Originally posted by SurturLol, well that's a rather weak non-answer. I take it you have no response to my points then.
The prospect doesn't appall me anymore than the prospect of innocent men being jailed over this. So no, there need to be heavy consequences for doing this.So no, it's not stupid to give women consequences to their actions. Especially given how easily some of these women have been able to get men jailed. Sometimes based SOLELY on their word.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
😂
The study you're citing documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.
At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.
The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned. They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."
If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Lol, well that's a rather weak non-answer. I take it you have no response to my points then.
Well lets see..you say some women might be falsely convicted and ask if that appalls me. I say it doesn't appall me anymore than men being falsely convicted, and there's a problem if it bothers you more for one side than the other.
You talk about reputation and how the solution is so damn easy, and if it's so damn easy then how the hell did we have these variety of rape cases that turned out to be false and yet we knew the names of those accused? If it's so easy to prevent..why would they possibly want their names out there? Explain to me how anyone benefits from that? If anyone it's the names of the supposed victims that I have seen hidden. Hell the Rolling Stone thing just referred to the liar as "Jackie" which wasn't her real name.
Then you bring up the added issue of intoxication and how it makes it difficult to recall the facts and again: that goes both ways. Since these facts a person fails to recall could just as easily prove they weren't raoed as they might prove they were, right?
Originally posted by ZiggystardustI don't care lol. The same source literally came out and stated this isn't basis for any meaningful conclusions lmfao.
The study you're citing documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.
The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned. They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."
If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.
Regardless, good to know you didn't actually copy and paste the quote as you claimed, but falsely reworded it. 👆
I've also noticed some weird double standards when it comes to drunken sex. I completely understand that a guy taking advantage of a girl who is black out drunk is indeed rape. However, I've also seen some women put forth this notion that if both people are really really drunk it's still somehow the guys responsibility to stop sex from happening.
Unfortunately there has been more than one occasion where a woman has gotten drunk and hooked up with a guy and then regretted it the next day and accused the man of rape. I remember this one video where the girl(who was lying) got very very pissy with the cop who dared to even question her story, and this cop was female.
Even if only something like 10% of rape accusations turn out to be false..that would still mean 1 out of every 10 rape accusations is a lie.
Originally posted by SurturWhich doesn't address the problem I raised. Nor did I ever claim that men being falsely convicted of rape is not abhorrent to me. However, your (absurd) solution is that we essentially make it equally bad for both parties.
Well lets see..you say some women might be falsely convicted and ask if that appalls me. I say it doesn't appall me anymore than men being falsely convicted, and there's a problem if it bothers you more for one side than the other.
You talk about reputation and how the solution is so damn easy, and if it's so damn easy then how the hell did we have these variety of rape cases that turned out to be false and yet we knew the names of those accused? If it's so easy to prevent..why would they possibly want their names out there? Explain to me how anyone benefits from that? If anyone it's the names of the supposed victims that I have seen hidden. Hell the Rolling Stone thing just referred to the liar as "Jackie" which wasn't her real name.Because it's not law. I'm offering a suggestion as to what should be made lawful.
Then you bring up the added issue of intoxication and how it makes it difficult to recall the facts and again: that goes both ways. Since these facts a person fails to recall could just as easily prove they weren't raoed as they might prove they were.And that's exactly the point, the line of argument could easily be taken to falsely accuse women of being liars. Heck, that's exactly what the defence almost always attempts to do, but with your suggestion it would now come with a prison sentence. Women know this, and that's why they'd be afraid to come forward. On top of being scared of being proven liars in general.
I want a prison sentence if it can be proved they lied. Not based on the mere accusation of lying.
Just like I don't want men arrested based on the mere accusation of rape.
As for the reputation, okay you say it's not the law and stuff when it comes to reputation. Let me ask you this: do you think there would be any kind of backlash from feminists if they made a law where you couldn't release the rapists name until it can be proven?
I have even seen bizarre arguments where women have said it's sexist to want a rape victim to have a rape kit done before they go off arresting someone over this. So some women would definitely have issues with not releasing his name unless he's proven guilty, because they'll say it would give him the chance to rape other women before guilt is established.
But okay let me ask this: if jail is too much, then what should the consequences be for lying about rape? Especially if it resulted in the man spending years in jail?
Surely the current consequences aren't sufficient, since at times the consequence to this can be..nothing at all. Not even community service.
To branch further out, what steps can we take to change the fact that women are more likely to receive lenient sentences for violent crimes when compared to men who commit the same crimes?
Originally posted by SurturYou mean false accusation, and subsequent false conviction. You've already admitted that the justice system is fallible given that men are have been falsely imprisoned for rape, now you are essentially advocating that the same thing happen be allowed to happen to women. Again, this benefits no one.
I want a prison sentence if it can be proved they lied. Not based on the mere accusation of lying.Just like I don't want men arrested based on the mere accusation of rape.
As for the reputation, okay you say it's not the law and stuff when it comes to reputation. Let me ask you this: do you think there would be any kind of backlash from feminists if they made a law where you couldn't release the rapists name until it can be proven?Women definitely need to understand the male position when it comes to rape, and the serious damage rape accusations can do to their reputation, which is why there's a serious case for them having the same rights as women in this respect i.e. anonymity, yeah.I have even seen bizarre arguments where women have said it's sexist to want a rape victim to have a rape kit done before they go off arresting someone over this. So some women would definitely have issues with not releasing his name unless he's proven guilty, because they'll say it would give him the chance to rape other women before guilt is established.
However, there is a case against that as well, this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/society/womens-blog/2016/oct/18/extending-anonymity-to-sexual-suspects-is-a-bad-idea-heres-why
Originally posted by SurturWell first of all we need to make a distinction between lying about rape and being mistaken, or the act simply not warranting imprisonment. Normally this comes down to issues of consent, which is always a subjective grey area.
But okay let me ask this: if jail is too much, then what should the consequences be for lying about rape? Especially if it resulted in the man spending years in jail?Surely the current consequences aren't sufficient, since at times the consequence to this can be..nothing at all. Not even community service.
It doesn't seem particularly fair to punish a women for what was deemed poor judgement.
To branch further out, what steps can we take to change the fact that women are more likely to receive lenient sentences for violent crimes when compared to men who commit the same crimes?Well that's just the consequence of a general pervading bias, you can't really address that with a law.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Oh Ziggy and Surtur, I thought you really hated whiners?
I hate double standards as well.
It's also funny, for all of your saying I whine about others whining. You..whine about me whining about others whining.
Perhaps you legitimately don't see that. After all, you admitted everyone lives in a bubble.
You also are correct, sometimes it's time to stop complaining and just embrace some of the better things in life. Like the fact Emma Watson hid copies of Maya Angelou books on NYC subways.
Originally posted by Surtur
I hate double standards as well.It's also funny, for all of your saying I whine about others whining. You..whine about me whining about others whining.
Perhaps you legitimately don't see that. After all, you admitted everyone lives in a bubble.
No, because I'm not whining about you whining because I hate whining, but rather because it's hypocritical of you. So there's no contradiction.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
No, because I'm not whining about you whining because I hate whining, but rather because it's hypocritical of you. So there's no contradiction.
There is because you keep whining about it. Pointing it out once is an observation, more than that? No dude, you're whining too lol.
Originally posted by Surtur
There is because you keep whining about it. Pointing it out once is an observation, more than that? No dude, you're whining too lol.
...
Ok, let me repeat myself: me whining doesn't contradict anything because I don't have an anti-whining stance. I was calling you out for the hypocrisy, not for the whining. For my whining to be hypocritical, I would have had to have opposed whining, but I never did.
This isn't even politics, it's reading comprehension, and no offense but it's consistent screwups on your part like this that make me feel smug and smarter than you.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
...Ok, let me repeat myself: me whining doesn't contradict anything because I don't have an anti-whining stance. I was calling you out for the hypocrisy, not for the whining. For my whining to be hypocritical, I would have had to have opposed whining, but I never did.
This isn't even politics, it's reading comprehension, and no offense but it's consistent screwups on your parts that make me feel smug and smarter than you.
Okay let me repeat myself: you are whining about others whining. You keep trying to defend this, and you just come off as more smug than ever.
The truth of the matter is..you aren't anywhere as smart as you feel you are.
Stop whining about others whining about whining.
Do you understand? Just say "Yes Surtur, I understand". You see I rather don't care why you're whining. Nobody does.
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay let me repeat myself: you are whining about others whining. You keep trying to defend this, and you just come off as more smug than ever.The truth of the matter is..you aren't anywhere as smart as you feel you are.
Stop whining about others whining about whining.
Do you understand? Just say "Yes Surtur, I understand". You see I rather don't care why you're whining. Nobody does.
Where in here do you even try to make an argument or respond to any?
The point of criticism is the contradiction, not the whining. Do you want me to draw a flowchart for you?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Where in here do you even try to make an argument or respond to any?The point of criticism is the contradiction, not the whining. Do you want me to draw a flowchart for you?
I don't want a flow chart, after how wrong you were in predicting the election I feel any chart you make would be suspect.
Also there is no contradiction unless I said that whining in any context is always wrong. But I never did.
You keep whining about whining. I don't care what your angle or reasons are, I'm just pointing out the fact you can't stop whining about my whining.
This is a circle of whining.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
*There's also the added issue of rape often involving intoxication, making it difficult for the victim to accurately recall the facts, even more reason to be afraid to come forward.
Knowingly False Statements Of Fact
Where applicable: http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
The Constitution of The United States provides for Every Case to be judged on its individual merits.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/fTrials/conlaw/lying.html
As regards to statistics:
In Law. Statistics have nothing to do with The specific and unique situation in each individual case.