djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2015 18:07:13 GMT -5
the reason i ask is that it explains a LOT of interactions i have with women. i wouldn't hurt a fly, but they seem genuinely scared. i always figured that it was something I was doing, but this OTHER explanation makes a lot more sense. It's a real shame it has to be this way. There are a lot of guys just like you, dj, who wouldn't hurt anyone. They're decent, caring, thoughtful people. However, when you look at the number 1 in 6 and realize that's only the tip of the iceberg since many attempts, and even completed rapes, aren't reported, you begin to see the real depth of the problem. That, coupled with the realization that women do talk to one another (especially after the initial trauma eases and they feel more able to do so), gives you good insight into why you sense that fear. It's real. yep. if you are "lucky" enough to not be the 1 in six, you sure as hell know someone who was NOT as "fortunate". jesus. this problem is so pervasive it is utterly sickening.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:08:03 GMT -5
You misunderstand me. I would believe her absent any denial of the neighbor. But once we get into "he said / she said", proof wins out. My whole family believes that. What would you tell her? That you can't believe her because her neighbor denies it? Does reputation of someone mean nothing? I mean if someone has never lied and the other has lied to you many times, you still need proof? I'd say "he says he didn't" That's all I'd have to say, because then she'd offer up the proof.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:16:41 GMT -5
What would you tell her? That you can't believe her because her neighbor denies it? Does reputation of someone mean nothing? I mean if someone has never lied and the other has lied to you many times, you still need proof? I'd say "he says he didn't" That's all I'd have to say, because then she'd offer up the proof. You do realize there often isn't proof? If you told me what you ate for dinner last sunday, could you prove it? Are you under the impression that if the rape victims are telling the truth, they would have truth?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:31:49 GMT -5
I'd say "he says he didn't" That's all I'd have to say, because then she'd offer up the proof. You do realize there often isn't proof? If you told me what you ate for dinner last sunday, could you prove it? Are you under the impression that if the rape victims are telling the truth, they would have truth? You asked about how it would go if my Mother made an accusation. This is what I am answering. If there is no proof, my Mother would never make an accusation. PROOF is the standard our family lives by.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:34:02 GMT -5
You do realize there often isn't proof? If you told me what you ate for dinner last sunday, could you prove it? Are you under the impression that if the rape victims are telling the truth, they would have truth? You asked about how it would go if my Mother made an accusation. This is what I am answering. If there is no proof, my Mother would never make an accusation. PROOF is the standard our family lives by. That seems odd to me, but okay.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:43:21 GMT -5
You asked about how it would go if my Mother made an accusation. This is what I am answering. If there is no proof, my Mother would never make an accusation. PROOF is the standard our family lives by. That seems odd to me, but okay. Taking the word of one person (or many people) over the word of another without proof seems odd to me.
|
|
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 Jul 9, 2015 19:46:10 GMT -5
Virgil, earlier you said you had strong views on the subject. I believe you. So how can you "guarantee" what someone who has no preconceived notions will take away from the posts on the actual reporting procedure? You're no better able to judge that than anyone on the other side of the argument. And since 100 people can read something and each view it differently, I would find it very unlikely that everyone reading would come away with the same thoughts, even if "everyone" had no prior experience with or knowledge of the rape reporting process. Because it's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the testimonials in this thread. I don't have time to compile all of the statements one by one, but briefly summarizing the consensus: - rape is horrific; emotional breakdowns, suicidal thoughts, paralysis (i.e. inability to function) are normal and expected reactions
- undergoing testing for rape is horrific; the testing is humiliating, traumatizing, and tantamount to "being raped again"
- there is absolutely no civic/moral obligation to accuse a rapist; indeed we should acknowledge that victims are mentally/emotionally incapable of making such accusations immediately following a rape
- because there is no civic/moral obligation to accuse a rapist, such accusations must be motivated by a desire for justice (i.e. punishment for the crime), but justice is rare, unsatisfying, and comes at an extraordinary cost
- in the event that a rape accusation goes as far as a trial, the victim is disbelieved, prosecuted, stigmatized, and forced to relive the rape; the process is hellish
- in the likely event that rape charges are dismissed, the victim is generally assumed to be lying and is regarded with utter contempt by the public, the neighbourhood, and even family
- in the unlikely event that a rape charge leads to a rape conviction, the process is futile anyway; there will always be more rapists waiting to fill in the void, preying on helpless women
- one cannot emphasize enough how antipathetic the criminal justice system is in its treatment of rape claimants
Pick any one of these categories and I can point out the myriad statements in this discussion supporting it. I don't know why you think a halfway reasonable individual could absorb all of this and come away with the conclusion, "If I'm raped, I'm going to report the bastard.", but I'm willing to go on record guaranteeing precisely the opposite. You've just presented the most persuasive case ever conceived by man for not reporting rape. I don't think that was your intent. It's simply the logical culmination of your arguments. Call it "acknowledging the reality", "understanding the victims", "recognizing the barriers", "learned cynicism", or whatever you prefer, that is your consistent, unambiguous message to the world here. Perhaps 100 different people will walk away with 100 different things, but if they're truly objective "blank slates", they're halfway logical, and they believe even a tenth of what's been said, that message is they're going to walk away with. That's what I'm willing to guarantee.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:50:46 GMT -5
That seems odd to me, but okay. Taking the word of one person (or many people) over the word of another without proof seems odd to me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justificationOften there are compelling reasons to believe something that come short of proof. I could tell you that Virgil is a 89 year old woman contrary to what he says. I do not think he has ever proven he was a man. It would be silly of you to give equal merit to what we both claim to be true.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:56:17 GMT -5
Taking the word of one person (or many people) over the word of another without proof seems odd to me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justificationOften there are compelling reasons to believe something that come short of proof. I could tell you that Virgil is a 89 year old woman contrary to what he says. I do not think he has ever proven he was a man. It would be silly of you to give equal merit to what we both claim to be true. In a case like that, I wouldn't "give equal merit"... I'd give "equal skepticism". The point is neither side would "win" without PROOF (why is "proof is required before an accusation will be believed, over the accused's protestations to the contrary" such a hard concept for some?)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 20:08:00 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justificationOften there are compelling reasons to believe something that come short of proof. I could tell you that Virgil is a 89 year old woman contrary to what he says. I do not think he has ever proven he was a man. It would be silly of you to give equal merit to what we both claim to be true. In a case like that, I wouldn't "give equal merit"... I'd give "equal skepticism". The point is neither side would "win" without PROOF (why is "proof is required before an accusation will be believed, over the accused's protestations to the contrary" such a hard concept for some?) Because it doesn't meet common sense. Often there can never be proof. If ten people saw Cosby rape some woman and were to testify that, it would be not good enough for you. So you have to discount eyewitness testimony. If a forensics expert testifies, just say he is lying, poof he is not believable unless you can perform the forensics yourself to your satisfaction. It is just a crazy standard for justification.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 20:18:55 GMT -5
Taking the word of one person (or many people) over the word of another without proof seems odd to me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justificationOften there are compelling reasons to believe something that come short of proof. I could tell you that Virgil is a 89 year old woman contrary to what he says. I do not think he has ever proven he was a man. It would be silly of you to give equal merit to what we both claim to be true. the only reason that Later bloomer liked this is because she is an 89 year old man and enjoyed the lie about Virgil .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 20:23:39 GMT -5
LOL @hickle Richard's family would be very easy to scam and take advantage of. Even a court of law accepts circumstantial evidence and character witnesses.
|
|
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 Jul 9, 2015 20:37:41 GMT -5
Virgil, earlier you said you had strong views on the subject. I believe you. So how can you "guarantee" what someone who has no preconceived notions will take away from the posts on the actual reporting procedure? You're no better able to judge that than anyone on the other side of the argument. And since 100 people can read something and each view it differently, I would find it very unlikely that everyone reading would come away with the same thoughts, even if "everyone" had no prior experience with or knowledge of the rape reporting process. Because it's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the testimonials in this thread. I don't have time to compile all of the statements one by one, but briefly summarizing the consensus: - rape is horrific; emotional breakdowns, suicidal thoughts, paralysis (i.e. inability to function) are normal and expected reactions
- undergoing testing for rape is horrific; the testing is humiliating, traumatizing, and tantamount to "being raped again"
- there is absolutely no civic/moral obligation to accuse a rapist; indeed we should acknowledge that victims are mentally/emotionally incapable of making such accusations immediately following a rape
- because there is no civic/moral obligation to accuse a rapist, such accusations must be motivated by a desire for justice (i.e. punishment for the crime), but justice is rare, unsatisfying, and comes at an extraordinary cost
- in the event that a rape accusation goes as far as a trial, the victim is disbelieved, prosecuted, stigmatized, and forced to relive the rape; the process is hellish
- in the likely event that rape charges are dismissed, the victim is generally assumed to be lying and is regarded with utter contempt by the public, the neighbourhood, and even family
- in the unlikely event that a rape charge leads to a rape conviction, the process is futile anyway; there will always be more rapists waiting to fill in the void, preying on helpless women
- one cannot emphasize enough how antipathetic the criminal justice system is in its treatment of rape claimants
Pick any one of these categories and I can point out the myriad statements in this discussion supporting it. I don't know why you think a halfway reasonable individual could absorb all of this and come away with the conclusion, "If I'm raped, I'm going to report the bastard.", but I'm willing to go on record guaranteeing precisely the opposite. You've just presented the most persuasive case ever conceived by man for not reporting rape. I don't think that was your intent. It's simply the logical culmination of your arguments. Call it "acknowledging the reality", "understanding the victims", "recognizing the barriers", "learned cynicism", or whatever you prefer, that is your consistent, unambiguous message to the world here. Perhaps 100 different people will walk away with 100 different things, but if they're truly objective "blank slates", they're halfway logical, and they believe even a tenth of what's been said, that message is they're going to walk away with. That's what I'm willing to guarantee.
So what is your point? Am I to infer that you are afraid someone will read this and not report a rape? Is that your whole issue with this discussion? I hope that doesn't happen, but if it should, you can add that one person to the very long list of unreported rapes by people who do not read this board. People don't have to have read this board to know the things said here are true.
People have given you personal testimonials here. I think you understand what's being said but don't accept what they are saying as justification for not doing what you feel is the "right thing". I get that. I'm hearing you question how we can ever, as a society, eliminate this horrific crime if we don't cut off the snake's head, so to speak. I'm not saying that failure to report a rape is the "right" thing to do. I'm just saying I understand why some choose not to. You don't. You aren't alone.
|
|
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 Jul 9, 2015 20:51:04 GMT -5
Taking the word of one person (or many people) over the word of another without proof seems odd to me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justificationOften there are compelling reasons to believe something that come short of proof. I could tell you that Virgil is a 89 year old woman contrary to what he says. I do not think he has ever proven he was a man. It would be silly of you to give equal merit to what we both claim to be true. You know not what you wish for. If I was an 89-year-old woman, the board dynamics would be all topsy-turvy. You can't throw an 89-year-old woman's arguments into the crapper simply by saying, "Bah! You're a young, naive man living in your man bubble, and your arguments can't possibly be relevant for women, so away with you." My ideal persona would be an 89-year-old, male-to-female transgendered, interracial (but mostly black) quadriplegic Holocaust survivor, and I'd insinuate myself into as many visible minorities as could possibly be believed. My arguments on every conceivable contentious social issue (even racism!) would be non-auto-dismissable, and my personal anecdotes would be so unassailable that the moment I posted one, my opponents would instantly abandon their positions rather than risk being perceived as insensitive or prosecutorial. Life would be good.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 21:03:18 GMT -5
In a case like that, I wouldn't "give equal merit"... I'd give "equal skepticism". The point is neither side would "win" without PROOF (why is "proof is required before an accusation will be believed, over the accused's protestations to the contrary" such a hard concept for some?) Because it doesn't meet common sense. Often there can never be proof. If ten people saw Cosby rape some woman and were to testify that, it would be not good enough for you. So you have to discount eyewitness testimony. If a forensics expert testifies, just say he is lying, poof he is not believable unless you can perform the forensics yourself to your satisfaction. It is just a crazy standard for justification. If a forensics expert is testifying, he will have proof... otherwise why would he be testifying? What would he be giving his FORENSICS expertise on? Unless you are saying the forensics expert's testimony would be limited to: It meets common sense perfectly. It just doesn't match what you were taught.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 21:06:10 GMT -5
LOL @hickle Richard's family would be very easy to scam and take advantage of. Even a court of law accepts circumstantial evidence and character witnesses. Actually... without proof we'd be harder to scam. But you don't believe in facts anyway... so... whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 21:09:58 GMT -5
LOL @hickle Richard's family would be very easy to scam and take advantage of. Even a court of law accepts circumstantial evidence and character witnesses. Actually... without proof we'd be harder to scam. But you don't believe in facts anyway... so... whatever. People can steal your money or destroy your property or rape family members and if they don't leave clear cut evidence (what exactly would be evidence btw?) they are walking away cause you would never accuse them without it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 21:18:48 GMT -5
Actually... without proof we'd be harder to scam. But you don't believe in facts anyway... so... whatever. People can steal your money or destroy your property or rape family members and if they don't leave clear cut evidence (what exactly would be evidence btw?) they are walking away cause you would never accuse them without it. If they steal the money there would be proof. (they'd have to do it electronically because we don't carry cash) If they destroy our property there would be proof of at least the destruction. (the destroyed property itself) If they rape a family member there would be proof (of at least the rape, even if there was no DNA or prints or anything pointing towards a specific person) In the rare instance that there wasn't proof enough to point it to a specific person or group, we WOULD NOT MAKE THE ACCUSATION THAT A SPECIFIC PERSON DID IT. Not making the accusation doesn't mean someone didn't do a "bad thing"... it just means we know it cannot be proven. There's a difference between saying "we were robbed" and "we were robbed by laterbloomer". If we couldn't provide proof it was laterbloomer, we would never say laterbloomer did it. ETA: Oh... and our PROOF requirement goes both ways... that's why we are harder to SCAM... you have to prove your assertion... not just give us the con-job script.
|
|
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 Jul 9, 2015 21:25:08 GMT -5
So what is your point? Am I to infer that you are afraid someone will read this and not report a rape? Is that your whole issue with this discussion? I hope that doesn't happen, but if it should, you can add that one person to the very long list of unreported rapes by people who do not read this board. People don't have to have read this board to know the things said here are true.
People have given you personal testimonials here. I think you understand what's being said but don't accept what they are saying as justification for not doing what you feel is the "right thing". I get that. I'm hearing you question how we can ever, as a society, eliminate this horrific crime if we don't cut off the snake's head, so to speak. I'm not saying that failure to report a rape is the "right" thing to do. I'm just saying I understand why some choose not to. You don't. You aren't alone.
I'm simply justifying to Mid what I believe the takeaway from the discussion will be. The engineer in me wants the discussion to have a purpose. Something where people, especially women, can walk away from the thread feeling more convicted to fight rather than resigned to helplessness and hopelessness. As I said earlier, my biggest problem post-rape would the desire to take an axe to a guy who raped me. Assuming I limited myself to simply reporting him, I guarantee you the decision wouldn't hinge on whether law enforcement believed me or believed I deserved it. Not reporting it simply would not be an option. Outside of emphasizing the importance of truth and civic responsibility, I'm at a loss on how to convey that zeal to others. It's not about chiding a 17-year-old woman, "Why didn't you act in the same way as a 33-year-old man?", because you've very capably enumerated the 10,000 reasons why a 17-year-old woman wouldn't act the same way as Virgil the enraged ape. But ideally there should still be a standard we set out, saying, "Prepare yourself here and now: Should the unthinkable come to pass, if it's at all within your capability to report the crime afterward, resolve to do it. It won't be easy and you may not obtain justice, but it's the right thing to do. Consider it your duty." I gather your viewpoint is more, "Report it if you want to. It really doesn't matter, and it definitely isn't a responsibility." Perhaps you're right, but I just can't conceive of how that viewpoint can improve things.
|
|
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 Jul 9, 2015 21:57:30 GMT -5
That's not entirely accurate. I've stated that reporting does matter...for a couple of reasons. I've stated it gives some women closure...or more specifically, a feeling a safety to know their tormenter is locked away, if that happens to occur (or at least that they've done all they can to that end). We might get really lucky and it actually stops a rapist from repeating his crime. As far as it being a responsibility, I do believe we all have a responsibility to report crimes when they occur. All I've stated, over and over again, is that I understand if they don't. If I've not made that clear, that's on me. I've not once said that failing to report is the right thing to do....only that I understand if they don't.
|
|
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 Jul 10, 2015 1:34:03 GMT -5
I've not once said that failing to report is the right thing to do....only that I understand if they don't. Fair enough.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 5:06:28 GMT -5
Because it doesn't meet common sense. Often there can never be proof. If ten people saw Cosby rape some woman and were to testify that, it would be not good enough for you. So you have to discount eyewitness testimony. If a forensics expert testifies, just say he is lying, poof he is not believable unless you can perform the forensics yourself to your satisfaction. It is just a crazy standard for justification. If a forensics expert is testifying, he will have proof... otherwise why would he be testifying? What would he be giving his FORENSICS expertise on? Unless you are saying the forensics expert's testimony would be limited to: It meets common sense perfectly. It just doesn't match what you were taught. he can say there is proof, but all a person has to do is say he is lying and then what? Either you take his word that he is telling the truth or you don't. you are the one who will not accept a person at his word. Forensics experts lie all. Google it. If you can not do the experiment yourself to verify then how can you take his word any more then the people claiming rape?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 5:25:50 GMT -5
If a forensics expert is testifying, he will have proof... otherwise why would he be testifying? What would he be giving his FORENSICS expertise on? Unless you are saying the forensics expert's testimony would be limited to: It meets common sense perfectly. It just doesn't match what you were taught. he can say there is proof, but all a person has to do is say he is lying and then what? Either you take his word that he is telling the truth or you don't. you are the one who will not accept a person at his word. Forensics experts lie all. Google it. If you can not do the experiment yourself to verify then how can you take his word any more then the people claiming rape? And without actual proof to be presented, his lie would be discovered. That's why PROOF is "the gold standard".
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jul 10, 2015 8:42:43 GMT -5
Yea, well some people don't understand why it's so under-reported. And in some ways I'm truly grateful there are pockets of innocence left out there. At least that's what I'll call it. Some people can count on the support of their friends and family, others can't. So you do the best you can with yourself. When I finally told my mother her response was that I shouldn't have been at the party. In group counseling I discovered it was not uncommon for friends and family to find ways the victim should have been able to avoid it. Not quite blame but... And to this day I still hate using the term "victim" or "survivor" when referring to myself. The thing is there will always be predators out there. I don't know what is worse, being prey or learning how to think like a predator. not to be clueless again, but is that the way MOST women live? with the idea that ANY man out there could be a perp? It is one thing to be aware you may be prey. Yet we play mind games, convince ourselves that we can find a way out of anything. It is entirely another to have the knowledge that you (and this applies to men as well) can be put in a position where someone else has absolute power over you, hurt you, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Then you know you are prey. I've had male co-workers tell me I've got the biggest set on anyone they've seen. I've been in all out screaming matches with dudes who have over a foot and 50 pounds on me and they've been the one to back down. I am not easily intimidated. I don't give up and I would fight back. Now imagine me (or anyone) being unable to defend themselves and being put in a position where they are totally helpless. Hopefully you don't know the feeling and I honestly hope you never do. You can't imagine some things until you've lived them. There is a huge difference between an idea and reality. 30 fucking years later and my gut still clenches up when I think about this. I want to take my daughter and put her in a cocoon but I know that's not healthy. So I have to teach her as best I can and hope she's never targeted. I have no illusions, if she is targeted chances are that bad things will happen. So no, there is a huge difference between theory and reality.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 10, 2015 8:52:54 GMT -5
"Proof" is a pretty broad term. What really constitutes proof? Sometimes a forensics expert will be able to testify only that there was rape... not who did it. Then other witnesses may testify that they saw the rapist take the victim into a dark room, saw her leave crying, etc., and that can be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is the culmination of evidence "proof" to you, or does it all need to come from the forensics expert through physical evidence?
And many rapists will admit to having sex with the victim, but argue that it was consensual. If the victim didn't do much fighting (or was roofied), there's probably not going to be any physical evidence that it was rape vs. consensual sex. Are you saying those cases shouldn't be prosecuted?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jul 10, 2015 9:03:09 GMT -5
So what is your point? Am I to infer that you are afraid someone will read this and not report a rape? Is that your whole issue with this discussion? I hope that doesn't happen, but if it should, you can add that one person to the very long list of unreported rapes by people who do not read this board. People don't have to have read this board to know the things said here are true.
People have given you personal testimonials here. I think you understand what's being said but don't accept what they are saying as justification for not doing what you feel is the "right thing". I get that. I'm hearing you question how we can ever, as a society, eliminate this horrific crime if we don't cut off the snake's head, so to speak. I'm not saying that failure to report a rape is the "right" thing to do. I'm just saying I understand why some choose not to. You don't. You aren't alone.
I'm simply justifying to Mid what I believe the takeaway from the discussion will be. The engineer in me wants the discussion to have a purpose. Something where people, especially women, can walk away from the thread feeling more convicted to fight rather than resigned to helplessness and hopelessness. Why do you think there are some of us discussing an intensely personal subject? This is extremely uncomfortable for me but part of the problem is society is not comfortable discussing this. I had three different sets of people telling me not to do anything when I sought advice, and I assure you that a lot of people don't even go that far because of the messages society presents. You're earlier post (and honestly vonna's bravery in going first) is what spurred me to discuss it just so if someone did read this thread they would come away with a better message than did I.As I said earlier, my biggest problem post-rape would the desire to take an axe to a guy who raped me. Assuming I limited myself to simply reporting him, I guarantee you the decision wouldn't hinge on whether law enforcement believed me or believed I deserved it. Not reporting it simply would not be an option. Outside of emphasizing the importance of truth and civic responsibility, I'm at a loss on how to convey that zeal to others. That's because you're a man and you think like a man. The genders are wired differently (not always, but in general). It's not right or wrong, it just is. To this day I absolutely hate the fact that I didn't report. My only solace is that campus security was aware and had eyes on the guy/fraternity. It's not about chiding a 17-year-old woman, "Why didn't you act in the same way as a 33-year-old man?", because you've very capably enumerated the 10,000 reasons why a 17-year-old woman wouldn't act the same way as Virgil the enraged ape. But ideally there should still be a standard we set out, saying, "Prepare yourself here and now: Should the unthinkable come to pass, if it's at all within your capability to report the crime afterward, resolve to do it. It won't be easy and you may not obtain justice, but it's the right thing to do. Consider it your duty." I gather your viewpoint is more, "Report it if you want to. It really doesn't matter, and it definitely isn't a responsibility." Perhaps you're right, but I just can't conceive of how that viewpoint can improve things. You're wrong, reporting is a responsibility and it matters greatly. But, BUT if you can't handle the (clearly outlined here in great detail) process while dealing with the emotional aftermath then you should understand that NO ONE will judge you for doing whatever you had to, in order to keep your sanity.I don't know how to say this without sounding condenscending but please understand that is not my intention. Your responses and statements to me demonstrate a lack of experience (note I don't say knowledge) that indicates there are still pockets of innocence or at least, lack of certain understandings out there. In some ways this does give me hope because I really don't want to live in a world where everyone understands the reasons why someone would choose to not do their duty.
|
|
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 Jul 10, 2015 11:37:18 GMT -5
I don't know how to say this without sounding condenscending but please understand that is not my intention. Your responses and statements to me demonstrate a lack of experience (note I don't say knowledge) that indicates there are still pockets of innocence or at least, lack of certain understandings out there. In some ways this does give me hope because I really don't want to live in a world where everyone understands the reasons why someone would choose to not do their duty. I can't well deny that I lack experience. My only "experiences" with it are others conveying their experiences to me, both in person and online, and I know of only two (out of ten) who reported the crime. Hence, if anything, my "experience" backs up the consensus here: that reporting rape is far more easily said than done, especially for women. Your post, and GEL's latest post, give me hope that you do consider reporting to be a responsibility, in the sense that you would convey the importance of it to a rape victim who came to you for advice. Obviously if you felt that reporting the crime would lead to a complete mental breakdown for the victim, your advice should be "don't do it". But barring that, I really do believe it to be an obligation. That's what I'm trying to convey, without trivializing others' observations that doing the right thing is extraordinarily difficult in such cases.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 16:41:13 GMT -5
"Proof" is a pretty broad term.(1) What really constitutes proof? Sometimes a forensics expert will be able to testify only that there was rape... not who did it.(2) Then other witnesses may testify that they saw the rapist take the victim into a dark room, saw her leave crying, etc., and that can be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.(3) Is the culmination of evidence "proof" to you, or does it all need to come from the forensics expert through physical evidence?(4) And many rapists will admit to having sex with the victim, but argue that it was consensual. If the victim didn't do much fighting (or was roofied{5}), there's probably not going to be any physical evidence that it was rape vs. consensual sex. Are you saying those cases shouldn't be prosecuted?(6) (1) No, it's not. Proof is anything that proves something. (2) No argument. But... don't point the finger at a specific someone just because {event} happened. Wait until there's proof that the specific someone was involved. (3) No, it can't be. There could be dozens of reasons why she is seen crying later... including making it up (remember the false accusation of the Duke Lacrosse team?). If you didn't witness the act itself, your testimony is worthless as proof. (4) video or stills of the criminal in the act, or a confession by the criminal would also suffice. Numerous eye-witnesses to the actual crime itself (not witnesses of how someone looked later) would also not hurt. (5) Roofies can be tested for IF the person goes to the hospital IMMEDIATELY. (6) If there's no proof... no they shouldn't be prosecuted. Sorry. It sucks... but... "he said / she said" is not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Proof would change "he said / she said" into "she said, and could back it up".
|
|
toomuchreality
Senior Associate
Joined: Sept 3, 2011 10:28:25 GMT -5
Posts: 15,652
Favorite Drink: Sometimes I drink water... just to surprise my liver!
Member is Online
|
Post by toomuchreality on Jul 14, 2015 5:11:41 GMT -5
Wow. Through tears, I just read through this thread. I get what you're saying Virgil. Really, I do. And to some degree I agree with you. However, I caution you, to not push too hard. Some of those people reading this thread, very well may need that nudge, in order to feel strong enough to report what happened. Some may need to hear what you've said, to make them realize things they hadn't considered, due to their state of mind. Yet there will also be those that really are just barely still with us. For whom all it will take is one statement, or one sentence. Maybe one more person finding fault with what they did- the choices they made, and they are gone. I don't think any of us here, want to be the person that did that. (((group hug))) -Individual hugs to those not up for the group thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 23:06:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 21:04:18 GMT -5
|
|