NationStates Jolt Archive

Hahaha. That's the best, most unbiased source you could find?

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Probably laugh since crying will get you nowhere.

One in four women report being raped at least once in their lives.

I hat this figure. Please give your source. The only place I've ever seen this figure properly documented used a study that included people who said they'd at some time in their life had a man give them alcohol to get them in bed.

Don't source some rag citing this figure. Find me a single study that supports it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lukas/lukas200604270647.asp

I know this paper has a conservative bias, but they make a fairly balanced point here.

Police suspect that only about 1/3 of all rapes are reported.
Of all those reports, between 3-5% lie about having been raped.
You do the maths.

The rest of this I agree with. The danger of anonymity for the accused in terms of any crime is that it makes it incredibly difficult for the police to collect evidence. And I do think, frankly, that people are more likely to come forward for this kind of a case if they know there are others coming forward.

I think some people here fail to understand that prosecuting rape is incredibly difficult and a horrible experience for the victim. Creating a situation where the victim has to fear criminal charges is a very bad place for justice to sit.

Like I said before, he's just an MRA troll. There seriously is no point in talking at them.

MRA Troll? I do not even know what an MRA is LOL

This from a feminazi? How cute.

I see what you're getting at in a sense. But in doing so, I'm forced to imagine an enforced contract scenario where people legally register with each other before sex occurs to deal with the false accusations. Although that's not necessarily a bad way to go, the bureaucracy seems like it'd be very hard to regulate, and it would be quite a serious blow to personal liberties.

Except, it still doesn't ensure anything, since you can retract consent at any point. Saying yes at some point doesn't mean you've said yes at all points.

Except, it still doesn't ensure anything, since you can retract consent at any point. Saying yes at some point doesn't mean you've said yes at all points.
Hence, the importance of ensuring that your partner is loudly voicing his/her consent throughout the entire process. :D

MRA Troll? I do not even know what an MRA is LOL

This from a feminazi? How cute.
No, Bottle is a femanisits :)

Well, first it would have to be established that sex occurred. (Like how you're expected to establish that somebody is dead before you can pursue a homicide charge.) If you could establish that you and the accused had sex, then under this hypothetical it would be assumed to be non-consensual sex unless it could be established otherwise. If he claimed it was consensual but you insisted it wasn't, his claim would automatically be the one that would require supporting evidence.

There is virtually no occasion where I've had sex that I could prove it was consensual without her testimony and vice versa. Essentially, it would make us rest on the presumption that all sex is criminal until proven otherwise. I think this would be a very dangerous presumption.

Hence, the importance of ensuring that your partner is loudly voicing his/her consent throughout the entire process. :D

Yeah, but Poli refuses to do that.

There is virtually no occasion where I've had sex that I could prove it was consensual without her testimony and vice versa. Essentially, it would make us rest on the presumption that all sex is criminal until proven otherwise. I think this would be a very dangerous presumption.Consider though that men can be raped as well. We'd end up with whomever reporting it first deciding on who was the rapist.

Consider though that men can be raped as well. We'd end up with whomever reporting it first deciding on who was the rapist.

Well, both could accuse. Seriously, could you imagine a case where both people accused the other of rape and both were found guilty.

There is virtually no occasion where I've had sex that I could prove it was consensual without her testimony and vice versa. Essentially, it would make us rest on the presumption that all sex is criminal until proven otherwise. I think this would be a very dangerous presumption.
I've been thinking about that, and I guess I must be biased because I would have absolutely no fear whatsoever of prosecution under such a system. I can think of a number of cases where I could conclusively prove that sex was consensual, if called to do so, and I can also think of plenty of ways that I could change my behavior to make sure that all future sexual encounters had proof of consent. But I think what's more important in my mind is that I know that none of my sex partners has any reason to accuse me of rape. Not only because I've never raped any body, but also because I'm on good terms with all my previous partners.

You must remember, too, that it would have to be established that sex occurred during the incident in question. So, for instance, your ex couldn't just come forward 6 months down the line and accuse you of rape because he/she was pissed at you, because he/she would have to prove 1) that sex took place, and 2) that you were involved. I don't know about you, but I can't possibly prove that I was having sex with my partner at 2 in the afternoon sixth months ago today.

I think rape would still be extremely difficult to prosecute, even if the presumption worked the way I proposed.

The one major problem that's leaped to my mind is the case of abusers. I could totally see an abuser using a rape allegation to try to force his partner to stay with him ("If you don't stay with me, I'll file a rape charge and get you sent to jail!"). Or an abusive ex-husband saying that if his wife tries to get custody of the kids then he'll accuse her of raping him. Heck, I would expect to see at least one creative asshole accuse his pregnant girlfriend of raping him in order to get out of paying child support...after all, she's pregnant with his baby, which is proof they fucked, which is proof she raped him!

The thing is, as long as the stigma against rape victims persists, I still think it would be goddam fucking uncommon to see such false allegations. After all, anti-feminists constantly insist that women have soooooo much to gain from lying about rape...yet women DON'T lie about rape any more often than anybody lies about any other kind of crime. If women stand to gain so much from such lies, and if these lies have so very much power, then why don't women use that power more? Well, because it COSTS too much to do so.

Well, both could accuse. Seriously, could you imagine a case where both people accused the other of rape and both were found guilty.
Again, I don't see the problem with that. I know of cases where both parties were found guilty of assaulting one another, so I don't see why it would necessarily be a problem for this to be possible with sexual assault.

I've been thinking about that, and I guess I must be biased because I would have absolutely no fear whatsoever of prosecution under such a system. I can think of a number of cases where I could conclusively prove that sex was consensual, if called to do so, and I can also think of plenty of ways that I could change my behavior to make sure that all future sexual encounters had proof of consent. But I think what's more important in my mind is that I know that none of my sex partners has any reason to accuse me of rape. Not only because I've never raped any body, but also because I'm on good terms with all my previous partners.

In what ways could you prove it was consensual?

Also, remaining on good terms should not be required by law under the threat of a rape accusation.


You must remember, too, that it would have to be established that sex occurred during the incident in question. So, for instance, your ex couldn't just come forward 6 months down the line and accuse you of rape because he/she was pissed at you, because he/she would have to prove 1) that sex took place, and 2) that you were involved. I don't know about you, but I can't possibly prove that I was having sex with my partner at 2 in the afternoon sixth months ago today.

Only if you assume I would lie about it, which is also illegal. I wouldn't lie. They'd not have to prove anything. If I remembered the specific incident I would admit to having sex.



I think rape would still be extremely difficult to prosecute, even if the presumption worked the way I proposed.

Again, only if you assume the accused would lie. I'm not read to hope for such a thing and call it justice.



The one major problem that's leaped to my mind is the case of abusers. I could totally see an abuser using a rape allegation to try to force his partner to stay with him ("If you don't stay with me, I'll file a rape charge and get you sent to jail!"). Or an abusive ex-husband saying that if his wife tries to get custody of the kids then he'll accuse her of raping him. Heck, I would expect to see at least one creative asshole accuse his pregnant girlfriend of raping him in order to get out of paying child support...after all, she's pregnant with his baby, which is proof they fucked, which is proof she raped him!

Or vice versa. Let's not pretend like the only assholes are men. I can cite more than a few cases where women did some really messed up things to harm their men.

Sure, by the natural difference in size and strength, men are more capable of physical abuse, but let's not pretend like emotional abuse is unique to or even more likely to come from men.

Again, I don't see the problem with that. I know of cases where both parties were found guilty of assaulting one another, so I don't see why it would necessarily be a problem for this to be possible with sexual assault.You don't need to be hit by someone in order to hit them, whereas you need to engage in sex with someone in order to rape or be raped.

Again, I don't see the problem with that. I know of cases where both parties were found guilty of assaulting one another, so I don't see why it would necessarily be a problem for this to be possible with sexual assault.

They both had sex without their consent? How is that even possible.

Assault cases can consist of multiple acts. I hit you and then you hit me. Even if we hit each other at the same time, it's two seperate acts.

However, in the case of sexual encounters, by definition we are both having a sexual encounter at the same time.

You don't need to be hit by someone in order to hit them, whereas you need to engage in sex with someone in order to rape or be raped.

And if neither consented, then how can it be a willful act by either of them (not the rape, the sex). As in most crimes, I can't rape someone by accident (I can not intend for it to be rape, but I have to at least intend to commit the act that is said to be rape). For example, if I was entirely unconscious, it would be impossible to be guilty of rape.

And if neither consented, then how can it be a willful act by either of them (not the rape, the sex). As in most crimes, I can't rape someone by accident (I can not intend for it to be rape, but I have to at least intend to commit the act that is said to be rape). For example, if I was entirely unconscious, it would be impossible to be guilty of rape.Oh, I can think of situations where this is the case. However, it would be reminiscent of the hypotheticals from the "Can rape ever be justified?" thread.

Oh, I can think of situations where this is the case. However, it would be reminiscent of the hypotheticals from the "Can rape ever be justified?" thread.

If neither consented, then neither could be considered guilty of rape.

If neither consented, then neither could be considered guilty of rape.Again, I said I can think of some, only they're really absurde and highly implausible, but not impossible. However the idea that a court would have to deal with such a case is laughable.

Again, I said I can think of some, only they're really absurde and highly implausible, but not impossible. However the idea that a court would have to deal with such a case is laughable.

No, you can't. If say, holding a gun to a woman's head, means she didn't consent to sex, then someone else holding a gun to the man's head means he didn't either. It doesn't matter how convoluted you make it, they can't be both gulty of rape. And certainly you can never a person who didn't consent to sex also guilty of rape. It can't be done, unless we make me guilty of theft if I walk through a candy store a sucker sticks to me.

Consider though that men can be raped as well. We'd end up with whomever reporting it first deciding on who was the rapist.
They can, but if I remember my legal definitions correctly, it's not technically a crime unless penetration occurs (at least in British law, anyway).

Except, it still doesn't ensure anything, since you can retract consent at any point. Saying yes at some point doesn't mean you've said yes at all points.
That's a point, but in such an event, I think Bottle's hypothesised presumption of offense wouldn't hold. An official consenting would at least provide a distinction between the kind of aggressive and completely unquestionable rape that many are subjected to and the more sensationalised stories of women crying rape in a calculated legal manoevre.

Consider though that men can be raped as well.

Not likely. A man can rape another man, but the idea of a woman raping a man is downright laughable, except maybe at gunpoint, and I know I sure as hell couldn't perform at gunpoint.

The only way I can even imagine it working is if a woman sodomizes a man with an object, and that merely constitutes sexual assault, not rape.

Then I hope you get falsely convicted of rape.

The benefit of a doubt is the most important human right of all. Without it, you have no other rights. "Innocent until proven guilty" should never be compromised.

Fine. Wish all you want. If I didn't commit rape, I will make damn sure I can prove I didn't commit rape. Starting with the bonehead above who tells me to prove I didn't rape them - for starters, I'm in a different state, and my equipment isn't that long.

Giving people the benefit of the doubt lets guilty people go free. Starting with Kobe Bryant and the Duke lacrosse players, for those who think I have an issue with rich white guys - Bryant all but admitted that he raped the woman but didn't go to jail. Of course there's a problem when someone gets off based on being a rich celebrity and intimidating the accuser.

Any good defense should include an "I didn't do it and here's why" anyway. If it's enough to convince people, "This accusation doesn't make sense," then case closed.

Not likely. A man can rape another man, but the idea of a woman raping a man is downright laughable, except maybe at gunpoint, and I know I sure as hell couldn't perform at gunpoint.

The only way I can even imagine it working is if a woman sodomizes a man with an object, and that merely constitutes sexual assault, not rape.

Oh, BS. Women can rape men. What would make you think otherwise? Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks if your body reacts to the stimulation then you've consented.

Fine. Wish all you want. If I didn't commit rape, I will make damn sure I can prove I didn't commit rape. Starting with the bonehead above who tells me to prove I didn't rape them - for starters, I'm in a different state, and my equipment isn't that long.

Giving people the benefit of the doubt lets guilty people go free. Starting with Kobe Bryant and the Duke lacrosse players, for those who think I have an issue with rich white guys - Bryant all but admitted that he raped the woman but didn't go to jail. Of course there's a problem when someone gets off based on being a rich celebrity and intimidating the accuser.

Any good defense should include an "I didn't do it and here's why" anyway. If it's enough to convince people, "This accusation doesn't make sense," then case closed.

Wow, that's a lot of rights you just threw out.

But let's start with a little at at a time. Can you quote Bryant's "all but admission"?

I have just tried a pretty massive multi-quote, and there's a chance I messed it up, so if I got somebody's name attached to the wrong quote please let me know.

In what ways could you prove it was consensual?

Without wanting to get too graphic, I have witnesses in several cases. I also have saved correspondence regarding at least one event.


Also, remaining on good terms should not be required by law under the threat of a rape accusation.

Agreed. To be clear, I was NOT suggesting that my own situation should be legally enforced upon others! I was trying to express my awareness of my own bias. I know that I'm not in danger of false rape allegations, which gives me a biased perspective on this subject. I'm absolutely positively NOT arguing that it would be fair to, as you say, force people to remain on good terms under the threat of rape accusation. That would be horrid.


Or vice versa. Let's not pretend like the only assholes are men. I can cite more than a few cases where women did some really messed up things to harm their men.

I didn't say the only assholes were men. One of the reasons I presented male-oriented examples in this case is because women are already accused of doing these things. Women are already frequently accused of lying about rape/abuse to control their partner, to deny custody, or just to fuck with their ex. Indeed, in this very thread we see a consistent reference to false rape allegations by women, as if such allegations are extremely common.

My point was to turn the situation around, for a change, and muse on how my own hypothetical system could still be used to screw over the very victims that I would hope to protect.


Sure, by the natural difference in size and strength, men are more capable of physical abuse, but let's not pretend like emotional abuse is unique to or even more likely to come from men.
Who's pretending that?

Forgive me, Joc, but I don't feel the need to always add the caveat, "And yes I know men are also abused, and men are also raped, and women are also sometimes the abusers, and men aren't the only ones in the universe who ever do mean things." See, I'm a feminist, so all of those statements are as self-evident as the wetness of water to me. Women, like men, are HUMAN BEINGS, and some human beings are assholes. I have never denied that.

Frankly, given how long we've both been around here, I don't think you actually need me to say those things either.

You don't need to be hit by someone in order to hit them, whereas you need to engage in sex with someone in order to rape or be raped.
Penis-in-vagina intercourse is not the only form of sex, you know.

They both had sex without their consent? How is that even possible.

You mean besides them both being under the influence to the point where they were not able to consent?

Well...

I can hit somebody in the face with my fist, and I assaulted them. The fact that their face was in the path of my fist doesn't mean they assaulted me at the same time. We're both involved in a "collision" of sorts, but only one of us assaulted the other in that specific case.

However, the other person could then swing THEIR fist at ME, and in so doing could assault me.

In theory, one person could retaliate against their rapist with rape.


Assault cases can consist of multiple acts. I hit you and then you hit me. Even if we hit each other at the same time, it's two seperate acts.

However, in the case of sexual encounters, by definition we are both having a sexual encounter at the same time.
Sex can consist of multiple acts, too. A single sexual encounter can include multiple different sex acts. A could force B to perform oral sex against B's wishes, but then B could retaliate by forcing an unwanted sex act on A.

Considering the number of times people have proposed that rapists be sentenced to be raped as punishment, I'm surprised this concept is causing so many problems.
Not likely. A man can rape another man, but the idea of a woman raping a man is downright laughable, except maybe at gunpoint, and I know I sure as hell couldn't perform at gunpoint.

It's sad that so many people still think that "sex" = "an erect penis going into a vagina until the penis ejaculates."

Forcing somebody to perform oral sex on you is rape. Forcing them to have anal sex with you is rape. Forcing a foreign object into a person's rectum, vagina, etc is rape.

There is nothing funny about any of this. It doesn't matter if the victim is male or female or both or neither. Rape is rape.


The only way I can even imagine it working is if a woman sodomizes a man with an object, and that merely constitutes sexual assault, not rape.
I don't know about the laws, but I am revolted by the suggestion that "rape" only applies to penis-in-vagina assaults. If that actually is how the laws work, then that's deeply and profoundly fucked up and I completely disagree with it.

They both had sex without their consent? How is that even possible.

Both heavily under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Not likely. A man can rape another man, but the idea of a woman raping a man is downright laughable, except maybe at gunpoint, and I know I sure as hell couldn't perform at gunpoint.

I find the idea that a woman cannot rape a man to be downright laughable. It assumes that men are always consenting.

The only way I can even imagine it working is if a woman sodomizes a man with an object, and that merely constitutes sexual assault, not rape.

And why shouldn't it count as rape?

yet women DON'T lie about rape any more often than anybody lies about any other kind of crime.



In fact, studies Ive seen put out by the FBI suggest they lie about it far less. Less than 2%, which is less than false alligations and convictions for ALL OTHER crimes.

No, you're not. Again, the default assumption would be that the sex was non-consensual. This would not preclude the admission of evidence that the sex WAS consensual.
How would one go about doing that?

Not likely. A man can rape another man, but the idea of a woman raping a man is downright laughable, except maybe at gunpoint, and I know I sure as hell couldn't perform at gunpoint.
Two words:
Date. Rape.

The only way I can even imagine it working is if a woman sodomizes a man with an object, and that merely constitutes sexual assault, not rape.
Apparently I'm more imaginative than you....
Fine. Wish all you want. If I didn't commit rape, I will make damn sure I can prove I didn't commit rape.
How? How are you going to go about getting proof that your partner consented?
Starting with the bonehead above who tells me to prove I didn't rape them - for starters, I'm in a different state, and my equipment isn't that long.
You can totally account for all your time between now and a few years ago(however long the statute of limitations is), and provide witnesses and evidence to back it up?

Giving people the benefit of the doubt lets guilty people go free.
Removing it puts innocent people in jail.
Starting with Kobe Bryant and the Duke lacrosse players, for those who think I have an issue with rich white guys - Bryant all but admitted that he raped the woman but didn't go to jail.
All but admitting isn't admitting.
Of course there's a problem when someone gets off based on being a rich celebrity and intimidating the accuser.
Of course. I just don't see why you're so sure this is the case with Bryant and the Duke lacrosse team. But that's more than likely a matter for another thread.

Any good defense should include an "I didn't do it and here's why" anyway.If it's enough to convince people, "This accusation doesn't make sense," then case closed.
And any good prosecution will include "The accused did do it and here's why". That's sort of how trials work. The prosecution tries to prove that you did it, your defence tries to refute the prosecution's evidence or provide its own.

Oh, BS. Women can rape men. What would make you think otherwise? Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks if your body reacts to the stimulation then you've consented.

Wait, so you mean my penis isn't a consent-o-meter? :eek:

Without wanting to get too graphic, I have witnesses in several cases. I also have saved correspondence regarding at least one event.

Proving some cases isn't all cases. It doesn't matter how many times are consensual if one wasn't.


Agreed. To be clear, I was NOT suggesting that my own situation should be legally enforced upon others! I was trying to express my awareness of my own bias. I know that I'm not in danger of false rape allegations, which gives me a biased perspective on this subject. I'm absolutely positively NOT arguing that it would be fair to, as you say, force people to remain on good terms under the threat of rape accusation. That would be horrid.

Sometimes I'm not actually arguing with you. I don't think you're entirely serious in the first place, and I think you were trying to point that out earlier. In the second place, I don't think you were even saying that. Sometimes I add caveats you don't because I can see someone pulling on that thread later in the coversation. See below.



I didn't say the only assholes were men. One of the reasons I presented male-oriented examples in this case is because women are already accused of doing these things. Women are already frequently accused of lying about rape/abuse to control their partner, to deny custody, or just to fuck with their ex. Indeed, in this very thread we see a consistent reference to false rape allegations by women, as if such allegations are extremely common.

My point was to turn the situation around, for a change, and muse on how my own hypothetical system could still be used to screw over the very victims that I would hope to protect.


Who's pretending that?

Forgive me, Joc, but I don't feel the need to always add the caveat, "And yes I know men are also abused, and men are also raped, and women are also sometimes the abusers, and men aren't the only ones in the universe who ever do mean things." See, I'm a feminist, so all of those statements are as self-evident as the wetness of water to me. Women, like men, are HUMAN BEINGS, and some human beings are assholes. I have never denied that.

Frankly, given how long we've both been around here, I don't think you actually need me to say those things either.

Again, I'm not always arguing with you. I was clarifying since you didn't and it was partly because even if you don't believe it others do. And, forgive me for saying so, some people feel more justified in their beliefs if Bottle agrees with them. You're not responsible for other people, but since we both care very much that these kinds of attitudes change, I'm very willing to do what I think necessary to affect those attitudes or at least prevent them from being reinforced. (See how that makes me both complimentary and a cocky SOB at the same time. Don't you love it?)

You'll notice that someone jumped into the thread very much saying that men can't be raped and whatnot. That's why I jump on any similar implications.


You mean besides them both being under the influence to the point where they were not able to consent?

Then neither could be considered guilty of rape, that was my point. They could also both be at gunpoint, but they can't both not be consenting and both be raping. That was what we were talking about.


Well...

I can hit somebody in the face with my fist, and I assaulted them. The fact that their face was in the path of my fist doesn't mean they assaulted me at the same time. We're both involved in a "collision" of sorts, but only one of us assaulted the other in that specific case.

However, the other person could then swing THEIR fist at ME, and in so doing could assault me.

In theory, one person could retaliate against their rapist with rape.

That would be seperate incidents. I was talk about having sex one time. Don't worry, I'm about to concede the point below.



Sex can consist of multiple acts, too. A single sexual encounter can include multiple different sex acts. A could force B to perform oral sex against B's wishes, but then B could retaliate by forcing an unwanted sex act on A.

Hmmm... yeah, that's a good point. I guess I was referring to the idea that sex in and of itself is where both people are having sex, but assualt is where one person is doing something to the other. Assault doesn't actual involve both people in the same act. For example, if I am punching you, you are not also punching me. However, if you are involved intercourse of some type with me, I'm also having intercourse. It's just one is giving and one is receiving. However, when thinking about it more in depth, I can see that I could rephrase the semantics to make them entierly similar.

I think I've committed assault on your mind with this argument, by the way. I should be punished. What time you want me to come over?

Both heavily under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I meant both had sex without their consent and could both be considered rapists. I should have been clearer. I thought the context was enough.

I don't know about the laws, but I am revolted by the suggestion that "rape" only applies to penis-in-vagina assaults. If that actually is how the laws work, then that's deeply and profoundly fucked up and I completely disagree with it.
To muddy the waters on this, the official definition of Rape in British Law (according to the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003) states that penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with the assulter's biological penis is the actual sexual act involved. Other offenses exist, such as Assault by penetration or sexual assault, but if you're not sticking your cock in them, it's not rape.

Maybe laws across the 'states might be different.

I don't know about the laws, but I am revolted by the suggestion that "rape" only applies to penis-in-vagina assaults. If that actually is how the laws work, then that's deeply and profoundly fucked up and I completely disagree with it.

I know that's how the laws used to work in most/many places. There has been a push to change them.

Part of it was because even consensual sodomy was illegal in most places, so sodomy was considered a different crime. But I think there was/is also the perception that other forced sex acts or the use of implements is somehow a lesser crime.

A bunch of bullshit is more like it. How can you really expect someone to remember a bunch of details when they're being gang-raped? Of course the story's going to change. And so what if she had bipolar disorder? Are we now saying it's OK to rape people who have mental illnesses? Give me a fucking break.

No, having a mental illness does not make it OK to rape someone. But there is a big difference between 'remembering some details' and a dozen major changes to the description of what happened. However, it wasn't actually her varied statements to the police that I was referring to but the DNA evidence which showed she had sex with multiple males on the night, none of whom were Duke College lacrosse players. She denies having sex with anyone but the lacrosse players.

EDIT: Furthermore, a taxi driver picked up one of the accused before the rape is alleged to have happened. Another stripper, who was with her for the duration of the party, denies that a rape took place. I suppose these two are liars as well now are they?

Even if there wasn't actual rape, those players are guilty as sin of so many other things that it's a complete miscarriage of justice that they're allowed to see the light of day, let alone have the public feel sorry for the spoiled little rich boys.

Do please indulge us in exactly what these men have done that requires they should not be 'allowed to see the light of day'.

Fine. Wish all you want. If I didn't commit rape, I will make damn sure I can prove I didn't commit rape. Starting with the bonehead above who tells me to prove I didn't rape them - for starters, I'm in a different state, and my equipment isn't that long.

Giving people the benefit of the doubt lets guilty people go free. Starting with Kobe Bryant and the Duke lacrosse players, for those who think I have an issue with rich white guys - Bryant all but admitted that he raped the woman but didn't go to jail. Of course there's a problem when someone gets off based on being a rich celebrity and intimidating the accuser.

Any good defense should include an "I didn't do it and here's why" anyway. If it's enough to convince people, "This accusation doesn't make sense," then case closed.
Ok then, and just HOW do you expect to prove a negative to a court? If someone claims you raped them and there's the proof of sex there, how do you expect to "prove" to them it was consensual when the accuser insists it wasn't? Go on, tell us how. If that's your plan you better be ready.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty is the only way to go, just like with other crimes. It's one of the main standards of free countries, and it's a right all other rights depend on. You seemed to ignore that point last time I made it, since you went on to talk about how the benefit of a doubt lets guilty people go free... but it is also what protects you from being randomly accused (and/or falsely convicted) at the whim of someone who wants to put you in jail (or kill you, if execution is the punishment) for whatever reason, so perhaps it's something you should be a bit more appreciative of.

As for the rich celebrity part, maybe in that case it's public celebrity obsession that's the problem, as opposed to one of the main rights of free societies being the problem.

If you still think a woman would, you dont understand the female psyche at all.
Hold on now, I haven't looked up what you mentioned yet but that's irrelevant to this point; "the female psyche"? Are you associating a certain psyche collectively with a gender? Isn't that sexist? As in, a fair bit more sexist than some other things people on this site normally get slammed for?

No, that's manslaughter. Murder is an illegal killing of a human being with the added requirement of malice aforethought.
It'd still be murder. Manslaughter is when there is some lack of intent (loss of self control, accident etc etc). Consensual murder is still murder in the eyes of the law.

Well, again, this is an area of debate. And kind of a big tangent. There are people who believe that it should NOT be a crime for you to kill somebody who consents to be killed. The fact that our laws currently hold it to be a crime doesn't necessarily mean the laws should be that way.


Again, whether or not those laws are just is a matter of debate. The existence of one set of (possibly) unjust laws does not make an argument for additional unjust laws, right?
On the one hand you're saying you want the standards from this set of laws to apply to rape and on the other hand implying their unjust.


Incorrect. Please read through my posts.


Incorrect. Again, the DEFAULT ASSUMPTION would be that the sex was non-consensual. No testimony required to establish that.

If no testimony is made by the accuser then no case is ever brought, and if the accused admits it was rape then the trial proceeds straight to sentencing. The only time the assumption would be called into use is when the testimonies are conflicting. So by default you're favouring one over the other.


Just like how our current system does not require that we have witness testimony proving that the deceased did not consent to be stabbed 14 times in the back before the stabbing is ruled to be a homicide.

Because our current system doesn't allow them to legally consent, so whether they did or not is a non-issue.


Sure it is. If you've had sex with a non-consenting party, it's obvious to me that you've committed a crime.
Sex would not be a crime. Non-consensual sex would be.

Obvious as in apparent. If you find a dead body then it's pretty likely that a crime has been committed. The only difference between consensual sex and rape is in the minds of the participants. And you're assuming that sex was non-consensual.



No, you're not. Again, the default assumption would be that the sex was non-consensual. This would not preclude the admission of evidence that the sex WAS consensual.

Guilty until proven innocent then.

You wouldn't be presuming that a crime was committed without evidence.


Why?

Because the court is saying

Person A wanted sex, Person B didn't, Person A forced B to have sex with them so is guilty of rape.

AND

Person B wanted sex, Person A didn't, Person B forced A to have sex with them so is guilty of rape.

For this to happen both of them would have to desire and not-desire to have sex at the same time. It's pure double-think. If A wanted sex then B couldn't have raped them. If A didn't want sex they wouldn't have raped B.


If only this were remotely true, in any way shape or form. :(

It is true. Only 2 out of 10 rapes are stranger rapes. 8 out of 10 are where the accuser knows the accused.


You wouldn't be, in this hypothetical.
You are. You're trying to change it from 'did rape take place' to 'who raped this person' by assuming that rape took place without evidence. You're fundamentally altering the basis of the trial.

Because the court is saying

Person A wanted sex, Person B didn't, Person A forced B to have sex with them so is guilty of rape.

AND

Person B wanted sex, Person A didn't, Person B forced A to have sex with them so is guilty of rape.

For this to happen both of them would have to desire and not-desire to have sex at the same time. It's pure double-think. If A wanted sex then B couldn't have raped them. If A didn't want sex they wouldn't have raped B.

Rape doesn't have to involve physical force, just lack of consent.

You are. You're trying to change it from 'did rape take place' to 'who raped this person' by assuming that rape took place without evidence. You're fundamentally altering the basis of the trial.

As she pointed out, we do it with other crimes. If someone reports their wallet stolen with only the evidence that they don't currently have it, we don't ask, "Did theft take place?" Instead, we ask, "Who stole this wallet?" If we find someone with the wallet, and he claims it was given to him freely, he has to provide evidence of that fact.

Bottle is entertaining the notion that we do the same thing with rape. If someone reports a rape, we would say, "Who raped this person?" If the accused then claimed that it was consensual, that person would have to provide evidence to that effect.

Rape doesn't have to involve physical force, just lack of consent.
Identical principle. Just change it to:


"Because the court is saying

Person A wanted sex, Person B didn't, Person A had sex with B without their consent so is guilty of rape.

AND in the same act

Person B wanted sex, Person A didn't, Person B had sex with A without their consent so is guilty of rape.

For this to happen both of them would have to desire and not-desire to have sex at the same time. It's pure double-think. If A wanted sex then B couldn't have raped them. If A didn't want sex they wouldn't have raped B.

You can't plausibly suggest that two people can rape each other at the same time.


As she pointed out, we do it with other crimes. If someone reports their wallet stolen with only the evidence that they don't currently have it, we don't ask, "Did theft take place?" Instead, we ask, "Who stole this wallet?" If we find someone with the wallet, and he claims it was given to him freely, he has to provide evidence of that fact.

We do ask did the theft take place. It still has to be proved that theft took place. If the accused says 'I found it' and there's no evidence to the contrary apart from the conflicting accounts by the two parties we would never convict on that. A crime is never assumed to be committed, it has to be proved.

Rape doesn't have to involve physical force, just lack of consent.



As she pointed out, we do it with other crimes. If someone reports their wallet stolen with only the evidence that they don't currently have it, we don't ask, "Did theft take place?" Instead, we ask, "Who stole this wallet?" If we find someone with the wallet, and he claims it was given to him freely, he has to provide evidence of that fact.

Bottle is entertaining the notion that we do the same thing with rape. If someone reports a rape, we would say, "Who raped this person?" If the accused then claimed that it was consensual, that person would have to provide evidence to that effect.

Except that's not comparable at all, and we don't do that with other crimes. We do not, as a matter of law, when it comes to trials, create a presumption. It is not in any sense as a matter of law presumed that your wallet was stolen. You still have to provide evidence that your wallet was stole.

The evidence, in this case, is that your wallet ended up in my posession.

We don't presume that your wallet was stolen in order to secure convictions. You have to provide evidence that your wallet was stolen. We don't presume sex was non-consensual. You have to provide evidence that it was not consensual.

To presume that all sex is non-consensual unless proven otherwise is to presume that anyone who engages in sex ever is guilty of rape, unless that individual proves otherwise. We don't do that in our justice system. We don't require the defendant to provide evidence of his innocence. We require the prosecution to provice evidence of his guilt. And in your wallet example, they did just that, they found your wallet on my person. That's their evidence.

You certainly don't start with the presumption I stole from you and require me to provide evidence to the contrary. In your example you have very real evidence I stole from you, your wallet in my posession. I am then allowed to provide evidence of my own to rebut your evidence. But we certainly as hell don't require me to put forward evidence I did not steal from you. The prosecution is required to put forward evidence that I did (namely, your wallet in my hands). And even then, that might not be enough, because all you have is your wallet in my hands, which doesn't demonstrate I stole anything. You can not place a presumption of guilt on the defendant. Trying to say that we do this in other cases is simply false

You can't plausibly suggest that two people can rape each other at the same time.

Exactly that has happened, however. Actually I don't know if they were convicted, but there was a thread some months ago about two underage kids having sex and both being charged with statutory rape of the other.

Exactly that has happened, however. Actually I don't know if they were convicted, but there was a thread some months ago about two underage kids having sex and both being charged with statutory rape of the other.

Statutory rape is the exception, it's technically correct if not strictly relevant to this discussion. Just as children under 10 can't be charged for murder etc.

Identical principle. Just change it to:

You're leaving out the possibility that neither consented - perhaps because neither was capable. Thus, if rape is simply a matter of non-consent, they could have "raped each other".

Personally, I think intent has to be present, so that one or the other would have to actually be in control of his actions to declare that rape occurred, but I have seen people argue the other way.

We do ask did the theft take place. It still has to be proved that theft took place. If the accused says 'I found it' and there's no evidence to the contrary apart from the conflicting accounts by the two parties we would never convict on that. A crime is never assumed to be committed, it has to be proved.

Suppose I report a break-in at my house. It is missing from my house. It is found in a house two doors down, being watched by the inhabitants of that house. They say, "We found it!"

Unless they could demonstrate that they found it with some pretty convincing evidence, they're likely to get convicted of theft.


Except that's not comparable at all, and we don't do that with other crimes. We do not, as a matter of law, when it comes to trials, create a presumption. It is not in any sense as a matter of law presumed that your wallet was stolen. You still have to provide evidence that your wallet was stole.

The evidence, in this case, is that your wallet ended up in my posession.

Indeed. And the evidence, in the idea that Bottle is describing, would be that sex occurred between the two people.

We don't presume that your wallet was stolen in order to secure convictions. You have to provide evidence that your wallet was stolen. We don't presume sex was non-consensual. You have to provide evidence that it was not consensual.

If I say my wallet was stolen, and it is found in your possession, the fact that you have it is considered evidence that you stole it.

Sure, I might have given it to you freely, but it is up to you to demonstrate that as part of your defense.

To presume that all sex is non-consensual unless proven otherwise is to presume that anyone who engages in sex ever is guilty of rape, unless that individual proves otherwise.

The idea isn't to presume that all sex is non-consensual unless proven otherwise, anymore than we are to presume that any time someone else has my wallet, it has been stolen.

But, if I do say my wallet has been stolen, and you have it, that is considered damn good evidence for you having stolen it, is it not?

We don't do that in our justice system. We don't require the defendant to provide evidence of his innocence. We require the prosecution to provice evidence of his guilt. And in your wallet example, they did just that, they found your wallet on my person. That's their evidence.

So, if they find your sperm in my body, that's evidence that you raped me.


I think what Bottle is getting at here is that there is a difference between the level of evidence needed here. For theft, if I say it's stolen, and it's found on your person, that's probably good enough to get a conviction. You can say I gave it to you freely, but without a witness to that effect, that defense probably isn't going to go far. Your possession of my wallet would likely be seen as ample evidence that you had stolen it. My claim that it was stolen is going to be seen as much more plausible than your claim that I handed it over to you. Chances are that nobody would ask me why I was carrying my wallet or say that I was flaunting it so that you thought you could have it. Nobody is going to say that I'm just claiming you stole it because I hate men or because I am "a woman scorned".

But, if I say I've been raped, and your sperm is found within my body, that isn't enough to convict. In fact, I will be put on trial just as much as you are. Your claim that I consented will be seen as just as, if not more, plausible as my claim that I did not. I will be accused of leading you on and people will ask why I was alone with you in the first place. Without any reason other than the accusation being made, I will be under suspicion of making the accusation out of pure spite.


I understand why these differences exist, of course. Most of the time, sex is consensual. Someone else having my wallet is much less likely to be. But the differences are there.

You're leaving out the possibility that neither consented - perhaps because neither was capable. Thus, if rape is simply a matter of non-consent, they could have "raped each other".

Personally, I think intent has to be present, so that one or the other would have to actually be in control of his actions to declare that rape occurred, but I have seen people argue the other way.

See my last post. You're technically correct but it's not relevant to this discussion.


Suppose I report a break-in at my house. It is missing from my house. It is found in a house two doors down, being watched by the inhabitants of that house. They say, "We found it!"

Unless they could demonstrate that they found it with some pretty convincing evidence, they're likely to get convicted of theft.

These are getting increasingly complicated here, but if there story is plausible then they wouldn't have to produce any evidence. Same as 'chatted up drunk girl and had sex with her' is very plausible, the idea of thieves dropping something is equally plausible. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution.



The idea isn't to presume that all sex is non-consensual unless proven otherwise, anymore than we are to presume that any time someone else has my wallet, it has been stolen.
That is precisely what Bottle is suggesting.



So, if they find your sperm in my body, that's evidence that you raped me.

Circumstantial evidence only though.


I think what Bottle is getting at here is that there is a difference between the level of evidence needed here. For theft, if I say it's stolen, and it's found on your person, that's probably good enough to get a conviction. You can say I gave it to you freely, but without a witness to that effect, that defense probably isn't going to go far. Your possession of my wallet would likely be seen as ample evidence that you had stolen it. My claim that it was stolen is going to be seen as much more plausible than your claim that I handed it over to you.
Depends really. Like I said before, if the defendant says 'I found it' with a plausible version of events then possession wouldn't be anywhere near enough to secure a conviction.


But, if I say I've been raped, and your sperm is found within my body, that isn't enough to convict. In fact, I will be put on trial just as much as you are. Your claim that I consented will be seen as just as, if not more, plausible as my claim that I did not. I will be accused of leading you on and people will ask why I was alone with you in the first place. Without any reason other than the accusation being made, I will be under suspicion of making the accusation out of pure spite.

It will be seen as just as plausible. And with innocent until proven guilty where two accounts are just as plausible then the accused is not convicted.

Suppose I report a break-in at my house. It is missing from my house. It is found in a house two doors down, being watched by the inhabitants of that house. They say, "We found it!"

Unless they could demonstrate that they found it with some pretty convincing evidence, they're likely to get convicted of theft.

Indeed. And the evidence, in the idea that Bottle is describing, would be that sex occurred between the two people.[/QUOTE]

Ahh and now you're shifting goalposts. It was before "I had your wallet". Now it's "someone broke into my house and things are missing and you are found with one of those missing things"

The mere fact that I have something of yours does not create the rebuttable presumption that I stole it, just as the mere fact that I had sex with you should not create the rebuttable presumption that I raped you.

If I say my wallet was stolen, and it is found in your possession, the fact that you have it is considered evidence that you stole it.

Evidence perhaps, but sufficient evidence to be considered proof absent rebuttal? No.

Sure, I might have given it to you freely, but it is up to you to demonstrate that as part of your defense.

Not necessarily. It's EVIDENCE certainly. But it's not proof

The idea isn't to presume that all sex is non-consensual unless proven otherwise, anymore than we are to presume that any time someone else has my wallet, it has been stolen.

But, if I do say my wallet has been stolen, and you have it, that is considered damn good evidence for you having stolen it, is it not?


So, if they find your sperm in my body, that's evidence that you raped me.

But if we're JUST talking evidence, and not evidence sufficient to create a rebuttal presumption, it already IS evidence.

Evidence, in its most literal legal meaning is anything, anything that is in any way useful in determining the truth or falseness of a claim.

My sperm on your body is evidence that I raped you. It is a thing that is useful in some material way in determining whether or not I had sex without your consent.

It certainly does not prove that I had sex with you, but it is evidence. It goes to the question of whether I had sex with you, it's therefore evidence.

I think what Bottle is getting at here is that there is a difference between the level of evidence needed here. For theft, if I say it's stolen, and it's found on your person, that's probably good enough to get a conviction.

If that's all you have then no, that actually probably won't do. The problem is that you're misusing the term "evidence"

I understand why these differences exist, of course. Most of the time, sex is consensual. Someone else having my wallet is much less likely to be. But the differences are there.

and therein lies the problem. "she just gave me her wallet of her own free will" seems to be not reasonably plausable. "she decided to have sex with me of her own free will" might be.

These are getting increasingly complicated here, but if there story is plausible then they wouldn't have to produce any evidence. Same as 'chatted up drunk girl and had sex with her' is very plausible, the idea of thieves dropping something is equally plausible. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

If the story is plausible, then they have evidence for it.

Of course the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but the question of what the proof actually has to be changes.

As Neo pointed out, you having my wallet is evidence of you having stolen it. But if your sperm is in my body, that is evidence that we had sex, not that you raped me. The burden of proof is much heavier in the case of me claiming you raped me than in the case of me claiming you stole from me.

That is precisely what Bottle is suggesting.

No, it isn't. She is suggesting that we take someone's word that they have been raped in much the same way that we take someone's word when they say their wallet was stolen.

We know that they *might* have handed over their wallet willingly, but we consider that very unlikely when they claim otherwise.

Circumstantial evidence only though.

No more or less circumstantial than you being found with my property.

Depends really. Like I said before, if the defendant says 'I found it' with a plausible version of events then possession wouldn't be anywhere near enough to secure a conviction.

Really?

You honestly think that if a defendant's only defense was "He said I could have it", he'd be unlikely to be convicted?

.
Not necessarily. It's EVIDENCE certainly. But it's not proof

Whether or not the evidence constitutes proof is determined by a jury. The evidence that I say my wallet was stolen, and it was found on your person (especially if I give a description that fits you) is likely enough to convince a jury that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt unless you can show that I'm a liar who often tries to frame people for crimes. It's likely evidence enough to convict.

A jury is much more likely to believe "She consented to sex" than "She willingly handed him her wallet."

But if we're JUST talking evidence, and not evidence sufficient to create a rebuttal presumption, it already IS evidence.

But not evidence of nearly the same weight as you having my wallet if I say it was stolen.

In reality, most people would only see it as evidence that we had sex. They'd expect much more for a rape conviction, whereas people don't say "Well, he had the wallet, but that's really only evidence that she gave it to him."

and therein lies the problem. "she just gave me her wallet of her own free will" seems to be not reasonably plausable. "she decided to have sex with me of her own free will" might be.

And yet, I've handed my wallet to others before. I've consensually handed my wallet (or its contents) to more people than I've consented to have sex with. Not random people, mind you, but then most rape doesn't involve random people either.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm indicative of the population as a whole, but I can say that I see claiming that someone I handed my wallet to stole it makes no more or less sense to me than claiming that someone I willingly had sex with raped me.

Our perception of the two crimes tells us that giving someone our credit cards, etc. willingly is somehow less likely than willingly having sex with them. But is there anything inherent in those two actions that makes that so? Or is it that we, for some reason, think that someone is more likely to lie about sex than about wallet-location?

If the story is plausible, then they have evidence for it.
Why? What evidence do you have that you pick up something in the street if no-one saw it. And why should I be proving that I didn't do something wrong.


No, it isn't. She is suggesting that we take someone's word that they have been raped in much the same way that we take someone's word when they say their wallet was stolen.


Again, the default assumption would be that the sex was non-consensual. This would not preclude the admission of evidence that the sex WAS consensual.

link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13491138&postcount=242)


We know that they *might* have handed over their wallet willingly, but we consider that very unlikely when they claim otherwise.

No more or less circumstantial than you being found with my property.


Really?

You honestly think that if a defendant's only defense was "He said I could have it", he'd be unlikely to be convicted?


Whether or not the evidence constitutes proof is determined by a jury. The evidence that I say my wallet was stolen, and it was found on your person (especially if I give a description that fits you) is likely enough to convince a jury that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt unless you can show that I'm a liar who often tries to frame people for crimes. It's likely evidence enough to convict.

A jury is much more likely to believe "She consented to sex" than "She willingly handed him her wallet."

It's based on plausibility. You're making up a story where it is implausible that the accuser would consent to the accused having the wallet and applying that to all rape cases where it is easily plausible the accuser could have consented.

And in cases where the judge (in the UK) decides that there is not sufficient evidence to convict he can take the decision to stop the trial based on that.



But not evidence of nearly the same weight as you having my wallet if I say it was stolen.

In reality, most people would only see it as evidence that we had sex. They'd expect much more for a rape conviction, whereas people don't say "Well, he had the wallet, but that's really only evidence that she gave it to him."

See above. The comparison you're making is not valid. In order it to be valid the accused would have to know the accuser and for it to be widely common practice to give people you know your wallet.

Our perception of the two crimes tells us that giving someone our credit cards, etc. willingly is somehow less likely than willingly having sex with them. But is there anything inherent in those two actions that makes that so? Or is it that we, for some reason, think that someone is more likely to lie about sex than about wallet-location?
Yes, plausible motive. There is an obvious plausible motive (evidence that the accuser is asexual/etc would be evidence against this) why someone would have sex with someone else. There is no equally obvious motive for giving someone your wallet.

One in four women report being raped at least once in their lives.
Police suspect that only about 1/3 of all rapes are reported.
Of all those reports, between 3-5% lie about having been raped.
You do the maths.
75% of all women......???!..um...sure, yeah.

So it's 3-5% (low enough number to have doubts about alone) of all reported rapes x3 then right?

It's based on plausibility. You're making up a story where it is implausible that the accuser would consent to the accused having the wallet and applying that to all rape cases where it is easily plausible the accuser could have consented.

Why is it implausible? As I've said, I've willingly handed my wallet or its important contents over to more people than I've willingly had sex with.

See above. The comparison you're making is not valid. In order it to be valid the accused would have to know the accuser and for it to be widely common practice to give people you know your wallet.

In most instances of rape, the accused and accuser are well acquainted. Sometimes, they have even had consensual sex before. So that part of the comparison is already there.

And, from what I've seen, it is fairly common (among the girls I know, anyways) to hand a friend your wallet or, at the very least, your credit cards, cash, and ID.

Yes, plausible motive. There is an obvious plausible motive (evidence that the accuser is asexual/etc would be evidence against this) why someone would have sex with someone else. There is no equally obvious motive for giving someone your wallet.

Sure there is. I didn't have pockets and didn't want to carry my purse. Happens all the time.

Why is it implausible? As I've said, I've willingly handed my wallet or its important contents over to more people than I've willingly had sex with.
Which disappearing wallet story are we on? The one where your house has been broken into and a random person two doors down has your wallet or a different one?



In most instances of rape, the accused and accuser are well acquainted. Sometimes, they have even had consensual sex before. So that part of the comparison is already there.

And, from what I've seen, it is fairly common (among the girls I know, anyways) to hand a friend your wallet or, at the very least, your credit cards, cash, and ID.



Sure there is. I didn't have pockets and didn't want to carry my purse. Happens all the time.

And given all this if you turned up at the police saying 'a friend of mine whom I've given my wallet to before has my wallet and says I gave it to them but I don't think I did' would get you anywhere near court let alone a conviction? Add alcohol into the equation and that likelihood goes down even more.

Why is it implausible? As I've said, I've willingly handed my wallet or its important contents over to more people than I've willingly had sex with.



In most instances of rape, the accused and accuser are well acquainted. Sometimes, they have even had consensual sex before. So that part of the comparison is already there.

And, from what I've seen, it is fairly common (among the girls I know, anyways) to hand a friend your wallet or, at the very least, your credit cards, cash, and ID.



Sure there is. I didn't have pockets and didn't want to carry my purse. Happens all the time.


I think you quite adequately demonstrated why the mere fact that I have your wallet in my hands should not be considered rebuttable proof that I stole it.

And since you've somewhat conceeded your own point...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm


The complainant in rape cases is granted total anonymity; no such protection exists for those who they accuse.

When allegations of sexual assault can be so devastating to the accused, who may never clear his name in the eyes of those around him even if acquitted, should the law offer them the same degree of protection that it offers those who make the complaint?

Absolutely. That's not even a question.

I suppose its too much for people to simply not change the opinion of someone because they are merely accused of wrongdoing. I'm sure they would want the same if they got in trouble.

I hat this figure. Please give your source. The only place I've ever seen this figure properly documented used a study that included people who said they'd at some time in their life had a man give them alcohol to get them in bed.

Don't source some rag citing this figure. Find me a single study that supports it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lukas/lukas200604270647.asp

I know this paper has a conservative bias, but they make a fairly balanced point here.



Here's some, I keep looking for more : http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/stats.html

75% of all women......???!..um...sure, yeah.

So it's 3-5% (low enough number to have doubts about alone) of all reported rapes x3 then right?

1 in 4 is 25%, Einstein.

If there were consequences for accusing someone unjustly, there would be a whole lot less false accusations.

There are (at least in New York State, USA)

If there were consequences for accusing someone unjustly, there would be a whole lot less false accusations.

The Defendant may always sue for Defamation if the case is proven to be a complete shamble where his name has been stained, and i would say in such a ludicrous situation the claim would quiet likely be successful.

Here's some, I keep looking for more : http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/stats.html

You'll note your source corrects it to 1 in 6. Don't get me wrong, the incidence of rape is very high, probably close to 1 in 6, but I've yet to see a credible study that reaches the 1 in 4 figure and you've not provided one. You've given me a summary that references the study. Where's the study?

I found the study.

First, they got a reply that had 2.8 percent of their group replying in the affirmative for rape or attempted rape. It was a telephone Survey of 4,446 women. The study had a response rate of 85.6 percent. So we have to look at sampling error, non-response error, response error, etc. They actually don't offer this. I'm trying to calculate it, but I'm not sure I have enough information.

Second, according to their survey prior to that year, 11 percent of the women were victims of rape or attempted rape. A large portion of their sampling are in their final year of college or in grad school. They were two seperate questions, the total of women who said yes to either is not likely to above perhaps 16 percent looking at the overlap in the rest of the study. So 16 percent (1 in 6) and 3 percent in that year (though it's unclear what percentage of them were previous victims. It does say that it is FAR more likely that once you've been a victim you'll be a victim again.)

Somehow they extrapolate that to one in four. The percentage of women claiming to have been victims of rape or attempted rapes doesn't reach 1 in 4 in any of their sampling but they extrapolate that out. And even they state that it's an extrapolation and not much more than an educated guess.

Third, 49 percent of the women did not categorize their encounter as a rape.

This survey highlights just how serious the problem of sexual victimization is. It does it well. It does not however support a 1 in 4 figure. By all appearances it supports the 1 in 6 figure that your original source suggests.

Best thing to do would be just hold them in a place of internment and say they've won a holiday.

1 in 4 is 25%, Einstein.

1 in 4 women report being raped. 1/3 of all rapes reported.
So a total of 75%.

I don't think that's accurate since I suspect it's 1 in 4 women tell pollsters they've been raped; and 1 in 3 rapes are reported to the police. But the way it's phrased is misleading.

1 in 4 is 25%, Einstein.

You said 1 in 4 women report being raped in their lifetime and only 1 in 3 report. He simply used your words to extrapolate.

This points to two problems. A - you used the word report two different ways and it gives a very misleading picture.

B - you provided support that at best suggests that 1 in 4 women will have been raped or a rape will be attempted. Which is not the same as what you said.

Which disappearing wallet story are we on? The one where your house has been broken into and a random person two doors down has your wallet or a different one?

There was only one wallet.

At one point, I did bring up a possible TV theft, but that line of conversation got dropped.

And given all this if you turned up at the police saying 'a friend of mine whom I've given my wallet to before has my wallet and says I gave it to them but I don't think I did' would get you anywhere near court let alone a conviction? Add alcohol into the equation and that likelihood goes down even more.

I wouldn't say that if I were actually trying to frame them, silly. I'd just say, "I think such and such stole my wallet."


And since you've somewhat conceeded your own point...

LOL. It was never meant to be a point - I was never arguing that we should view it that way. It was a hypothetical that Bottle brought up.

I do find it interesting, though, that more than one person - even myself until I really thought about it - felt that someone having another's wallet was much more likely to mean it was stolen than evidence of sex was to mean rape had occurred.

Third, 49 percent of the women did not categorize their encounter as a rape.

I don't know how useful it is to point this out, as long as the study was clear in what they categorized as rape.

I don't think it's all that uncommon for people to have experiences that many might categorize that way, but to rationalize it as "not as bad as rape." For years, I refused to categorize my own childhood experiences as sexual abuse, not because they really weren't, but because I felt that my experiences weren't as bad or as frequent as what "real" abuse victims had to go through.

Psychologically, I think it's likely that many rape victims have similarly rationalized their experiences as "not really rape." Many have probably even bought into the idea that it was really their own fault, rather than the rapist's.

I don't know how useful it is to point this out, as long as the study was clear in what they categorized as rape.

I don't think it's all that uncommon for people to have experiences that many might categorize that way, but to rationalize it as "not as bad as rape." For years, I refused to categorize my own childhood experiences as sexual abuse, not because they really weren't, but because I felt that my experiences weren't as bad or as frequent as what "real" abuse victims had to go through.

Psychologically, I think it's likely that many rape victims have similarly rationalized their experiences as "not really rape." Many have probably even bought into the idea that it was really their own fault, rather than the rapist's.

Yup. Speaking from personal experience, this post is dead-on. I was 21 before I ever used the word "abuse" to refer to the things that happened to me as a kid, because on some level I'd convinced myself that it didn't count as abuse if it was happening to me - and I went through the exact same process again with the assault as an adult. It didn't "count" because it could have been even worse, because I probably deserved it anyway, because I didn't fight back, and so on and so forth.

75% of all women......??I would guess its almost 100%

Yup. Speaking from personal experience, this post is dead-on. I was 21 before I ever used the word "abuse" to refer to the things that happened to me as a kid, because on some level I'd convinced myself that it didn't count as abuse if it was happening to me - and I went through the exact same process again with the assault as an adult. It didn't "count" because it could have been even worse, because I probably deserved it anyway, because I didn't fight back, and so on and so forth.

I agree with both of you, but we have to speculate. These are college-educated women who received packets explaining the study in advance. It found less than 3 percent of them had experienced a rape or attempted rape in the past year (and 3 percent is WAAAAAAAY too many, but it's also a small enough percentage statistically, that even a small margin of error could drastically affect the number).

They know that half of them, though college-educated and having a packet that explains the study. They still didn't self-classify. It's entirely reasonable that for many of them, most of them, that this was an issue with the women's definition of rape. It's not reasonable to assume all of them. And I was only pointing out this further introduces a margin of error.

Add that to a 86% response rate, and a low result and you've got issues with this study.

I think it would be difficult to deny that 1 in 6 women will experience a rape or attempted rape after looking at this and other studies. It's important to be accurate. Hyperbole give the jackasses an area of attack. 1 in 6 is not 1 in 4. Worse, the original statement wasn't that 1 in 4 had experienced rape or attempted rape. The original statement was 1 in 4 women report being raped. This proves to be a great exaggeration.

No.


In rape convictions, less than 2% are false convictions, which is less than the number of false convictions for murder and almost any other crime. To me that means if you got off on a rap charge, you got lucky, the jury was stacked with men and women who think "she had it coming" or some such nonsense, or your attorny was successful in humiliating the victim by painting her as a slut and the jury bought it.

There is a reason the victims are granted anonymity. Its humiliated and being raped is still stigmatized in our culture and we still like to try and pretend its somehow her fault. Rapists deserve the scorn they get from society, even if they somehow got away with it.

We're talking about false accusations, not false convictions.

It is people like you that are the reason the author of the post believes the accused should get anonymity. The person is already guilty in your mind whether or not there is any evidence besides the victim's word.

Rapists do deserve scorn, if they actually raped somebody. If they are innocent of doing anything, why should they have to deal with people out there thinking "they somehow got away with it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm


The complainant in rape cases is granted total anonymity; no such protection exists for those who they accuse.

When allegations of sexual assault can be so devastating to the accused, who may never clear his name in the eyes of those around him even if acquitted, should the law offer them the same degree of protection that it offers those who make the complaint?

Well, the typical person on the street should have the idea in their head that even if someone is arrested and arraigned on charges, that they are innocent until proven guilty.

However, the common person is a dim bulb, and believes most of what they see in print and on TV. So yes, it does ruin the accused in cases where they end up being not guilty.

Take the case of the Duke lacrosse team. Pretty clear they weren't rapists in the end, but that's not the way the DA, the press, and the university played it.

Now, the players are suing everyone. Here in the US, the fear of a lawsuit often tempers the response of the press - in this case, the press was not fearful enough.

These boys are going to be rich for the rest of their lives, albeit with a tarnished reputation.

Why not just ban the Tabloids mentioning Court Cases until a verdict is reached?

Except the Diana Inquest, just because Al Fayed really is mad!:D

Why not just ban the Tabloids mentioning Court Cases until a verdict is reached?

Except the Diana Inquest, just because Al Fayed really is mad!:D

al-Fayed is "rich". When you're a paranoid schizophrenic and you're poor - that's mad. When you're a paranoid schizophrenic and you're rich - that's talent and insight.

Try it - it works on a view of Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, and al-Fayed...

al-Fayed is "rich". When you're a paranoid schizophrenic and you're poor - that's mad. When you're a paranoid schizophrenic and you're rich - that's talent and insight.

Try it - it works on a view of Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, and al-Fayed...

No, the papers called him mad after he appeared in the court.

al-Fayed is "rich". When you're a paranoid schizophrenic and you're poor - that's mad. When you're a paranoid schizophrenic and you're rich - that's talent and insight.

Try it - it works on a view of Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, and al-Fayed...

Yeah, because hardly anyone thinks that Tom Cruise and Britney Spears are batshit crazy.

No, the papers called him mad after he appeared in the court.

Then he needs a new publicist. It's a requirement that filthy rich people have some major psychological flaw.

Then he needs a new publicist. It's a requirement that filthy rich people have some major psychological flaw.

Hey! I intend to be filthy rich! After all, I do have the face for it.

You'll note your source corrects it to 1 in 6. Don't get me wrong, the incidence of rape is very high, probably close to 1 in 6, but I've yet to see a credible study that reaches the 1 in 4 figure and you've not provided one. You've given me a summary that references the study. Where's the study?

I found the study.

First, they got a reply that had 2.8 percent of their group replying in the affirmative for rape or attempted rape. It was a telephone Survey of 4,446 women. The study had a response rate of 85.6 percent. So we have to look at sampling error, non-response error, response error, etc. They actually don't offer this. I'm trying to calculate it, but I'm not sure I have enough information.

Second, according to their survey prior to that year, 11 percent of the women were victims of rape or attempted rape. A large portion of their sampling are in their final year of college or in grad school. They were two seperate questions, the total of women who said yes to either is not likely to above perhaps 16 percent looking at the overlap in the rest of the study. So 16 percent (1 in 6) and 3 percent in that year (though it's unclear what percentage of them were previous victims. It does say that it is FAR more likely that once you've been a victim you'll be a victim again.)

Somehow they extrapolate that to one in four. The percentage of women claiming to have been victims of rape or attempted rapes doesn't reach 1 in 4 in any of their sampling but they extrapolate that out. And even they state that it's an extrapolation and not much more than an educated guess.

Third, 49 percent of the women did not categorize their encounter as a rape.

This survey highlights just how serious the problem of sexual victimization is. It does it well. It does not however support a 1 in 4 figure. By all appearances it supports the 1 in 6 figure that your original source suggests.

As you've apparently located a hard-to-find study, please provide us with the link.

RAINN uses the 1 in 6 figure, which appears to be supported by numerous sources including the U.S. Department of Justice.

Although you may be technically correct that the 1 in 4 figure was incorrect, Cabra West's point generally remains a sound one.

As you've apparently located a hard-to-find study, please provide us with the link.

RAINN uses the 1 in 6 figure, which appears to be supported by numerous sources including the U.S. Department of Justice.

Although you may be technically correct that the 1 in 4 figure was incorrect, Cabra West's point generally remains a sound one.

Of course. I said that from the beginning. My point was that the 1 in 4 figure is an exaggeration. She actually said 1 in 4 women report being raped in their lifetimes. That's actually not even remotely supported. That's the problem with those kinds of figures that people latch onto.

I'm sure you recognize the significant difference between 25% of women report being raped, and 17% of women report being the victims of a rape or attempted rape. It's drastic. The real figure for rape by most projections is about half of what she said. I wouldn't say there is a huge difference between attempted rape and rape, however, when you're making an argument, you're as aware as I am that it damages your goals to be as inaccurate as she was.

Beyond that, the way she worded the post, gave the impression she was suggest 75% of women have been raped. I think it was easy to tell it was unintentional, but it was a inaccurate post.

EDIT: It took me half an hour to find it again. I forgot to link it the first time. Here it is - http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

Yes, and if somebody is found liable for the rape of another person, why should I weight that less than a criminal conviction?


*Eyeroll*

Obviously the public can't actually LEGALLY convict somebody. I was talking about how we each have the ability and the right to "convict" a criminal in our own minds.

It's amazing to hear people insisting that everybody must blindly accept court rulings as infallible. If a court says somebody is Not Guilty, well, that MUST be true! Courts can't ever make mistakes! Well, unless they're falsely convicting some poor man who was accused of rape by a lying slut bent on revenge. In that case the courts are wrong and we all should know that the real victim is men who are accused of rape.

Well, you certainly have the ability, we all have the ability to act in such matters... Of course the ability to do something, does not necessarily mean there is prudence to do such... I'd rather consider people innocent who have not been convicted of a crime... You may like your form of lynch-mob justice... But as far as I'm concerned, you're nothing better than a rapist.

Don't they have different standards of evidence?

Waaaaay different standards... You can be held "liable" in a civil sense for things that do not even occur while you're present... as long as some connection can be made between the result, and your person/property.... Whereas criminal courts must actually prove that you were there and that you did whatever the act was...

Yes, and if somebody is found liable for the rape of another person, why should I weight that less than a criminal conviction?

Because a criminal conviction has a larger burden of evidence. There is literally a greater weight of evidence behind a criminal conviction.



*Eyeroll*

Obviously the public can't actually LEGALLY convict somebody. I was talking about how we each have the ability and the right to "convict" a criminal in our own minds.

It's amazing to hear people insisting that everybody must blindly accept court rulings as infallible. If a court says somebody is Not Guilty, well, that MUST be true! Courts can't ever make mistakes! Well, unless they're falsely convicting some poor man who was accused of rape by a lying slut bent on revenge. In that case the courts are wrong and we all should know that the real victim is men who are accused of rape.

Sure courts make mistakes. The problem is that we don't often have all of the facts or even most of them when we convict people in the media. The courts have a responsibility to at least try to bring about justice that the media does not bear.

The media cares that you read, watch, listen to them. No more. No less.

Because a criminal conviction has a larger burden of evidence. There is literally a greater weight of evidence behind a criminal conviction.

Still not seeing why that alone is a reason to rank one ahead of the other. That simply means that it's less likely for there to be sufficient evidence to convict somebody in a criminal court than in a civil court. If you're most interested in making sure that you don't ever "mentally convict" an innocent person, then sure, err on the side of caution. But I'd say it's a matter of opinion as to whether that should be one's priority.


Sure courts make mistakes. The problem is that we don't often have all of the facts or even most of them when we convict people in the media. The courts have a responsibility to at least try to bring about justice that the media does not bear.

The media cares that you read, watch, listen to them. No more. No less.
Having read what I've posted, in this thread and others, do you actually think there is any chance in hell I am not aware of that?

Do you actually think I rely on mainstream media alone for important information of any kind?

I do not trust the MSM to tell me what the weather is today. Please don't assume I'm stupid enough to put my trust in the MSM when it comes to "mentally convicting" a sex offender.

Still not seeing why that alone is a reason to rank one ahead of the other. That simply means that it's less likely for there to be sufficient evidence to convict somebody in a criminal court than in a civil court. If you're most interested in making sure that you don't ever "mentally convict" an innocent person, then sure, err on the side of caution. But I'd say it's a matter of opinion as to whether that should be one's priority.

I think you're mixing together two different things, firstly. However, there's a clear and practical reason why you'd rank one ahead of the other. At least in term's of establishing guilt. Being found guilty in a criminal court takes much more evidence than being found liable in a civil court. You have the presumption of innocence in a criminal court. In saying they are equal, you're basically saying that I should take two theories, one where it was supported by data that makes it unreasonable to consider it false at this point, and another where the data just makes it make slightly more sense than any alternatives, and treat them as equal. No scientist should do that. No logical person should do that.


Having read what I've posted, in this thread and others, do you actually think there is any chance in hell I am not aware of that?

Do you actually think I rely on mainstream media alone for important information of any kind?

I do not trust the MSM to tell me what the weather is today. Please don't assume I'm stupid enough to put my trust in the MSM when it comes to "mentally convicting" a sex offender.
But that IS what most people rely upon. Even accessing outside of mainstream media, there may be evidence you've not seen nor will ever see.

And when one discusses conviction by the public eye, it's pretty obvious what the majority of the public is using, even if you are the exception.

You're special, Bottle. Don't think we don't all know.

Waaaaay different standards... You can be held "liable" in a civil sense for things that do not even occur while you're present... as long as some connection can be made between the result, and your person/property.... Whereas criminal courts must actually prove that you were there and that you did whatever the act was...

This isn't true either. If I conspire to kill someone with you, can I be tried for murder even if I wasn't there? Yup.

Still not seeing why that alone is a reason to rank one ahead of the other. That simply means that it's less likely for there to be sufficient evidence to convict somebody in a criminal court than in a civil court. If you're most interested in making sure that you don't ever "mentally convict" an innocent person, then sure, err on the side of caution. But I'd say it's a matter of opinion as to whether that should be one's priority.

Criminal: We're sure they did it.
Civil: We think they did.

There's much less room for error in the criminal courts. Civil ones essentially mean there's a 49% chance that this person is innocent. That's a lot of doubt to ignore when mentally convicting someone. Obviously it indicates a degree of probable wrongdoing and that should be used to judge a person, but it's definitely not on a par with criminal convictions.

Well, you certainly have the ability, we all have the ability to act in such matters... Of course the ability to do something, does not necessarily mean there is prudence to do such... I'd rather consider people innocent who have not been convicted of a crime... You may like your form of lynch-mob justice... But as far as I'm concerned, you're nothing better than a rapist.

Always? What if the evidence is enough to convince you, even if it doesn't convince the jury? What if you were the victim?

Bottle isn't talking about stringing someone up and hanging them from a tree or anything like that. She's talking about personal interactions. While I think trial-by-jury is the best criminal justice system available, I don't trust it to be infallible. If I think someone is guilty, I will likely treat them differently based on that, whether they were convicted or not.

Hold on now, I haven't looked up what you mentioned yet but that's irrelevant to this point; "the female psyche"? Are you associating a certain psyche collectively with a gender? Isn't that sexist? As in, a fair bit more sexist than some other things people on this site normally get slammed for?



No woman wants to go through a rape in detail over and over again, have investigaters probe through her vagina for seman samples, have their sexual history dug through, and then be slandered as a slut in court just for revenge on an ex. They are violated, must relive that violation multiple times via testamony, are violated by the police during the invesitagation for seman, and then must relive that violation in court AND be portayed as a slut. Also, most of the time the rapist is someone the victim knows and was close with to a degree, so facing that person in such a setting can add a whole new level of difficulty.


Men probably wouldnt like it either, but it happens to men far less than women, so its a non issue IMO. Having your sex life dug through as a man also tends to be a non issue. Sure, some men are very private about it, but its a lot easier to deal with as a guy because if youre a guy with an active sex life, society high fives you and says "boys will be boys", if youre a woman with an active sex life, society scorns you and assumes youre a filthy slut.


EDIT: Also, how is it sexist to say "the female psyche"? Its a fact that women think differently than men. Im not saying that stupid chauvinistic statement that men are more rational, but our brains work in different ways because of things like different hormone production levels and different types of brain activity. Also, woman are conditioned to think a different way than men (whole nother issue), and a woman is inherantly going to be more guarded about sexual history because society is more likely to label her as a ho.

Criminal: We're sure they did it.
Civil: We think they did.

There's much less room for error in the criminal courts. Civil ones essentially mean there's a 49% chance that this person is innocent. That's a lot of doubt to ignore when mentally convicting someone. Obviously it indicates a degree of probable wrongdoing and that should be used to judge a person, but it's definitely not on a par with criminal convictions.

To be more clear:

Criminal: Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil: Guilt is more likely than not.

At least, I think those are the terms used.

Also, I think evidence that cannot be admitted in criminal trials often can be admitted in civil ones.

Also, I think evidence that cannot be admitted in criminal trials often can be admitted in civil ones.

Its more a case of the judge being less likely to throw certian evidence out in a civil court.

Ok then, and just HOW do you expect to prove a negative to a court? If someone claims you raped them and there's the proof of sex there, how do you expect to "prove" to them it was consensual when the accuser insists it wasn't? Go on, tell us how. If that's your plan you better be ready.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty is the only way to go, just like with other crimes. It's one of the main standards of free countries, and it's a right all other rights depend on. You seemed to ignore that point last time I made it, since you went on to talk about how the benefit of a doubt lets guilty people go free... but it is also what protects you from being randomly accused (and/or falsely convicted) at the whim of someone who wants to put you in jail (or kill you, if execution is the punishment) for whatever reason, so perhaps it's something you should be a bit more appreciative of.

As for the rich celebrity part, maybe in that case it's public celebrity obsession that's the problem, as opposed to one of the main rights of free societies being the problem.

It's simple. If a man is accused of rape and there is no proof of any sexual contact, then that should be enough to prove one's innocence. If a man is accused of rape and there is proof of sexual contact, well, sorry, but the pendulum needs to swing the other way for a while. If a few innocent men go to jail for rapes they didn't commit, it's a far cry better than serial rapists walking the streets.

It's why innocent until proven guilty doesn't always work, and it's why I don't think the death penalty is a good idea - DNA evidence can clear people who are alive, but not those who are dead. Considering the number of people who are in prison in the U.S., consider the number of men who ought to be if 25% of women are raped, or 17%, or whatever the hell the number is these days. It's too damn high, and of the majority of men in this country have to do time to straighten it out, so be it. Pussyfooting around the issue hasn't worked.

Innocent until proven guilty won't get things done. It never has.

It's simple. If a man is accused of rape and there is no proof of any sexual contact, then that should be enough to prove one's innocence. If a man is accused of rape and there is proof of sexual contact, well, sorry, but the pendulum needs to swing the other way for a while. If a few innocent men go to jail for rapes they didn't commit, it's a far cry better than serial rapists walking the streets.

It's why innocent until proven guilty doesn't always work, and it's why I don't think the death penalty is a good idea - DNA evidence can clear people who are alive, but not those who are dead. Considering the number of people who are in prison in the U.S., consider the number of men who ought to be if 25% of women are raped, or 17%, or whatever the hell the number is these days. It's too damn high, and of the majority of men in this country have to do time to straighten it out, so be it. Pussyfooting around the issue hasn't worked.

Innocent until proven guilty won't get things done. It never has.


You know whats a better solution than getting rid of innocent until proven guilty, which would be an affront to civil liberties?


Getting rid of the social mores that make a woman reluctant to come foward with a rape charge. So that the cops can see the bruise/signs of forced sexual intercourse as well as get the seman samples while theyre still "fresh" and not rely on a game of he said/she said, which will result in a verdict entirely dependent on how the attornies stacked the juries.

Or get rid of the social conditioning that gives men the impression that its ok to force sex on a woman for whatever reason, and actually teach men to respect women. There are still societal undertones that send a different messege.

It's simple. If a man is accused of rape and there is no proof of any sexual contact, then that should be enough to prove one's innocence. If a man is accused of rape and there is proof of sexual contact, well, sorry, but the pendulum needs to swing the other way for a while. If a few innocent men go to jail for rapes they didn't commit, it's a far cry better than serial rapists walking the streets.

For whom? You're criminalizing sex.


It's why innocent until proven guilty doesn't always work, and it's why I don't think the death penalty is a good idea - DNA evidence can clear people who are alive, but not those who are dead. Considering the number of people who are in prison in the U.S., consider the number of men who ought to be if 25% of women are raped, or 17%, or whatever the hell the number is these days. It's too damn high, and of the majority of men in this country have to do time to straighten it out, so be it. Pussyfooting around the issue hasn't worked.

Innocent until proven guilty won't get things done. It never has.
Oh, you're taking a piss. Sorry. I thought you were serious for a minute.

If We Had Guilty Until Proven Innocent Then People Would Go to Prison on Lack of Evidence. That's just Evil.

Innocent until proven guilty.
I think the accused should be granted the same anonymity as the victim, until he had a fair trail and was actually found guilty.

Definitely.

I think there should also be a criminal punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape. Of course, you'd need to be pretty sure that the accusation was false before prosecuting it, (if there's enough uncertaintly in an alleged rape case, neither side will be prosecuted, just to emphasize that it's not about "siding with the man" but about the most important human right of all, the benefit of a doubt) but I've heard of cases of false CONVICTIONS of rape being proven wrong (such as with video evidence showing that the sex was consensual) so cases of false rape accusations can be prosecuted.

...maybe having false rape accusations be a crime as well might make people think twice before falsely accusing someone of rape.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense.