Starker on 16/12/2017 at 16:59
Quote Posted by Renzatic
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.
Prosecutors have to weigh the evidence and decide how likely it is to result in a guilty conviction. Generally, prosecution doesn't bring cases until they are reasonably sure that there's some chance of success. If it's just one person's word against another, then yeah, the chances are low. But still, this matters when the person is accused the next time with more evidence.
Renzatic on 16/12/2017 at 17:08
That's true in court, but we're discussing the #metoo movement, which is very much a social thing. There is no requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt here. An accusation could have just as much weight as damning proof.
The only thing I can really say about it is that, overall, I think it's a great thing, probably long overdue. But let's not pave the road to hell with our good intentions, huh? Level heads and all that.
icemann on 16/12/2017 at 17:12
Quote Posted by faetal
Dia has made some pretty good points backed up with sources. It seems it's logical debate itself which has scared you off.
My comment wasn't due to that, it was due to the previous debate that had been going on in the previous thread, then Dia entered and it all switched to one where debate couldn't really be done, and it all devolved into name calling and lot's of genitalia related insults and a lot of heated emotions which eventually resulted in the thread being closed. That I'm not interested in.
In the spirit of debate though I'll answer one earlier comment/question:
Quote Posted by Dia
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.
There is no justice on both sides of the coin. Everything you say in the above I COMPLETELY agree with. On one end you have the pain and torment genuine victims go through for the rest of their lives. But then you have those accused of a crime, life ruined, can't leave the house, have rocks thrown through their window so have to move to another city etc etc. And then proven to be innocent later on. Damage done. Life already ruined regardless. For them there is no justice either.
So no'one wins in any of it. And I've never said that it wasn't a two way street. All I've been speaking on, is that those accused should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Otherwise it's just a witch hunt.
Renzatic on 16/12/2017 at 17:24
Lots of people were fucking stupid in that massive 300 car pileup with multiple fatalities of a thread. Some moreso than others.
LET'S NOT REPEAT THAT HERE, ALRIGHT? KTHX?
Tocky on 16/12/2017 at 17:34
One report says 2% and one says 12% (nevermind the disclaimer in that report). But lets say it is 10%. Do you understand the exponential way it goes down with every accusation after? I'm one of the emotional ones on this subject so I'll bow out of further discussion but surely you can see how ones willingness to believe the accused goes down exponentially as well. Frankly after personal observation of mens behavior I don't see how other men can defend us so vehemently. For my part I'm well satisfied to accept my chances of being falsely accused if it means those wronged feel better about coming forward.
I'll try to stay away from this thread when I'm drinking so that I don't post the exact amount of fucks I give quite literally.
SubJeff on 16/12/2017 at 18:31
Quote Posted by faetal
SubJeff - what would you do to remedy the fact that an estimated 40% of rapes go unreported (same link as above)?
Something entirely different, but that's for another thread.
Quote:
Another question - does the issue of false accusation of men trouble you more than the fact that 40% of rapes go unreported?
No.
Quote:
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?
This is related to the first question. I'd hope we can stop the intimidation in the first place.
Quote:
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
It shouldn't be the first consideration.
The essence of balance is detachment. Seriously.
SD on 16/12/2017 at 19:05
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Doesn't the Heath case prove this untrue?
I don't know how anything of the sort can prove mathematical fact untrue; however this is a case where police found seven individuals whose allegations met the legal threshold to question Heath under criminal caution, were he still alive. You feel free to hang your hat on him if you want.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
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
Rather that than treating probable sex offenders as if they were innocent merely because the allegations haven't been tested in court.
SD on 16/12/2017 at 19:09
Quote Posted by Tocky
One report says 2% and one says 12% (nevermind the disclaimer in that report). But lets say it is 10%. Do you understand the exponential way it goes down with every accusation after?
He's shown no sign of understanding it thus far. The simple mathematical fact is that if you say the odds of one accuser making it up is 10%, that means the odds of two accusers independently making it up are 1%, of three 0.1%, and so on.
I wonder what fraction of a percentage of probability you need to get to before SubJeff is happy to steer clear of an individual as a dodgy sort?
SubJeff on 16/12/2017 at 19:47
Assuming no malice/fantasy, you would be correct IF those were odds.
But they aren't. This is a maths fail for you both - that's just the prevalence of false accusations in that particular data set. It does not represent a mathematical prediction that can be used on individual cases.
Of course I expect you to argue the toss about this until faetal or dema disabuse of the notion that you understand how numbers work.
Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 22:26
Quote Posted by Starker
Innocent before proven guilty is a concept for crimes tried in a court. It means that it's up to the prosecution to prove a person's guilt and not up to the person to prove their innocence. It doesn't mean that the person is innocent, it just means that only the person's guilt is determined at court. Obviously, this doesn't apply to life outside of a courtroom.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a lofty concept for the legal system. It is at the very base of a free society. And the fact that you (and obviously not you alone) fail to grasp this and think it's perfectly fine to ignore it and dish out your own kind of justice or applaud it from the sidelines, shows a lack of understanding of the moral principle behind it.
Meanwhile the fact is paraded around that only 2%-12% are found to be falsely accused. Where do you people think this is found out? It happens in criminal investigations and trials where this very principle is honored. Not on Twitter.
Ultimately this discussion like so many these days is about truth. We know for a long time that actual truth is very hard to come by - sometimes impossibly so. People have interests, sometimes hidden, people experience the same situation in very different ways due to their previous experiences. Basically you cannot blindly trust anyone. That's why we've established a legal system to find out - not necessarily THE truth - but the best we can do, from as impartial a viewpoint as we can. After many painful centuries we've learned this to be the best way for everyone involved.
I too empathize with the victims. But please don't use your well meant empathy to undermine this legal process. Someone's online record of a personal experience - no matter how harrowing - cannot simply be conflated with "the actual truth".
It doesn't make you a better person to blindly believe anyone - accuser or accused - before investigations and sentencing.
Quote Posted by Starker
We don't doubt victims of theft in the same way.
Of course facts are much easier to establish if someone is holding a purse full of personally identifiable belongings than matters of consent where often one person's word stands against another's. But if we're not talking about a purse but just cash money, then yes, we do doubt alleged victims in the legal system.
