Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
In the end we need to remember that our system of justice is structured the way it is for a reason. The accuser is granted the benefit of the doubt, but the accused is given a chance to defend themselves in court.
Most of us aren't out to "score" using tricks, drugs, money or subterfuge.
We are constantly probing for The Rules.
And The Rules obviously change, all the time.
@5) True, but I'm pretty sure that Mr. Oberst is not nearly at that level of wealth and/or influence.
If only. In modern America, unless you have wealth, there really isn't such a system is there.
Any interaction with our so called "justice system", regardless of your guilt or innocence, is bound to ruin you emotionally or financially.
Or both.
Except that nothing in @4's comment equivicated the two. Just that both were harming women who are the victims of sexual assault. And that seems pretty undeniably true, no?
There, that's all it takes.
Now give me my automatic presumption of telling the truth and burn them at the stake. ;)
@15) I was out of town that day.
Let a court decide. This is where some feminists and I part company.
Don't be fooled. Some of your heroes are dirtbags; the people you'd like to help the most might not care to be helped. There are villains everywhere, on the other side of the line and in your corner.
OF COURSE there are false accusations of rape. There are false accusations of everything. And maybe they happen because someone wants to hurt someone else, or maybe they want attention for themselves, or maybe they have agreed that it's OK to sacrifice someone else for the greater good. There are a million reasons why it happens.
To be fair, if you read the entire article from which the quote about "crushingly disappointing" was taken, it is pretty clear that the writer is crushingly disappointed in the behavior of the false accuser and its fallout among actual victims of rape -- not disappointed that Oberst was cleared of wrongdoing.
It takes a special brand of wrongheaded to be crushingly disppointed that a rape didn't in fact occur. Apparently only slightly less wrongheaded to be disappointed that the falsely accused wasn't nailed to the wall despite being innocent, as the exceedingly stupid writer of the Daily Dot article -- who is bound and determined to find fault on the part of the accused, because rape -- did.
The news that Fairclothâs accusations are false is crushingly disappointing. Itâs been said before, but it bears repeating: false rape accusations are incredibly harmful to rape victims. They make it easier for real rape victims to be disbelieved. And having such a high-profile case of a false rape accusation only gives more ammunition to those who want to discredit all rape victims.
So Pate would prefer that a woman was raped instead of being caught falsely accusing. That's problematic, to say the least. "Fucked up," is also a reasonable description of that attitude.
You should do better before telling others to.
Women get raped all the time. That is not a preference, it's an observation. This example of a completely fabricated allegation against Oberst is going to hurt the chances for justice of these women who have been raped in actuality. I don't see how that translates to "Pate would prefer that a woman was raped instead of being caught falsely accusing." I'm pretty sure that Pate would prefer that a woman was NOT raped in the first place.
"Itâs already difficult for rape victims to come forward. Theyâre often disbelieved or harassed. So those who later reveal that their accusation was false receive that same kind of anger and scorn, tenfold. Creating a safer space for people to retract their statements is nearly as important as creating safe space for actual rape victims. Itâs incredibly wrong for people to give false rape accusations in the first place, but making it easier for people to retract false accusations can stop more damage from being done to all parties involved. "
Making it easier to for people to retract false allegations will make it easier for people to MAKE false allegations, because they know they can retract them with impunity later, and pretend no damage was done. That's patently false. Try telling someone who has been dragged through the court system or through the court of public opinion "no harm, no foul." The consequences for knowingly making a false allegation should be severe.
This attitude of "my case doesn't matter because it is just one case amidst a sea of something related but far bigger" is damnfoolery. Cases are prosecuted one at a time. This logic is the equivalent of saying I should decline to prosecute the guy who burglarized my house, because that leaves society free to pursue the larger issue of desperate income inequality.
And remember all women are liars and manipulators.
@32 This post sucks. This crap is why I have a hard time believing Dan when he says he's on women's side. I guess he's with us as long as we're not lying about rape, which we do as hobby.
I think the discussion is trying to determine what legitimate recourse a person has in the rare instances of false accusations.
Dealing with rape and dealing with false accusations don't have to be mutually exclusive.
This is exactly the kind of hackish bullshit misrepresentation you should except from Cathy Young, and stands as a good reminder why promoting her work as a "must read" is pretty much always a terrible idea.
"I guess he's with us as long as we're not lying about rape, which we do as hobby." (emphasis mine)
The intended message is to claim that that Dan and others are NEVER on womens' side because anyone who claims lying about rape happens AT ALL is effectively saying that women lie about rape as standard operating procedure -- in 33's words, "as [a] hobby." Hence my characterization of that argument as a straw man.
But I don't think the quote was intended to say that lying about rape is in any way a defensible practice, as if people should be on the side of those who do lie about rape.
So, @33, who on this board has said that women lie about rape as a matter of course? (Other than you?)
Hope that Professor also got sued.
This thread seems heavy with the mansplanations.
Rape is far more common than false accusations and represents a much more urgent and tragic crisis for women than false accusations do for me.
ALSO
False accusations are horrible, not only for the victim who is accused, but also because they undermine the entire movement to help protect women from this violence.
These are both true. How is this so fucking hard?
Obviously the false accusers are awful people, and I believe they should be punished. Let's not pretend though that people don't lie about all sorts of crimes all the time.
For the record, false allegations happen with every crime. But only rape gets this reaction. Maybe stop pretending this is a legitimate discussion and admit you're fucking sexist.
Obviously this woman is vile, as is anyone who accuses an innocent person of sexual assault. But I have no idea what the answer is. If we go after people like her tooth and nail, we create a profoundly nasty catch 22: any real rapist who isn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt could, if accused, punish his or her victims in a court of law for the "crime" of seeking justice. And if we think rape is underreported now...
Of course, if we do nothing, we allow people like this woman to do harm both to the victims of their false accusations and to real victims of rape.
So shitty on every possible level.
The thing is, there's no reason why they should undermine any movement to protect women from violence.
False allegations of looting don't cause people to hate looting victims and automatically disbelieve all reports of looting. False allegations of car theft don't cause people to hate people who've had their cars nicked and automatically disbelieve all car theft reports. Etc.
Sexists believe that false rape allegations undermine the entire concept of fighting rape. Because they're awful fucking people who want an excuse.
Don't be an awful fucking person by needlessly connecting these unrelated crimes.
(Not specifically aimed at @44, just the thread in general.)
But I think the bigger problem is as #45 and #48 pointed out, the belief that the actions of one liar should be allowed to undermine the cases of past and future rape victims. I mean why should one disturbed individuals actions make a completely different person in a completely different situation a liar?
We don't do this for other crimes? Why is rape the crime where someone else's actions have a say in whether or not you're believed?
I've heard of more false accusations of assault, with accompanying 'evidence'. I kind of like the idea that all contested accusers of assault, sex or otherwise, be screened for psychosis. Our judicial system could use improvement. And our mental illness screening.
All young women should tape any private encounter with a man. There's gotta be a better solution to convicting rape.
The title is totally off and defensive. And the conclusion of the mythical completely honest woman is bullshit. Everybody lies. Ill people lie about ill shit.
I think this is what underlies a lot of what's really going on here. Keep in mind that the accuser didn't go to the authorities or seek counseling. She went straight to the comments section of what she knew would be a sympathetic website.
Character assassination and some munchausen variant are usually the reasons someone bypasses the police and goes straight to slandering the other person. (It's also why these people don't want the story to get to the police, which means the number actually tried is going to be noticeably smaller.) It's an interesting social question how you remain supportive of accusers without forming a lynch mob against the accused, but this is a social question instead of a legal one.
I see a lot of hand-wringing about this possibility but no actual case studies presented showing it happens.
Any in-depth (or even surface) glance at the way rape cases are actually handled reveals the same shit every time: police mishandle/don't bother collecting evidence, smear the victim, pressure the victim into recanting, juries don't convict in what should be open and shut cases, prosecutors don't prosecute because the victim was wearing Spanx, etc.
Some states have tried to limit the damage done by traditional victim-blaming stuff, for instance by banning evidence about the victim's sexual history. This sort of reform is a good thing, and in no way changes the burden of proof placed upon the state.
So the accused is innocent until proven guilty, while the accuser is apparently guilty until proven innocent.
The number of TRUE accusations needs to increase to the point where the false ones lose their statistical significance, which wasn't all that great to begin with.
The article includes a direct reference to an accusation made by a woman who engaged in sexual activity while blacked out on alcohol. Video showed that she was conscious and functional throughout the activity.
This opens a huge can of worms about impaired responsibility and alcohol. The journalist seems to have made NO attempt to learn anything about blackouts and alcoholism. This has been consistent in every case that has hit the media.
A blacked-out individual can decide to drive, start a fight, pick up a stranger, fly a passenger jet etc. without being recognized as drunk. More typically, a blackout drunk can pour in more alcohol and incapacitate themselves.
90+% of drinkers will NEVER experience a true blackout. They'll puke or pass out without going into the twilight-zone stage. Pouring alcohol into vulnerable women is no better than dosing them with rohypnol. In fact, it may be worse. If the predators have been scouting and grooming victims, women alcoholics are being targeted for a vulnerability that most people don't share, and refuse to comprehend.
First, it enshrines in law certain concepts regarding affirmative consent, but does a shitty, vague job of defining them, in my opinion. (At least it did last time I checked the text of the proposed law, about six weeks ago.) There is enough there for a very long digression, from which I will refrain at present.
Second, it places pressure on universities not only to increase rape-awareness education (which is a very good thing), but also to step up their internal investigations. (Not so good a thing, in my opinion, as they aren't good at it, and they aren't bound to the criminal statute standards like "beyond a reasonable doubt". What they should do is refer cases more proactively to the police.)
In regards to this policy change, I think that it is not too severe to kick someone out of school if it can be proved that it is more likely than not that said person raped someone
Either he raped someone or he didn't. There is no middle ground. The correct response is a full investigation, in which he is either convicted or acquitted. If you find enough evidence to justify expelling him from school, then you should remand him to the criminal authorities.
But if you acquit someone, you don't turn around and give him just a little bit of jail, just to show you are tough on that sort of thing.
Add that on top of some very vague language in the law for what affirmative consent is supposed to be and when and how often one is supposed to ascertain it, and it adds up to a situation where enforcement is arbitrary and inconsistent. I'm a big fan of due process and clear, enforceable standards -- both of which are sadly lacking right now, often to the detriment of victims, I will freely admit; but the current efforts to address it didn't hit the mark, in my opinion.
For what it is worth, in its sexual issues training for students, UC Berkeley seems to be promoting a sensible standard of what affirmative consent means. (E.g. nonverbal positive body language such as a smile, a nod, as well as an actual verbal yes.). In the past, other schools have been less successful in that regard.
It also looks like the language of the law has been improved somewhat in the weeks since I last checked it, but it could still use some work.
I am not saying that any of these are bad things. But they do make false allegations of rape different from false allegations of, say, drug dealing or murder.
I'm not sure what the right way to handle these claims is. The preponderance of the evidence standard may be the right one. But what college men (mostly) face nowadays is being investigated by campus authorities; subjected to a hearing, not before a judge but before campus personnel who may be biased and/or poorly trained; and being thrown out of school without representation by a lawyer, cross-examination of the accuser, or the right to present his side of the case, based on a mere 50.01% likelihood of guilt.
This should make us pretty uncomfortable. I mean, suppose your neighbor sued you, claiming your dog bit him. But your neighbor did not have to hire a lawyer or pursue the lawsuit himself. Instead government authorities swooped in based on his word and investigated the case. Not only were you not allowed to depose him, you were ordered to vacate your house and have no contact with him until trial. At trial he testified, but you were not allowed to ask him questions. Other evidence against you was presented by anonymous written statements from his friends. You were not allowed to have a lawyer, and it was completely up to the discretion of the 'court' whether you could present any evidence. And, if you lose, you have no right to appeal.
Oh, and the consequences of losing are not just that you have to pay money, but that you must move to a different town...if you can find one that will take you, given that you will forever after be identified as someone who raises dangerous attack dogs.
Not every campus process may be this bad for the accused. But from the accounts I have read of men who are suing their universities (good for them), all these flaws are present in at least some campus systems, and some suffer from all of them.
It's not that people believe that these actions "should" undermine the cases of past and future rape victims. It is that they do undermine those cases, because they support a world view which holds that women lie about sexual abuse.
In a your word against mine situation, even with proof of bruises or sexual contact, investigation should be thorough.
If false accusation is a widespread problem like rape, men should tape their sex, as well as young women taping their private encounters with men.
Any better way to convict rapists and avoid false accusation? This solution isn't great but I can't think of another.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08…
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/03/345312997/…
You're obfuscating the issue by nitpicking my dog bite example. I specifically said "your neighbor sued you," not "animal control came after your dog." But change it to an accusation that you backed into your neighbor's car. The due process concerns are the same.
@69 I am well aware the the 8% figure refers to the FBI's "unfounded" findings. You are correct that some of those cases may be real rapes. But keep in mind that 8% is only the number that the FBI feels have been affirmatively established as unfounded (defined as a "false or baseless allegation". How many of the other cases are false, but their falsity cannot be established? We don't know. We do know that some false allegations make it all the way through the criminal justice system undetected, with the falsely accused man spending years in prison.
I fully agree that we don't have good data in this area. Feminists claim a falsity rate of 2% (unsourced). Small-scale studies by academics have found falsity rates up around the 50% mark. My best guess is that 8% is more like a floor than a ceiling. Hence my statement that "No one really knows what the rate of false allegations is, but there's good reason to believe it is 8-10% or higher."
I will point out that those links you posted don't prove anything. They just recount the uncorroborated allegations made by one angry dude who got expelled from UMass for sexual assault.
See comment #34. There is no reason for it to be mutually exclusive. A well-designed process would be rigorous about how all parties are treated. I have no idea why you would be against that.
I also have no idea why you think that daring to talk about this side of the issue means that people can't possibly give a fuck about victims' rights, either.
"If sticking up for rapists is the hill you want to die on, that's your business."
Are you even paying attention? We've been sticking up for people who AREN'T rapists. That's what "false accusation" means.
"I will point out that those links you posted don't prove anything. They just recount the uncorroborated allegations made by one angry dude who got expelled from UMass for sexual assault."
They are a pretty good narrative of a lack of due process. I'm pretty sure you aren't claiming that the process ISN'T broken currently. Most likely you also understand how a shitty process hurts victims, and you wouldn't hesitate to say that improvements in process are currently needed. Less sure why you think the improvements need to be solely to the benefit of victims, with no improvements to safeguard the accused. The aim is not simply to increase the number of convictions. If that was what was wanted, we could do away with process entirely, and expel on accusation. It's to reliably get at the actual truth.
The 2% statistic, which is similar to the rate of false accusations for other violent crimes, comes from the United States Justice Department.
Maybe you should look up Occam's Razor on Wikipedia, too.
But let's make this more simple: @15 accused you both of rape. Either your life should be ruined, or you're a liar. Which is it?
Was it this one? "Other studies have suggested that the rate of false allegations in America may be much higher. A nine-year study of a small metropolitan area in the Midwestern United States found that 41% of rape accusations were false." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#False_…
Or this one, citing studies showing rates of false reporting ranging from 1.5% all the way to 90%? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accus…
As for children : children don't lie about rape. But they can retract later, because what happened is too painful to keep on remembering. This is why children should be videotaped during their testimonies close to the crime, instead of being made to repeat the facts years later.
A guy gets accused of rape, and your (collective) response is something like "We must conduct a thorough and robust investigation, making sure that the rights of the accused are given the utmost respect. Until such investigation is complete, the accused may not suffer any consequence, or even any inconvenience (such as being forced to move) even though it might further traumatize victims to daily face, and maybe reside in the same dorm with, their attackers. Oh, and we should probably have that victim go through a mental health inquest, because bitches are crazy."
A guy (who has been expelled for sexual assault) accuses a school of inadequate due process and your thoughts are "Well, that young man certainly seems to have a reasonable and valid complaint. I'm convinced, the disciplinary procedures are obviously kangaroo courts that are biased against men. Oh, and we should ignore the fact that the justice department, having conducted an investigation, has concluded that universities are categorically failing the victims, rather than the accused."
That is some top-notch thinking there.
Rape is a bigger problem, false accusation of rape is riding on it's coattails, Dan doesn't post much about dismissing rape culture or rape prevention, that I have seen, but he does post things like this without even giving his opinions, so I'm not going to pile on his bandwagon. This thread is all infighting. The spanking thread looks like Princeton compared to this community college crap.
And children lie too.
I'd like to see mental health treated more like physical health. We have our standard annual physical with a GP, but not an annual mental with an... LPC I guess?
The relevant irrational crimes:
"I'll rape you to hurt you."
"I'll rape you because I lack human respect for women and it feels better than beating off."
"I'll rape you because I am otherwise irrational," or
"I'll accuse you to hurt you."
"I'll accuse you because I am irrational."
These are pretty ill reasons.
Checking mental illness seems appropriate to both establish guilt and rule out a frivolous/malicious suit.
I personally don't think people rape for material gain very often, although wallets might be picked through. Accusing for a payoff happens more frequently, I think. So men should stop paying off women to drop lawsuits. No one mentioned this particular simple solution.
"A front-page article in the Los Angeles Times on Dec. 7, 2013, was incorrect in reporting that Occidental College failed to disclose 27 alleged sexual assaults that occurred in 2012. [...]
Occidental representatives approached The Times early this month to seek a correction. Documents reviewed by The Times this week show that the 27 incidents did not fall under the law's disclosure requirements for a variety of reasons." http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-edito…
1. Er on the side of disbelieving somebody who's telling the truth about a terrible and traumatic thing
2. Er on the side of believing somebody who's telling a lie about a terrible and traumatic thing
I'm going with #2, because I can't live with the consequences of #1.
If you aren't lying, you need to go to jail. Right now.
#2 Err on the side of believing somebody who's telling a lie about a terrible and traumatic thing, because the consequences of
#1 Erring on the side of disbelieving somebody who's telling the truth about a terrible and traumatic thing
are too severe.
I do think that rape is of more social concern. But instead of thinking about reasonable biases, I prefer to think about improving the investigation process and standard safety advice, but mostly picking apart the cultural cliches that support rapists. Like only men need sex, or women don't like sex, or sexual conquest is a symbol of masculinity, etc. General confusion about consent, desire, mutually fun sex, and sexual fulfillment.
Because I think that if rape were treated more seriously by our culture, it would naturally follow that false accusations of rape would be treated more seriously.
#2 Err on the side of believing somebody who's telling a lie about a terrible and traumatic thing, because the consequences of
#1 Erring on the side of disbelieving somebody who's telling the truth about a terrible and traumatic thing
are too severe.
I know. I was pointing out that, given the false accusation made in #15, 84 either does not mean what they're saying, or 84 believes he or she should be sent to prison immediately. The line of thinking 84 is using depends on thinking that you will never be the person being lied about. 15 called your bluff, guys.
The question is this: Do you think we should believe 15, or do you think we should not believe 15?
@84: If the former, you're a rapist, and we should do to you what we do to convicted rapists. If the latter, then the content of #84 is false, and you know it. Choose.
Because I think that if rape were treated more seriously by our culture, it would naturally follow that false accusations of rape would be treated more seriously.
This is a pleasant thought. History doesn't support it, though. Google the word "lynching;" we've tried what you're suggesting, and it didn't end up the way you're hoping. What happens when we start taking rape "seriously" isn't that false accusations become rare, it's that--since they are now much more strongly incentivized--they become much more common, usually as a murder weapon against the powerless.
@86, oddly, I think your middle paragraph--which I'm thinking is the point you're making--basically unobjectionable, though incomplete. Also, it might be worthwhile to look up what RAINN recently said about "rape culture;" if you actually want to do something about rape, it's not enough to indulge in mythmaking.
Your lynching point is convoluted, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Apparently it's something arguing my conclusion, like "when lynching was treated more seriously by our culture, false accusations of lynching were treated less seriously."
"oddly, I think your middle paragraph ... basically unobjectionable, though incomplete."
Wow, you can create a backhanded compliment! Want a cookie? You need to work on your backhand, though, you don't say why my thoughts are incomplete so your criticism comes across as churlish.
All of you who think that proof shouldn't be required for rape accusations now have the options of either turning yourself in or admitting that you don't actually believe what you're saying.
Choose.
Your lynching point is convoluted, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Idiots who think that the world will end if rich people have to pay taxes above a couple percent in the highest bracket are failing to notice that this actually happened in the 1950s and the world didn't end. Like them, you seem unaware of the fact that there actually was a place and time where due process wasn't considered important when it comes to rape, as you'd know if you'd actually googled lynching. You guys advocate treating an accusation of rape like a conviction of rape; we tried that, and the results were horrific.
Wow, you can create a backhanded compliment! Want a cookie?
Are you an adult?
You need to work on your backhand, though, you don't say why my thoughts are incomplete so your criticism comes across as churlish.
Your thoughts assume that men are only ever perpetrators, and women are only ever victims. I omitted the explanation because it triggers a cycle of lies from people who very much want to support your assumptions, but nodded in that direction to avoid offending people who care about truth. In the real world, the victims are 50/50, and the perpetrators are 60/40, and correcting the bad ideas about sex that you're criticizing is a half measure.
Put another way: If @15 is sincere in his belief that he has been raped by @1 through @14, I would encourage him to take make a complaint to law enforcement and allow the justice system to do its work.
" You guys advocate treating an accusation of rape like a conviction of rape"
source?
"Your thoughts assume that men are only ever perpetrators, and women are only ever victims."
Yes I generally define rape as the forced penetration of a vagina with a penis, as the potential damages of pregnancy, STI transmission, internal physical damage, and future aversion to sexual contact are generally most pronounced in this extreme case. Thus we gave it it's own special name "rape". Yes all sexual assault is nasty, and sure forcing person A to give oral to person B may be more damaging than an individual case of date rape with a condom, but all these nitpicking points you could raise don't change the relative risks I mentioned.
I wasted a little time googling "RAINN" to see what you could be talking about and only found a critical article about the dangers of dismissing concern about rape culture on Slate:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201…
Which is why @89 is wrong to say "Your thoughts assume that men are only ever perpetrators, and women are only ever victims... In the real world, the victims are 50/50, and the perpetrators are 60/40."
From Sex Offenses and Offenders, by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 99.1% of convictions for rape and sexual assault were of men. For those convicted, almost 95% of the victims of rape and almost 85% of the victims of sexual assault were female.
3. Treat rape accusations seriously, investigate, while treating accused fairly and in accord with long-established principles of due process. That second part requires ending the feminist myth that women never lie about rape, which is the point of the article Dan quoted.
@90, 91, 92: You ask who is advocating automatically believing rape claims. From the article:
"Feminism is built on believing womenâs accounts of sexual use and abuse by men.â Feminist Professor Catharine MacKinnon
Women lying about rape is a "myth"--Susan Estrich
"believe victims en masse"--Jessica Valenti.
These are mainstream feminist voices.
@95 I never said all feminists are intelligent and ethical, even though I believe it's intelligent and ethical to be a feminist.
In any case, the emphasis on believing female victims came about as a response to the routine disbelieving and victim-blaming that was quite routine for most of the 20th century. This pattern, though reduced, persists to this day. For no other crime are the victims so frequently questioned as to what they did, or did not do, that might have led to being victimized. For no other crime is there such concern about the veracity of the complaints.
Well, you failed spectacularly at understanding it, though you did a first rate job of mischaracterizing it.
You were not terribly far off in your first paragraph. No, I don't think that people should be subjected to sanctions until such time as they are actually convicted. If you think you have a good enough case for a criminal prosecution, take it to a judge, who will have the accused removed in a timely fashion. Short of that, however, you are advocating for casually damaging people, and if they turn out to be innocent after the fact, too bad. Name any other crime where sentencing precedes conviction. You want to use civil suit as your model? The court doesn't assess damages until the suit is resolved, and does not jail civil defendants during proceedings.
"A guy (who has been expelled for sexual assault) accuses a school of inadequate due process and your thoughts are"
Note the presumption of guilt in your formulation. You pointedly note that sexual assault was what he was expelled for, as somehow being evidence in itself of lack of credibility. In the very act of claiming it doesn't ever happen, you do it yourself.
" I'm convinced, the disciplinary procedures are obviously kangaroo courts that are biased against men."
You yourself are claiming the university procedures are hopelessly fucked up when it comes to handling the women's side of the process, and yet magically their process for dealing with the men is beyond reproach?
"Oh, and we should ignore the fact that the justice department, having conducted an investigation, has concluded that universities are categorically failing the victims, rather than the accused."
That right there is the part where you look like a complete liar. Point out where I said we should ignore ANYTHING. A complete and thorough investigation is antithetical to ignoring ANYTHING.
It has now reached the stage of being presented to the family court in an affidavit. It began as a threat to claim I was a kiddie fiddler but the kids are too old for that to work now. So she has chosen to claim I raped her. She comes from a family of serial accusers. Some in the current generation have had their claims taken seriously. She hasn't gone to the police yet, but given her personal and family history there is little doubt that she will.
It is utterly terrifying being accused of this century's unquestionable crime.
If you are actually raped you do not have to fear losing your children, your career, and your liberty. If you are actually raped there is a chance your abuser will be punished.
It is at least as terrible and traumatizing a thing to have a false allegation of rape leveled against you.
@100: I'm so sorry. I wish I could help more than just hassling your disgusting ex's enablers on the internet.
Let me guess: You also think that black people commit most of the drug offenses, and that in the early part of the 20th century nobody raped their wives?
Either you do, or you're a liar.
Now that's settled, let's get to what matters here: If you have to lie in order to make your side look right, you're on the wrong side.
@101 "All of the people like that seem to take for granted the idea that there are police with supernatural powers of determining truth, and that these police are both personally infallible and omnipresent"
Source?
@102 " Oh, now you think conviction rates are an accurate picture of reality. Hahahahahat"
Source?
" Either you do, or you're a liar. "
It's a little fascinating that you can draw such strong debates out of thin air with yourself. What exactly about this subject has you riled up? The point that false accusations of a crime have to be taken in context with the crime committed? But you haven't actually given reason to dispute:
" I think that if rape were treated more seriously by our culture, it would naturally follow that false accusations of rape would be treated more seriously. "
I get the feeling that you'd really like this to be a black and white, right or wrong issue, but it's not, and you're frustrated because you can't prove it is so you're starting to shout.
If you were participating honestly, would you be asking that?
Are you okay? Why is the right to lie about rape such an important one for you? Why do you feel so compelled to attack people who don't think lying about rape is good, and why are you so willing to lie about it?
What is wrong with you?