I guess the Trump administration is not all bad

[laughing dog]

No, it does not.

The issue of false convictions is definitely a great issue because all that forensic equipment generally can't answer the important question: consent.

Which is why if the evidence is sketchy or non-existent, the case should not proceed.

But your side wants convictions but aren't suggesting things that can actually improve figuring out what happened.

First, there are no sides. Second, people have made suggestions in this thread. Processing more rape kits, getting the police and courts to take more rape more seriously and not discourage victims from filing complaints have been mentioned in this thread.

All you have done in your response is either to ignore the actual content of a post and respond to some straw man belief of yours or to literally make up some apologia or the lack of convictions of guilty rapists or to falsely accuse people of wanting to convict innocent men.

Rape kits--small benefit.

Are you against a small increase in the conviction rate of guilty rapists?

The rest of it will up the reporting rate, not the conviction rate.

Y Ravensky had a thread in which an actual rape victim was bullied by the police into recanting but another officer in another jurisdiction noticed a similarity in her case which helped bring a rapist to justice. I started a thread about a woman who was raped in Minneapolis and who was not taken seriously by the police - she persisted with the help of others and an actual rapist was convicted. So, there is some evidence suggesting that a better attitude by the police might increase the conviction rate.

What evidence can you show that leads you to your conclusion that it won't matter?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The rest of it will up the reporting rate, not the conviction rate.

Y Ravensky had a thread in which an actual rape victim was bullied by the police into recanting but another officer in another jurisdiction noticed a similarity in her case which helped bring a rapist to justice. I started a thread about a woman who was raped in Minneapolis and who was not taken seriously by the police - she persisted with the help of others and an actual rapist was convicted. So, there is some evidence suggesting that a better attitude by the police might increase the conviction rate.

What evidence can you show that leads you to your conclusion that it won't matter?

And you think the cases where she is dissuaded would have a higher conviction rate than the cases where she isn't? I would expect a near zero conviction rate--if she can be dissuaded from filing the report in the first place I doubt she will fare well on the witness stand.

 

[Trausti]

The thread seems to have gone beyond the op. The issue, as I perceive it, is not how police do or ought to handle rape accusations, but the appointment of a university as the arbiter of the accusation. Surely, police should take rape accusations seriously; as in that instance the accused gets full due process rights and the prosecutor has a known evidentiary burden. But universities are not law enforcement. The concern is that universities, who do not have the knowledge or expertise of the police or prosecutor, essentially condemn an accused on an accusation alone. Basic constitutional protections like the right to know the charges against you and access to evidence are limited or denied. If a university is to hold itself out as a criminal tribunal, then the accused should have the same due process protections afforded in criminal proceedings. Or, the university can notify the police, if necessary, of a rape allegation.

 

[laughing dog]

Y Ravensky had a thread in which an actual rape victim was bullied by the police into recanting but another officer in another jurisdiction noticed a similarity in her case which helped bring a rapist to justice. I started a thread about a woman who was raped in Minneapolis and who was not taken seriously by the police - she persisted with the help of others and an actual rapist was convicted. So, there is some evidence suggesting that a better attitude by the police might increase the conviction rate.

What evidence can you show that leads you to your conclusion that it won't matter?

And you think the cases where she is dissuaded would have a higher conviction rate than the cases where she isn't? I would expect a near zero conviction rate--if she can be dissuaded from filing the report in the first place I doubt she will fare well on the witness stand.

By definition, cases that go to trial will have a higher probable conviction rate than cases that don't. Moreover, your expectations are belied by the actual cases in the threads I mentioned - there were convictions in those cases.

Since you claim you are not against convicting guilty rapists, what is driving your objections to increased efforts and resources into convicting guilty rapists?

- - - Updated - - -

The thread seems to have gone beyond the op. The issue, as I perceive it, is not how police do or ought to handle rape accusations, but the appointment of a university as the arbiter of the accusation. Surely, police should take rape accusations seriously; as in that instance the accused gets full due process rights and the prosecutor has a known evidentiary burden. But universities are not law enforcement. The concern is that universities, who do not have the knowledge or expertise of the police or prosecutor, essentially condemn an accused on an accusation alone. Basic constitutional protections like the right to know the charges against you and access to evidence are limited or denied. If a university is to hold itself out as a criminal tribunal, then the accused should have the same due process protections afforded in criminal proceedings. Or, the university can notify the police, if necessary, of a rape allegation.

Are there constitutional protects about knowing the charges in private matters?

 

[repoman]

hmm, this reminds me of a case a guy at Reed College, who at first seemed so-so intelligent for a few minutes but after that I realized he probably was exhibiting something like the onset of schizo-affective disorder.

He was protesting the campus rape culture myth.

proud of getting a lot of no contact orders because he called a lot of people nigger. ???



Got arrested for fondling a woman while babbling to himself.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/04/reed_college_student_jeremiah.html

 

[Trausti]

And you think the cases where she is dissuaded would have a higher conviction rate than the cases where she isn't? I would expect a near zero conviction rate--if she can be dissuaded from filing the report in the first place I doubt she will fare well on the witness stand.

By definition, cases that go to trial will have a higher probable conviction rate than cases that don't. Moreover, your expectations are belied by the actual cases in the threads I mentioned - there were convictions in those cases.

Since you claim you are not against convicting guilty rapists, what is driving your objections to increased efforts and resources into convicting guilty rapists?

- - - Updated - - -

The thread seems to have gone beyond the op. The issue, as I perceive it, is not how police do or ought to handle rape accusations, but the appointment of a university as the arbiter of the accusation. Surely, police should take rape accusations seriously; as in that instance the accused gets full due process rights and the prosecutor has a known evidentiary burden. But universities are not law enforcement. The concern is that universities, who do not have the knowledge or expertise of the police or prosecutor, essentially condemn an accused on an accusation alone. Basic constitutional protections like the right to know the charges against you and access to evidence are limited or denied. If a university is to hold itself out as a criminal tribunal, then the accused should have the same due process protections afforded in criminal proceedings. Or, the university can notify the police, if necessary, of a rape allegation.

Are there constitutional protects about knowing the charges in private matters?

A public university is public. "Private" universities that take public money act under the color of state authority. There truly are very few "private" universities that do not take tax money in one form or another.

 

[laughing dog]

By definition, cases that go to trial will have a higher probable conviction rate than cases that don't. Moreover, your expectations are belied by the actual cases in the threads I mentioned - there were convictions in those cases.

Since you claim you are not against convicting guilty rapists, what is driving your objections to increased efforts and resources into convicting guilty rapists?

- - - Updated - - -

The thread seems to have gone beyond the op. The issue, as I perceive it, is not how police do or ought to handle rape accusations, but the appointment of a university as the arbiter of the accusation. Surely, police should take rape accusations seriously; as in that instance the accused gets full due process rights and the prosecutor has a known evidentiary burden. But universities are not law enforcement. The concern is that universities, who do not have the knowledge or expertise of the police or prosecutor, essentially condemn an accused on an accusation alone. Basic constitutional protections like the right to know the charges against you and access to evidence are limited or denied. If a university is to hold itself out as a criminal tribunal, then the accused should have the same due process protections afforded in criminal proceedings. Or, the university can notify the police, if necessary, of a rape allegation.

Are there constitutional protects about knowing the charges in private matters?

A public university is public. "Private" universities that take public money act under the color of state authority. There truly are very few "private" universities that do not take tax money in one form or another.

That's nice, but it doesn't answer my question. And, I know from experience, that employees of public universities have limited access to any information used to discipline them (including firing).

 

[RavenSky]

Can you provide a link to a disinterested source so we can be sure this is not another "factoid" concocted out of thin air?

Yes I did. You took someone who was talking about the accuracy of rape statistics and concluded that she was in favor of more men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt. Since you saying the reality is the opposite of her statistics. So using your logic, it means you are in favor of the opposite of your conclusion about her stance - you must be in favor of less men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt.

Since you do not accept that conclusion (and rightly so, because your "logic" is inane), and since you are poster of integrity and intellectual honesty, we await your retraction of your bogus claim about Toni's motivation.

She is using statistics to show that it should be easier to convict someone of rape. That means it's the group numbers that matter, not individual justice.

No it does not. Saying a conviction rate should be higher does not mean group numbers matter - it means someone thinks there should be more effort and resources into catching and convicting those who commit the crime.

Now, since you persist in adhering to your faulty reasoning in the case of Toni, intellectual honesty and integrity means you tacitly admit you wish to let more alleged rapists go free, regardless of their guilt.

The conviction rate is low because it's hard to prove.

The only way you're going to get it higher is to lower your standards of proof.

Horseshit.

The backlogs of untested DNA kits proves that your words are horseshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thread seems to have gone beyond the op. The issue, as I perceive it, is not how police do or ought to handle rape accusations, but the appointment of a university as the arbiter of the accusation. Surely, police should take rape accusations seriously; as in that instance the accused gets full due process rights and the prosecutor has a known evidentiary burden. But universities are not law enforcement. The concern is that universities, who do not have the knowledge or expertise of the police or prosecutor, essentially condemn an accused on an accusation alone. Basic constitutional protections like the right to know the charges against you and access to evidence are limited or denied. If a university is to hold itself out as a criminal tribunal, then the accused should have the same due process protections afforded in criminal proceedings. Or, the university can notify the police, if necessary, of a rape allegation.

Yup. It's the university handling of it that I have a big problem with. The police are usually reasonable except in high profile cases (think Duke) but that tends to happen with high profile cases in general, not just rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you provide a link to a disinterested source so we can be sure this is not another "factoid" concocted out of thin air?

Yes I did. You took someone who was talking about the accuracy of rape statistics and concluded that she was in favor of more men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt. Since you saying the reality is the opposite of her statistics. So using your logic, it means you are in favor of the opposite of your conclusion about her stance - you must be in favor of less men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt.

Since you do not accept that conclusion (and rightly so, because your "logic" is inane), and since you are poster of integrity and intellectual honesty, we await your retraction of your bogus claim about Toni's motivation.

She is using statistics to show that it should be easier to convict someone of rape. That means it's the group numbers that matter, not individual justice.

No it does not. Saying a conviction rate should be higher does not mean group numbers matter - it means someone thinks there should be more effort and resources into catching and convicting those who commit the crime.

Now, since you persist in adhering to your faulty reasoning in the case of Toni, intellectual honesty and integrity means you tacitly admit you wish to let more alleged rapists go free, regardless of their guilt.

The conviction rate is low because it's hard to prove.

The only way you're going to get it higher is to lower your standards of proof.

Horseshit.

The backlogs of untested DNA kits proves that your words are horseshit.

The thing is those rape kits are unlikely to lead to the arrest of the rapist. Rather, when they catch a rapist the rape kits identify other rapes that he committed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The thing is those rape kits are unlikely to lead to the arrest of the rapist.

Because of the backlog!

 

[laughing dog]

The thing is those rape kits are unlikely to lead to the arrest of the rapist.

Logic failure. Those rape kits cannot reduce the conviction, but they can lead to an increase, even if it is a small increase. But for some reason, you are arguing against it. Hmmm.

Rather, when they catch a rapist the rape kits identify other rapes that he committed.

Major logic failure. Identification of other rapes should lead to an increase the conviction rate on rapes.

Why are you against efforts to increase conviction rates of guilty rapists?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why are you against efforts to increase conviction rates of guilty rapists?

He's not. He's shifting the goalposts again because he got caught saying something stupid and now he is desperately flinging out random counter-arguments in a quixotic attempt to save face. This will continue indefinitely until he accidentally stumbles onto something resembling a cogent point and then he can walk away from the thread feeling like he contributed something.

 

[repoman]

For some reason this seems apt here

 

[Angry Floof]

For some reason, I think that image, for you, would be apt anywhere. I think you look for excuses to post shit like that. It's amusing when you try to pretend to be moderate on these topics.

 

[fromderinside]

Got excited, mistype Carne. You understand. Unforgiving ataperson function.

 

[Angry Floof]

Got excited, mistype Carne. You understand. Unforgiving ataperson function.

I truly wish I understood your posts.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm gonna sit right down and write your angry self a letter .... please make believe it didn't come from me .... I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter

 

[ronburgundy]

In a world full of injustice it is always a wonder why some are so enthralled with very minor problems but ignore the big ones.

The big problem is all the men getting away with rape and physical abuse.

That is the huge corrosive problem in society.

The size of a problem does not determine whether a rational person should focus upon it, but rather whether something can be done about it.
It's rational for people to focus upon problems that are actually the direct result of formal policies and thus easily correctable. False accusations with zero evidence still leading to life damaging punishments are the direct result of government policies.

Men raping women is not the direct result of government policies, except in Muslim countries. And when rapists get away with it in the US, this is NOT due to terrible unjust laws. Rapists get away with it because of the unfortunate pragmatic reality that that it is a very difficult crime to prove, especially if there was little physical violence. With non-violent rapes that don't also entail general assault, the crime differs from a highly pervasive legal act of sex only in the state of mind of the victim. Thus, since state of mind is very difficult to prove in any type of case, rape is hard to prove. IOW, unpunished rape is typically an injustice committed by the rapist and by the universe and the nature of reality. Whereas punishment against the wrongfully accused is an injustice committed by the accused in collusion with a government or other institutions that have no regard for basic rights or legal principles.

In sum, your comment is as ridiculous as saying that people should only care about cancer and never bring up police shootings, because cancer kills many times more people.

 

[Malintent]

Rape even though it is less terrible than murder has a special taboo about it that murder does not have.

You can go to Bestgore.com and Documentingreality.com and see people being murdered with chainsaws in Mexico - not just people dying in no fault accidents. But they don't show footage of rapes. I wonder if it actually illegal to show it.

Perhaps don't want rape fetishists to have wank material.

There is plenty of "forced" category porn available on the internet in very popular porn sites. "rape" is a trigger word, it seems... they call it "forced".. and many (most, even) have a sequence at the end or beginning of "movie" where the subject of the "forcing" (not always a woman) is talking to the camera discussing what they want to happen or what they liked about the experience, to distinguish from "rape". Less frequently, they show a blurred out drivers license as well (presumably to have evidence of the person's age as well - even if not "broadcast" - it's in their original "footage").

 

[Malintent]

For some reason this seems apt here

View attachment 12009

reminds me of, "Women that want equal rights should expect equal lefts as well".

I can't say I completely disagree... at least, in cases where a woman assaults a man and then is outraged that she got punched in the face after leveling multiple physical attacks herself, first.