Here are the stats on false sexual assault claims

[Loren Pechtel]

Kavanaugh has indeed already been branded a rapist by many, despite not being charged criminally and despite very little evidence against him.

He hasn't even been charged on the civil side of things.

If Ford and/or the others are so certain he is guilty why don't they press charges with Maryland or whoever has jurisdiction? Why don't they seek damages through the court? Those are questions you are not going to see answered on this board.

Those women are all afraid of the law. They know their cases are so flimsy they would be immediately thrown out in a normal court. This Kavanaugh case is not even up to the standard of "he said, she said". All of the cases are so flimsy that if any of these women attempt a civil case they would be countered sued and they would lose. So you won't be seeing any criminal or civil cases against Kavanaugh. For good reason.

Originally, I would have said Ford's case is too weak to get a conviction. However, how things have played out since she came forward is another matter--at this point I would be willing to vote to convict (as in beyond a reasonable doubt) based on his reaction.

 

[Lion IRC]

If the number of rapes is under-reported, then the number of people (perjerors) tempted to lodge false accusations is probably a lot higher too. Fear of not being believed seems to be a thing with these people.

And Mr Trump's One Beer amnesia satire will sure scare a lot more of them into silence.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If the number of rapes is under-reported, then the number of people (perjerors) tempted to lodge false accusations is probably a lot higher too.

Aside from the fact that they are not, how in the world do you connect under-reporting by actual rape victims with someone deliberately lying?

Fear of not being believed seems to be a thing with these people.

“These people”?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You do realize that these are not mutually exclusive, right? And as high as 10%?? Really? I would have thought much lower.

Why the fuck are you pretending not to have already been deeply involved in a thread (began it, no less) that showed the percentages are in fact much much lower?

Apparently the study cited in the OP conflicts with the one you are pushing. Somehow you want to make it about me? Lol

This is the exact same percentage discussed ad nauseam in the thread you created--and in every other rape apologist thread ever created--and references the source in the quote you posted:

Studies suggest the prevalence of false reporting on sexual assault is between 2% and 10%, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center

Here is where ronburgundy links to that study and references that source in your thread:

Actually relevant studies, like this one, put the estimate at closer to 6% of rape accusations in the US being false. The researcher is a leader in the field and their work and estimate is cited by the National Sexual Violence Research Center https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

And here is a link to my detailed response (again, in your thread), where ron gets his "closer to 6%" and I quote specifically the "2%-10%" bit:

Now, to ronburgundy's nonsense, let's start with the study he cited as the "gold standard." A copy of which can be downloaded here. The study's title is: False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases.
...
This is from the abstract:

All cases (N = 136) of sexual assault reported to a major Northeastern university over a 10-year period are analyzed to determine the percentage of false allegations. Of the 136 cases of sexual assault reported over the 10-year period, 8 (5.9%) are coded as false allegations. These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%.

I concluded that in-depth analysis with:

Because what ALL of these studies conclusively prove (yours, the 2005 British study, mine, the often cited FBI reports from the nineties) is that once proper guidelines are given to police and prosecutors the percentages of deliberately false accusations ALWAYS DECREASE significantly. We've gone from 8% FBI in the 90s (due exclusively to the lack of proper guidelines) to 5.9% for University police, to 2% for the second largest study conducted in the UK in 2005 to 0.62% to the largest study conducted to date in the UK in 2011-2012.

Far from demonstrating an unknown or "missed" cases, these studies all prove that deliberately false allegations are exceedingly rare as to be statistically non-existent and almost always caught by police and prosecutors.

So the lessons learned are two-fold; (1) deliberately false accusations are exceedingly rare, (2) proper police guidelines weed almost all of them out.

Your response to my post (four minutes later):

Why does it matter how often false rape accusations occur?

Thus proving that you had to have read my response, if not ronburgundy's initial post.

So, either you are suffering from early onset Alzheimer's and need to get that checked, or you're pretending as if none of that other thread happened and we haven't already thoroughly discussed this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why does it matter how often false rape accusations occur?

Thus proving that you had to have read my response, if not ronburgundy's initial post.

Sorry, I didn't read your post in that thread. I skipped over it. I found it irrelevant to the conversation that was being had, as my question remained. And it remains now. Why does it matter how often false rape accusations occur? That doesn't mean we should't take them seriously when they do, or bias us against the presumption of innocence in any given case.

If you are upset because I ignored a post of yours but read one by the OP. Sucks to be you. Of course, you can just defiantly call me a shithead again. That may make you feel better.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why does it matter how often false rape accusations occur?

Thus proving that you had to have read my response, if not ronburgundy's initial post.

Sorry, I didn't read your post in that thread.

Horseshit, as you prove in your next comments:

I skipped over it. I found it irrelevant to the conversation that was being had

If you didn't read it, then how in the world could you have found it irrelevant to the conversation, particularly since it was dead-on topic and your comment was directly reacting to what I concluded. And if all you did was read the opening, then you would have seen the quoted stats and source.

Assuming, of course that you did not read ronburgundy's original post that prompted my response (and the subsequent debate regarding precisely the issue you raised in your post four minutes after mine).

Pathetic.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, Koy, being upset that somebody didnt pay attention to you and something you posted is pathetic. I responded to you here though, so feel better.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the number of rapes is under-reported, then the number of people (perjerors) tempted to lodge false accusations is probably a lot higher too.

So your answer to the issue of under-reported sex crimes that do happen is that there might be more people who consider lying about a crime that never happened, but don't.

So:

A) Sex crimes are under-reported
B) Red Herring

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Kavanaugh has indeed already been branded a rapist by many, despite not being charged criminally and despite very little evidence against him.

He hasn't even been charged on the civil side of things.

If Ford and/or the others are so certain he is guilty why don't they press charges with Maryland or whoever has jurisdiction? Why don't they seek damages through the court? Those are questions you are not going to see answered on this board.

Those women are all afraid of the law. They know their cases are so flimsy they would be immediately thrown out in a normal court. This Kavanaugh case is not even up to the standard of "he said, she said". All of the cases are so flimsy that if any of these women attempt a civil case they would be countered sued and they would lose. So you won't be seeing any criminal or civil cases against Kavanaugh. For good reason.

The thing is, regardless of what you believe about these allegations or the amount of time that had passed, Kavanaugh’s demeanor during his questioning made him look anything but judicial. Despite being an experienced attorney and judge, despite ample prep time, despite knowing what sorts of questions to expect, he showed nothing remotely resembling an open attitude of wanting to clear his name and demonstrate a calm, considered, methodical approach or even basic civility. He acted like a dry drunk privileged frat boy who could not believe that anyone DARED question him.

To me,that should be the final nail in the coffin for hisnination. I don’t think he has what it takes to sit on a county court. Frankly that shocked me.

And Former Supreme Court Justice John Stevens agrees.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, at this point, it is perfect example of "he said, she said".

It is. And so we shouldn't be concluding that he did anything wrong...

Why? The two claims aren't in a bubble. There was testimony. There was an attempt to trip up Dr. Ford in her appearance before the committee. We have Kavanaugh's as well (or which his prepared written opening also devolved into a tirade).

I never want to not believe a person who makes a big claim such as Dr Ford's. The thing is, her testimony was unbelievably organic, honest, and felt very truthful. Kavanaugh's was beligerent and entirely that of a person trying to make people look the other way. Invoking images of his daughter and god as a shield was very uncompelling and indicative of guilt.

I believe Dr. Ford. She can't prove it. And the people accused are in a terrible state if they admit it. But her testimony made me believe her.

yet he is already convicted of rape in the court of public opinion.

In general, very few are saying he is a rapist. He is only accused of sexual assault... and farting a lot.

This could be completely false and still shadow him and render his position on the court questioned as long as he holds it.

Naw... it is his behavior in his testimony, his perjury, as well as his aiming at Democrats that what "goes around comes around" that will haunt him on SCOTUS.

Ultimately it is very simple, you either believe Dr. Ford, feel she is mistaken, or she is lying. And no one on the right-wing side has had the guts to say what they believe.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If the number of rapes is under-reported, then the number of people (perjerors) tempted to lodge false accusations is probably a lot higher too.

Aside from the fact that they are not, how in the world do you connect under-reporting by actual rape victims with someone deliberately lying?

Fear of not being believed seems to be a thing with these people.

“These people”?

Fear of not being believed seems to be a thing with Christians.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why?

Because we should have a presumption of innocence until something like this is proved. All we have thus far is a he said she said situation.

The thing is, her testimony was unbelievably organic, honest, and felt very truthful.

Lots of false things can feel very truthful. That doesn't mean they are. Most of us are motivated to believe her too, as if what she is saying is true, it is horrible. Even if she is mistaken and this happened to her but wasn't him, that would still be horrible. Sympathy for her should not translate into guilt for him without sufficient evidence though.

Kavanaugh's was beligerent and entirely that of a person trying to make people look the other way. Invoking images of his daughter and god as a shield was very uncompelling and indicative of guilt.

The behaviour is consistent with somebody who did it. The behaviour is also consistent with somebody who was accused of something they didn't do. That too can get people quite irate, especially if they think the accuser make the accusation or was put up to doing it for political reasons, which he said he believes.

I believe Dr. Ford.

I neither believe nor disbelieve her.

Ultimately it is very simple, you either believe Dr. Ford, feel she is mistaken, or she is lying.

False trichotomy. We don't have the evidence to justifiably believe if he did this or not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because we should have a presumption of innocence until something like this is proved.

I love you daughter, but unless you can prove it, all I have is your word.

All we have thus far is a he said she said situation.

No we don't. We have more than that.

Lots of false things can feel very truthful.

Thanks for the fortune cookie paper.

That doesn't mean they are. Most of us are motivated to believe her too, as if what she is saying is true, it is horrible. Even if she is mistaken and this happened to her but wasn't him, that would still be horrible. Sympathy for her should not translate into guilt for him without sufficient evidence though.

You decided to take that statement outside of its context. But thanks for at least replying to it.

Kavanaugh's was beligerent and entirely that of a person trying to make people look the other way. Invoking images of his daughter and god as a shield was very uncompelling and indicative of guilt.

The behaviour is consistent with somebody who did it. The behaviour is also consistent with somebody who was accused of something they didn't do.

No, it isn't. The psychology of his response was not of an innocent person. He made many special pleas: religion, family, emotion, that are designed to cover an inadequate defense.

That too can get people quite irate, especially if they think the accuser make the accusation or was put up to doing it for political reasons, which he said he believes.

You see, if he thought this was a lie, why didn't he say Dr. Ford is lying? You see, this stuff is all contextual. The GOP have been busy trying to sell Dr. Ford as "credible" and this is all a conspiracy theory. That isn't a credible defense.

I believe Dr. Ford.

I neither believe nor disbelieve her.

That is a spineless cop out. Her claim is clear, she 100% believes Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her. She was given an opportunity to denote any doubt, she had none. So she is either:
1) Telling the truth
2) Mistaken
3) Lying

Ultimately it is very simple, you either believe Dr. Ford, feel she is mistaken, or she is lying.

False trichotomy. We don't have the evidence to justifiably believe if he did this or not.

We have her testimony. Believing Dr. Ford isn't enough to convict Kavanaugh, but we have enough information to feel if she is telling the truth, mistaken, or lying. Believing someone doesn't require the "reasonable doubt" standard.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It is consistent with both guilt and innocence. Your bias is doing the rest.

The psychology of his response was not of an innocent person. He made many special pleas: religion, family, emotion, that are designed to cover an inadequate defense.

Him having no good defense doesn't mean he is guilty. The onus shouldn't be on him to prove he didn't do it. The onus should be on proving he did.

You see, if he thought this was a lie, why didn't he say Dr. Ford is lying?

Perhaps he doesn't want to presume she isn't mistaken and doesn't want to charge her with dishonesty. Perhaps he recognizes that if he does call her a liar he will be attacked for not "not believing the victim" and for disrespecting a woman. Him saying she is mistaken is the better political move for him and politics are front and centre here.

I believe Dr. Ford.

I neither believe nor disbelieve her.

That is a spineless cop out. Her claim is clear, she 100% believes Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her.

She appears to. It seems very likely that she honestly does believe it, but no, it isn't 100%. There remains the small chance that she is outright lying for personal or political reasons. The stakes are high after all and reach well beyond him and her.

She was given an opportunity to denote any doubt, she had none. So she is either:
1) Telling the truth
2) Mistaken
3) Lying

Yes, and option 3 is less likely than the first two, but we have no good reason yet to pick between the first two, and every reason to not jump to either conclusion.

If you believe that the man is guilty of sexual assault because she says so, that's your prerogative. My mind is the so easily swayed in either direction. I need more than she said or he said.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Him having no good defense doesn't mean he is guilty.

When someone accuses you of committing a crime and presents evidence to support that accusation, generally if you have no good defense, it does in fact mean that you're guilty. Particularly when evidence you present in your defense--like a calendar--corroborates the accuser's testimony.

The onus shouldn't be on him to prove he didn't do it. The onus should be on proving he did.

First, he was not in a court of law, he was in a job interview for one of the highest, most exalted positions that exists in our society. Second, he lied repeatedly while under oath--which is a federal crime and the same crime that Clinton was impeached over thanks in no small ironic sense to Kavanaugh--which is most definitely not the behavior of an innocent, setting aside the fact that he's a fucking Judge committing perjury while presenting evidence that corroborates his accuser's testimony.

You see, if he thought this was a lie, why didn't he say Dr. Ford is lying?

Perhaps he doesn't want to presume she isn't mistaken and doesn't want to charge her with dishonesty.

No bottom so low, eh? So, unlike you, he has a generous heart and doesn't want to see a false accuser charged for her crime. How noble of him.

I need more than she said or he said.

And lower still. If only Trump hadn't castrated the FBI's investigation in an unprecedented show of injustice and McConnel hadn't forced a vote before a real investigation could have been conducted to fulfill your feigned needs.