Better safe than sorry, theirs a lot of evil woman out there.
New Rape Laws
- Thread starter Schlong&Stable
- Start date
Better safe than sorry, theirs a lot of evil woman out there.
You seem to be missing the point, that both legally, and in reality to everyone except the accused and the "victim" they are exactly the same. They may deserve worse, or they may deserve a massive apology from everyone, unless you are them, you have no way of knowing which.
Man A has sex with woman A, later she accuses him of rape, he gets off due to lack of evidence.
Man B has sex with woman B, later she accuses him of rape, he gets off due to lack of evidence.
In your eyes, which is the rapist and "deserves worse"?
Last edited:
In my opinion until a verdict has been reached annonimity should be given to both parties.
While I'm sure some guilty people will be hidden by this but seeing how the men are assumed guilty by media before the case has even started if they are proven innocent then it's already too late.
While I'm sure some guilty people will be hidden by this but seeing how the men are assumed guilty by media before the case has even started if they are proven innocent then it's already too late.
On criminal activity in general:
Psychopathy affects 20% to 30% of the prison population in the US.
Half of the prisoners in the US were convinced for violent crimes.
http://news.uchicago.edu/article/20...are-not-neurally-equipped-have-concern-others
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1118
On sexual aggression:
Perpetrators of sexual aggression consistently report higher scores on measures of psychopathy and acceptance of rape myths relative to nonperpetrators.
Rape myth acceptance was positively correlated with psychopathy, and perpetrators scored higher on both constructs. Myths transferring responsibility to victims were related to Factor 1 psychopathy (i.e., callous and manipulative traits).
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926771.2013.743937#.VMqLi9LkfDU
Little to no bearing you say?
You convince the investigator/judge you are innocent.
Regarding my reply to Tefal's post, I said it's not surprising that men and women are treated differently, considering that most criminals, particularly violent ones, are men.
Besides, we're not talking about an individual here, we're talking about populations - namely, that men and women engage in different types of criminal activity and for different reasons. These differences mean that the rehabilitation methods should be different as well.
In general, the Biosocial Study confirmed past proposals suggesting that biological factors have relatively more impact among females, and environmental factors have relatively more impact among males.
For males, the number of adult offenses is most strongly influenced by
four factors: (1) mother's low and father's high educational levels; (2) lead
intoxication; (3) amount of time the father was unemployed; and (4) the
number of household moves.
For females, the number of adult offenses is most strongly influenced by five
factors: (1) father's low educational level; (2) lower number of neurological
abnormalities; (3) lack of foster parents; (4) number of abnormal movements;
and (5) abnormal vision.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=faculty_scholarship
For the rehabilitation of females the focus should be on biological factors (healthcare), for males it should be on environmental factors (social protection).
1) The DSM and ISD don't have a medical diagnosis of "psychopathy". That kind of undermines the quality of your source don't you think and your understanding of it. You are making the mistake of using "psychopathy" interchangeably with "psychopathic traits". There is a subtle difference there because "psychopathic traits" are applicable across a wide-variety of disorders that are prevalent in both sexes.
2) You've correlated the data from one crime and attributed it onto all crime. Most crime is not of this nature therefore assuming the same mechanisms are at play for all crimes is not necessarily the correct assumption.
2) Again you've fallen afoul of the same thinking. Treatment should be for the individual not a group that they belong to. Just because some men commit certain crimes for certain reasons does not mean the next man will commit a crime for the same reason. What it means is given a period of time then those specific crimes, committed by men, will have a certain percentage committed for a certain reason.
3) And that last article is written from a law perspective on findings almost 20 years old. It defines a list of criteria that author makes physiological extrapolations from. The author is unqualified to make those assessments - she is not a physician. She attributes a set of characteristics into environmental and biological using an outdated nature vs nurture paradigm that is really befitting of such discourse 2 decades ago but not now. Our understanding now is more advanced (and scientifically tested) and we can attribute the same findings to more rigorously tested ideas and with a better understanding of how things work. For example, we now acknowledge a strong presence of ASD in prison populations and there environmental expression of that is an explanation for many offences. We know this is a strongly defining mechanism and yet at its cause is a biological derived mechanism that is environmentally shaped. However, that disease is more strongly expressed in males which runs contrary to those finding you cite there. Maybe you should read something more current.
Which ever one is actually guilty
You seem to making something very complex and convoluted out of a very simple statement I made- rapists deserve jail time.
Do you you think rapist don't deserve to go to prison?
Which ever one is actually guilty
You seem to making something very complex and convoluted out of a very simple statement I made- rapists deserve jail time.
Do you you think rapist don't deserve to go to prison?
No, I think innocent men don't deserve to be victimised by neanderthals who can't tell the difference. What you're arguing is irrelevant, since unless you have some new foolproof technology for determining the truth, it is impossible for anyone to say whether the accused rapist who got off actually did commit rape. No one is arguing that rapists don't deserve jail time. However accused rapists who were not convicted are not necessarily rapists, a fact which some people seem to find difficult to grasp.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,355
So you get accused of rape, you know you didnt do it, so does the accuser, pretty good your thinking because they cant prove it so you know you're safe. It goes to court, the lawyers faff about and eventually because of lack of evidence you get proven innocent (or maybe you have an alibi, whatever point is you didnt do it)
So you return to life as normal, but now people in the street look at you in distain, your employer decided to let you go in the face of newspapers allegations, your family has been getting abuse from the droves of idiots that just assumed you did it.
Life is ruined, but you're an innocent man. Kinda harsh?
there should be some anonymity allowed at least until proven guilty because the current state of affairs is pretty dire, and yes people who do this sort of thing shouldn't get away with it, but it's empirical evidence that should decide that not the opinion of the masses.
So you return to life as normal, but now people in the street look at you in distain, your employer decided to let you go in the face of newspapers allegations, your family has been getting abuse from the droves of idiots that just assumed you did it.
Life is ruined, but you're an innocent man. Kinda harsh?
there should be some anonymity allowed at least until proven guilty because the current state of affairs is pretty dire, and yes people who do this sort of thing shouldn't get away with it, but it's empirical evidence that should decide that not the opinion of the masses.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It's not, it's the same point. How does the public know whether Mr X, who has just walked free from court, was an innocent man wrongly accused or a rapist who escaped justice?
Which of the two men in his example are actually guilty? Lets assume that in his example one man was guilty, the other wasn't. Which is which?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,355
[TW]Fox;27555991 said:
they were both innocent, we cant magic ourselves into knowing who is innocent or not, thats why it's innocent until proven guilty using hard evidence.
the public has no place wondering who was innocent and who just got away with it, because then your handing the justice system over to people who have no idea about the people involved, the evidence, or in most cases the law.
the beggining of this thread is proof that the press can twist things so easily to fool (at least for a few posts) the population here, and here we have a particularly skeptical audience who tend to want context, facts and proof.
To all the people saying "its no real change, its just a non-story" etc. Although this is true, it brings the subject to the fore again.
The issues I have with these crimes are:
1. A woman cannot legally give consent if intoxicated yet the man, who is equally intoxicated, not only has the responsibility to get consent but also deem if the woman is able to give it. How can this double standard operate?
2. Anonymity in sexual crimes - Either it is anonymity for both or none. You cannot have anonymity for the accuser and expect it to be ok for the accused's name to be in the papers when there is no guilty verdict. If a guilty verdict is reached then crack on, but to have someone's life ruined over what might be a false allegation is criminal in itself. That person can NEVER go back to their old life.
The issues I have with these crimes are:
1. A woman cannot legally give consent if intoxicated yet the man, who is equally intoxicated, not only has the responsibility to get consent but also deem if the woman is able to give it. How can this double standard operate?
2. Anonymity in sexual crimes - Either it is anonymity for both or none. You cannot have anonymity for the accuser and expect it to be ok for the accused's name to be in the papers when there is no guilty verdict. If a guilty verdict is reached then crack on, but to have someone's life ruined over what might be a false allegation is criminal in itself. That person can NEVER go back to their old life.
And a breathalyser to prove she wasn't too drunk to consent, and a video camera to film her using the breathalyser, the result, signing the consent form, and the entirety of the sexual act itself (to make sure she didn't change her mind half way through).
[TW]Fox;27555991 said:
Why the heck are you going on about this?
All I have said is that people guilty of rape deserve jail and you are trying to make up some kind of argument about wrongly accused people that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.
All I have said is the guilty person deserves jail time. I agree the innocent person doesn't deserve their name to be spread in the local rag. So what, you think guilty rapist should go to jail
It is a simple fact that many rapists are not prosecuted, for start 75-95% of rape victims don't even report the incidence and the actual conviction rate is very low because of the difficulty in producing a substantial burden of proof from things like witnesses or DNA evidence. You can forget the Daily Mail headlines, it just doesn't apply to reality at all.
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I suspect that, at least historically they are low. I believe I've seen studies suggesting its about 10%.
However! As you may note, the number of reported rapes has gone up significantly of late. That may be in part due to people feeling more confident about reporting it to the police etc, but another element of it may be the change in the police and CPS attitude towards the offence.
If we're now saying that men need to give evidence they didn't rape someone, I can see the number of false accusations going upwards significantly. Because as hard as it is to convict someone of rape, its even harder to convict someone of a false accusation.