Yet another bombastic rape claim bites the dust

[Derec]

Excuse me? What does that matter?

When you give an absolute number of cases it matters what population size these numbers were taken from.

Are you really saying that just because our country is so big a violent crime against a person doesn't matter?

Every violent crime is bad, but crime problem is generally measures as a crime rate, number of crimes relative to population. 255 rape reports per day means one thing if it is referring to population of the US, quite another if it's referring to population of Canada for example. A whole order of magnitude in this case actually.
It also matters to the ridiculous "1 in 4" or "1 in 5" claims. They are also rates, but highly inflated rates that have zero resemblance to reality, as I have shown.

Exactly. You get a clever rapist, he can commit rapes with impunity.

What is the alternative? Do away with pesky requirements for evidence or burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" as some feminists want?

Remember Alex Kelly who raped two teenage girls, then lived free in Europe funded by his parents for 10 years?

No, I do not remember him. But apparently he served his time. As long as he doesn't commit any more crimes I do not care what he does with his life.
What does that have to do with the injustice of an innocent man spending years in prison for a crime he didn't commit?

Wonder how many rapists are like him?

In what way like him? And again, what does that have to do with imprisoning innocent men just to increase the conviction rates?

Betcha there are a lot more of those, than false claims, since rapes without sufficient evidence are often dismissed. Not because a crime didn't happen, but because it's not prosecutable.

And that's how it should be.

 

[Derec]

This is factually incorrect.

You are wrong, as usual.

Not is one thinks having rapists on campus is a more serious problem than having liars on campus.

The problem is that college administrators think like you and do not think false accusations of rape are a serious problem.
In fact, some think that being falsely accused of rape is a good thing to happen to men.

Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of "rape." She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. "To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him." Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. "They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions."

That's feminism for you.

Please document what you mean by "many" and "falsely accused".

I gave you examples of false accusations as well as questionable accusations that should not have led to expulsions. You choose not to engage with them but rather prefer to discuss semantics.

Wow - the lack of evidence is prove that it must have occurred.

No, you claim that it must have occurred somewhere but that we haven't heard from it. I claim that given the national climate (just look at the outcry over this UVA hoax before it was exposed), there would have been an outcry by feminists had a female student been expelled because the university determined that "it was more likely than not" that she lied about being raped.

Maybe you should. It might cure you of the delusion that "radical feminists" have all the power in universities.

I think the deluded one is you.

Your guesses are as valid as your reasoning: wrong.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Arctish]

nm

 

[Derec]

It happens probably less frequently than you claim.

Even if true, it still happens frequently enough to be a major problem.

You are factually incorrect again. I did not claim she did not name the frat.

Agree to disagree, as long as we agree now that she did accuse a specific frat, a frat that could not possibly have been the site of her alleged rape.

No, you being wrong makes it so.

Just calling me wrong all the time is not discussion. But all right, I can stoop to your level: "I know you are but what am I?"

When you use terms like "bombastic" to describe the rape claim, and when you persist in using inaccuracies to deride the allegation, you are smearing the victim.

What inaccuracies? And the rape claim was bombastic - a three hour long ordeal, multiple guys, crashing through a glass coffee table, getting raped on broken glass, dismissive friends even though she was beaten and bloody, with a torn dress and barefoot. In what universe does a false story like that not deserve the adjective "bombastic"?

 

[laughing dog]

Even if true, it still happens frequently enough to be a major problem.

More than a problem of actual rape frequencies?

Agree to disagree, as long as we agree now that she did accuse a specific frat, a frat that could not possibly have been the site of her alleged rape.

Your inability to recognize actual facts is truly amazing. Please point to where I made that claim.

Just calling me wrong all the time is not discussion. But all right, I can stoop to your level: "I know you are but what am I?"

See the above comment.

What inaccuracies? And the rape claim was bombastic - a three hour long ordeal, multiple guys, crashing through a glass coffee table, getting raped on broken glass, dismissive friends even though she was beaten and bloody, with a torn dress and barefoot. In what universe does a false story like that not deserve the adjective "bombastic"?

In the real universe where we don't know if it is false. Perhaps if you were more careful in avoiding conflating your fantasies with facts, these discussion might be more fruitful.

 

[Emily Lake]

Outside changing human behavior in a 'free' society which is quite possibly impossible, the only way for one to get justice is for for it to b e provided by means that disregard race, sex, observation in the dock, and perceived disposition.

One method would be to provide jurors computer generated versions of testimony and objective testimony of on the physical evidence.

In other words I suggest dehumanizing the situation as much as possible so jurors can't rely on their situation awareness and nonverbal personal judgement capabilities. These are the things we usef to stay alive. They are personally biased so they should not be part of the kit used to judge people.

Now that would be an interesting idea. Remove all of the identifiers that we know for a fact carry bias. You'd have to also remove names, as well as pronouns.

Unfortunately, it might end up coming down to who the better writer is. I don't think humans can ever be fully divorced from emotion, and language is a very powerful tool for stirring emotions.

- - - Updated - - -

It's just as likely the guy will still considered guilty by the general public, as it is for the women to be seen as unreliable sluts or bimbos or gold diggers. I'm watching the Bill Cosby thing closely.

That is a possibility. Reputation will always play a part, unfortunately.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that does nothing but open the door to harassment and death threats, neither of which serves any purpose.

I do not think she received any death threats.

You don't believe that she has received any death threats yet. Do you think that having her name ind personal information passed around on the internet will somehow keep her safe and protected from such unwarranted retaliation? Are you familiar with 4chan and similar ilk?

 

[credoconsolans]

When you give an absolute number of cases it matters what population size these numbers were taken from.

Are you really saying that just because our country is so big a violent crime against a person doesn't matter?

Every violent crime is bad, but crime problem is generally measures as a crime rate, number of crimes relative to population. 255 rape reports per day means one thing if it is referring to population of the US, quite another if it's referring to population of Canada for example. A whole order of magnitude in this case actually.
It also matters to the ridiculous "1 in 4" or "1 in 5" claims. They are also rates, but highly inflated rates that have zero resemblance to reality, as I have shown.

A crime is a crime isn't it? Regardless if it happens to 1 person or thousands.

Exactly. You get a clever rapist, he can commit rapes with impunity.

What is the alternative? Do away with pesky requirements for evidence or burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" as some feminists want?

Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean someone isn't guilty. Plenty of cases are tried on circumstantial evidence.

Remember Alex Kelly who raped two teenage girls, then lived free in Europe funded by his parents for 10 years?

No, I do not remember him. But apparently he served his time. As long as he doesn't commit any more crimes I do not care what he does with his life.
What does that have to do with the injustice of an innocent man spending years in prison for a crime he didn't commit?

Except he was a rapist who got away with his crimes and would continue to had he not tired of living luxuriously in Europe. He raped 3 women and got 10 years, then only served 8 years for good behavior and was released. His parents, though guilty of lying to police, obstructing an investigation, aiding and abetting, were never charged.

Wonder how many rapists are like him?

In what way like him? And again, what does that have to do with imprisoning innocent men just to increase the conviction rates?

What it has to do is that while non-guilty men are imprisoned falsely, quite a few guilty men get off scot-free.

Betcha there are a lot more of those, than false claims, since rapes without sufficient evidence are often dismissed. Not because a crime didn't happen, but because it's not prosecutable.

And that's how it should be.

Too bad for the victims, right?

 

[Derec]

Actually, her friends are contradicting the way it went down. According to them she allegedly alleged that she was forced to give oral sex to five guys (no pun intended) and had no visible injuries or blood. Somehow the story grew into a three hour long brutal and violent rape by seven guys that had her crash through a glass table.

SCNR.

Anyway, there is an update. Jackie [last name censored by vast feminist conspiracy] testified at the defamation trial. I think both she and RS need to pay mucho bucks.
Girl at Center of Discredited Rolling Stone Article Testifies in Court
Of course the radical feminist National Organization for Women is defending the false gang rape accuser.
National Organization For Women Defends Rolling Stone Gang Rape Fabricator

Despite every suggestion that Coakley is lying about being raped, O’Neill contends in her open letter that the UVA dropout is a “sexual assault survivor.”
“We recently learned about deeply disturbing actions by one of your Deans against a sexual assault survivor and member of the UVA community,” O’Neill wrote in the letter.
“It is exactly this kind of victim blaming and shaming that fosters rape culture, re-victimizes those brave enough to have come forward, and silences countless other victims,” she continued, adding that Eramo’s demands “recite nearly every false argument made to undermine victims of sexual assault.”

I guess to NOW there is no such thing as a "false accuser" even when an accusation is completely and utterly discredited.

 

[repoman]

I think that Jackie may be found guilty but with a mental instability excuse of a sort. She did it but is not culpable.

 

[J842P]

I think that Jackie may be found guilty but with a mental instability excuse of a sort. She did it but is not culpable.

She isn't on trial, as far as I am aware.

 

[Derec]

She isn't on trial, as far as I am aware.

Unfortunately, only Rolling Stone is being sued. I think Jackie [last name censored because she is, despite her story being utterly discredited still given privileges of being a rape "victim"] should also be sued as well as be charged criminally.

This is the problem really. There is no disincentive to making false rape accusations because punishment is rare and slight even when it happens and some (like NOW) will believe you no matter what.

 

[repoman]

Derec, I think that there are real cases of women (and rarely men) who are crazier than a shithouse rat who make rape claims without the kind of malice that a more stable person would need to do the same thing.

They need a punishment and society needs to be protected from more false rape claims by them, but a full prison sentence may be too much.

Imagine that Jackie is really raped today and there is at first no other proof than her testimony. I wonder how that would go in court.

That would be like the movie "Double Jeopardy" except the formerly imprisoned guy gets a free pass at rape. That is just so fucking wrong, hahaha...

 

[Trausti]

Hurrah.

Jury finds reporter, Rolling Stone responsible for defaming U-Va. dean with gang rape story

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jury-finds-reporter-rolling-stone-responsible-for-defaming-u-va-dean-with-gang-rape-story/2016/11/04/aaf407fa-a1e8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

 

[RVonse]

Derec, I think that there are real cases of women (and rarely men) who are crazier than a shithouse rat who make rape claims without the kind of malice that a more stable person would need to do the same thing.

They need a punishment and society needs to be protected from more false rape claims by them, but a full prison sentence may be too much.

Imagine that Jackie is really raped today and there is at first no other proof than her testimony. I wonder how that would go in court.

You have just made a good argument why women SHOULD be required by law to tell the truth. So that what comes out of their mouths can be believed when it is actually true.

And the law can and should be changed to accomplish this. Real penalties need to be given to the females who lie. If it is discovered that they were lying because they were mentally ill, those cases can be modified same as if you get off from murder because of mental illness.

But there has to be something on the books to sanction lying about important crimes such as rape. Or you will continue to see people lying because they can.

Derec is right.

 

[bilby]

Derec, I think that there are real cases of women (and rarely men) who are crazier than a shithouse rat who make rape claims without the kind of malice that a more stable person would need to do the same thing.

They need a punishment and society needs to be protected from more false rape claims by them, but a full prison sentence may be too much.

Imagine that Jackie is really raped today and there is at first no other proof than her testimony. I wonder how that would go in court.

You have just made a good argument why women SHOULD be required by law to tell the truth. So that what comes out of their mouths can be believed when it is actually true.

And the law can and should be changed to accomplish this. Real penalties need to be given to the females who lie. If it is discovered that they were lying because they were mentally ill, those cases can be modified same as if you get off from murder because of mental illness.

But there has to be something on the books to sanction lying about important crimes such as rape. Or you will continue to see people lying because they can.

Derec is right.

Perjury is already a crime.

Women (like all who testify in court) ARE required by law to tell the truth on matters material to the case being heard. So either there is no problem here; or your assertion that the problem could be addressed by changes to the law to make what is currently a crime into a crime, is clearly false.

IF there is a problem, THEN your proposed solution is demonstrably inadequate.

 

[untermensche]

She isn't on trial, as far as I am aware.

Unfortunately, only Rolling Stone is being sued. I think Jackie [last name censored because she is, despite her story being utterly discredited still given privileges of being a rape "victim"] should also be sued as well as be charged criminally.

This is the problem really. There is no disincentive to making false rape accusations because punishment is rare and slight even when it happens and some (like NOW) will believe you no matter what.

What exactly is the incentive to lie?

What is the big reward again?

 

[laughing dog]

The argument about increasing punishment for women who lie about being raped would be more convincing as grounded in a real concern for justice if it was accompanied by an similar argument for increasing the punishment for men who lie about raping.

 

[J842P]

You have just made a good argument why women SHOULD be required by law to tell the truth. So that what comes out of their mouths can be believed when it is actually true.

And the law can and should be changed to accomplish this. Real penalties need to be given to the females who lie. If it is discovered that they were lying because they were mentally ill, those cases can be modified same as if you get off from murder because of mental illness.

But there has to be something on the books to sanction lying about important crimes such as rape. Or you will continue to see people lying because they can.

Derec is right.

Perjury is already a crime.

Women (like all who testify in court) ARE required by law to tell the truth on matters material to the case being heard. So either there is no problem here; or your assertion that the problem could be addressed by changes to the law to make what is currently a crime into a crime, is clearly false.

IF there is a problem, THEN your proposed solution is demonstrably inadequate.

I believe in general this situation would fall under knowingly filing a false police report, not usually perjury, which requires testifying under oath.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, only Rolling Stone is being sued. I think Jackie [last name censored because she is, despite her story being utterly discredited still given privileges of being a rape "victim"] should also be sued as well as be charged criminally.

This is the problem really. There is no disincentive to making false rape accusations because punishment is rare and slight even when it happens and some (like NOW) will believe you no matter what.

What exactly is the incentive to lie?

What is the big reward again?

1) Revenge against someone you are now upset with. Usually in the context of her wanting a relationship/wanting a relationship to continue.

2) One where he spent years in jail: She got worried about pregnancy and so claimed rape to cover herself. We know what happened because she eventually came clean.

3) A cheater afraid of being discovered by their partner. Real world case: They were caught in the act, she cried rape, her husband killed the guy. She ended up doing 6 months for manslaughter.

I'm sure this isn't a conclusive list.