Always believe the victim?

[laughing dog]

What a bunch of bullshit. Sexual violence is not unusual. Not at all.

Prosecuting someone for filing a false report is not a demonstration of a justice system working. At least not one that is working for victims of sexual violence.

He's not saying that sexual violence is unusual. He's calling out the very thing you're supporting--supporting the "victim" who is actually the perpetrator. You're doing the same thing as saying that in a white-vs-black case the black guy is always guilty.

I see no support for the “ perpetrator” in any response. Nor do I see anyone giving unconditional and unwavering support regardless of the facts for alleged victims of rape. So I find both the OP and your response baffling .

I guess what is driving your point is the illogical conclusion that not supporting the prosecution of false tape accusations is equivalent to supporting those who intentionally make false rape accusations. One can view the prosecution of false rape accusations as dissuading true rape victims from coming forward which has no connection whatsoever to supporting lying accusers of rape.
While there is no definitive data on the ratio of intentionally false accusations of rape to valid accusations of rape, it seems it is pretty small.

I think there are few instances of undeniable proof of a malicious ( knowingly false) accusations of rape. While I believe few posters (if any) would object to prosecutions in those few instances, I don’t think those instances show us much about policy or the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

Finally, I observe that level of effectiveness of the criminal justice system shown by the prosecution of malicious accusations of tape pales in comparison to demonstrated
ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system in processing rape cases.

 

[Rhea]

Loren, why do you keep falsely claiming that “the FBI data” shows “8% rapes are proven false”?

And note that that 8% number is FBI stats for cases proven false. It doesn't count the cases which can't be disproven and it doesn't count the cases where the police realize it's fake (usually someone trying to cover up misbehavior) and dissuade the woman from making a report in the first place.

You say this again and again, year after year. And every time, you are shown the footnote in the FBI stats that PROVE YOU WRONG. And then you say it again a year later.

What’s your game? Why do you do this? Do you not even notice that you are shown to be wrong by your own links?



And why do you keep repeating this false claim as well?

Nobody's saying not to investigate. The problem is people who say the victim should automatically be believed--that is, don't investigate.

NO ONE (same as last time, and the tme before that) is saying someone should be convicted without a trial. They are saying that every claim of rape should be investigated.

What is your game? Why would a person not want that?




There are SO MANY MORE, so many ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE unprosecuted rapes than there are false accusations that society does not lose by believing the victim to the extent that all rapes are investigated.


Why kind of person objects to all rapes being investigated?

 

[Toni]

Because the rate of unfounded claims (false claims and/or claims for which supporting evidence cannot been found) is about 8%. Which means approx. 92% of the time, there is at minimum some truth to the claim and evidence which supports it, but it won't be found if the police disbelieve and dismiss the person making the report.

Interpreting the effort to get police to not ignore women reporting rapes as "don't bother thinking, just assume everything you're told it true" is ridiculous.

Nobody's saying not to investigate. The problem is people who say the victim should automatically be believed--that is, don't investigate.

And note that that 8% number is FBI stats for cases proven false. It doesn't count the cases which can't be disproven and it doesn't count the cases where the police realize it's fake (usually someone trying to cover up misbehavior) and dissuade the woman from making a report in the first place.

Loren, NOBODY thinks that rape allegations should not be investigated. But if an accuser is not believed, there IS NO INVESTIGATION. Also, often if the victim is believed, there is no allegation.

Historically, you have repeated the inaccurate statement that the 8% FBI stat is for cases proven false. This is false. The 8% stat is for cases not substantiated. Do you know why some portion of those cases are not substantiated? Because they are not investigated. Why aren't they investigated? Because the police don't believe the person reporting the crime.

I meant: Often if the victim is believed, there still is no investigation--not allegation. Yikes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's interesting how the same people who say that we shouldn't try to regulate assault rifles because they comprise such a small fraction of total gun deaths seem to be the same people who are fixated on some small percentage of false rape accusations.

So, what's the driving philosophy? Is a small percentage of something worth worrying about or not?

 

[Patooka]

So, what's the driving philosophy? Is a small percentage of something worth worrying about or not?

I would hazard to guess most of us are easily over 30, but consider this;

A large percentage of US schools practice mass shooting drills these days
A large percentage of US schools have metal detectors these days
A kevlar backpack is a serious purchasing consideration for a parent these days
Teachers now require the same training as combat medics these days

A small percentage of fault lies at handguns, but where does the majority percentage go towards?

There's also the fucking obvious fact that shootings don't have to be with assault rifles (your term), but when they are used the body count rises significantly every fucking time. Literally. Every. Time.

 

[Swammerdami]

It's interesting how the same people who say that we shouldn't try to regulate assault rifles because they comprise such a small fraction of total gun deaths seem to be the same people who are fixated on some small percentage of false rape accusations.

So, what's the driving philosophy? Is a small percentage of something worth worrying about or not?

The very words "conservative" and "reactionary" show the way.

Trumpists and others of this Ilk want to return to the Glory Days of Ancient America, when virile men carried guns and shot at whom they chose; and women eagerly submitted and spread their legs for the courageous man with a gun.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's interesting how the same people who say that we shouldn't try to regulate assault rifles because they comprise such a small fraction of total gun deaths seem to be the same people who are fixated on some small percentage of false rape accusations.

So, what's the driving philosophy? Is a small percentage of something worth worrying about or not?

The very words "conservative" and "reactionary" show the way.

Trumpists and others of this Ilk want to return to the Glory Days of Ancient America, when virile men carried guns and shot at whom they chose; and women eagerly submitted and spread their legs for the courageous man with a gun.

So the driving philosophy is hypocrisy? Whatever logic is necessary to reach the conclusion they want is the one that applies.

I consider hypocritical thinking to be one of the greatest forms of anti intellectualism.

 

[Swammerdami]

If by "hypocrisy" you mean "cognitive disconnect," then, Yes. In most cases the question of the rape suspect's guilt or innocence is secondary to them. They're driven by emotion; and naturally side with the manly man who may have got hisself some tail. The bitch who whined to the cops just got what she had coming.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When a person's house is robbed, you don't think the person robbed herself.
When a person's lawn is torn up by truck tires, you don;t think she was cutting doughnuts in her own yard.
When a person's shot on that same lawn, you don't assume she hired a sniper in some complicated suicie attempt.

Why is rape different?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just in case. It is oddly similar to victims of Stand Your Ground murders and poor people who hope to be rich one day and like low taxes for the rich.

And self defense as some men lie to themselves that she really did want it in the end and they aren't rapists. She just needed convincing.

 

[Arctish]

Loren, why do you keep falsely claiming that “the FBI data” shows “8% rapes are proven false”?

And note that that 8% number is FBI stats for cases proven false. It doesn't count the cases which can't be disproven and it doesn't count the cases where the police realize it's fake (usually someone trying to cover up misbehavior) and dissuade the woman from making a report in the first place.

You say this again and again, year after year. And every time, you are shown the footnote in the FBI stats that PROVE YOU WRONG. And then you say it again a year later.

What’s your game? Why do you do this? Do you not even notice that you are shown to be wrong by your own links?

I dug up one of the several prior discussions we've had about the use of the term 'unfounded' in the FBI report being cited.

Here it is in the Archives. Please note Toni's post dated Mon Dec 9 2013.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because the rate of unfounded claims (false claims and/or claims for which supporting evidence cannot been found) is about 8%. Which means approx. 92% of the time, there is at minimum some truth to the claim and evidence which supports it, but it won't be found if the police disbelieve and dismiss the person making the report.

Interpreting the effort to get police to not ignore women reporting rapes as "don't bother thinking, just assume everything you're told it true" is ridiculous.

Nobody's saying not to investigate. The problem is people who say the victim should automatically be believed--that is, don't investigate.

And note that that 8% number is FBI stats for cases proven false. It doesn't count the cases which can't be disproven and it doesn't count the cases where the police realize it's fake (usually someone trying to cover up misbehavior) and dissuade the woman from making a report in the first place.

No one is saying a person reporting a rape or other crime should automatically be believed to be infallible, unfailingly accurate, experiencing no memory-related symptoms of shock or trauma, or incapable of lying.

No one.

The notion that people are saying the cops shouldn't investigate, they should just believe, is at best idiotic and at worst a callous rhetorical device to defend the long history of rape victims being ignored, dismissed, doubted for no apparent reason or for unjustifiable reasons such as misogyny, racism, classism, etc., and told to just toddle off home.

Note that you continue to be wrong about the meaning of the word 'unfounded' in the FBI crime statistic report the 92%-8% numbers come from, despite the FBI providing the definition in a footnote. The FBI clearly said reports were labelled unfounded when no corroborating evidence was found. It did not say those were cases where it had determined the report was false.

If you always believe the victim what is there to investigate?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I meant: Often if the victim is believed, there still is no investigation--not allegation. Yikes.

Investigations need a starting point. If a rape isn't reported promptly and she has no idea who the attacker is there's no starting point.

 

[Rhea]

If you always believe the victim what is there to investigate?

Everything. You BELIEVE that they have a legitimate report.
And you investigate it.

That is how EVERY SINGLE crime works. The cops believe the report is legitimate, and they investigate.


The opposite of that is that you don’t believe them and you try to hound them into withdrawing their claim, or recanting it. Or you just do nothing. Or you leave the rape kit untested.

It is the height of cruelty to claim that “beleiving the victim” means you don’t have to investigate - you just declare them guilty. That’s not how ANYONE is using the phrase.


NOW THAT YOU KNOW, I hope you shut up about your demeaning straw man.

Because it’s definitely a straw man.

 

[Rhea]

I meant: Often if the victim is believed, there still is no investigation--not allegation. Yikes.

Investigations need a starting point. If a rape isn't reported promptly and she has no idea who the attacker is there's no starting point.

What, no that is bullshit and not true of any other crime.
Someone alleges something happened at some place. You do your job and investigate that place. The starting point.

Also: The vast majority of rapes are by KNOWN perpetrators. The victim knows the rapist. Most of the time.

Seriously Loren? Why are you turning off your reasoning powers for this?

 

[Rhea]

Investigations need a starting point. If a rape isn't reported promptly and she has no idea who the attacker is there's no starting point.

For example: I realize my car is gone. I haven’t looked for it for a while, it’s parked behind the barn. So now it’s gone. Not sure how long ago. But I report it and THEY INVESTIGATE. The starting point is the report.

For example: My moher’s jewelry is gone. I have no idea for how long, she lives by herself and has poor memory. I report it AND THEY INVESTIGATE. The starting point is the report.


You want to declare the case unsolvable without even trying.

 

[laughing dog]

If you always believe the victim what is there to investigate?

I realise this may be a difficult concept to grasp but beliefs can change with evidence.

Any person reporting any crime that is possible to occur should automatically be believed in order to put in the proper effort to investigate.

Succinctly put, it “trust but verify”.

 

[Toni]

This is what I think:

I think for most men, a rapist is a very bad guy who breaks into some woman’s home or drags her into a dark alley while she’s walking home from work, holds a gun or a knife on her or chokes her or knocks her out and then does his thing. Importantly: he looks nothing like him.

Reality is, a lot of girls and women are sexually assaulted or raped by boys and men they know, often quite well. Fairly often, they are family members or friends of the family. Or guys they went with, willingly on a date—to a movie or a party or for a drink. Or someone who gave them a ride Sometimes it’s a coworker or even a boss. Sometimes, a teacher or a coach. Who really really really wants to help.

It’s extremely common for the guy to not see it as assault or rape. There’s just no really consideration of what the woman wants, no thought that her wants, needs, desires, opinions, her pleasure, her feelings, are in any way relevant. They don’t hear no because they don’t think what a woman says is…important. She said yes to the date, the ride, the drink, a kiss so that’s it: consent given.

From the point of view of the girl or woman, so very often the ‘pass,’ that point where some guy grabs them by (whatever) or pulls them in for a kiss or they suddenly find themselves having to make decisions about how much damage it would take to end the attack—usually damage to them. Women and girls are too often stunned, shocked by a grab, being pushed down, so stunned and shocked they are silent. If you’ve never been in that position, you have no idea just how bizarre it is. It’s alien ship descending in front of you and announcing you are their supreme ruler bizarre-only its more like announcing you are now our slave and have no right to resist or protest. A lot of guys think that just because they had to insist, maybe put their hand over her mouth to stop her …I dunno from talking or screaming—that don’t make it rape. Because he bought her dinner or popcorn at the movies and why would she have gotten into a car with someone if she didn’t want sex?

Or: She’s just so cute/beautiful with her hair like that or in those jeans or that t-shirt—I just couldn’t help myself! Like girls are super flattered by that and don’t think at all that it was rape.

Rape is what bad guys do.

No one thinks they are the bad guy.

Most cops are men.

 

[Toni]

I meant: Often if the victim is believed, there still is no investigation--not allegation. Yikes.

Investigations need a starting point. If a rape isn't reported promptly and she has no idea who the attacker is there's no starting point.

Are you fucking kidding me?

If a corpse of a body 30 years dead but dead under suspicious circumstances, guess what? They damn well DO investigate!

FFS, they did DNA analysis on Beethiven’s hair! And had to sort through multiple samples from people who thought they had his hair to find the right one—so they could tell what, exactly he died of!

Meanwhile rape kits languish on shelves in evidence rooms, if they were ever taken or stored. Analysis isn’t performed because of lack of funding. But yes, let’s analyze the DNA of a long dead famous man to find out if he died of what we think he died of. Plenty of money fir that! Because that’s a lot more important. Never mind those living women ( and girls and boys and men) who need and deserve justice. Beethoven was a man. So what if he’s been dead 200 years!

 

[Elixir]

Never mind those living women ( and girls and boys and men) who need and deserve justice. Beethoven was a man. So what if he’s been dead 200 years!

Just to be clear though - you're not ripping on Beethoven, it's his fans who are depriving those who need justice 200 years later, right?