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

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.

OH MY GOD. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. What they are saying is that a rape accusation, even if it turns out to be false, irreparably tarnishes a man (or woman's) reputation so badly that they could easily lose their job, children, and overall welfare because of something that never happened. Innocent people deserve that kind of punishment about as much as a rape victim deserves to be raped.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

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?

THAT IS NOT BLAMING THE VICTIM JESUS CHRIST ARE YOU BEING PURPOSELY THICK? Lady Anne isn't saying WELL HURF DURF WHY DID YOU WALK DOWN THAT DARK ALLEY, she's not saying that SHE WAS WEARING A SHORT SKIRT, SHE HAD IT COMING, she's saying that if a rape victim wants justice for their assault they need to report it. That's not blaming the victim that's common sense. Her point is that no one can demand justice for a crime they don't know happened.

God it's like if you took Cyberwulf and removed any semblance of intelligence.

God, the dumb in this thread is unbelieveable.

Somath Cegem wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Quote :

It's one thing once he's convicted, but there's nothing to be gained by knowing the name of the accused before the verdict.

See above, my dear. The accused is named in other crimes.

Pardon my ignorance, but how many of these other crimes have a habit of causing people accused of them to be lynched in the street and having there lives ruined if proven innocent (or not proven guilty if you will) and not famous.

So a murder accusation is nothing? A child molestation accusation?

Quote :

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

There are these places called rape crisis centres. Maybe you've heard of them.

TheHedonist wrote:

They're not saying rapists should be given anonymity, they're saying that alleged rapists should be given anonymity.

Define "alleged". How far does it extend? Till they're charged? Till they're before a court?

Quote :

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

I don't know about the UK, but here that happens ALREADY.

Aggie wrote:

The mere act of investigating a crime doesn't mean that the accuser is being disbelieved;

No-one said that.

Quote :

Women are equally as capable of lying about serious crimes as men are

Except that when men lie about rape, we're supposed to take them at face value because the lie is usually "I didn't do it".

Quote :

and should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt simply for being women.

Instead they should be automatically suspected of lying. There's no way a rape victim would pick up on that from police officers and decide not to co-operate in case the cops decide to charge her for filing a false police report or anything.

Quote :

Investigate all crimes as reported

That's what was DONE here, tool.

Quote :

Preferential treatment according to gender is sexist, no matter what gender it benefits.

That's a fine array of corn dollies you've got there.

Lady Anne wrote:

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?

If you really think the tiny number of genuine false rape accusations are the reason why rape victims have such problems seeing justice done, then I don't know what to say.

Aggie wrote:

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?

Well gee, if we're going to throw out isolated cases like they're a trend, how about the De Anza case?

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.

Absolutely. It's a civic duty to report your rape to the cops. If you're not prepared to put up with medical testing, repeated interrogations by police officers, all of your rapist's friends calling you a fucking liar, a media circus and a sham trial in which the defence barrister grills you on your behaviour, clothing, sexual history and prior relationship with the defendant, any future rapes are on your head.

Aggie wrote:

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?

Between 2 and 8% of rape accusations made to the police in the US are genuinely false.

Psy stop looking for attention.

EDIT:

The Hedonist wrote:

she's saying that if a rape victim wants justice for their assault they need to report it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you just not read the last page? Right at the bottom where the APALLINGLY LOW CONVICTION RATE FOR RAPE was posted?

Somath Cegem wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Quote :

It's one thing once he's convicted, but there's nothing to be gained by knowing the name of the accused before the verdict.

See above, my dear. The accused is named in other crimes.

Pardon my ignorance, but how many of these other crimes have a habit of causing people accused of them to be lynched in the street and having there lives ruined if proven innocent (or not proven guilty if you will) and not famous.

How about paedophilia? Or terrorism?

There'd be fucking mass outcry if it was suggested that people accused of being child molesters should be granted anonymity.

Quote :

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

(incidentally, I'm also responding to your post on page 2 about where these figures come from) With the study of crime, it's well-known that there is something called the "iceberg figure"; i.e. all crimes are underreported to the police. This could be due to apathy (e.g. I've had my purse nicked more times than I care to count. I've given up reporting it to the police because it's just not worth my effort), or perhaps to fear of not being believed, or shame, or worrying about implicating yourself, or any number of reasons.

In Britain, a lot of our data on underreported crimes comes from the British Crime Survey. This essentially involves sending out a questionnaire to a representative sample of the population asking if they have experienced any crimes in the last year. They compare these findings from asking people in a confidential questionnaire to what is actually reported to the police. It gives a better idea of the crimes people have experienced, but is still likely to underestimate incidence of crimes.

So why wouldn't someone report a rape? There's lots of factors at work here. The fear of not being believed. The shame. The fact that a lot of things that are rape aren't seen to be rape (case in point: the Jack Tweed case. She didn't say a clear "no". That doesn't make it not rape). The invasive physical exam.

So rape is already massively underreported. The government's proposal will likely exacerbate that situation. Fact is, people (not even women! Men being raped is even more underreported!) are more likely to be raped than make false accusations. And we need to make it easier for them to come forward rather than make them feel like liars.

How the hell did this go so fucked?

I have a few questions, just to put out there.

1) Which do you think happens more often? Unreported rapes or false accusations?

2) Of course if one wants something to happen to the rapist one must report it, but seeing as rapes are underreported due to fear and self blame, what exactly would the contingency plan be for this situation?

3) We unfortunately have an imperfect justice system. Not everyone who has been correctly accused of rape is convicted, and not everyone incorrectly accused is set free with their name intact. What, honest to God, should the solution be?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Aggie wrote:

The mere act of investigating a crime doesn't mean that the accuser is being disbelieved;

No-one said that.

Quote :

and should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt simply for being women.

Instead they should be automatically suspected of lying. There's no way a rape victim would pick up on that from police officers and decide not to co-operate in case the cops decide to charge her for filing a false police report or anything.

No one said that either. Again, the mere fact that a crime is being investigated does not mean that the accuser is being disbelieved. If crimes cannot be proved beyond 'he said/she said', the law will have to err on the side of caution. I wouldn't particularly want to live in an environment where just being accused of a crime was enough evidence to convict you of it.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Women are equally as capable of lying about serious crimes as men are

Except that when men lie about rape, we're supposed to take them at face value because the lie is usually "I didn't do it".

Here's a radical thought: what if the man didn't actually do it? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ZoZo wrote:

How about paedophilia? Or terrorism?

What about 'em? It's already been demonstrated that merely being accused of pedophilia can be life-wrecking, and the No-Fly List is a fucking travesty.

Quote :

There'd be fucking mass outcry if it was suggested that people accused of being child molesters should be granted anonymity.

Maybe. People are dumb.

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Aggie wrote:

The mere act of investigating a crime doesn't mean that the accuser is being disbelieved;

No-one said that.

Quote :

and should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt simply for being women.

Instead they should be automatically suspected of lying. There's no way a rape victim would pick up on that from police officers and decide not to co-operate in case the cops decide to charge her for filing a false police report or anything.

No one said that either.

What do you think "benefit of the doubt" fucking means?

If someone contacts the police and reports that a crime has occurred, the police have to assume the report is being made in good faith and go and investigate it. If they don't give everyone who contacts them "the benefit of the doubt" then guilty people go free because the police write people off as liars for whatever bullshit reason is most convenient for them.

Quote :

Again, the mere fact that a crime is being investigated does not mean that the accuser is being disbelieved.

No-one said that. Why are you repeating it?

Quote :

I wouldn't particularly want to live in an environment where just being accused of a crime was enough evidence to convict you of it.

Is there something wrong with you?

Since I edited my previous comment before you responded, here's my edit:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Women are equally as capable of lying about serious crimes as men are

Except that when men lie about rape, we're supposed to take them at face value because the lie is usually "I didn't do it".

Here's a radical thought: what if the man didn't actually do it? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] What if the woman unintentionally identified the wrong man? Should this innocent man take the blame for an atrocity that someone else committed simply to make the victim feel better?

No one is saying that rape isn't a horrific crime and that the people that actually commit this crime should not be punished severely; what a few of us are saying is that people should be given the opportunity to defend themselves without fear of being attacked by the public for something that hasn't even been proven that they've done. There are a lot of malicious people out there (both men and women) that would think nothing of making false accusations against people whose lives they want to ruin. The law needs to have a way to protect against that.

in during cyberwulf

Jesus. wrote:

1) Which do you think happens more often? Unreported rapes or false accusations?

This is a pure math problem.

Let A be the number of rapes reported.

Let B be the number of rapes unreported.

Let C (which belongs to A) be the number of false accusations.

It is a given that C < A. (as it is always a percentage of reported rapes)

According to an article linked in this thread, the number of unreported rapes is 67%, so B > A.

Therefore, B > C. Simple.

Aggie wrote:

Since I edited my previous comment before you responded, here's my edit:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Women are equally as capable of lying about serious crimes as men are

Except that when men lie about rape, we're supposed to take them at face value because the lie is usually "I didn't do it".

Here's a radical thought: what if the man didn't actually do it? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] What if the woman unintentionally identified the wrong man? Should this innocent man take the blame for an atrocity that someone else committed simply to make the victim feel better?

I thought you'd be all out of straw by now.

Quote :

what a few of us are saying is that people should be given the opportunity to defend themselves without fear of being attacked by the public for something that hasn't even been proven that they've done.

If you've been formally charged with a crime or been brought to trial for a crime, that's a fact. Newspapers are allowed to report facts. I don't know how it works other places, but in Ireland a suspect usually isn't identified by name unless they've been formally charged and a trial is pending; IOW the Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there's sufficient evidence against the person to have a trial. At that stage you should be worried about more than the court of public opinion.

Quote :

There are a lot of malicious people out there

No, there aren't "a lot".

Quote :

The law needs to have a way to protect against that.

What do you suggest we do to make sure no one has his/her life ruined because s/he's unlucky enough to be the target of the 2%-8% of genuinely malicious false rape reports?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

The law needs to have a way to protect against that.

What do you suggest we do to make sure no one has his/her life ruined because s/he's unlucky enough to be the target of the 2%-8% of genuinely malicious false rape reports?

Not publish the names of accused rapists until they're formally charged and/or convicted (and I'm not so sure about the 'being charged' bit).

In a perfect world, innocent people are always absolved of the crime and never suffer any reprisal in any aspect of their life over it. However, in a perfect world rape wouldn't exist and people would never lie about being the victim of a crime. Thus, the law needs to have provisions in place to prevent innocent people from being punished for something they didn't do due to malicious intent (no matter how rarely it occurs).

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

The law needs to have a way to protect against that.

What do you suggest we do to make sure no one has his/her life ruined because s/he's unlucky enough to be the target of the 2%-8% of genuinely malicious false rape reports?

Not publish the names of accused rapists until they're formally charged and/or convicted.

It's only done once they're formally charged, anyway. Cyberwulf said that in her last post.

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

The law needs to have a way to protect against that.

What do you suggest we do to make sure no one has his/her life ruined because s/he's unlucky enough to be the target of the 2%-8% of genuinely malicious false rape reports?

Not publish the names of accused rapists until they're formally charged and/or convicted (and I'm not so sure about the 'being charged' bit).

That.

Happens.

Here.

Already.

I keep telling you.

You need to put on your reading eyes.

PS: Any thoughts on how to increase the appallingly low conviction rates for rape?

ZoZo wrote:

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

The law needs to have a way to protect against that.

What do you suggest we do to make sure no one has his/her life ruined because s/he's unlucky enough to be the target of the 2%-8% of genuinely malicious false rape reports?

Not publish the names of accused rapists until they're formally charged and/or convicted.

It's only done once they're formally charged, anyway. Cyberwulf said that in her last post.

That may happen there but it doesn't happen everywhere. And innocent people can end up in court over something they haven't done so I suggest that the names not be released until a conviction is made.

Aggie wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

The law needs to have a way to protect against that.

What do you suggest we do to make sure no one has his/her life ruined because s/he's unlucky enough to be the target of the 2%-8% of genuinely malicious false rape reports?

Not publish the names of accused rapists until they're formally charged and/or convicted.

It's only done once they're formally charged, anyway. Cyberwulf said that in her last post.

That may happen there but it doesn't happen everywhere. And innocent people can end up in court over something they haven't done so I suggest that the names not be released until a conviction is made.

Do you not think innocents are not convicted? Or that people who are guilty are set free?

Aggie wrote:

And innocent people can end up in court over something they haven't done so I suggest that the names not be released until a conviction is made.

You don't think, in light of the INCREDIBLY LOW CONVICTION RATE FOR RAPE, the fact that someone was tried for rape might be something other people might need to know?

Shit, why stop there? After someone serves a prison sentence, why not expunge their record? Maybe they were falsely imprisoned or something.

God, the arguments on this forum get me so confused. I swear, half the time I don't even see any connection between what person A says and what person B says in response.



Also,

Aggie wrote:

The mere act of investigating a crime doesn't mean that the accuser is being disbelieved;

Quote :

Again, the mere fact that a crime is being investigated does not mean that the accuser is being disbelieved.

if this sentence isn't backasswards, I'm lost. Isn't the act of investigating some accusations a sign that the accuser is being believed, at least for the time being? Do you mean it doesn't necessarily mean the accusee is disbelieved?

Cyberwulf wrote:

PS: Any thoughts on how to increase the appallingly low conviction rates for rape?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Give women guns, avoid the whole trial thing altogether. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

let's all rage about LOW CONVICTION RATES FOR RAPE without suggesting actionable solutions

Oh, speaking of disproportionate headlines...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

grmblfjx wrote:

if this sentence isn't backasswards, I'm lost. Isn't the act of investigating some accusations a sign that the accuser is being believed, at least for the time being? Do you mean it doesn't necessarily mean the accusee is disbelieved?

The main issue is with rape; some people seem to think that if an accusation of rape is made and is then investigated, that implies that the accuser isn't being believed (or is thought of as LYING), particularly if no verifiable evidence can be found. Lack of evidence doesn't always mean that it didn't happen, it just means that the crime itself can't be proven and no charges can be filed (and some people will interpret that as meaning 'You don't believe me!' or 'You think I'm lying!').

Penguin wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

PS: Any thoughts on how to increase the appallingly low conviction rates for rape?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Give women guns, avoid the whole trial thing altogether. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

OH great, now we start with the gun wank too.

the asylum wrote:

OH great, now we start with the gun wank too.

We just need to fit in abortion and racism somehow and the circle will be complete.

Aggie wrote:

the asylum wrote:

OH great, now we start with the gun wank too.

We just need to fit in abortion and racism somehow and the circle will be complete.

Hmm... I'm sure there's something that could... yep.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Oh thank god, there are intellient people here.

What fucking proof do you people want to named alledged rapist? A fucking video of the crime happening?