Yet another bombastic rape claim bites the dust

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yeah, if it doesn't go to trial it would only be filing a false police report.

 

[Arctish]

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yeah, if it doesn't go to trial it would only be filing a false police report.

How do you propose determining whether a police report was false and the person who made it deserves punishment without a trial?

 

[RVonse]

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yeah, if it doesn't go to trial it would only be filing a false police report.

How do you propose determining whether a police report was false and the person who made it deserves punishment without a trial?

1. A might think a polygraph could be a good start. No, they're not currently admissible in court but they might be useful to determine how valid the police report could be trusted in the first place.

2. If there was physical evidence such as the wrong DNA found that would immediately and obviously contradict what was said in the report.

3. Make the rape report itself a matter of testimony under oath.

 

[bilby]

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yeah, if it doesn't go to trial it would only be filing a false police report.

How do you propose determining whether a police report was false and the person who made it deserves punishment without a trial?

1. A might think a polygraph could be a good start. No, they're not currently admissible in court but they might be useful to determine how valid the police report could be trusted in the first place.

Polygraphs are pseudoscientific horseshit. They only 'work' if the person being tested doesn't know that they don't work, and gets sufficiently intimidated to start saying what the interrogator wants to hear. But whether that is the 'truth' is not something that a polygraph can determine. They measure stress levels, fairly poorly. Lying is one possible cause of stress - for some people. As there are many other causes for stress, particularly while under interrogation, this technology is completely valueless. It's popularity in the USA is another indication of the general lack of rationality on the part of Americans.

2. If there was physical evidence such as the wrong DNA found that would immediately and obviously contradict what was said in the report.

Only if that evidence stands up to testing by the defence during a trial. A trial is the testing of evidence. If you are going to accept untested evidence, then you are denying due process, which would be both immoral and unconstitutional.

3. Make the rape report itself a matter of testimony under oath.

So in other words, have a trial, to test the claim and other evidence, and determine whether an offence has occurred. Which is exactly what already happens.

 

[untermensche]

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.

You still have to go through a lot, and keep your lies in order for a long time and under a lot of questioning. A person that does this piles stress upon themselves with very little in return.

Doesn't seem like reasonable motivation for a sane person.

Of course every scenario will occur rarely.

But addressing the rare scenarios will never give us a general rule.

I'm talking something that is not extremely rare. Something that is actually a real world problem, like rape of women by men, which is common.

 

[Terrell]

If you're the one who is falsely accused how rare others are falsely accused has no bearing on your case.

 

[laughing dog]

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

So? If the problem is lying to the police, then people who lie to the police should be dealt with.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Did she actually go to the police and file a report, or just talk to Rolling Stones? If all she did was go to Rolling Stones then all the can do is sue her and the magazine for defamation of character.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yeah, if it doesn't go to trial it would only be filing a false police report.

How do you propose determining whether a police report was false and the person who made it deserves punishment without a trial?

Does it ever occur to you that some cases don't go to trial because it is discovered the report is false?

Have you forgotten the Duke rape case? Her story was exposed as false, the charges were dropped. Nothing happened to her, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. A might think a polygraph could be a good start. No, they're not currently admissible in court but they might be useful to determine how valid the police report could be trusted in the first place.

No. Polygraphs have only one valid use: guilty knowledge tests. (And if done properly this won't produce any false positives. Unfortunately, it requires that there be several pieces of information known to the perpetrator but not to others.)

2. If there was physical evidence such as the wrong DNA found that would immediately and obviously contradict what was said in the report.

No--wrong DNA can be a case of misidentification. One should not be prosecuted for making a mistake on a police report, only for a deliberate lie.

3. Make the rape report itself a matter of testimony under oath.

Yeah, raising police reports to testimony under oath would be reasonable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

You still have to go through a lot, and keep your lies in order for a long time and under a lot of questioning. A person that does this piles stress upon themselves with very little in return.

Doesn't seem like reasonable motivation for a sane person.

Of course every scenario will occur rarely.

But addressing the rare scenarios will never give us a general rule.

I'm talking something that is not extremely rare. Something that is actually a real world problem, like rape of women by men, which is common.

The lowest reasonable estimate we have for the false rape report rate is 8%. That's not "extremely rare". (Note that this does not count mistaken identity cases.)

 

[untermensche]

You still have to go through a lot, and keep your lies in order for a long time and under a lot of questioning. A person that does this piles stress upon themselves with very little in return.

Doesn't seem like reasonable motivation for a sane person.

Of course every scenario will occur rarely.

But addressing the rare scenarios will never give us a general rule.

I'm talking something that is not extremely rare. Something that is actually a real world problem, like rape of women by men, which is common.

The lowest reasonable estimate we have for the false rape report rate is 8%. That's not "extremely rare". (Note that this does not count mistaken identity cases.)

There is nothing reasonable about that.

It is a number pulled from your ass.

 

[JonA]

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yeah, if it doesn't go to trial it would only be filing a false police report.

How do you propose determining whether a police report was false and the person who made it deserves punishment without a trial?

Who said anything about forgoing a trial?

A rape claim is made. The police and persecutors investigate. From their investigation, they can decide to take any number of different actions, including: believing a rape really happened and charging the accused; believing that no rape happened and determining the accuser knowingly made it up and charging them for filing the false report; figuring there's not enough evidence either way and doing nothing further; and on and on...

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The lowest reasonable estimate we have for the false rape report rate is 8%. That's not "extremely rare". (Note that this does not count mistaken identity cases.)

There is nothing reasonable about that.

It is a number pulled from your ass.

No, my ass isn't in Washington. In fact, it's never been in Washington. That the FBI number.

(Although I will admit to flying over Washington, the state and I have an upcoming flight that will actually connect in Seattle.)

 

[fromderinside]

P:<.1 or Probability is less than 0.10 is actually the criteria for significance in some social science disciplines. So 0.08 qualifies for extremely rare to some.

As for Washington, hah ahah hah.

 

[bilby]

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

Er... No, obviously. You don't need to prosecute them - they are already on trial. So you just CONVICT them. And we have ALWAYS imposed harsher punishments on convicts who plead 'not guilty' than on those who make a 'guilty' plea. Rendering a separate prosecution needless.

 

[Arctish]

Except we have never prosecuted the guilty for saying they're innocent at trial.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yeah, if it doesn't go to trial it would only be filing a false police report.

How do you propose determining whether a police report was false and the person who made it deserves punishment without a trial?

Does it ever occur to you that some cases don't go to trial because it is discovered the report is false?

Yes. Pretty often, in fact.

Have you forgotten the Duke rape case? Her story was exposed as false, the charges were dropped. Nothing happened to her, though.

I remember the Duke case.

I also remember Marie's story, and how the cops didn't believe her when she reported being raped. Not only did they not believe her, they came to believe she was lying, they extorted a false confession from her, she was fined and put on probation, and she was publicly vilified.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. You were talking about punishing women suspected of filing false police reports and I asked how you propose to determine if the report is false and what punishment would be appropriate without a trial.

 

[Arctish]

How do you propose determining whether a police report was false and the person who made it deserves punishment without a trial?

Who said anything about forgoing a trial?

A rape claim is made. The police and persecutors investigate. From their investigation, they can decide to take any number of different actions, including: believing a rape really happened and charging the accused; believing that no rape happened and determining the accuser knowingly made it up and charging them for filing the false report; figuring there's not enough evidence either way and doing nothing further; and on and on...

This isn't rocket science.

No one said anything about forgoing a trial, but Loren was very unclear on the method of determining guilt he favors. In other threads his reasoning went something like this: the cops didn't find supporting evidence, therefore the claim was ruled unfounded, therefore the claim was a lie, therefore the person claiming s/he was raped should go to prison.

I'd like to hear what he's proposing this time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

P:<.1 or Probability is less than 0.10 is actually the criteria for significance in some social science disciplines. So 0.08 qualifies for extremely rare to some.

As for Washington, hah ahah hah.

P < .1 is a joke. P < .01 is as generous as you should be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who said anything about forgoing a trial?

A rape claim is made. The police and persecutors investigate. From their investigation, they can decide to take any number of different actions, including: believing a rape really happened and charging the accused; believing that no rape happened and determining the accuser knowingly made it up and charging them for filing the false report; figuring there's not enough evidence either way and doing nothing further; and on and on...

This isn't rocket science.

No one said anything about forgoing a trial, but Loren was very unclear on the method of determining guilt he favors. In other threads his reasoning went something like this: the cops didn't find supporting evidence, therefore the claim was ruled unfounded, therefore the claim was a lie, therefore the person claiming s/he was raped should go to prison.

I'd like to hear what he's proposing this time.

I never said anything like that.

Convicting someone of making a false claim should be to the same standard of evidence as any other conviction--beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, reasonable mistakes are not lies and shouldn't open one to prosecution. I'm only talking about deliberate lies--things like the Duke case.