Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 8, 2015 10:19:15 GMT -5
I understand that. What I'm looking for is the details of a scenario where there's not enough evidence to convict, but there is enough evidence for a study to reliably conclude that the allegation of rape isn't false. Note that for such a study to be valid, it must make no assumptions about (and therefore may not rely on) the truthfulness of the victim's testimony, since this is precisely the variable it's measuring. Here I know it's Wikipedia, but it does a pretty good job of describing the process. The number of false or unfounded accusations are a bit higher than I expected but still very low. This is excellent. Thanks. (Who knew Wiki would have an article entirely about false accusations of rape. ) What I'm reading therein isn't encouraging. The studies are all over the map (the median in Rumney's metaanalysis is about 11%, and the average would be around 25%), and then we have (re the Lisak study): Thus the allegation would be deemed false if and only if the victim invented an implausible scenario, multiple witnesses (or bits of forensic evidence) were present to contradict the elements of that scenario, and the victim amended his/her testimony. That doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence. I doubt even a fifth of all rape allegations would have the benefit of such factors for cross-validation. Four fifths would be of the "we were drunk; we went into the room together; we were alone; he raped me" or "he came over to my home; we were alone; he raped me" variety where it would be virtually impossible for a victim to contrive a scenario that could be contradicted by the testimony of multiple witnesses. Hence the study would have to summarily dismiss 80% of the cases as "not phony" based on nothing at all. The CPS study uses the ratio of prosecutions for false allegations to the number of prosecutions for rape. Some of the other studies are up in the 40%, 50% and 90% range, but are criticized for sample bias. Based on all of this, it would appear that researchers really have no clue how often phony allegations occur. My faith in the social sciences continues to swell without limit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 14:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 10:32:37 GMT -5
You do notice your quote starts with "for example" as in not an all inclusive list. And don't you think the 40-90% studies have a sample bias problem?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 14:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 12:10:51 GMT -5
Does it strike you as at all hypocritical that you are challenging the validity of the studies and their controls with numbers you just pulled out of your ass?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 8, 2015 12:26:59 GMT -5
Here I know it's Wikipedia, but it does a pretty good job of describing the process. The number of false or unfounded accusations are a bit higher than I expected but still very low. This is excellent. Thanks. (Who knew Wiki would have an article entirely about false accusations of rape. ) What I'm reading therein isn't encouraging. The studies are all over the map (the median in Rumney's metaanalysis is about 11%, and the average would be around 25%), and then we have (re the Lisak study): Thus the allegation would be deemed false if and only if the victim invented an implausible scenario, multiple witnesses (or bits of forensic evidence) were present to contradict the elements of that scenario, and the victim amended his/her testimony. That doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence. I doubt even a fifth of all rape allegations would have the benefit of such factors for cross-validation. Four fifths would be of the "we were drunk; we went into the room together; we were alone; he raped me" or "he came over to my home; we were alone; he raped me" variety where it would be virtually impossible for a victim to contrive a scenario that could be contradicted by the testimony of multiple witnesses. Hence the study would have to summarily dismiss 80% of the cases as "not phony" based on nothing at all. The CPS study uses the ratio of prosecutions for false allegations to the number of prosecutions for rape. Some of the other studies are up in the 40%, 50% and 90% range, but are criticized for sample bias. Based on all of this, it would appear that researchers really have no clue how often phony allegations occur. My faith in the social sciences continues to swell without limit. You have to start somewhere. It is better than your assumption that 80% involve we are drunk scenario, and I believe those who have studied this drinking as a contributing factor much lower.
The problem with much of this is people believe what they believe based on assumptions and often little evidence. The social sciences has to deal with tendencies not absolutes. People are not the same everywhere nor do they act the same no matter where they are put. It is easier to study gravity which works the same no matter where one is than to control for factors like age, inebriation, location, etc.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 8, 2015 13:54:21 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion that is not hard to reconcile, not enough evidence to convict is not the same as a false allegation. Even the police are not claiming that. Nobody thinks OJ is innocent just because he wasn't convicted. I understand that. What I'm looking for is the details of a scenario where there's not enough evidence to convict, but there is enough evidence for a study to reliably conclude that the allegation of rape isn't false. Note that for such a study to be valid, it must make no assumptions about (and therefore may not rely on) the truthfulness of the victim's testimony, since this is precisely the variable it's measuring. A doctor can tell if a woman had sex recently, but he can't tell if the sex was voluntary or involuntary. Even very rough sex that leaves marks can be voluntary (some women like that). If you frame your study so that every woman who showed evidence of having sex and claims to have been raped must have been raped, you would find a fairly large number of women who have been raped. Keep in mind a big percentage of women who were raped never even report it in the first place, either because they are ashamed to admit it or because they don't think they will be believed, and depending on how you calculate this unknown, unreported group, you can come up with even bigger numbers. If, however, you only look at reported rapes, and of those, you eliminate married women (some people argue married women can't be raped), and you eliminate women who don't have bruises or tearing, or who don't have traces of a rape drug in their blood, you would find a very small pool of women that fit this criteria. As to why this Jackie falsely reported this - could be any number of reasons. She may have a drug addiction or mental health issues that mess with her sense of reality and/or time. She might love to portray herself as a victim. Maybe she just had a grudge against this particular fraternity for some reason. It's unfortunate that this reporter didn't follow the basic tenents of good reporting, and equally unfortunate that RS did not do even a little fact checking. The reporter claimed she didn't want to further upset what she saw as a damaged, fragile woman futher by asking probing questions. Hopefully she has learned her journalistic lesson, and I suspect she will have a hard time as a freelancer getting more work in the near future. Hopefully this is a good warning to all professional journalists, in this age of internet blogging and 'near news' sources, that there is such a thing as good journalistic skills.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 8, 2015 13:56:28 GMT -5
Does it strike you as at all hypocritical that you are challenging the validity of the studies and their controls with numbers you just pulled out of your ass? 80% is anecdotal. I've been privy to the circumstances of 9 rapes; 7 fit the circumstances described. Moreover, I've read that date rape and spousal rape are both significantly more common than forcible rape by a stranger. If we assume that the vast majority of rapes of the former types have no outside witnesses, it puts a floor of roughly 66% on the percentage. More importantly: the exactness of the 80% figure is irrelevant. The criticism stands if the actual number is 20%, 50%, 80% or 95%. It's not just scenarios involving drinking. It's scenarios where the non-consensual elements of the rape take place under the observation of witnesses. For instance, eyewitness testimony that Brad and Jane went into a bedroom at a frat party doesn't meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard required by the study. Neither would security footage of Brad going into Jane's apartment, or the presence of Brad's semen as detected by a rape kit. It would surprise me if more than 20% of rape situations could innately afford the unambiguous "preponderance of evidence" required by the study, for the reasons I list above. Perhaps I'm mistaken and a far larger number of rapes occur in the presence of witnesses (willing to testify on behalf of the victim), or leave behind a slew of conclusive forensic evidence of non-consensual sex, but such is definitely not my understanding. They almost certainly do. How much is anyone's guess. I'm generally contending that these studies are shots in the dark, including the ones that conclude half or more of all allegations are false.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 8, 2015 14:05:38 GMT -5
I understand that. What I'm looking for is the details of a scenario where there's not enough evidence to convict, but there is enough evidence for a study to reliably conclude that the allegation of rape isn't false. Note that for such a study to be valid, it must make no assumptions about (and therefore may not rely on) the truthfulness of the victim's testimony, since this is precisely the variable it's measuring. A doctor can tell if a woman had sex recently, but he can't tell if the sex was voluntary or involuntary. Even very rough sex that leaves marks can be voluntary (some women like that). If you frame your study so that every woman who showed evidence of having sex and claims to have been raped must have been raped, you would find a fairly large number of women who have been raped. Keep in mind a big percentage of women who were raped never even report it in the first place, either because they are ashamed to admit it or because they don't think they will be believed, and depending on how you calculate this unknown, unreported group, you can come up with even bigger numbers. If, however, you only look at reported rapes, and of those, you eliminate married women (some people argue married women can't be raped), and you eliminate women who don't have bruises or tearing, or who don't have traces of a rape drug in their blood, you would find a very small pool of women that fit this criteria. As to why this Jackie falsely reported this - could be any number of reasons. She may have a drug addiction or mental health issues that mess with her sense of reality and/or time. She might love to portray herself as a victim. Maybe she just had a grudge against this particular fraternity for some reason. It's unfortunate that this reporter didn't follow the basic tenents of good reporting, and equally unfortunate that RS did not do even a little fact checking. The reporter claimed she didn't want to further upset what she saw as a damaged, fragile woman futher by asking probing questions. Hopefully she has learned her journalistic lesson, and I suspect she will have a hard time as a freelancer getting more work in the near future. Hopefully this is a good warning to all professional journalists, in this age of internet blogging and 'near news' sources, that there is such a thing as good journalistic skills. In a nutshell, what these studies seem to be doing is erring on the side of the accuser, reporting only the number of rapes that can be definitively disproved by a preponderance of evidence. The courts, as we well know, err on the side of the defendant, convicting only when the defendant's guild can be definitively proven by a preponderance of evidence. I'm lamenting the fact that these two numbers are worlds apart. It's safe to assume that the truth is somewhere in between them, but when you have a range of 5% to 90% to work with, that doesn't exactly lend itself to conclusions about whether we should be warier of erroneously dismissing true allegations or of erroneously accepting false ones. In this case, "Jackie" fortunately didn't have the sense to invent a plausible lie, but who knows how often that happens.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 14:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 14:11:14 GMT -5
What does privy mean? You read it? Someone told you? You were there?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 14:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 14:18:01 GMT -5
Do you notice that the FBI and Department of Justice put the number at no more than 8%,and that is with non prosecuted and "unfounded" cases being thrown in, yet you reject these numbers.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 8, 2015 14:23:41 GMT -5
I agree.
Unfortunately, the courts often take a 'boys will be boys' attitude towards rape, and if there isn't some kind of hard evidence, tend to dismiss it. And some legal systems don't think married women can be raped at all. Which leads women to believe it isn't worth reporting a rape because nothing will happen to the rapist. So if you only look at the number of rape convictions, that will be significantly lower than the number of actual rapes occuring. How much lower I can't reasonably guess, though.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 8, 2015 17:05:39 GMT -5
What does privy mean? You read it? Someone told you? You were there? Somebody told me. I've never witnessed one, and I couldn't begin to count how many I've read about over the years. Do you notice that the FBI and Department of Justice put the number at no more than 8%,and that is with non prosecuted and "unfounded" cases being thrown in, yet you reject these numbers. This is more an assessment of what the studies are actually measuring. We accept their conclusions up to the (unfortunately) stringent limitations of what they can reliably measure.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 8, 2015 17:12:29 GMT -5
I agree. Unfortunately, the courts often take a 'boys will be boys' attitude towards rape, and if there isn't some kind of hard evidence, tend to dismiss it. And some legal systems don't think married women can be raped at all. Which leads women to believe it isn't worth reporting a rape because nothing will happen to the rapist. So if you only look at the number of rape convictions, that will be significantly lower than the number of actual rapes occuring. How much lower I can't reasonably guess, though. I have no doubt you're right. Even so, I side with the courts dismissing rape charges without hard evidence. He-said-she-said isn't nearly a rigorous enough standard, especially in the context of not knowing the likelihood of false allegations. It's unfortunate, but "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is what it is.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 8, 2015 17:24:22 GMT -5
I think the accuser is less the story than why a reporter and the editorials both published an extremely damaging accusation without ANY (astonishing, but true- NONE, no research, and an admission that no effort to find a witness, or interview the accused was made) investigation or research at all? The answer of course is to attack the institution of the fraternity itself- not the individual fraternity, but frat life in general; and to perpetuate the completely unsubstantiated claim of college campus "rape culture"- which suggests that college campuses and especially fraternity houses routinely engage in rape, it is seen as ok, rapists are supported, and evidence of rape is covered up. Of course no such rape culture exists anywhere, unless you count in the circles of wealthy and influential people- like Bill Clinton- who went on one excursions to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's "Orgy Island" where it is now known underage sex slaves were repeatedly victimized. I don't think anyone is questioning that it was a huge journalistic failure at this point, especially after the magazine's own study concluded the report was a huge journalistic failure. I want to know about the accuser. Why did she make the whole thing up? If phony rape allegations are as rare as studies claim they are, I'm curious about what motivated this particular phony accusation. It would be nice to know why the accuser made this up, but we probably won't be so lucky as to find out.
I think there are more false accusations concerning rape and other things that are not reported to the police. I believe most studies about false accusations concern themselves with rapes reported to the police. Its wise not to draw too many conclusions based on that with reports of this nature as the odds of them telling the truth are likely less. I made that mistake, because I forget some folks are attention seekers, etc. so whatever we learn or do not, might not shed light on false reports reported to police.
In the future I will be more suspicious of those who won't name names and didn't go to the police.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 14:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 18:26:58 GMT -5
I agree. Unfortunately, the courts often take a 'boys will be boys' attitude towards rape, and if there isn't some kind of hard evidence, tend to dismiss it. And some legal systems don't think married women can be raped at all. Which leads women to believe it isn't worth reporting a rape because nothing will happen to the rapist. So if you only look at the number of rape convictions, that will be significantly lower than the number of actual rapes occuring. How much lower I can't reasonably guess, though. I have no doubt you're right. Even so, I side with the courts dismissing rape charges without hard evidence. He-said-she-said isn't nearly a rigorous enough standard, especially in the context of not knowing the likelihood of false allegations. It's unfortunate, but "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is what it is. You just took a HUGE jump in the conversation. No one has even remotely suggested anyone be convicted without evidence. The point is that many rapes do not get reported or prosecuted. You just slide over that tidbit to make a point no one is arguing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 8, 2015 22:00:11 GMT -5
I have no doubt you're right. Even so, I side with the courts dismissing rape charges without hard evidence. He-said-she-said isn't nearly a rigorous enough standard, especially in the context of not knowing the likelihood of false allegations. It's unfortunate, but "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is what it is. You just took a HUGE jump in the conversation. No one has even remotely suggested anyone be convicted without evidence. The point is that many rapes do not get reported or prosecuted. You just slide over that tidbit to make a point no one is arguing. The context of the discussion is about the likelihood of false rape allegations. Rapes that go unreported aren't relevant in that context. They count neither as a true allegation nor as a false allegation, since no allegation is made. They're relevant to the prevalence of rape, but that's a separate issue. A paragraph starting with "Unfortunately, the courts often take a 'boys will be boys' attitude towards rape, and if there isn't some kind of hard evidence, tend to dismiss it." in the context of our discussion suggests it's unfortunate courts aren't more sympathetic to victim testimony in the absence of hard evidence. I'm saying that I don't find this unfortunate since the facts presented in this thread point to our having no clear idea of the reliability of such testimony. If happyhoix's intended meaning was "It's unfortunate that it's so hard to procure hard evidence to prosecute rapes", I agree with her. I'm sure she'll let us know either way.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Apr 8, 2015 23:30:54 GMT -5
I can't understand why anyone would want to make a false rape allegation, sure maybe a stripper at a pricey college looking for a payout, but a student? I also can't understand the satisfaction and gloating that comes from some folks when a rape case gets tossed out or found to be untrue. Looking at Rush- no really means yes- on this. The 'art of seduction' and all If he wasn't rich he would be wacking it the rest of his life. No wonder he has issues with women- isn't he on wife 5 now? Bet a Christian bakery caters his next wedding
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 9, 2015 8:10:15 GMT -5
Yes, this is what I think. I disagree with this, though. If we shrug off rape allegations unless there was a witness to the event, or video tape, or emails documenting the event, or some other kind of 'hard' evidence, we send the message to men that rape is ok if they make sure they do it privately.
As in this case with Jackie, if the rape allegations are false, they would usually fall apart with just a little bit of fact checking. The police could verify where it was supposed to have happened, see if there is video tape of the premises or nearby streets that can verify the couple was there together on the night in question, see if neighbors heard or saw anything, interview friends and family who can testify to the behavior of the woman in the aftermath of the rape, etc etc. Get the alleged rapist in, do a lie detector test, grill him a little bit to see what his attitude is towards the woman is, and what he claims happened. If he said he was never there but you find proof he was, it's a reasonable jump to assume he's lying about raping her, too.
Unfortunately I don't think most police forces are willing or able to spend much time investigating these cases, either because they don't have the resources or they don't think rape, especially date rape or marital rape, is that big a deal, and a lot of rapists skip free, happy they got away with it and ready to do it again.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 9, 2015 14:17:04 GMT -5
Yes, this is what I think. I disagree with this, though. If we shrug off rape allegations unless there was a witness to the event, or video tape, or emails documenting the event, or some other kind of 'hard' evidence, we send the message to men that rape is ok if they make sure they do it privately. As in this case with Jackie, if the rape allegations are false, they would usually fall apart with just a little bit of fact checking. The police could verify where it was supposed to have happened, see if there is video tape of the premises or nearby streets that can verify the couple was there together on the night in question, see if neighbors heard or saw anything, interview friends and family who can testify to the behavior of the woman in the aftermath of the rape, etc etc. Get the alleged rapist in, do a lie detector test, grill him a little bit to see what his attitude is towards the woman is, and what he claims happened. If he said he was never there but you find proof he was, it's a reasonable jump to assume he's lying about raping her, too. Unfortunately I don't think most police forces are willing or able to spend much time investigating these cases, either because they don't have the resources or they don't think rape, especially date rape or marital rape, is that big a deal, and a lot of rapists skip free, happy they got away with it and ready to do it again. I see this more as desire for investigators to push harder to find hard evidence. I don't care for polygraphs because they're notoriously unreliable, but trying to shake apart the accused's version of events, trying to catch him in a lie, etc., is fair game. It's not a nice problem to contemplate from the perspective of the accused, either. Everybody should ask themselves: What would I say if somebody accused me of rape? What if they mistook me for somebody else? If the police came to interrogate me three weeks after the alleged crime had taken place, I can tell you right now I have no clear recollection of what I was doing between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM three weeks ago today. I could guess, but if interrogators forced me to commit to something, it would be a shot in the dark. My day-to-day memory is good enough that if they showed video footage of me doing something three weeks after the fact, I'm confident I'd be able recall what I was doing, but it's also been shown in many experiments that human memory is highly susceptible to suggestion. One of my favourite behavioural experiments (I can't remember the specific name; there are many variations) puts a large group of people into a room to watch a short video. The video is of a man who walks up to a house, walks around it a bit, looks in the window, and walks back to the door. The group is then split into three subgroups: A, B, C. Subgroup A is taken aside and told that the video they watched was of a burglar trying to break into the house. He's dressed in black, he skulks around the house, tries to jimmy the window, and tries to pick the lock. Subgroup B is taken aside and told that the video they watched was of a real estate agent. He's dressed in a suit and carrying a briefcase; he briefly checks whether the light is on through the window and then knocks on the door. Subgroup C is the control, and they're not told anything. After this is done, all three subgroups are shown a series of three videos: video #1, which shows a burglar doing exactly as was described to subgroup A; video #2, which is the same video that was originally shown; and video #3, which shows a real estate agent as was described to subgroup B. The participants in the study are then asked to indicate which of the three videos was the video they first watched, and to rate their confidence in their assessment. The results are as consistent as they are profound: the overwhelming majority (I can't recall the exact percentage, but it's startling) of subgroup A "remembers" watching video #1 with high confidence, subgroup B "remembers" watching video #3 with high confidence, and subgroup C (the control) tends to be evenly spread out over which video they "remember", with much lower confidence. Hence what researchers conclude is that even in the short period between the first and second showings, a strong suggestion of what people "should" remember completely dominates their memory of the actual experience. Put succinctly: as a species, we are highly susceptible to brainwashing. If we pull this fact into the context of interrogators pressing, digging, interrogating, sometimes weeks or months after the fact, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that they have to be extremely careful not to corrupt testimony by the power of suggestion. It's not unusual that a person swears under oath in court that he "remembers" seeing Joe Defendant skulking around on the night of the 17th--and he believes his testimony with all his heart--but his memory is a figment of suggestion. My point here isn't that investigations couldn't be more vigorous, or shouldn't be more vigorous. Rather, it's that I don't think the vigor of investigations can be intensified too greatly before we'd start to see significant repercussions in terms of false testimony and bad assumptions about contradictory testimony. There's only so much you can reliably "squeeze" out of people's memories. There's only so much you can "squeeze" out of contradictory testimony. When pushing for that higher standard, we have to be mindful of this. Unfortunately, I suspect that even with the maximum possible "squeezing", most accused rapists would still walk away. Rape is a very insidious crime in that respect.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 9, 2015 15:24:41 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure you would remember very clearly whether you had sex with someone who was not your wife. Unless you were black out drunk, and you don't strike me as the kind of guy who would drink to excess. This isn't like asking what you had for dinner that night, or what suit coat your wore. I'm talking more about the cases where DNA tests prove the identify of the guy, but the guy claims the woman was a willing partner. I think a lot of times, if there was a party, or drinking was involved, or the woman let the guy into her apartment, the police don't investigate much, because they think the woman was 'asking' for it, or leading the guy on, or sending mixed messages. With some investigation, it ought to be possible, in most cases, to determine who is more credible, but I don't think the police have the resources or want to spend the time investigating these kinds of incidents.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 9, 2015 17:52:19 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure you would remember very clearly whether you had sex with someone who was not your wife. Unless you were black out drunk, and you don't strike me as the kind of guy who would drink to excess. This isn't like asking what you had for dinner that night, or what suit coat your wore. I'm talking more about the cases where DNA tests prove the identify of the guy, but the guy claims the woman was a willing partner. I think a lot of times, if there was a party, or drinking was involved, or the woman let the guy into her apartment, the police don't investigate much, because they think the woman was 'asking' for it, or leading the guy on, or sending mixed messages. With some investigation, it ought to be possible, in most cases, to determine who is more credible, but I don't think the police have the resources or want to spend the time investigating these kinds of incidents. Ah. I suppose I was more worried about the scenario: Investigator: Did you sexually assault Martha McArtha on the night of three weeks ago? Virgil: Absolutely not, officer. Investigator: Where were you at 6:30 PM on Friday the 6th? Virgil: Um... Uh... Investigator: Where were you? Virgil: I- I don't know. Eating chicken? Investigator: A-ha! Lies! We have you here on video eating... a burger! Made of beef! Not chicken! Virgil: Yes. Yes, I remember now. It was beef. Investigator: *scribble* ... accused... initially... uncooperative. Lied... to... interrogating... officer. Changed... story... when... pressured...
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Apr 9, 2015 18:18:47 GMT -5
This is absolutely not the case, as anybody with any law enforcement experience will tell you. I don't mean "I have a sister who has a friend who has a brother who is a cop". I mean real experience. Sure. That may happen once in awhile, but my real life hands on experience tells me it's rare. A lot of times, if there is a party and everybody is drinking and a woman reports she was raped, it's going to be a "he said-she said" type of situation. That's pretty darn impossible to prove in a court of law. It has nothing to do with anybody thinking she asked for it. It has to do with what is provable and what is not. You can investigate and use every resource available and you will still have nothing but one person's word against another. That's just the way it is. As for determining credibility...sure....there are feelings about who is telling the truth and who isn't. Feelings aren't evidence.
Let's all pretend we have a son/daughter. Would you want your son/daughter convicted of rape on somebody's say-so alone or would you want there to be some actual evidence of a crime? I know I'd want more. It isn't a case of judges thinking "boys will be boys" either. I know a whole lot of judges and not one single one of them would ever think anything like that. Not ever. This may happen where other people live and if it does, I'd move the hell out of there as quickly as I could.
Rape is difficult to prove in the best of situations. In the worst of them, it's darn near impossible. It's what our legal system is founded on - innocent until proven guilty. And yes. A lot of rapists get away with it. There is no question about that and it makes me mad as I can be - but not at law enforcement and judges. You'll find bad apples among them but most of them have sons/daughters and would do whatever was in their power to put a rapist away.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 10, 2015 7:06:24 GMT -5
Wow, you're very powerful if you can read judges minds like that, and kind of astonishing that you don't know any, any at all that are less than zealous in trying to prosecute cases they consider to be dogs.
My DH works in the court system, too. He knows a lot of judges and lawyers and DA's, and he tells me, like other human beings, some of them are very good at what they do, and some of them are pretty shitty. And DH says there is still an 'old boy's network at work, which tends to make some of the DA's and cops less than zealous in trying to prosecute rapes. The 'boys will be boys' thing, or maybe a reluctance to spend time on cases that are dogs, or both.
I think with a little bit of investigation, a lot of them would fall apart, just like this Jackie's story did - and then we can eliminate the false claims and prosecute those that did the crimes. No we can't resolve every rape claim, but maybe we can get to the point where women would be more willing to report them because they would be more confident they would be taken seriously.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 10, 2015 7:21:02 GMT -5
No - that would truly be a nightmare scenario! I can't remember what I ate last night, let alone last week..
I agree with you that witness testimony is shockingly poor and police tactics can lead to false confessions, especially with mentally challenged or young offenders, so I wouldn't want to hang a case on that kind of evidence.
But like in Jackie's case - she claimed she was raped at a party on a night that the frat wasn't having a party, and that she had been raped by men who weren't members of the frat at that time. There were so many holes, if the reporter had only done a little fact checking, she would have realized the story didn't hold together, and that would have thrown everything Jackie said into question.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Apr 10, 2015 7:21:21 GMT -5
I don't have to read their minds. I directly witness them handing down their decisions. Every day. I hear what they have to say. I watch them in action. Judges don't prosecute cases so no, I don't know any that "are less than zealous in trying to prosecute cases they consider to be dogs".
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,472
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 10, 2015 8:01:31 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2015 13:26:02 GMT -5
No - that would truly be a nightmare scenario! I can't remember what I ate last night, let alone last week.. I agree with you that witness testimony is shockingly poor and police tactics can lead to false confessions, especially with mentally challenged or young offenders, so I wouldn't want to hang a case on that kind of evidence. But like in Jackie's case - she claimed she was raped at a party on a night that the frat wasn't having a party, and that she had been raped by men who weren't members of the frat at that time. There were so many holes, if the reporter had only done a little fact checking, she would have realized the story didn't hold together, and that would have thrown everything Jackie said into question. From what I can gather, the reporter was deathly afraid of inadvertently "blaming the victim". "Jackie" may well have provided her with noncommittal answers, feigned a fragile state of mind, and convinced her that pushing her too hard or coming back to clarify "misunderstandings" would be seen as a profound and hurtful betrayal. In this particular case, the lie was so poorly contrived that the reporter still should have caught it. More generally, however, we have to accept that in today's climate of worry about making victims feel guilty and persecuted, these reporters are almost certainly going to refrain from their usual rigor in validating/debunking accusations.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 10, 2015 15:21:07 GMT -5
I would agree that this particular reporter thought she should handle the victim gently because she thought Jackie was fragile.
However, GOOD investigative reporters would not have published a story that they hadn't fact checked.
Even if this reporter wanted to treat Jackie with kid gloves initially, she could have gone to other sources to verify what Jackie claimed. The frat could verify if there were parties on the nights that Jackie claimed she was there at a party, and if the men Jackie claimed were there were actually there (apparently some weren't members at the time Jackie claimed she saw them). The holes would have been pretty easy to spot, without confronting Jackie, at least not initially.
Once she realized the story wasn't holding water, she could have either decided to question Jackie a little harder, or simply dropped the story completely because it was too flimsy.
This reporter failed to do even a halfway decent job, but I wouldn't tar all reporters with the same sloppy brush. I don't think most mainstream investigative reporters have fallen victim to some 'victim coddling' mentality. And hopefully the public disgrace being heaped on this particular reporter will be a good warning to everyone who wants to be considered legitimate investigative reporters.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 10, 2015 15:43:14 GMT -5
This reporter failed to do even a halfway decent job, but I wouldn't tar all reporters with the same sloppy brush. I don't think most mainstream investigative reporters have fallen victim to some 'victim coddling' mentality. And hopefully the public disgrace being heaped on this particular reporter will be a good warning to everyone who wants to be considered legitimate investigative reporters. I don't know how pervasive the problem might be. I do know a reporter will bleed if they push too hard and the public perceives them as persecuting the (potential) victim.
|
|