A thought on dealing with cases like Cosby

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

 

[Toni]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

OR: we start doing what we are supposed to be doing in this country: treating everyone equally and fairly and justly under the law. Fame and fortune and high position do not buy you immunity from being called out on bad behavior, whether criminal or simply disgusting or boorish. Reward the talent and the work but keep in mind that the person producing the work is only a person whose worth is not more or less than anyone else's.

 

[barbos]

OR: we start doing what we are supposed to be doing in this country: treating everyone equally and fairly and justly under the law. Fame and fortune and high position do not buy you immunity from being called out on bad behavior, whether criminal or simply disgusting or boorish. Reward the talent and the work but keep in mind that the person producing the work is only a person whose worth is not more or less than anyone else's.

Won't work. The main reason why rich and famous get away with shit like that is because these victims think they can get something in return, like a job.
.

 

[barbos]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

This is an interesting idea. But I suspect there will be a lot of "false" sealed reports coming as a result of bad breakups. And I am pretty sure police will be reading these reports as soon as they written Of course victims can encrypt them and hold keys to themselves.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

This is an interesting idea. But I suspect there will be a lot of "false" sealed reports coming as a result of bad breakups. And I am pretty sure police will be reading these reports as soon as they written Of course victims can encrypt them and hold keys to themselves.

I like the idea. It lets more cowardly or self-interested people come forward with evidence that is less questionable. I do share this concern that it will increase false sealed reports though, but doubt there would be as many as the number of false reports that happen otherwise after the first high profile one against a bigwig, so I am ok with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

OR: we start doing what we are supposed to be doing in this country: treating everyone equally and fairly and justly under the law. Fame and fortune and high position do not buy you immunity from being called out on bad behavior, whether criminal or simply disgusting or boorish. Reward the talent and the work but keep in mind that the person producing the work is only a person whose worth is not more or less than anyone else's.

The problem here is that most of this stuff is he-said-she-said and there will be people who are simply upset with the powerful person. Despite your fantasy that she never lies about rape the data says otherwise--an allegation without evidence backing it is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when you have someone who is likely to be a target of false allegations.

The reality is that those who are actually guilty do not do it only once, though, and thus what I propose would make them much more likely to be caught (and thus less likely to misbehave in the first place.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is an interesting idea. But I suspect there will be a lot of "false" sealed reports coming as a result of bad breakups. And I am pretty sure police will be reading these reports as soon as they written Of course victims can encrypt them and hold keys to themselves.

It's not secret from the department that took it, it's offline to protect it against hacking.

And unless someone has a pattern of bad breakups that drive women to make such reports it's going to be harmless because the trigger will never be fulfilled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

This is an interesting idea. But I suspect there will be a lot of "false" sealed reports coming as a result of bad breakups. And I am pretty sure police will be reading these reports as soon as they written Of course victims can encrypt them and hold keys to themselves.

I like the idea. It lets more cowardly or self-interested people come forward with evidence that is less questionable. I do share this concern that it will increase false sealed reports though, but doubt there would be as many as the number of false reports that happen otherwise after the first high profile one against a bigwig, so I am ok with it.

There's also the thing that the person making a false report isn't going to know what anyone else said. If the police compare them and find 6 reports of 6 very different MOs their first thought is going to be that there's no case.

 

[Terrell]

Sounds like a pretty good idea Loren.

 

[Toni]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

OR: we start doing what we are supposed to be doing in this country: treating everyone equally and fairly and justly under the law. Fame and fortune and high position do not buy you immunity from being called out on bad behavior, whether criminal or simply disgusting or boorish. Reward the talent and the work but keep in mind that the person producing the work is only a person whose worth is not more or less than anyone else's.

The problem here is that most of this stuff is he-said-she-said and there will be people who are simply upset with the powerful person. Despite your fantasy that she never lies about rape the data says otherwise--an allegation without evidence backing it is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when you have someone who is likely to be a target of false allegations.

The reality is that those who are actually guilty do not do it only once, though, and thus what I propose would make them much more likely to be caught (and thus less likely to misbehave in the first place.)

What the fuck does that have to do with my post?

I am beyond sick of your pattern of imputing motive—irrelevant motive whenever I out-reason you which is any time I respond to you.

Exactly what is tha magic number of sexual assaults the rich and/or famous can get by with before you consider it important enough to actually investigate an alleged assault? I’m interested in understanding how many presumably female victims are worth a potential slight to some rich man’s reputation? Does it matter if the victims are make? What if they are children? Do you have a cutoff age at which point you might think that it is sufficiently outrageous to actually investigate? Does it matter if the accused rapist is black, if the victims are white?



As for the rest of you ‘men’ responding to this: so glad to see that you have no problem with rich and famous men raping women, up to a certain undefined number, at which point you might consider it important enough to expect the police to do their job.

I wonder if you can explain to me, as you might explain to your significant other, your mother, your sister, why a rich famous man’s reputation is more important than getting justice for the very first victim to come forward.

FWIW, lettres des cachet have been out of vogue for a couple of centuries.

But protecting sufficiently wealthy sexual assailants never goes out of fashion.

 

[Arctish]

As for the rest of you ‘men’ responding to this: so glad to see that you have no problem with rich and famous men raping women, up to a certain undefined number, at which point you might consider it important enough to expect the police to do their job.

I wonder if you can explain to me, as you might explain to your significant other, your mother, your sister, why a rich famous man’s reputation is more important than getting justice for the very first victim to come forward.

FWIW, lettres des cachet have been out of vogue for a couple of centuries.

But protecting sufficiently wealthy sexual assailants never goes out of fashion.

That's what struck me about the proposal in the OP. People could report a sexual assault but if they were afraid of retaliation, of losing their jobs or being labeled a troublemaker or a slut, then the report would be hidden away until evidence of other crimes was collected, the amount necessary being determined by the person who recorded the initial report.

In what way would this proposal have stopped Jimmy Savile, Jerry Sandusky, or Harvey Weinstein early on in their sexual predations? Or is stopping serial sexual predators not the point?

 

[laughing dog]

So, if these reports are sealed and kept by local police, why would anyone expect these local police spread around the locality, state or country to necessarily check their cache of reports whenever someone makes an open allegation?

BTW, I don't see this proposal helping only rich predators, but all sexual predators who have vulnerable victims who need to keep the jobs or fear retaliation/deportation.

What I find fascinating is that apparently there is this widespread belief of massive amounts of false reports. Bill Cosby had 60 accusers. Suppose 90% of them made false claims. That means 6 of them are telling the truth. In fact, if 98% were making false claims, that means 1 was telling the truth.

Seems to me that the only way this proposal makes sense is if one assumes an incredibly high rate of false claims. So, on what basis do people who think this is a good idea feel that women (or men) are incredibly likely to file a false claim?

 

[prideandfall]

I am beyond sick of your pattern of imputing motive—irrelevant motive whenever I out-reason you which is any time I respond to you.

*slow blink*
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
holy shit, that's a good one! oh man... i need that. thank you.

as for the rest of your post:
i think it makes reasonable sense (in terms of their internal logic, not in terms of ethical standards) when you factor in that there is a legit cause for folks (mostly men) to want to defend the idea of casual sexual assault the same way they want to defend casual racism: it's something they either partake in regularly themselves, or could see themselves partaking in shortly and want to ensure that the behavior isn't looked at too critically so that they won't have to deal with any fallout when they do it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

OR: we start doing what we are supposed to be doing in this country: treating everyone equally and fairly and justly under the law. Fame and fortune and high position do not buy you immunity from being called out on bad behavior, whether criminal or simply disgusting or boorish. Reward the talent and the work but keep in mind that the person producing the work is only a person whose worth is not more or less than anyone else's.

Why "or"? Why can't we do both? Loren's idea is a good one and isn't in any way mutually exclusive to the above.

I am beyond sick of your pattern of imputing motive—irrelevant motive whenever I out-reason you which is any time I respond to you.

As for the rest of you ‘men’ responding to this: so glad to see that you have no problem with rich and famous men raping women, up to a certain undefined number, at which point you might consider it important enough to expect the police to do their job.

Your house doesn't have mirrors does it? Where did anyone in this thread write that they have no problem with rich and famous men raping any number of women? Nobody said that. You know that. Loren said there are false allegations, and of course that happens too sometimes. It would be wrong of us to presume that you are ok with that, right? But that wasn't even Loren's main point. His point was to consider ways to encourage victims to come forward with testimony that will stick and better take down the rapists. If you could take your blinders off, you may see that this isn't mutually exclusive from what you wrote above after "or" and that it is a good idea that will help get justice for victims.

There's also the thing that the person making a false report isn't going to know what anyone else said. If the police compare them and find 6 reports of 6 very different MOs their first thought is going to be that there's no case.

Good point.

 

[laughing dog]

Loren's idea is a good one

Can you or Loren point to any cases where"bandwagon" false claims arose or were a problem? And why would anyone expect police in different jurisdictions to keep vigilance and correlate cases once someone was publicly accussed?

To date, the usual rape apologists "civil libertarians" have used handwaving to promote this proposal.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can you or Loren point to any cases where"bandwagon" false claims arose or were a problem?

I can't speak for Loren, but off the top of my head, no. But that doesn't mean they haven't. I'm not privy to which claims are real and which are false.

Loren's bigger point was that if complaint is made (without strong evidence) it is less likely to be believed, or the person making it may not think it will be beleived, and so be afraid of making it and of retaliation for it. But if they all come forward at the same time (as this idea would allow) then they are more likely to stick.

To date, the usual rape apologists "civil libertarians" have used handwaving to promote this proposal.

Why are you calling people who support Loren's idea "rape apologists" or "civil libertarians"? What do either have to do with this idea? Remember Toni's words: "I am beyond sick of your pattern of imputing motive—irrelevant motive ".

In what way does Loren's proposal excuse rape or harm rape victims? It makes the allegations of actual rape victims more believable, not less. It is meant to encourage people to come forward and to help and make rape charges stick better.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In what way would this proposal have stopped Jimmy Savile, Jerry Sandusky, or Harvey Weinstein early on in their sexual predations? Or is stopping serial sexual predators not the point?

This could be a way that they come forward together, shielding any individual one from having to do it alone, which none of them may be willing to do. Or at least not for a very long time. If the first 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever number of victims came forward together under a system like this, then that may save future victims after that point. Otherwise maybe nobody would come forward until there are dozens of victims.

I think most of us have been in situations where people don't want to be the first to say something, but once one person says it, others then feel safe saying it too. That barrier of the first coming forward is a strong barrier in many contexts, and an especially strong barrier in this context. This is one attempt to break it down.

 

[Arctish]

In what way does Loren's proposal excuse rape or harm rape victims? It makes the allegations of actual rape victims more believable, not less. It is meant to encourage people to come forward and to help and make rape charges stick better.

Victims of rape aren't encouraged to come forward if/when every single one of them thinks s/he's the first person to report having been assaulted, especially when the assailant a high profile, beloved figure like Cosby, Sandusky, or Savile. They're actively discouraged if/when they believe their case will never see the light of day.

This proposal does nothing to reassure the victims. IMO all it does is reassure men that it's okay to believe scores of women who report sexual assaults committed by the same perp because the women will have had to meet a pretty high bar before their reports became part of a criminal investigation.

In what way would this proposal have stopped Jimmy Savile, Jerry Sandusky, or Harvey Weinstein early on in their sexual predations? Or is stopping serial sexual predators not the point?

This could be a way that they come forward together, shielding any individual one from having to do it alone, which none of them may be willing to do. Or at least not for a very long time. If the first 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever number of victims came forward together under a system like this, then that may save future victims after that point. Otherwise maybe nobody would come forward until there are dozens of victims.

How will victims #3-15 find out about victims #1 and #2 if their reports were filed away and not acted on by law enforcement?

If Loren's proposal is just a way for authorities to wait until they have enough evidence to prosecute, how is it different from what we have in place already?

I think most of us have been in situations where people don't want to be the first to say something, but once one person says it, others then feel safe saying it too. That barrier of the first coming forward is a strong barrier in many contexts, and an especially strong barrier in this context. This is one attempt to break it down.

Loren's proposal is designed to prevent what you're describing:

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

What you call feeling safe to say something because you're not alone he calls "jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons". He wants to prevent that kind of group action by sequestering accusations until a highly subjective limit is met.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

because the women will have had to meet a pretty high bar before their reports became part of a criminal investigation.

Why can't they still come forward immediately and alone if they want to? This doesn't have to bar them from that. And the 'pretty high standard' doesn't have to be pretty high. It would be whatever the victims decide to make it.

How will victims #3-15 find out about victims #1 and #2 if their reports were filed away and not acted on by law enforcement?

Did I misread? I thought the idea was to trigger the reports forward of 1 and 2 once number 3 (or whatever they set their trigger number at) makes their own sealed report. Then all 3 reports come forward and police act on them together. Isn't that Loren's idea? If it isn't, is that a bad idea?

If Loren's proposal is just a way for authorities to wait until they have enough evidence to prosecute, how is it different from what we have in place already?

It is different because the parameters are set by the victims, giving them encourement to come forward. And I see no reason why a victim couldn't set their number at zero, meaning their report would be considered by the police immediately.

I think most of us have been in situations where people don't want to be the first to say something, but once one person says it, others then feel safe saying it too. That barrier of the first coming forward is a strong barrier in many contexts, and an especially strong barrier in this context. This is one attempt to break it down.

Loren's proposal is designed to prevent what you're describing:

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Loren addresses both the fear people have with coming forward alone (what I mentioned above) and also making individual allegations more credible (also a good thing). I didn't see him write that the police should not act immediately if a victim decides to come forward alone and immediately rather than go through this system.

Regardless of what Loren had in mind (I am not a mind reader and he can speak for himself), I see a good idea here.

 

[laughing dog]

I can't speak for Loren, but off the top of my head, no. But that doesn't mean they haven't. I'm not privy to which claims are real and which are false.

In other words, you don't know that false claims are a problem in these situations.

Loren's bigger point was that if complaint is made (without strong evidence) it is less likely to be believed, or the person making it may not think it will be beleived, and so be afraid of making it and of retaliation for it. But if they all come forward at the same time (as this idea would allow) then they are more likely to stick.

The only way they all come forward at the same time is if anallegation is made public, otherwise there is motivation for these people to come forward. So, keeping ithem sealed defeats the very purpose you claim.

A better idea is to have the police take these claims seriously and investigate them instead of taking them lightly. There have been a few threads in this forum where the police either did a half-ass job or actively badgered the victim in recanting. In one case, even though the victim recanted, another police officer in another jurisdiction noticed her report and the similarities the allegations were to other cases. The officer used those to track the serial rapist down. Without that report, there is no reason to believe anything would have occurred.

Why are you calling people who support Loren's idea "rape apologists" or "civil libertarians"? What do either have to do with this idea? Remember Toni's words: "I am beyond sick of your pattern of imputing motive—irrelevant motive ".

From the OP “and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons”. That is the concern – false claims, not helping the rape victim, and not getting a conviction. A conviction depends on evidence and the evidence needs to be collected as soon as possible. Without investigating that does not happen. This helps rapists and sexual harassers get away with their crimes.

In what way does Loren's proposal excuse rape or harm rape victims? It makes the allegations of actual rape victims more believable, not less. It is meant to encourage people to come forward and to help and make rape charges stick better.

Rape apologists think allegations are more believable when they occur immediately. Good police do not. The proposal does nothing to make rape charge “stick better” – there is no investigation at the time of the report. This does more to protect an alleged rapist than to convict one, because those who would be encouraged by a public report that might have occurred will not come out.

And as I have written more than once, there is no reason to expect that police in different jurisdictions will either have access to "sealed reports" or even pay attention when an open allegation is made in some other jurisdiction.