
not prove that the assault didn't happen. False charges mean that the charges have been
proven to be irrevocably false and invalid and that, no, the assault didn't happen. See the difference?
And I call bullshit on your
'half the time' claim. Only 2% to 8% of sexual assault charges are proven to be false on a yearly basis and that's a far cry from 'half the time'. Educate yourself, please: (
https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/articles/false-reports-moving-beyond-issue-successfully-investigate-and-prosecute-non-s)
So, where's the justice for the victim whose life has been ruined because she couldn't produce photos and/or hospital reports or any other legally acceptable evidence proving that she had been raped?? You know, the victim who has to suffer the fact that everyone thinks she's (or he's) a liar now (and in some cases she/he loses their job and even friends) because
too many people equate 'lack of evidence' with false charges? That same victim who also has to live with the fact that she/he has been horribly violated and assaulted but her/his assailant will go free due to lack of evidence? It's a two-way street, whether you like it or not.
Quote Posted by Vasquez
I'd like to ask the same. Grabbing tits or jerking off in front of others is not a crime.
Yes, Vas, grabbing tits
is a crime since the minute you put your hands on another person's body without their consent it's considered assault. Jerking off in front of others; are those 'others' in consent and okay with the fact that a person is jerking off in front of them? Or, are those 'others' being coerced or even forced against their will to watch a person jerking off? If the former, then it's called 'consensual', if it's the latter, then it's considered sexual harassment, which, unfortunately, is pretty difficult to prove in court. Sexual harassment may not be considered an actual crime, but it
is considered 'a violation of an individual's civil rights, since they are both considered forms of illegal discrimination under Title VII, under federal law, and under each state's own laws.' (
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2017/03/is-sexual-harassment-a-crime.html)
Nuthin' but love for ya, though.
Quote Posted by faetal
How are you linking the #metoo movement to this one case reported in the Guardian?
Is there information contained in this case which somehow discredits the scores of people reporting their sexual assault experiences?
Is the central message here that women should shut up about their assaults unless they have enough evidence to prosecute?
I second that question, faetal. As I've already stated above, only 2% to 8% (some sources claim 10% as the higher figure) of sexual assault charges are proven to be false. Blanket disbelief of
all women who file charges of sexual assault/harassment is discriminatory and exactly the type of mindset we have been fighting against for centuries. It's also one of the leading reasons too many people do
not report sexual assaults; I mean, if no one is going to believe them, then why the fuck bother? Aaaannnddd then another sexual predator will go free to continue assaulting victims. Also, again, there is a distinct difference between lack of evidence and actual false charges.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
faetal - the central message is people ARE falsely accused of sexual crimes
The actual figures for that are a lot smaller than you obviously want to acknowledge. (
https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/articles/false-reports-moving-beyond-issue-successfully-investigate-and-prosecute-non-s)
Quote Posted by SubJeff
and to blanket beleive every accuser is an injustice.
I thoroughly disagree. If the accusers are
not believed, then the charges
will not be investigated. It's also discriminatory to automatically not believe the victim, but to automatically believe the accused. And sexist as fuck. Sorry, but that's the way it's worked to date and that is the sexist mindset we're trying to, at best, eradicate, at the very least, provide education to those who want to believe that 'believing every accuser is an 'injustice'. The accusers
should be believed to the point that there
is an investigation. Period.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
I think it's time for a change in the law; both presumed perp and victim should be anonymous until the trial is over.
So, if someone like Weinstein, for example, is allowed to remain anonymous then he could very easily (and blatantly) continue to harass and sexually assault victims because potential victims wouldn't be aware that Weinstein has been accused of sexual assault and they don't know enough to steer clear of him? Because the charges against him haven't been heard in a court yet? Nope. I don't think that's a good idea. Besides, isn't that what happened in the first place; people in the movie industry kept their mouths shut, swept all allegations against Weinstein under the rug and either discredited his victims or just outright tried to shut them up? If the victim is asking for anonymity then yes, by all means grant the victim that right; it's usually the victims who are the ones actually being put on trial anyhow since the burden of proof lies with them. And that's a pretty fucking heavy burden.
I do agree with your idea that it's time for a change in the law: I believe that
all accusers should be presumed to be telling the truth until it is proven in a court of law that the accuser's charges are indeed false ....... or not. According to valid statistics, false claims are a lot less percentage-wise than many people want to believe.
And with that, I am so done with this thread. I realize that I cannot be totally objective as I find myself wanting to paint all people who automatically doubt the victims' claims as being fucking misogynists (or at the very least, sexists); same with those who blather on about 'FALSE CHARGES!! FALSE CHARGES!!'. And I chastise myself for having such a discriminatory attitude (no, I really, truly do). I honestly believe everyone has the right to their opinions, even if those opinions differ from mine; only some opinions are formed as a result of ignorance of facts and statistics, as those facts and statistics blatantly prove. However, I do suggest you doubting Thomases try to walk a mile in a victim's shoes.
Enough.
Vasquez on 16/12/2017 at 15:23
Yes, right. I went and checked, in Finland "sexual harrassment" has been a legal term only since 2014! But I have never heard anyone being charged, let alone penalized for boob- or ass-touching, unless it's been somehow outrageously rough and repeated. Probably there are cases in the US for more random grabs, though.
SubJeff on 16/12/2017 at 15:43
Quote Posted by SD
allegations from multiple sources reduce that likelihood considerably.
Doesn't the Heath case prove this untrue?
Quote:
I didn't even say that someone "must be guilty" if accused by several people, merely that, on the basis of probability, I am happy to treat them as if they did it until such a time as it is evident they did not
Quote Posted by SD
I am not a court of law - I don't profess to be a court of law
No one said you were a court, I was challenging your 'happy to treat someone as guilty' is all. But if that's how you want to live your life, fine. I'm sure you can live with yourself
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Do you want us to sign a petition for the justice system to REALLY TAKE THIS 12% thing SERIOUSLY? Which I'm pretty sure is already done, case by case.
This is your second strawman in a row.
My point? It was just a post about false accusations being a real thing. I think the law must change re:anonymity.
Quote:
So, where's the justice for the victim whose life has been ruined because she couldn't produce photos and/or hospital reports or any other legally acceptable evidence proving that she had been raped?? You know, the victim who has to suffer the fact that everyone thinks she's (or he's) a liar now (and in some cases she/he loses their job and even friends) because
too many people equate 'lack of evidence' with false charges?
These are terrible cases, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Quote:
Blanket disbelief of
all women who file charges of sexual assault/harassment is discriminatory and exactly the type of mindset we have been fighting against for centuries. It's also one of the leading reasons too many people do
not report sexual assaults; I mean, if no one is going to believe them, then why the fuck bother?
We shouldn't have blanket disbelief. This is not the same as blanket belief - it's perfectly possible to investigate without prejudice.
Quote:
The actual figures for that are a lot smaller than you obviously want to acknowledge.
No, I acknowledge that. It's difficult to define 'false' because sometimes it's just a mistake (for whatever reason) and therefore in the data 'catch all' the numbers will be inflated. You see this in all sorts of data analysis.
Quote:
I thoroughly disagree. If the accusers are
not believed, then the charges
will not be investigated. It's also discriminatory to automatically not believe the victim, but to automatically believe the accused. And sexist as fuck.
Ah, now this is where we agree, really, but with a caveat. I don't think you have to believe or disbelieve - you just have to investigate and if someone makes an accusation you investigate until you find the truth.
Quote:
So, if someone like Weinstein, for example, is allowed to remain anonymous then he could very easily (and blatantly) continue to harass and sexually assault victims because potential victims wouldn't be aware that Weinstein has been accused of sexual assault and they don't know enough to steer clear of him? Because the charges against him haven't been heard in a court yet? Nope. I don't think that's a good idea.
Flip this though. Look at the case in the OP and watch that video. This poor guy had to tell every potential date that was under investigation. His life has been forever changed because of this. I think it unlikely that someone who is guilty will assault another person whilst under investigation as they'll be wary of getting into even more trouble. Of course there are nuts who would do it anyway but they'd probably do it anonymous or not.
My final point is; it's not acceptable to tar people without proof because the injustice of the consequences when you are incorrect is just as wrong as the crime that has occurred when you are correct. A civilised society does not accept that occasionally one 'slips through the net' and tough luck. This is the same reason we have abolished the death penalty - getting it wrong is not acceptable, at all.
icemann on 16/12/2017 at 15:51
And Dia has entered. Logical debate - Over. Enjoy it while it lasted guys. Emotion from here on. I'm out.
Trance on 16/12/2017 at 16:05
Quote Posted by Dia
I do agree with your idea that it's time for a change in the law: I believe that
all accusers should be presumed to be telling the truth until it is proven in a court of law that the accuser's charges are indeed false ....... or not.
Reading this chilled me.
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 16:17
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Yes, right. I went and checked, in Finland "sexual harrassment" has been a legal term only since 2014! But I have never heard anyone being charged, let alone penalized for boob- or ass-touching, unless it's been somehow outrageously rough and repeated. Probably there are cases in the US for more random grabs, though.
From what I understand, in the States it's the same -- it typically requires persistent or egregious behaviour. It's not sexual harassment unless it's either interfering with the victim's work in a serious way or it affects their career in some way (pay, benefits, status, etc). Though, things might differ between states.
Quote Posted by Trance
Reading this chilled me.
She means that all accusers should be taken seriously, not something nefarious. That they shouldn't be presumed to be lying until they are proven to be.
faetal on 16/12/2017 at 16:29
Quote Posted by icemann
And Dia has entered. Logical debate - Over. Enjoy it while it lasted guys. Emotion from here on. I'm out.
Dia has made some pretty good points backed up with sources. It seems it's logical debate itself which has scared you off.
SubJeff - what would you do to remedy the fact that an estimated 40% of rapes go unreported (same link as above)?
Another question - does the issue of false accusation of men trouble you more than the fact that 40% of rapes go unreported?
Also, what do you propose is done about cases which are literally not possible prove - where harassment or coercion has taken place, and the victims intimidated into silence, so they are only coming forward past the point where material evidence (swabs etc) are possible?
(side note, no I did not read the other thread, I barely come to CommChat anymore because it seems to gradually be turning in a diluted mixture of (
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/) r/theredpill and (
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/) r/The_Donald. This thread in particular is giving me this awful feeling that my daughter might be growing up in a culture where the very rare occurrence of men being harmed by false accusations of sexual abuse is considered a bigger injustice than most women spending their entire lives being subjected to casual insinuations that they are other people's property, or that their entire behaviour should be analysed for traces of leading people on (clothes, body language, being friendly etc...) and being called whores by people who can't handle rejection etc...)
Yes, there are some very sadistic and amoral women out there who will falsely claim sexual assault as a weapon against other men/women, but the idea that this should be the first consideration to be made when someone says they have been assaulted is childish, callous and as part of a compound social attitude, endangering many women by making them feel as though they can't come forward when it is their word against someone else's. Moreover, I think that the idea that such a thing is common enough to be a default assumption to be disproven, is incredibly misogynistic. It's incredible that 50% of the population are still being treated this way. To quote again from the article linked above:
Quote:
...we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason.
It's a very similar pattern whenever systemic injustice is brought up.
BlackLivesMatter - load of white guys vomiting out polemics about how it's not a real issue.
Gay Pride - load of straight people whining about where's straight pride.
International Women's Day - load of men whining about (
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/03/08/every-international-womens-day-people-like-ask-whens-international-mens-day-richard-herring-replies-every-single-one/) when's international men's day
Lots of women suddenly feel emboldened by the #metoo movement to discuss their sexual abuse - loads of guys waxing lyrical about how there shouldn't be any consequences for their attackers unless they have a solid legal case
Thinking about the last point, this would be opening the door that anyone can abuse someone in private, and as long as they don't leave material evidence (so a boob grab for example, or a crude solicitation, generally making a woman feel unsafe or uncomfortable to be in e.g. their place of work), they can just deny and carry on. The worst part? That is happening, a LOT. maybe I'm exposed to it more as I have a sister, have had quite a few girlfriends over the years and a lot of female friends, but I still find it nuts that men just don't seem to realise how much of a thing this is. I have friends who have been violently raped by people they considered friends, so now, if they find themselves in a situation where they are alone with a man who is making advances despite their expression of disinterest, they don't know if it will end in them having their life shattered again. There is no way to tell the difference between a guy who is trying to be persistent in a non-threatening way and one who is going to snap when he realises he won't be getting his way. Even worse, they get in a process of de-escalation, where despite them being 100% within their rights to refuse male attention, are instead having to learn the gentlest way to protect the guy's ego to avoid him becoming verbally of physically abusive, being called a prick-tease, or a whore etc...
This is half of the population. When many of them are speaking up about years of systematic abuse ranging from casual sexism to violent rape, the last thing we need to be doing is panicking about how this fits with the notion of innocent until proven guilty on the part of their alleged attackers. Way before this, there needs to be an urgent analysis of where the nooks and crannies in our social culture are that provide spaces whereby this shit can happen over and over again. I'm not claiming to have all of the answers, however I'm pretty sure that "first let's make sure the guy isn't the victim" isn't the best starting point.
Renzatic on 16/12/2017 at 16:36
Quote Posted by Starker
She means that all accusers should be taken seriously, not something nefarious. That they shouldn't be presumed to be lying until they are proven to be.
More often than not, these women are telling the truth. The question is, when does the accusation become actionable?
If one woman comes in making claims, it's outright crass and reprehensible to assume she's lying, or doing it for attention. You have to take it seriously. But if all she has is her claim, how can you warrant taking the required extra steps to address it? It's an accusation that requires severe repercussions to be levied. You're all but moving to ruin someone's livelihood on the word of someone else who's claiming the same has been done to them.
faetal on 16/12/2017 at 16:46
Do we prioritise protecting 2-12% of falsely accused men or the women whose accusations are 88-98% likely to be valid, while also maintaining a cultural milieu which sees around 40% of rapes from being reported?
All systems will inherently carry the risk of false negatives and false positives - it is very rare to have one which is totally accurate.
So the question is, how many female victims are we happy to throw under the bus to get the rate of upheld false accusations down to zero?
Again, I don't know, but it's an important question.