I think the fact that neither the proponents of this proposal can come up with an instance of false reports in these situations is strong evidence that false reports are not a problem.
We should have a presumption of innocence, not of guilt.
I live in the real world, not some fantasy world with hand-waved solution.
You live in the world of don't try.
This is not hard. Right now, a victim has two choices - make a complaint that is public or not make a complaint. If the victim is unsure about coming forward to make a public complaint, he or she may be persuaded to do so, because that is the only way to get this person.
Possibly. I think it depends on the amount of social pressure they think that they will be facing. In Cosby's case it didn't happen until victim number 60, if you are right that false complaints are not a problem.
Under your proposal, there is now a 3rd option - sealed allegation with no investigation. But a public complaint, according to the OP, draws more complaints. A sealed complaint does not.
Not my proposal. I just said it makes some sense. Yes, a public complaint does draw more complaints, but how many victims go unseen until we get that public complaint? Again, in Cosby's case, 59. Under a system like this, X could be set to 50 and still get a better result.
I seriously doubt your read everything in this forum or everything LP writes.I haven't seen Loren write that. This looks like libel.
Truth is indeed a defence to libel, but hand waving like this isn't. You've made a very aggressive and insulting accusation and you have provided nothing to back it up. You need to be called out for that.
Victims of sexual assault, especially right after the assault, are traumatized. And they are not always rational. Nor do the police necessarily or always take their complaints seriously. It is not a matter of deliberate screwing over. Even LP admits this with his statement in this thread that “Most of the time these things are kept quiet by the cops because they know it's often about revenge rather than rape.”First, what is your evidence that police are out to screw over victims like this? Second, why would the victims be so pliable? If it is the victim's right, why wouldn't set X to what they want to.
Again, presumption of innocence. If the complainant has presented a credible story, a lack of motive to make false allegations, or some corroborating evidence against the accused, then the police should investigate further. That isn't always the case. And if there is evidence of a motive to make a false allegation, why shouldn't that be taken into account?
I live in the real world, not some fantasy world with hand-waved solution.And nothing precludes us from getting police oversight to discourage officers from poor behaviour.
You seriously don't think we can act to get police oversight to discourage officers from poor behaviour?
Sealing a complaint means it is not made public. Unless victims are always 100% sure of sealing a complaint or not making one at all, that means there is a chance a complaint will become public if there is no chance of sealing it. Which suggests that the option of sealing will mean, all other things equal, a longer time before this behavior goes public.
No it doesn't necessarily suggest that. If there is no choice to seal it, then there is a chance that victims who would have come forward never do.