The student who cried "Rape!" so she could get an extension on homework

Guilty until proven in- wait, who gives a fuck about proof?

Psy-4 wrote:

"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZZZZZ" typical Gaijinguy.

So women are incapable of committing rape?

Sexist pig.

Psy-4 wrote:

Guilty until proven in- wait, who gives a fuck about proof?

Let's protect rapist and pedophiles so that once charges are brought against them, other victims will never know or help put the sick fuck away.

Let's extend the anonymity to the registered sex offenders for good measures.

gaijinguy wrote:

So women are incapable of committing rape?

Sexist pig.

Are you trying to drag down women to your own level?

Sexist pig.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Also, how do we know that alot of rapes arn't reported, if they arn't reported? Where do we get the numbers from?

Perhaps just even trying a half-assed Google search would get you some information. Seriously, all I did was type in "reported rapes" in Google and took the first link, which not only gave statistics on the percentage of rapes that are reported (among other facts), but also the study cited.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Guilty until proven in- wait, who gives a fuck about proof?

Let's protect rapist and pedophiles so that once charges are brought against them, other victims will never know or help put the sick fuck away.

Let's extend the anonymity to the registered sex offenders for good measures.

Um, shut up.

Seriously, you're obnoxious and purposely misconstruing their point. They're not saying rapists should be given anonymity, they're saying that alleged rapists should be given anonymity. There is a difference there whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not. Once they're charged, then fine, go nuts, but until then lay off, is the point. The point of granting anonymity isn't to protect the rapists and pedophiles it's to protect the falsely accused, because having a rape or pedophilia offense, even one where you were found innocent, on your record pretty much ruins you for life, if absolutely nothing else on a social level.

I'm not taking a side in this argument, as this is a sticky, sticky conversation I'd rather not get too involved in. But the way you were purposely twisting their words pissed me right off.

OH PS you're not required to register as a sex offender unless you're found guilty. So that doesn't even apply. NICE TRY THOUGH.

Psy-4 wrote:

Guilty until proven in- wait, who gives a fuck about proof?

I'm with Psy-4 on this one. Yes, rape is a horrible, horrible crime and the people that perpetrate such a crime deserve to be treated terribly but only if they're actually guilty of it. I know some like to think that people are generally decent enough to not go around falsely accusing others of rape but...well, look at this case in particular. I know it's not the norm, but it does happen.

How about an extreme example? Let's say (just for the sake of argument) that a man decides to accuse a woman of raping him because she wouldn't sleep with him (or she slept with someone else or some other bullshit reason). If the people that are clamouring for the accused to have her name splashed all over the newspapers immediately following the accusation, you don't think she'd be at risk for "retaliatory" attacks? You don't think there are men that would say, "Hey baby, you didn't need to go raping anyone. I'll fuck you for free!" and attack her? Somehow I doubt that a man accused of rape being beaten half to death would elicit nearly as much of a sympathetic reaction as this hypothetical woman would.

'Innocent until proven guilty' isn't designed to just protect women; it's intended to protect innocent people accused of crimes. The mere act of investigating a crime doesn't mean that the accuser is being disbelieved; it simply means that the crime needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true so that a potentially innocent person isn't being punished.

That's the funny thing about equality: you get the drawbacks as well as the perks. Women are equally as capable of lying about serious crimes as men are and should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt simply for being women. Investigate all crimes as reported or just label everyone accused of a crime as being guilty right off the bat. Preferential treatment according to gender is sexist, no matter what gender it benefits.

TheHedonist wrote:

Once they're charged convicted, then fine, go nuts, but until then lay off, is the point.

FTFY

TheHedonist wrote:

Um, shut up.

Seriously, you're obnoxious and purposely misconstruing their point. They're not saying rapists should be given anonymity, they're saying that alleged rapists should be given anonymity. There is a difference there whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not. Once they're charged, then fine, go nuts, but until then lay off, is the point. The point of granting anonymity isn't to protect the rapists and pedophiles it's to protect the falsely accused, because having a rape or pedophilia offense, even one where you were found innocent, on your record pretty much ruins you for life, if absolutely nothing else on a social level.

I'm not taking a side in this argument, as this is a sticky, sticky conversation I'd rather not get too involved in. But the way you were purposely twisting their words pissed me right off.

OH PS you're not required to register as a sex offender unless you're found guilty. So that doesn't even apply. NICE TRY THOUGH.

Glade to see that you support not informing people that their babysitter was charged with child molestation.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Glade to see that you support not informing people that their babysitter was convicted of child molestation.

Convicted is one thing; accused is another. You're talking about two different things.

Aggie wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Glade to see that you support not informing people that their babysitter was convicted of child molestation.

Convicted is one thing; accused is another. You're talking about two different things.

Maybe you should refresh the page, yes?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Aggie wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Glade to see that you support not informing people that their babysitter was convicted of child molestation.

Convicted is one thing; accused is another. You're talking about two different things.

Maybe you should refresh the page, yes?

Yeah, that wording is better. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Aggie wrote:

'Guilty until proven innocent' isn't designed to just protect women; it's intended to protect innocent people accused of crimes. The mere act of investigating a crime doesn't mean that the accuser is being disbelieved; it simply means that the crime needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true so that a potentially innocent person isn't being punished.

What comes to my mind is shit like the McMartin preschool case. People assumed that children wouldn't lie about being abused, especially in such detail, especially with such horrific things being described. They didn't assume "innocent until proven guilty", they assumed guilt. It ended up wasting a whole hell of a lot of money, scarring the children involved for life, and destroying the McMartin family, their business, their lives -- all for abuse that never happened.

Oops, that should have read 'Innocent until proven guilty' in your quoted post. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Aggie wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Guilty until proven in- wait, who gives a fuck about proof?

I'm with Psy-4 on this one. Yes, rape is a horrible, horrible crime and the people that perpetrate such a crime deserve to be treated terribly but only if they're actually guilty of it. I know some like to think that people are generally decent enough to not go around falsely accusing others of rape but...well, look at this case in particular. I know it's not the norm, but it does happen.

How about an extreme example? Let's say (just for the sake of argument) that a man decides to accuse a woman of raping him because she wouldn't sleep with him (or she slept with someone else or some other bullshit reason). If the people that are clamouring for the accused to have her name splashed all over the newspapers immediately following the accusation, you don't think she'd be at risk for "retaliatory" attacks? You don't think there are men that would say, "Hey baby, you didn't need to go raping anyone. I'll fuck you for free!" and attack her? Somehow I doubt that a man accused of rape being beaten half to death would elicit nearly as much of a sympathetic reaction as this hypothetical woman would.

'Guilty until proven innocent' isn't designed to just protect women; it's intended to protect innocent people accused of crimes. The mere act of investigating a crime doesn't mean that the accuser is being disbelieved; it simply means that the crime needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true so that a potentially innocent person isn't being punished.

That's the funny thing about equality: you get the drawbacks as well as the perks. Women are equally as capable of lying about serious crimes as men are and should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt simply for being women. Investigate all crimes as reported or just label everyone accused of a crime as being guilty right off the bat. Preferential treatment according to gender is sexist, no matter what gender it benefits.

This. It is entirely possible for some obnoxious person to accuse someone else of a crime that never occurred. When I was in 7th grade, one of my classmates, thinking she was funny, told me that my dad (one of the teachers at the school) raped one of her friends. Being a rather sheltered child, I didn't know what rape meant, so I told my dad what the girl said, wanting to know what it meant. Needless to say, he was not happy, and promptly reported it to the vice principal, who called both the girl and me into the office to talk to us. The girl admitted she was just messing with me and hadn't thought I would actually say anything to my dad. I'm glad I told my dad about what the little snot had said, because that kind of an allegation, even if proven to be completely untrue, can destroy a person's life--and this is particularly true if they're in a position where they work with children. Also, in addition to ruining the life of the person falsely accused, such lies make it harder for those who actually have had a crime committed against them to get justice, because, after all, if people lie about such things, how do you know an actual victim isn't also lying?

Malganis wrote:

What comes to my mind is shit like the McMartin preschool case. People assumed that children wouldn't lie about being abused, especially in such detail, especially with such horrific things being described. They didn't assume "innocent until proven guilty", they assumed guilt. It ended up wasting a whole hell of a lot of money, scarring the children involved for life, and destroying the McMartin family, their business, their lives -- all for abuse that never happened.

And the Duke lacrosse rape case?

Prehaps when someone you know gets raped and they know who did it, they do not go to the police and swep it under the rub. Lo and behold, years go by and the person that raped them gets charged with raping an other person. Two things can happen;

A.) The rape victim you know sees a news article about their rapist and decides to come forward because now there is a second victim which adds more to their case.

B.) Because of anonymity the rapist's name isn't mentioned and the victim never gets their justice.

What will you say to that rape victim when you tell them you support anonymity for people accused of sex crimes? "lol 2 bad der privacy is more important than you and dey might b innocent"?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Prehaps when someone you know gets raped and they know who did it, they do not go to the police and swep it under the rub.

Perhaps if you knew someone who had been falsely accused of rape you would be more tolerant of the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' edict.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Prehaps when someone you know gets raped and they know who did it, they do not go to the police and swep it under the rub. Lo and behold, years go by and the person that raped them gets charged with raping an other person. Two things can happen;

A.) The rape victim you know sees a news article about their rapist and decides to come forward because now there is a second victim which adds more to their case.

B.) Because of anonymity the rapist's name isn't mentioned and the victim never gets their justice.

What will you say to that rape victim when you tell them you support anonymity for people accused of sex crimes? "lol 2 bad der privacy is more important than you and dey might b innocent"?

This is just a thought, but maybe, if they want something to happen to the rapist, they should...I don't know...report it? I know reporting such a crime can be traumatic, but...if the first rape was reported and the rapist was brought to justice, then the second rape would not have occurred.

Aggie wrote:

Perhaps if you knew someone who has been falsely accused of rape you would be more tolerant of the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' edict.

Yes, because false accusations of rape happen more often rape victims being screwed over in court.

Lady Anne wrote:

This is just a thought, but maybe, if they want something to happen to the rapist, they should...I don't know...report it? I know reporting such a crime can be traumatic, but...if the first rape was reported and the rapist was brought to justice, then the second rape would not have occurred.

Wow, victim blaming much?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Aggie wrote:

Perhaps if you knew someone who has been falsely accused of rape you would be more tolerant of the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' edict.

Yes, because false accusations of rape happen more often rape victims being screwed over in court.

You have the numbers off-hand, do you?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

What will you say to that rape victim when you tell them you support anonymity for people accused of sex crimes? "lol 2 bad der privacy is more important than you and dey might b innocent"?

Why hello thar Thanos6.

Maximilia wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Also, how do we know that alot of rapes arn't reported, if they arn't reported? Where do we get the numbers from?

Perhaps just even trying a half-assed Google search would get you some information. Seriously, all I did was type in "reported rapes" in Google and took the first link, which not only gave statistics on the percentage of rapes that are reported (among other facts), but also the study cited.

Yes, but where do these studies get there data? Why do women who won't talk to the police speak to these guys? I was kinda hoping for an actual explaination of this, not just being waved at the data itself and being told that's enough.

no no, you guys, we should jail men without due process, because conviction rates

Aggie wrote:

You have the numbers off-hand, do you?

Quote :

According to research due out later this month, Britain comes bottom of 33 European states, with just 6.5 per cent of rape cases reported to police ending in a conviction, compared with 25 per cent in France.

Source.

But the measly precentage of false rape accusations is totally more shocking.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Why do women who won't talk to the police speak to these guys?

I dunno maybe it's because they most often know the man who did it and fear their wrath?

Are you going to ask why don't they "just fight back" next?

You people are seriously misinformed if you believe that sex crime cases are always evidence base, instead of what they most often are- a case of she-said-he-said.