Nearly 70% of rapes aren't reported. Republicans are showing you why

[Jimmy Higgins]

For all those men out there who feel that women are protesting too much, you're flat-out wrong, and your denial is perpetuation the problem. The statistics are pretty horrible, and we men MUST step up for women, as I said in the other thread....

Donald Trump says that if Brett Kavanaugh really assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when she was 15 years old, surely she would have told her parents and they would have reported it to the police. Aside from being victim-blaming viciousness, this goes against basically everything we know about sexual assault survivors. According to statistics from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, only 310 out of every 1,000 rapes are reported.


The women and girls (overwhelmingly so) who don’t report being raped have their reasons, starting with the criminal justice system: of the 310 out of 1,000 rapes reported to police, just 57 lead to arrests, 11 are referred to prosecutors, seven lead to felony convictions, and six lead to incarceration for the rapist. Rape victims report long-lasting consequences, including PTSD, suicidal thoughts, problems at work or school, drug use, and more.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...en-t-reported-Republicans-are-showing-you-why

Eh...the article does not establish Republicans are "showing-you-why" nearly 70 percent of rapes are not reported.

Umm... the GOP did that in the hearing and their subsequent actions.

 

[James Madison]

Eh...the article does not establish Republicans are "showing-you-why" nearly 70 percent of rapes are not reported.

Umm... the GOP did that in the hearing and their subsequent actions.

How so?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Eh...the article does not establish Republicans are "showing-you-why" nearly 70 percent of rapes are not reported.

Umm... the GOP did that in the hearing and their subsequent actions.

How so?

Carefully choreographed attempts at obliviousness may sound like a clever debating strategy on paper, but they really just make people look like dorks.

 

[James Madison]

How so?

Carefully choreographed attempts at obliviousness may sound like a clever debating strategy on paper, but they really just make people look like dorks.

I was hoping for an answer with substance.

 

[phands]

Then read the rest of this and several other threads. Or switch on a TV. Or open a news page in a browser.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How so?

Carefully choreographed attempts at obliviousness may sound like a clever debating strategy on paper, but they really just make people look like dorks.

I was hoping for an answer with substance.

Not with a comment like that, you weren't.

 

[James Madison]

Then read the rest of this and several other threads. Or switch on a TV. Or open a news page in a browser.

So, at this moment you can't or won't specify how the conduct of the Republicans are "showing you why" 70% of rapes are not reported.

Your argument of its self-evident is never a persuasive argument, but regularly invoked by those who cannot provide substance.

- - - Updated - - -

I was hoping for an answer with substance.

Not with a comment like that, you weren't.

Ya got nothing man...just vacuous posts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Eh...the article does not establish Republicans are "showing-you-why" nearly 70 percent of rapes are not reported.

Umm... the GOP did that in the hearing and their subsequent actions.

How so?

I can only imagine how awful this entire process has been for Judge Kavanaugh and his family," Graham said. “I would again ask every senator who believes Judge Kavanaugh is a highly qualified, capable nominee to the Supreme Court to not quit on him. It is incredibly important we do not legitimize these smears and attempts at character assassination for the good of the Court, the future of the Senate, and the character of our nation."

But Cornyn did talk to Kavanaugh, telling the nominee, "You're not guilty if someone makes an allegation against you in this country. We're not a police state. We don't give the government that kind of power."

Later during Cornyn's time, Kavanaugh said, "I'm never going to get my reputation back. My life is totally and permanently altered."

"Judge, don't give up," Cornyn replied.

link

Kavanaugh, the poor victim in all of this. Sure, they aren't calling her a "lying bitch", but the continued circling of the wagons, the Sex Crime prosecutor's "report" as if she were Kavanaugh's lawyer. The rallying cries of this being a Democrat conspiracy, as if Gorsuch wasn't put on the Supreme Court.

Come forth with the truth, expose your darkest secrets in front of us... on national television, so we can ignore you, at best.

 

[James Madison]

How so?

I can only imagine how awful this entire process has been for Judge Kavanaugh and his family," Graham said. “I would again ask every senator who believes Judge Kavanaugh is a highly qualified, capable nominee to the Supreme Court to not quit on him. It is incredibly important we do not legitimize these smears and attempts at character assassination for the good of the Court, the future of the Senate, and the character of our nation."

But Cornyn did talk to Kavanaugh, telling the nominee, "You're not guilty if someone makes an allegation against you in this country. We're not a police state. We don't give the government that kind of power."

Later during Cornyn's time, Kavanaugh said, "I'm never going to get my reputation back. My life is totally and permanently altered."

"Judge, don't give up," Cornyn replied.

link

Kavanaugh, the poor victim in all of this. Sure, they aren't calling her a "lying bitch", but the continued circling of the wagons, the Sex Crime prosecutor's "report" as if she were Kavanaugh's lawyer. The rallying cries of this being a Democrat conspiracy, as if Gorsuch wasn't put on the Supreme Court.

Come forth with the truth, expose your darkest secrets in front of us... on national television, so we can ignore you, at best.

Ms. Ford was not ignored. She was permitted to fully tell her account.

As for the article, I am not interested in guessing which parts of the article describe behavior by a Republican Senator that you believe "show why" 70% of rape is not reported. So, can you specifically identify said behavior in the article?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But Cornyn did talk to Kavanaugh, telling the nominee, "You're not guilty if someone makes an allegation against you in this country. We're not a police state. We don't give the government that kind of power."

Later during Cornyn's time, Kavanaugh said, "I'm never going to get my reputation back. My life is totally and permanently altered."

"Judge, don't give up," Cornyn replied.

link

Kavanaugh, the poor victim in all of this. Sure, they aren't calling her a "lying bitch", but the continued circling of the wagons, the Sex Crime prosecutor's "report" as if she were Kavanaugh's lawyer. The rallying cries of this being a Democrat conspiracy, as if Gorsuch wasn't put on the Supreme Court.

Come forth with the truth, expose your darkest secrets in front of us... on national television, so we can ignore you, at best.

Ms. Ford was not ignored. She was permitted to fully tell her account.

Those two sentences are not exclusive to each other.

As for the article, I am not interested in guessing which parts of the article describe behavior by a Republican Senator that you believe "show why" 70% of rape is not reported. So, can you specifically identify said behavior in the article?

OFFS!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a very scary time for young men in America, where you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of. This is a very, very -- this is a very difficult time. What's happening here has much more to do than even the appointment of a Supreme Court justice.

link

It is like they are daring the American public for an electoral blood bath.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do they know what percentage of any crime is reported, much less one about consent? If it isn't reported how do they know that it happened? How is this data compiled?

National Crime Victimization Survey.

I have no reason to think the numbers are wrong. The interpretation, however, leaves something to be desired. Prosecutors only bring charges when they think they can get a conviction. If there is no evidence and her story isn't clear enough they're not going to file. This is not a problem with the system, it's a problem with reality.

That reality is partially the result of human construction. The quality of rape investigations is spotty. The resources devoted to thoroughly investigating rape cases are insufficient in many jurisdictions. In some places there are literally thousands of untests rape kits. So this reality can be changed to some degree.

You have two basic situations:

Stranger rape and date rape.

In a stranger rape it's unlikely you can get the guy other than by DNA and if he's not in the system that won't tell you anything. The case will sit until he makes a sufficient mistake.

In date rape it comes down to a question of whether there was consent. A rape kit can only tell you whether sex happened, not whether it was consensual. Only if the details are clear enough will there be a prosecution.

While I do agree the rape kits should be tested it's nowhere near the panacea many pretend. Yes, they've found a bunch of serial rapists from testing backlogs--but they don't know who they are.

 

[Lion IRC]

How do they know what percentage of any crime is reported, much less one about consent? If it isn't reported how do they know that it happened? How is this data compiled?

Go do your own digging. Or are you scared of what you'll find that doesn't sit well with your preconceived biases?

The reason they gave in the survey is that they thought their report wouldn't be believed.
I don't understand that.
Report it to social media - expect to be believed.
Phone a talkback radio station - expect to be believed.
Answer an anonymous opinion poll - expect to be believed.
Use a zinger slacktivism #hashtag- expect to be believed.

Whatever you do, don't report it to the legal authorities with the power to actually prevent your rapist from raping their next potential victim. Because they won't believe you.

The bitter irony in this forum is how, on some issues, skepticism and testing the evidence is revered. Disbelief is the default starting position. Doubt is not a dirty word. Corroboration is expected. And the objective, empirical definition of words like bat or bird is not up for debate.

But here in yet another #MeeToo gender-wars thread, we have a subjective definition of the word 'rape', we have presuppositions of belief, we have anger towards folks who demand evidence...

Where else in the legal system is it considered a problem that the police and judiciary don't prosecute and convict 100% of cases alleged.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

 

[laughing dog]

How do they know what percentage of any crime is reported, much less one about consent? If it isn't reported how do they know that it happened? How is this data compiled?

Go do your own digging. Or are you scared of what you'll find that doesn't sit well with your preconceived biases?

The reason they gave in the survey is that they thought their report wouldn't be believed.
I don't understand that.
Report it to social media - expect to be believed.
Phone a talkback radio station - expect to be believed.
Answer an anonymous opinion poll - expect to be believed.
Use a zinger slacktivism #hashtag- expect to be believed.

Whatever you do, don't report it to the legal authorities with the power to actually prevent your rapist from raping their next potential victim. Because they won't believe you.

In the USA, the police do have a history of not treating victims with belief. Even though the police are better now than in the past, that reality is still out there. So, it may dissuade some victims from coming forward. But, if you had bothered to actually read the site, there are numerous reasons given for not coming forward - disbelief by the police is but one of many rationales.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a very scary time for young men in America, where you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of. This is a very, very -- this is a very difficult time. What's happening here has much more to do than even the appointment of a Supreme Court justice.

link

It is like they are daring the American public for an electoral blood bath.

Or they are confident it won't matter.

 

[laughing dog]

That reality is partially the result of human construction. The quality of rape investigations is spotty. The resources devoted to thoroughly investigating rape cases are insufficient in many jurisdictions. In some places there are literally thousands of untests rape kits. So this reality can be changed to some degree.

You have two basic situations:

Stranger rape and date rape.

In a stranger rape it's unlikely you can get the guy other than by DNA and if he's not in the system that won't tell you anything. The case will sit until he makes a sufficient mistake.

In date rape it comes down to a question of whether there was consent. A rape kit can only tell you whether sex happened, not whether it was consensual. Only if the details are clear enough will there be a prosecution.

While I do agree the rape kits should be tested it's nowhere near the panacea many pretend. Yes, they've found a bunch of serial rapists from testing backlogs--but they don't know who they are.

Once again, you miss the point. First, testing the dna kits may help solve some cases - no one claimed it would solve all of them. Second, as it is now, in many jurisdictions, it appears the police either do not know how to properly investigate a rape allegation or do not put in the proper effort or do not have sufficient resources to put in the proper effort. Devoting more effort, proper training and more resources could only serve to catch and convict more rapists (certainly not fewer), and it would give the appearance of giving a damn.

 

[phands]

I don't understand that.

That is completely unsurprising, since the rules of basic logic are not evident in any of your posts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, you miss the point. First, testing the dna kits may help solve some cases - no one claimed it would solve all of them. Second, as it is now, in many jurisdictions, it appears the police either do not know how to properly investigate a rape allegation or do not put in the proper effort or do not have sufficient resources to put in the proper effort. Devoting more effort, proper training and more resources could only serve to catch and convict more rapists (certainly not fewer), and it would give the appearance of giving a damn.

The police don't have enough resources to devote the proper effort to any crime other than the high profile things that they really have to solve for PR reasons.

Why should rape be elevated in priority and others lowered?

(Now, if you want to make a big dent in the problem, legalize drugs. Not only do you free up all the effort going into drugs but you eliminate probably half of all other crime, thus doubling the effort available for going after the crime that remains.)

 

[laughing dog]

The police don't have enough resources to devote the proper effort to any crime other than the high profile things that they really have to solve for PR reasons.

Hand-waved nonsense.

Why should rape be elevated in priority and others lowered?

No one is asking for that. And that assumes the current prioritization is correct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The police don't have enough resources to devote the proper effort to any crime other than the high profile things that they really have to solve for PR reasons.

Hand-waved nonsense.

Explain.

Why should rape be elevated in priority and others lowered?

No one is asking for that. And that assumes the current prioritization is correct.

If you're asking for more effort to be devoted to rape but you aren't asking for an overall increase you are asking for the effort devoted to other crimes to be lowered.