A thought on dealing with cases like Cosby

[Axulus]

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

And yet we have every reason to expect a famous rapist to get away with it for 30+ years and claim countless victims under the system you support.

 

[Axulus]

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.

The basic problem with this idea is that the accused can claim they were denied "due process" if evidence is collected for a prosecution at some undetermined future date. The accusation is recorded, but the accused has no reason to preserved his/her own alibi or other records. If I had to account for my movements for the past six weeks, I could probably manage it. If I had to state where I was on this day 10 years ago, that would be another matter. This is why we have a statute of limitations for many crimes.

The real solution to this problem is to have prosecutors who take this kind of charge seriously, so a victim could have some faith in the system.

And how does a rape report 20 years after the fact result in better due process for the accused?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And how does a rape report 20 years after the fact result in better due process for the accused?

That's a good point. A report created closer to the time of the event will include better memory and more details that could be useful. Ideally that report would be in full and immediately considered, but one put under seal for 20 years but taken closer to the event is better than one taken 20 years later from memory. It is why people make notes and why those notes made at the time are given more value in courts. And of course as noted above, it is unlikely that it would take 20 years for the report to get unsealed in the case of a famous and powerful serial rapist (X is unlikely to be set to 60), so it would come a lot sooner than the one that waited for the public report to be made.

 

[Arctish]

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.

The basic problem with this idea is that the accused can claim they were denied "due process" if evidence is collected for a prosecution at some undetermined future date. The accusation is recorded, but the accused has no reason to preserved his/her own alibi or other records. If I had to account for my movements for the past six weeks, I could probably manage it. If I had to state where I was on this day 10 years ago, that would be another matter. This is why we have a statute of limitations for many crimes.

The real solution to this problem is to have prosecutors who take this kind of charge seriously, so a victim could have some faith in the system.

And how does a rape report 20 years after the fact result in better due process for the accused?

It doesn't. It doesn't improve the justice system we currently have in any way.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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.

And yet we have every reason to expect a famous rapist to get away with it for 30+ years and claim countless victims under the system you support.

I don't support the current system - it is still too unwelcoming and cumbersome towards victims. If adopted, this proposal provides less incentive for positive change in that regard, and, as you point out, does nothing for situations where there is a long time interval between allegations.

 

[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.

Take your blinders off about your disbelief of false sexual assault reports and consider the other positives. How about women not waiting 30 years to report Cosby, protecting countless women from getting raped by this creep? If they know their case won't go public until they have strength in numbers perhaps they wouldn't be so reluctant to report incidents like that in the first place. Not only that, but the threat of public exposure becomes all the more credible and probable, likely deterring additional rapes.

That is a possibility. Of course, there is another possibility. Now a victim can either make a public allegation or do nothing. If a victim may choose to make a public allegation rather than do not to make a report even though he/she is terrified because he/she feels it is better than do nothing. With this proposal, this victim may take the sealed option, and the public accusation is not made. Suppose that foregone public exposures would have started the cascade of allegations earlier?

Furthermore, this notion of a national public database of unproven allegations (that are not even investigated) is fanciful. It is a civil liberties nightmare.

To me, it makes much more sense to devote time, effort and resources in making the criminal justice system less terrifying to and more supportive of victims of rape and sexual harrassment. Instituting a procedure that gives incentives to hide such allegations that protect sexual predators works in the opposite direction in my opinion.

 

[Toni]

Take your blinders off about your disbelief of false sexual assault reports and consider the other positives. How about women not waiting 30 years to report Cosby, protecting countless women from getting raped by this creep? If they know their case won't go public until they have strength in numbers perhaps they wouldn't be so reluctant to report incidents like that in the first place. Not only that, but the threat of public exposure becomes all the more credible and probable, likely deterring additional rapes.

That is a possibility. Of course, there is another possibility. Now a victim can either make a public allegation or do nothing. If a victim may choose to make a public allegation rather than do not to make a report even though he/she is terrified because he/she feels it is better than do nothing. With this proposal, this victim may take the sealed option, and the public accusation is not made. Suppose that foregone public exposures would have started the cascade of allegations earlier?

Furthermore, this notion of a national public database of unproven allegations (that are not even investigated) is fanciful. It is a civil liberties nightmare.

To me, it makes much more sense to devote time, effort and resources in making the criminal justice system less terrifying to and more supportive of victims of rape and sexual harrassment. Instituting a procedure that gives incentives to hide such allegations that protect sexual predators works in the opposite direction in my opinion.

The reality is that victims who come forward to police or other authorities are very often discouraged from pressing charges. Events are minimized, unless there is obvious physical damage: serious injuries requiring medical attention. Police may or may not be sympathetic. If the accused is wealthy/famous/powerful/well connected, even relative to the locality of the assault, the chances that charges will actually be filed diminish considerably. It's just 'easier' to try to couch the attack as a misunderstanding or sex she regrets or she was too drunk/drugged to actually know what happened--even if she didn't knowingly consume alcohol or drugs. All of this increases dramatically if the victim is unsympathetic in any way: the wrong color or religion, non-virginal, mentally ill, etc. Rape kits, when taken at all, languish in storage for years. Prosecutors proceed with cases that are most easily winnable. That typically is not a case against someone who is rich/famous/powerful/well connected, even by local standards.

If we really do want to help victims of sexual assault and to stop perpetrators of sex crimes from continuing to victimize others, we need to actually encourage victims to come forward, treat them with courtesy and respect and to actually investigate as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, taking care to document and preserve all evidence and testimony.

Victims need to be treated as victims, not as lying sluts who are just trying to cause trouble/cash in. Victims need support during the investigation and during the trial and after. The accused may not be found guilty. Frequently, they are not, especially if the victim is in any way considered not sympathetic or has any kind of relationship with the accused. In my area, a number of years ago, a motel worker alerted police to a situation they were concerned about. In the motel was a 28 year old man with a 14 year old girl. The man was tried for statutory rape, convicted and given probation due to harsh circumstances of his life. The judge felt sorry for him because he had a tough life. No word about any sympathy for the life circumstances that put a 14 year old in a motel room with a 28 year old adult. But poor rapist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have shifted your stance. Either you don't remember what you were arguing when you talked about the cops trying to break a rape victim's story in the thread where we discussed Marie's case, or you think perhaps I don't.

You weren't talking about a thorough, conscientious investigation that examined all claims and evidence. I was. You were doing your usual 'cops are never wrong' apologetics. You were arguing that their threatening her with jail and homelessness was normal police procedure.

Lets consider a case that has nothing to do with sex: Thursday I got a personal experience of what being on the receiving end of a PIT maneuver must feel like courtesy of a woman who didn't see me. She apparently sincerely insisted to the cop that I was at fault because I came out of nowhere, I must have been going way too fast. (While I didn't look at my speedometer I doubt I was doing even 2/3 of the limit. I had turned block earlier and was going to turn again in another block.) Was the cop wrong to ask her several questions to try to figure out her impossible position, or should he have simply accepted her word that I was in the wrong despite her having a stop sign while I had no traffic controls?

No one is buying that excluded middle fallacy, where either the police believe every single thing they're told is the infallible truth, or they arrest people who report crimes for lying to them if they can't find corroborating evidence.

The problem is you don't want them to decide the rape report isn't solid enough or might be fake.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think asking questions to ascertain her thinking is equivalent to bullying? Really?

It will likely appear that way to her even if that's not the intent.

 

[Underseer]

This is fun.

Rightists need to believe that there is an epidemic of false rape allegations in order to argue against making changes in society, but at the same time, they need to believe that certain racial minorities are rape monsters by birth, but rape allegations need to be genuine for that to be the case.

So how do we go about determining which rapper allegations are genuine and which not? Well, we just gotta trust our guts, and somehow, our guts tell us that rapper allegations are true or false based on the skin color of the accused.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you think asking questions to ascertain her thinking is equivalent to bullying? Really?

It will likely appear that way to her even if that's not the intent.

Jesus, more bullshit, over a traffic ticket no less.

 

[Arctish]

The problem is you don't want them to decide the rape report isn't solid enough or might be fake.

I do want them to decide if the report isn't solid enough to bring to trial. I also want them to keep the report on file and available to other investigators. Concealing a reported rape benefits no one except an actual rapist.

And if the police suspect the report is fake, I want them to investigate that possibility, too. They can do both, you know. They can make a good faith effort to establish the facts, not just jump to an ignorant conclusion based on laziness and preconceived notions.

Back in 2002, The Boston Globe's special investigative unit Spotlight ran a series of articles reporting on a pattern of child sex abuse committed by priests in the Boston area. Can you explain how this proposal of yours would have worked in a case like that? How would the initial reports be more credible if they weren't investigated until years later? How would the involvement of the same priest with different children in different parishes been noticed if the existence of the allegations against him had been hidden away, not just by the Archdiocese but by the victims themselves?

 

[Toni]

The problem is you don't want them to decide the rape report isn't solid enough or might be fake.

The problem is that you are always trying to tell other people what they think and that what you think they think and what they actually think is a problem.

The problem is you, Loren. You don't read other people's posts, you don't read links, you don't back up your claims with anything at all.

You are the problem.

 

[Toni]

This is fun.

Rightists need to believe that there is an epidemic of false rape allegations in order to argue against making changes in society, but at the same time, they need to believe that certain racial minorities are rape monsters by birth, but rape allegations need to be genuine for that to be the case.

So how do we go about determining which rapper allegations are genuine and which not? Well, we just gotta trust our guts, and somehow, our guts tell us that rapper allegations are true or false based on the skin color of the accused.

You haven't been paying attention: If the accused is rich and/or famous or powerful, the rape allegation is false, and was just drummed up to try to extort money. It only counts when there are 20 or 30 victims and even then, at least half, if not 90% of them are lying.

Exceptions: If the accused is a man of color who is not rich or famous, he's probably guilty. Unless the victim is black.

If the accused is an athlete at any level, he's innocent and she's a lying whore who is trying to ruin his life and his career.

If she's old enough to go to school (and by school, I mean K-12 and up), she definitely not only consented but it was probably her idea and she probably got him drunk and just regrets that he didn't call her the next day.

There have been enough of these threads before so you should know how it works by now.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is you don't want them to decide the rape report isn't solid enough or might be fake.

No, the problem is that you think that bullying an actual rape victim to recant is good police procedure. Ask an actual police officer, and he/she will tell you that is not.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Maybe some sort of study could better inform us of what the likelihood is that a sealed report is from a victim who would not otherwise have come forward or is from a victim who would otherwise have given an unsealed report. As it is, we all all just guessing and assuming.

Victims need to be treated as victims, not as lying sluts who are just trying to cause trouble/cash in.

We don't immediately know if complainants are true victims. That's the problem. They need to be treated with respect but not with bias in their favour against the accused. The system is supposed to err on the side of a presumption of innocence and not the other way around.

No word about any sympathy for the life circumstances that put a 14 year old in a motel room with a 28 year old adult. But poor rapist.

Sentencing isn't supposed to be about sympathy for the victim. It isn't supposed to be vengeance based.

 

[laughing dog]

We don't immediately know if complainants are true victims. That's the problem. They need to be treated with respect but not with bias in their favour against the accused. The system is supposed to err on the side of a presumption of innocence and not the other way around.

If the police do not think there is sufficient evidence to go to trial, they can drop the investigations. It does not require them to threaten and bully a victim to recant.

Sentencing isn't supposed to be about sympathy for the victim. It isn't supposed to be vengeance based.

Sympathy for the victim and vengeance are part of the factors that go into sentencing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is fun.

Rightists need to believe that there is an epidemic of false rape allegations in order to argue against making changes in society, but at the same time, they need to believe that certain racial minorities are rape monsters by birth, but rape allegations need to be genuine for that to be the case.

The race card, for no reason. We aren't saying anything about the race of those involved. Most of the cases that make the news are white.

And you don't need an epidemic. The reality is that the very ones people are afraid to accuse due to their power are also people who will tend to get false reports made against them.

So how do we go about determining which rapper allegations are genuine and which not? Well, we just gotta trust our guts, and somehow, our guts tell us that rapper allegations are true or false based on the skin color of the accused.

Go take your cruddy music home!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is you don't want them to decide the rape report isn't solid enough or might be fake.

I do want them to decide if the report isn't solid enough to bring to trial. I also want them to keep the report on file and available to other investigators. Concealing a reported rape benefits no one except an actual rapist.

Concealing the report benefits the woman who was afraid to come forward without having others at her side.

Back in 2002, The Boston Globe's special investigative unit Spotlight ran a series of articles reporting on a pattern of child sex abuse committed by priests in the Boston area. Can you explain how this proposal of yours would have worked in a case like that? How would the initial reports be more credible if they weren't investigated until years later? How would the involvement of the same priest with different children in different parishes been noticed if the existence of the allegations against him had been hidden away, not just by the Archdiocese but by the victims themselves?

What you don't seem to understand is that what I'm proposing is an alternative to being too scared to speak up. You keep trying to treat it as a replacement for an ordinary rape report.

 

[laughing dog]

What you don't seem to understand is that what I'm proposing is an alternative to being too scared to speak up. You keep trying to treat it as a replacement for an ordinary rape report.

What you don't seem to understand is that in some cases it may very well be a replacement for an ordinary rape report. Just like you don't seem to understand that police have more options than threatening and bullying a victim into recanting if they do not believe the allegation or victim is strong enough to survive a court trial.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We don't immediately know if complainants are true victims. That's the problem. They need to be treated with respect but not with bias in their favour against the accused. The system is supposed to err on the side of a presumption of innocence and not the other way around.

If the police do not think there is sufficient evidence to go to trial, they can drop the investigations. It does not require them to threaten and bully a victim to recant.

Mark your calendar. I totally agree with you for once. Not that it has anything to do with the text you quoted though.

Sentencing isn't supposed to be about sympathy for the victim. It isn't supposed to be vengeance based.

Sympathy for the victim and vengeance are part of the factors that go into sentencing.

Sadly, yes, they often are. It isn't supposed to be that way. Sentencing is supposed to be about deterrence, protection of the public in the future, and reformation. Vengeance is not supposed to be part of it.