It’s been documented time and again by psychologists and counsellors who work with assault survivors: in reaction to trauma, many women will do things they later regret because they felt somehow compelled to “be nice.” It’s a bit of social conditioning – be deferential, fix problems, avoid conflict at all costs – that keeps women uniquely vulnerable as they recriminate themselves for things that aren’t their fault. Even though no one but rapists are to blame for rape, many women carry their pacifist conditioning over into the aftermath of sexual assault, especially when they know the attacker: Maybe I’m overreacting? Maybe I misinterpreted? Maybe it was me?
If anybody – the police, the Crown – had told me about what post-incident contact is or why it matters, that would have gone a long way. It might not have helped me remember everything, but it might have helped me go back to that state of mind. Now, I know that when it comes to a victim’s testimony, what happened after the assault is just as important as what happened before – at least as far as the court is concerned. Everything Henein asked me came back to one big question: why did I keep in touch with Jian? The answer is that it was my way of processing what happened to me, of neutralizing a volatile situation he created. But for her and the judge, it turns out, that wasn’t enough.
She goes on to say that she was presented with letters and emails by the defense attorney she didn't remember writing and literally hadn't seen in years. Presumably these were all discovered and in the possession of the Crown. Why didn't the Crown prepare her to answer questions about these documents? Wtf.
No, the letters & emails were provided by the Defendant to his attorney. The Crown did not have access to them until the Defense brought them up in Court. (The only other time I could see the Defense providing such evidence to the Crown would be if they were trying to have the charges dropped or looking for a plea deal)
This is really just another failing of the crown. The letters and emails didn't appear out of the aether, they should have found out about them (if not exact contents) from the witnesses who sent them
It’s been documented time and again by psychologists and counsellors who work with assault survivors: in reaction to trauma, many women will do things they later regret because they felt somehow compelled to “be nice.” It’s a bit of social conditioning – be deferential, fix problems, avoid conflict at all costs – that keeps women uniquely vulnerable as they recriminate themselves for things that aren’t their fault. Even though no one but rapists are to blame for rape, many women carry their pacifist conditioning over into the aftermath of sexual assault, especially when they know the attacker: Maybe I’m overreacting? Maybe I misinterpreted? Maybe it was me?
If anybody – the police, the Crown – had told me about what post-incident contact is or why it matters, that would have gone a long way. It might not have helped me remember everything, but it might have helped me go back to that state of mind. Now, I know that when it comes to a victim’s testimony, what happened after the assault is just as important as what happened before – at least as far as the court is concerned. Everything Henein asked me came back to one big question: why did I keep in touch with Jian? The answer is that it was my way of processing what happened to me, of neutralizing a volatile situation he created. But for her and the judge, it turns out, that wasn’t enough.
She goes on to say that she was presented with letters and emails by the defense attorney she didn't remember writing and literally hadn't seen in years. Presumably these were all discovered and in the possession of the Crown. Why didn't the Crown prepare her to answer questions about these documents? Wtf.
No, the letters & emails were provided by the Defendant to his attorney. The Crown did not have access to them until the Defense brought them up in Court. (The only other time I could see the Defense providing such evidence to the Crown would be if they were trying to have the charges dropped or looking for a plea deal)
This is really just another failing of the crown. The letters and emails didn't appear out of the aether, they should have found out about them (if not exact contents) from the witnesses who sent them
The witnesses may well have forgotten about them and/or not had any record of them.
It’s been documented time and again by psychologists and counsellors who work with assault survivors: in reaction to trauma, many women will do things they later regret because they felt somehow compelled to “be nice.” It’s a bit of social conditioning – be deferential, fix problems, avoid conflict at all costs – that keeps women uniquely vulnerable as they recriminate themselves for things that aren’t their fault. Even though no one but rapists are to blame for rape, many women carry their pacifist conditioning over into the aftermath of sexual assault, especially when they know the attacker: Maybe I’m overreacting? Maybe I misinterpreted? Maybe it was me?
If anybody – the police, the Crown – had told me about what post-incident contact is or why it matters, that would have gone a long way. It might not have helped me remember everything, but it might have helped me go back to that state of mind. Now, I know that when it comes to a victim’s testimony, what happened after the assault is just as important as what happened before – at least as far as the court is concerned. Everything Henein asked me came back to one big question: why did I keep in touch with Jian? The answer is that it was my way of processing what happened to me, of neutralizing a volatile situation he created. But for her and the judge, it turns out, that wasn’t enough.
She goes on to say that she was presented with letters and emails by the defense attorney she didn't remember writing and literally hadn't seen in years. Presumably these were all discovered and in the possession of the Crown. Why didn't the Crown prepare her to answer questions about these documents? Wtf.
No, the letters & emails were provided by the Defendant to his attorney. The Crown did not have access to them until the Defense brought them up in Court. (The only other time I could see the Defense providing such evidence to the Crown would be if they were trying to have the charges dropped or looking for a plea deal)
This is really just another failing of the crown. The letters and emails didn't appear out of the aether, they should have found out about them (if not exact contents) from the witnesses who sent them
The witnesses may well have forgotten about them and/or not had any record of them.
All three though? Perfect recollection of the events they claim then total amnesia about erotic pictures and emails sent afterwards?
And I believe some of the chatter between the witnesses mentioned the emails.
I have no problem believing the victims would not remember whether or not they were wearing hair extensions at the time, or what model car Ghomeshi was driving. Memory is fallible, and those are minor details of major events that happened 10 years ago. Hell, I can't remember the model car my friend used to give me a ride last week, and I wasn't in the middle of a traumatic event at the time.
But not remembering that they sent sexually-explicit emails and erotic pictures to a guy who had recently assaulted them as part of a ploy to gather incriminating evidence on him? That one I have a hard time believing. This is not something you do and then forget about.
If they had admitted to the emails from the start none of this would be an issue. I'd even be ok if they had admitted to the emails and misremembered the dates or the content. But explicitly stating that they had no contact whatsoever with Ghomeshi after the assaults only to find out they were sending him sexually-explicit emails begging to see him again? That's not something I can chalk up to a slip of the mind. That's deliberately misleading the court. And that's why they lost their trial.
I have no problem believing the victims would not remember whether or not they were wearing hair extensions at the time, or what model car Ghomeshi was driving. Memory is fallible, and those are minor details of major events that happened 10 years ago. Hell, I can't remember the model car my friend used to give me a ride last week, and I wasn't in the middle of a traumatic event at the time.
But not remembering that they sent sexually-explicit emails and erotic pictures to a guy who had recently assaulted them as part of a ploy to gather incriminating evidence on him? That one I have a hard time believing. This is not something you do and then forget about.
If they had admitted to the emails from the start none of this would be an issue. I'd even be ok if they had admitted to the emails and misremembered the dates or the content. But explicitly stating that they had no contact whatsoever with Ghomeshi after the assaults only to find out they were sending him sexually-explicit emails begging to see him again? That's not something I can chalk up to a slip of the mind. That's deliberately misleading the court. And that's why they lost their trial.
If it was only one of them i could have believed it?
But all three doing the same then not mentioning it to the crown?
This thing about the witnesses forgetting is complete crap. They remembered. In fact, the second and third witnesses provided much of the same information the defense used to the Crown themselves, at the last minute, right before taking the stand. Obviously, both realized, after the first witness, that the defense had a dozen years of email evidence, so both fessed up at last possible second. All this is right in the official decision. The witnesses didn't forget; they knew all along and hid it from the Crown.
Just prior to Ms. DeCoutere [the second witness] being called as a witness, she met with the Crown and police and revealed a significant amount of new information to the prosecution. This last minute disclosure of information occurred despite having the assistance of her own counsel throughout the many months leading up to the trial and despite her acknowledgment that a line of communication with the investigating officers and Crown counsel was well-established throughout this period of time.
...
S.D. [the third witness] met with Crown counsel five times in the year prior to the trial of this matter. On each occasion she was reminded of the need to be completely honest and accurate. At no time until almost literally the eve of being called to the witness stand did she reveal the whole truth of her relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi. The most dramatic aspect of S.D.’s evidence was her last minute disclosure to the prosecution of sexual activity with Mr. Ghomeshi on a date following the date of the alleged assault in the park.
Look, AngelHedgie , I've been sexually abused. Doesn't make me the divine arbiter of all matters rape, I'm just giving my background to hopefully help explain my thoughts.
False rape accusations are, by all accounts, rare. But they do happen. And I'm not comfortable with the idea that because it effects such a small minority of people that it should be ignored.
Nobody says it should be ignored. But the problem is that there is this cultural belief that it's a lot more prevalent than it really is, that all women have to do is accuse a man of rape, and now suddenly the man has become a pariah. When in fact what really happens is that rape victims are regularly disbelived, while acts of sexual assault are routinely downplayed (look at what is happening at Yale right now, if you want an example.)
No, the problem is that you cited a bullshit hackpiece saying that it's more likely men get hit by a comet than get falsely accused by rape to back up an argument that boils down to "if you get accused of rape, you deserve it, rapist."
Yes, culture sucks, especially for women. That doesn't mean that you need to lie to prove how the culture can't possibly suck for men. Shit is bad on both sides, nobody is arguing it's equal.
I don't buy that there is some sort of problem with false accusations of rape above and beyond issues with false accusations of crimes of all stripes. And I see the concern about false rape accusations as a major issue to be voiced by a certain sort of person who views some significant subset of women as being out to ruin men.
I'm sorry, but after looking at things like the trial of Daniel Holtzclaw, who only got caught because he wound up raping the wrong person (up till that point, he preyed on lower class women with backgrounds that would make people discount their stories), I find the argument that there is a massive problem with false accusations of rape to be a bit thin.
I know it's a few pages back but I do want to point out that, having recently finished a read through of Scott Alexander's blog, Hedgie is very wrong about Scott and seriously misinterpreted (or misrepresented) the linked articles. For example, Hedgie says Scott wrote in favor of eugenics--the actual article is about how some problems have biological causes and maybe we should focus on those; Alexander's specific proposals include fighting lead poisoning and increasing access to birth control. The horror. Nor is Scott an MRA, and the only time he complains about the feminist community is when they behave exactly like AH was doing here, using SJ as a sword instead of a shield. He has some good points and some bad ones but Alexander is overall an impressively open-minded person.
I don't have much else to say on topic right now because I agree with the general consensus--prevent yourself from being accused of rape by not raping, this guy in particular should not have been convicted, and it's a shame that rape victims are often unclear or lie about what happened but that doesn't mean the justice system can just ignore that and presume credibility.
I don't have much else to say on topic right now because I agree with the general consensus--prevent yourself from being accused of rape by not raping, this guy in particular should not have been convicted, and it's a shame that rape victims are often unclear or lie about what happened but that doesn't mean the justice system can just ignore that and presume credibility.
Let's not jump to generalization here. These three women specifically did that, but as far as I know it has not been a generalized problem in rape trials at all, nor something that "often" happens. Unless someone has numbers showing the opposite, I'll hold that this trial has been an exception, not a rule.
Women are often alleged to lie in rape accusations. That's a standard trial strategy: a rape trial is generally based on the accuser's word with little to no unambiguous physical evidence supporting the case, so attacking the credibility of the accuser is an obvious tactic. But don't jump from that to stating that "women often lie about what happened". This case, again, is special in that we had unambiguous physical evidence the women were lying to the court. In the vast majority of cases, no such evidence exists, and the defence relies of victim blaming and smear tactics and prejudicial stereotypes of women and sex, like the classic "look how tight her jeans were, there's no way someone could remove them by force" or "she had a few beers and a joint, how can we believe anything she said or did after that" or "she smiled at him and was wearing a miniskirt, she clearly was signalling for sex" or "if she really didn't want sex, why didn't she close her legs".
There's a reason some 90%+ of rapes go unreported. Women literally get smeared and destroyed on the stand for it. And spreading around ideas like "most women lie about rape" is reinforcing that prejudice.
I don't have much else to say on topic right now because I agree with the general consensus--prevent yourself from being accused of rape by not raping, this guy in particular should not have been convicted, and it's a shame that rape victims are often unclear or lie about what happened but that doesn't mean the justice system can just ignore that and presume credibility.
Let's not jump to generalization here. These three women specifically did that, but as far as I know it has not been a generalized problem in rape trials at all, nor something that "often" happens. Unless someone has numbers showing the opposite, I'll hold that this trial has been an exception, not a rule.
Women are often alleged to lie in rape accusations. That's a standard trial strategy: a rape trial is generally based on the accuser's word with little to no unambiguous physical evidence supporting the case, so attacking the credibility of the accuser is an obvious tactic. But don't jump from that to stating that "women often lie about what happened". This case, again, is special in that we had unambiguous physical evidence the women were lying to the court. In the vast majority of cases, no such evidence exists, and the defence relies of victim blaming and smear tactics and prejudicial stereotypes of women and sex, like the classic "look how tight her jeans were, there's no way someone could remove them by force" or "she had a few beers and a joint, how can we believe anything she said or did after that" or "she smiled at him and was wearing a miniskirt, she clearly was signalling for sex" or "if she really didn't want sex, why didn't she close her legs".
There's a reason some 90%+ of rapes go unreported. Women literally get smeared and destroyed on the stand for it. And spreading around ideas like "most women lie about rape" is reinforcing that prejudice.
I honestly think on this particular case his fame had a lot to do with it. I honestly can't fathom the accusers motivations for the accusations or their behavior afterwards unless they wanted some of the spotlight.
Also, the CBC case coming up against him is on much, much more solid ground.
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well they could have wanted him to be prosecuted for crimes he committed.
Well they could have wanted him to be prosecuted for crimes he committed.
And they may have felt like they needed to band together because of his fame and influence, as well as how the justice system treats victims of sexual assault, especially if they don't conform to the model of the "perfect victim".
I have a personal anecdote of a rape aviation that didn't go anywhere.
A friend of mine was an RA in college (school pays your room and board and you act as student representative of school to the other students on your floor, tell them to keep the music down during "quiet" hours, report people smoking pot, tell people who to call if they have issues with the heating, etc...).
For a couple of weeks he complained to us that there was some girls on his floor that would go out clubbing and not bring their keys (small or no purse, no pockets), then wake him up a 2:30am to open their door, pretending they "forgot". Several weeks in a row. Then, according to him, one day he refused and one of them next day reported he raped her. I know he went into some sort of hearing with the school and didn't do homework for a few weeks, and in the end he didn't get suspended and kept being an RA and was RA again next year.
Obviously i don't know her perspective, and i have some bias here, but it seems to me she wanted to frame him out of very petty reasons.
Well they could have wanted him to be prosecuted for crimes he committed.
And they may have felt like they needed to band together because of his fame and influence, as well as how the justice system treats victims of sexual assault, especially if they don't conform to the model of the "perfect victim".
Oh come on.
They lied on the stand and colluded to do so. The 3rd accuser changed her testimony hours before she went on the stand as a result of the other two getting caught. They tried to game the system and lost big time.
Also, sending dirty pics and emails after the fact is not how victims act. But they are how someone that was complicit with what went down would.
rape victims have a hard time being believed and I 100% believe some changes need to be made on how we deal with them. But this is absolutely not one of those cases. I don't understand how anyone could rationally think that Gian could be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence and testimony presented.
1- each accuser tried to pursue a relationship with him after the alleged assaults occurred.
2- Each neglected to inform the crown that they did so.
3- each lied on the stand about it.
4- They contacted each other before the trial to make sure their testimonies were consistent.
Well they could have wanted him to be prosecuted for crimes he committed.
And they may have felt like they needed to band together because of his fame and influence, as well as how the justice system treats victims of sexual assault, especially if they don't conform to the model of the "perfect victim".
Oh come on.
They lied on the stand and colluded to do so. The 3rd accuser changed her testimony hours before she went on the stand as a result of the other two getting caught. They tried to game the system and lost big time.
Also, sending dirty pics and emails after the fact is not how victims act. But they are how someone that was complicit with what went down would.
rape victims have a hard time being believed and I 100% believe some changes need to be made on how we deal with them. But this is absolutely not one of those cases. I don't understand how anyone could rationally think that Gian could be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence and testimony presented.
1- each accuser tried to pursue a relationship with him after the alleged assaults occurred.
2- Each neglected to inform the crown that they did so.
3- each lied on the stand about it.
4- They contacted each other before the trial to make sure their testimonies were consistent.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. I wonder why they might have felt like they had to lie, when the argument that "oh, if they were actually a victim, they wouldn't have continued to pursue him, they wouldn't have sent those pictures and letters" is so damn fucking prevalent. It's almost as if they might have thought "if we tell the truth, nobody will believe we were victims, because they have in their mind an image of what victimhood is."
Our society teaches women to "be nice". To put their needs behind men and society. It's why women routinely use what are called "soft nos", where they say no without actually saying "No." The idea of someone being sexually abused, and yet looking to continue or pursue a relationship with that individual is not absurd, but altogether too common. Why do you think it's so hard to prosecute domestic violence?
If you want a better look at what actually happens with reporting sexual assault, here's the transcript of a talk given by a psychologist who researches the issue. It's worth reading the part where she talks about how the police routinely respond.
Our culture with regards to rape and other forms of sexual violence is fucked. It's fucked up to the Nth degree. That doesn't make lying under oath excusable. In a crime like this it completely torpedoes the case, because the best and only evidence is the victim's testimony, and if that is compromised by falsehood, you then have reasonable doubt.
That said, I'm super uncomfortable with this line of thought that No True Victim acts a certain way.
If it's proven you lied on the stand, then your testimony is _____.
Fill in the blank, AngelHedgie .
Our culture with regards to rape and other forms of sexual violence is fucked. It's fucked up to the Nth degree. That doesn't make lying under oath excusable. In a crime like this it completely torpedoes the case, because the best and only evidence is the victim's testimony, and if that is compromised by falsehood, you then have reasonable doubt.
That said, I'm super uncomfortable with this line of thought that No True Victim acts a certain way.
Here's the thing - you want to fix the issue and make it so victims of sexual assault don't feel like they need to lie?
The first step is admitting there's a problem. Everyone is ready to hop on them lying, but nobody wants to consider that was a symptom of a system stacked against them, that they may very well have felt that they had no choice, because they would have been dismissed out of hand for telling the truth, because "real victims wouldn't have done what they did" is so prevalent.
I don't have much else to say on topic right now because I agree with the general consensus--prevent yourself from being accused of rape by not raping, this guy in particular should not have been convicted, and it's a shame that rape victims are often unclear or lie about what happened but that doesn't mean the justice system can just ignore that and presume credibility.
Let's not jump to generalization here. These three women specifically did that, but as far as I know it has not been a generalized problem in rape trials at all, nor something that "often" happens. Unless someone has numbers showing the opposite, I'll hold that this trial has been an exception, not a rule.
Women are often alleged to lie in rape accusations. That's a standard trial strategy: a rape trial is generally based on the accuser's word with little to no unambiguous physical evidence supporting the case, so attacking the credibility of the accuser is an obvious tactic. But don't jump from that to stating that "women often lie about what happened". This case, again, is special in that we had unambiguous physical evidence the women were lying to the court. In the vast majority of cases, no such evidence exists, and the defence relies of victim blaming and smear tactics and prejudicial stereotypes of women and sex, like the classic "look how tight her jeans were, there's no way someone could remove them by force" or "she had a few beers and a joint, how can we believe anything she said or did after that" or "she smiled at him and was wearing a miniskirt, she clearly was signalling for sex" or "if she really didn't want sex, why didn't she close her legs".
There's a reason some 90%+ of rapes go unreported. Women literally get smeared and destroyed on the stand for it. And spreading around ideas like "most women lie about rape" is reinforcing that prejudice.
Apologies if I wasn't clear--I'm not talking about false accusations, but the fact that victims are sometimes confused or selective when they report, often for very reasonable reasons like being traumatized, not wanting to admit to behavior society disapproves of, not wanting to seem like they were "asking for it," etc. I didn't think that was a controversial statement, that not all victims are perfect, but if you have some evidence that I'm wrong here I'd sincerely like to see it so I can reevaluate my beliefs.
If it's proven you lied on the stand, then your testimony is _____.
Fill in the blank, AngelHedgie .
Our culture with regards to rape and other forms of sexual violence is fucked. It's fucked up to the Nth degree. That doesn't make lying under oath excusable. In a crime like this it completely torpedoes the case, because the best and only evidence is the victim's testimony, and if that is compromised by falsehood, you then have reasonable doubt.
That said, I'm super uncomfortable with this line of thought that No True Victim acts a certain way.
Here's the thing - you want to fix the issue and make it so victims of sexual assault don't feel like they need to lie?
The first step is admitting there's a problem. Everyone is ready to hop on them lying, but nobody wants to consider that was a symptom of a system stacked against them, that they may very well have felt that they had no choice, because they would have been dismissed out of hand for telling the truth, because "real victims wouldn't have done what they did" is so prevalent.
Do you believe that they were raped @AngelHedgie ?
Forget how victims should or should not act. do you believe these three women were assaulted?
this is a good read if you have not already seen it by a female lawyer.
If it's proven you lied on the stand, then your testimony is _____.
Fill in the blank, AngelHedgie .
Our culture with regards to rape and other forms of sexual violence is fucked. It's fucked up to the Nth degree. That doesn't make lying under oath excusable. In a crime like this it completely torpedoes the case, because the best and only evidence is the victim's testimony, and if that is compromised by falsehood, you then have reasonable doubt.
That said, I'm super uncomfortable with this line of thought that No True Victim acts a certain way.
Here's the thing - you want to fix the issue and make it so victims of sexual assault don't feel like they need to lie?
The first step is admitting there's a problem. Everyone is ready to hop on them lying, but nobody wants to consider that was a symptom of a system stacked against them, that they may very well have felt that they had no choice, because they would have been dismissed out of hand for telling the truth, because "real victims wouldn't have done what they did" is so prevalent.
The only reason this case failed was because they lied. So the blame lies 100% on them.
There is literally no other way to read this. We prosecuted only "beyond resolvable doubt" and flat out lying on the stand does exactly that.
I do like how in the steady attempt to erode the burden for sexual assault cases, we are now no longer allowed to consider the victim's behavior before or after the time of the alleged assault.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
If it's proven you lied on the stand, then your testimony is _____.
Fill in the blank, AngelHedgie .
Our culture with regards to rape and other forms of sexual violence is fucked. It's fucked up to the Nth degree. That doesn't make lying under oath excusable. In a crime like this it completely torpedoes the case, because the best and only evidence is the victim's testimony, and if that is compromised by falsehood, you then have reasonable doubt.
That said, I'm super uncomfortable with this line of thought that No True Victim acts a certain way.
Here's the thing - you want to fix the issue and make it so victims of sexual assault don't feel like they need to lie?
The first step is admitting there's a problem. Everyone is ready to hop on them lying, but nobody wants to consider that was a symptom of a system stacked against them, that they may very well have felt that they had no choice, because they would have been dismissed out of hand for telling the truth, because "real victims wouldn't have done what they did" is so prevalent.
Do you believe that they were raped AngelHedgie ?
Forget how victims should or should not act. do you believe these three women were assaulted?
this is a good read if you have not already seen it by a female lawyer.
Yes, I do think that they were sexually assaulted. Again, their behavior is not inconsistent with being assaulted, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, their decision to lie makes a lot of sense given how we as a society view sexual assault.
And she misses the whole point of the #believewomen tag, which is to point out how the system is built on disbelieving women when they state that they were sexually assaulted. From the talk I linked above:
So let's start off with a quote from law enforcement. This is a very seasoned detective, 15 years in a sex crimes unit. When I asked him sort of what happens when victims come in to report an assault to the criminal justice system, this is what he said. He said: "The stuff they say makes no sense" — referring to victims — "So no I don't always believe them and yeah I let them know that. And then they say 'Nevermind. I don't want to do this.' Okay, then. Complainant refused to prosecute; case closed."
now let's loop in the rape victim advocate perspective: "It's hard trying to stop what police do to victims. They don't believe them and they treat them so bad that the victims give up. It happens over and over again."
So now let's loop in the victim's perspective. In reference to her interactions with her law enforcement officer, she said the following. She said: "He didn't believe me and he treated me badly. It didn't surprise me when he said there wasn't enough to go on to do anything. It didn't surprise me, but it still hurt."
So what do we get from these three simple quotes? What these three quotes show us right off the bat is that sexual assault case attrition happens very early on in the criminal justice system. It's happening in the first interactions between the victims and law enforcement. Indeed, if we take these qualitative data and look at them from a quantitative perspective, we see very similar findings.
The system pretty much bluntly tells victims that they won't be believed, especially if they are flawed in any way (again, look at the Holtzclaw incident, and how he managed to stay under the radar by targeting women who would have had an especially difficult time pushing any accusation of sexual assault against a police officer.)
If it's proven you lied on the stand, then your testimony is _____.
Fill in the blank, AngelHedgie .
Our culture with regards to rape and other forms of sexual violence is fucked. It's fucked up to the Nth degree. That doesn't make lying under oath excusable. In a crime like this it completely torpedoes the case, because the best and only evidence is the victim's testimony, and if that is compromised by falsehood, you then have reasonable doubt.
That said, I'm super uncomfortable with this line of thought that No True Victim acts a certain way.
Here's the thing - you want to fix the issue and make it so victims of sexual assault don't feel like they need to lie?
The first step is admitting there's a problem. Everyone is ready to hop on them lying, but nobody wants to consider that was a symptom of a system stacked against them, that they may very well have felt that they had no choice, because they would have been dismissed out of hand for telling the truth, because "real victims wouldn't have done what they did" is so prevalent.
The only reason this case failed was because they lied. So the blame lies 100% on them.
There is literally no other way to read this. We prosecuted only "beyond resolvable doubt" and flat out lying on the stand does exactly that.
I'm sorry, but no. When we have a system that does its level best to tell women "unless you're the perfect victim, we won't believe you (and even then, we probably won't believe you anyway)", placing all the blame on the women is a load of gooseshit.
Because tell me, what do you think would have happened if they had told the truth? Your own comments illustrate what would happen - their actions afterwards would be used to say that they weren't victims, even though none of it showed that they were willing.
I don't have much else to say on topic right now because I agree with the general consensus--prevent yourself from being accused of rape by not raping, this guy in particular should not have been convicted, and it's a shame that rape victims are often unclear or lie about what happened but that doesn't mean the justice system can just ignore that and presume credibility.
Let's not jump to generalization here. These three women specifically did that, but as far as I know it has not been a generalized problem in rape trials at all, nor something that "often" happens. Unless someone has numbers showing the opposite, I'll hold that this trial has been an exception, not a rule.
Women are often alleged to lie in rape accusations. That's a standard trial strategy: a rape trial is generally based on the accuser's word with little to no unambiguous physical evidence supporting the case, so attacking the credibility of the accuser is an obvious tactic. But don't jump from that to stating that "women often lie about what happened". This case, again, is special in that we had unambiguous physical evidence the women were lying to the court. In the vast majority of cases, no such evidence exists, and the defence relies of victim blaming and smear tactics and prejudicial stereotypes of women and sex, like the classic "look how tight her jeans were, there's no way someone could remove them by force" or "she had a few beers and a joint, how can we believe anything she said or did after that" or "she smiled at him and was wearing a miniskirt, she clearly was signalling for sex" or "if she really didn't want sex, why didn't she close her legs".
There's a reason some 90%+ of rapes go unreported. Women literally get smeared and destroyed on the stand for it. And spreading around ideas like "most women lie about rape" is reinforcing that prejudice.
Apologies if I wasn't clear--I'm not talking about false accusations, but the fact that victims are sometimes confused or selective when they report, often for very reasonable reasons like being traumatized, not wanting to admit to behavior society disapproves of, not wanting to seem like they were "asking for it," etc. I didn't think that was a controversial statement, that not all victims are perfect, but if you have some evidence that I'm wrong here I'd sincerely like to see it so I can reevaluate my beliefs.
Well I agree that victims aren't perfect, and that they often misremember or are confused about details that happened during the traumatizing events of the crime. That extends beyond rape cases, too. It's human nature, really.
I was objecting to saying that rape victims often lie about the details of the rape. Lying, as opposed to being confused, requires them to correctly remember the events and deliberately choose to misrepresent them for their personal advantage. Now after your last reply I'm not sure that's what you meant, but that was how I took the bolded initial statement, and I was quite against that. But sorry if I misunderstood.
I do like how in the steady attempt to erode the burden for sexual assault cases, we are now no longer allowed to consider the victim's behavior before or after the time of the alleged assault.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
Or it's like someone always has the right to say no, no matter what happened before. And that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to conform and not rock the boat. And that a lot of those "incongruities" are actually societal misconceptions about how victims should act, as opposed to how they do act.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Yes we should definitely be prosecuting more rape victims like they did in Lynnwood.
If it's proven you lied on the stand, then your testimony is _____.
Fill in the blank, AngelHedgie .
Our culture with regards to rape and other forms of sexual violence is fucked. It's fucked up to the Nth degree. That doesn't make lying under oath excusable. In a crime like this it completely torpedoes the case, because the best and only evidence is the victim's testimony, and if that is compromised by falsehood, you then have reasonable doubt.
That said, I'm super uncomfortable with this line of thought that No True Victim acts a certain way.
Here's the thing - you want to fix the issue and make it so victims of sexual assault don't feel like they need to lie?
The first step is admitting there's a problem. Everyone is ready to hop on them lying, but nobody wants to consider that was a symptom of a system stacked against them
Having a problem with them lying and realizing, at the same time, that the system is messed up are not mutually exclusive.
It sounds like you're saying that because the system is broken, perjury should be forgiven or somehow not factored into this trial. Is that what you're saying?
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I do like how in the steady attempt to erode the burden for sexual assault cases, we are now no longer allowed to consider the victim's behavior before or after the time of the alleged assault.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
Or it's like someone always has the right to say no, no matter what happened before. And that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to conform and not rock the boat. And that a lot of those "incongruities" are actually societal misconceptions about how victims should act, as opposed to how they do act.
Also, the victim's behaviour before or after the crime is not a factor in any other crime.
A thief is not excused because the victim looked like someone who enjoyed wealth. A drunk-driver is not excused because there were question on why the victim was crossing the street in the first place. A murderer is not excused because the victim was suicidal. A kidnapper is not excused if we can demonstrate the parent had turned their back on the child for a moment. A pickpocket is not excused because the victim was drunk at the time. A con artist is not excused because the victim was too embarrassed to call the cops right away when they realized they'd been had.
Excusing rapists because of the victims' behaviour is a double-standard that we would all find ridiculous to apply in any other situation.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
I do like how in the steady attempt to erode the burden for sexual assault cases, we are now no longer allowed to consider the victim's behavior before or after the time of the alleged assault.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
Or it's like someone always has the right to say no, no matter what happened before. And that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to conform and not rock the boat. And that a lot of those "incongruities" are actually societal misconceptions about how victims should act, as opposed to how they do act.
Also, the victim's behaviour before or after the crime is not a factor in any other crime.
A thief is not excused because the victim looked like someone who enjoyed wealth. A drunk-driver is not excused because there were question on why the victim was crossing the street in the first place. A murderer is not excused because the victim was suicidal. A kidnapper is not excused if we can demonstrate the parent had turned their back on the child for a moment. A pickpocket is not excused because the victim was drunk at the time. A con artist is not excused because the victim was too embarrassed to call the cops right away when they realized they'd been had.
Excusing rapists because of the victims' behaviour is a double-standard that we would all find ridiculous to apply in any other situation.
If you took my car on a road trip. And I texted you a bunch while you were driving it, asking how the trip was going. And then you return it, and I ask you if you need to borrow it again next weekend. Then I go to the cops years later and claim you stole it. That sure as hell would be a great defense against charges of theft of my car.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
I do like how in the steady attempt to erode the burden for sexual assault cases, we are now no longer allowed to consider the victim's behavior before or after the time of the alleged assault.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
Or it's like someone always has the right to say no, no matter what happened before. And that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to conform and not rock the boat. And that a lot of those "incongruities" are actually societal misconceptions about how victims should act, as opposed to how they do act.
Also, the victim's behaviour before or after the crime is not a factor in any other crime.
A thief is not excused because the victim looked like someone who enjoyed wealth. A drunk-driver is not excused because there were question on why the victim was crossing the street in the first place. A murderer is not excused because the victim was suicidal. A kidnapper is not excused if we can demonstrate the parent had turned their back on the child for a moment. A pickpocket is not excused because the victim was drunk at the time. A con artist is not excused because the victim was too embarrassed to call the cops right away when they realized they'd been had.
Excusing rapists because of the victims' behaviour is a double-standard that we would all find ridiculous to apply in any other situation.
If you took my car on a road trip. And I texted you a bunch while you were driving it, asking how the trip was going. And then you return it, and I ask you if you need to borrow it again next weekend. Then I go to the cops years later and claim you stole it. That sure as hell would be a great defense against charges of theft of my car.
That is not an argument about your state of mind when I borrowed/stole your car, this is an argument about lying in an official police deposition and under oath. Different argument.
Rapists often walk free because "the victim was drunk, what kind of chaste woman gets drunk around horny men?" or because "look at how tight the victim's pants were / how short that skirt was, she clearly wanted sex" or because "the victim has had sex in the past, how could the rapist reasonably guess she did not want sex that one night?". These are the "victim's behaviour" excuses for rape that are being eroded and rejected. And very rightfully so.
I do like how in the steady attempt to erode the burden for sexual assault cases, we are now no longer allowed to consider the victim's behavior before or after the time of the alleged assault.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
Or it's like someone always has the right to say no, no matter what happened before. And that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to conform and not rock the boat. And that a lot of those "incongruities" are actually societal misconceptions about how victims should act, as opposed to how they do act.
Also, the victim's behaviour before or after the crime is not a factor in any other crime.
A thief is not excused because the victim looked like someone who enjoyed wealth. A drunk-driver is not excused because there were question on why the victim was crossing the street in the first place. A murderer is not excused because the victim was suicidal. A kidnapper is not excused if we can demonstrate the parent had turned their back on the child for a moment. A pickpocket is not excused because the victim was drunk at the time. A con artist is not excused because the victim was too embarrassed to call the cops right away when they realized they'd been had.
Excusing rapists because of the victims' behaviour is a double-standard that we would all find ridiculous to apply in any other situation.
If you took my car on a road trip. And I texted you a bunch while you were driving it, asking how the trip was going. And then you return it, and I ask you if you need to borrow it again next weekend. Then I go to the cops years later and claim you stole it. That sure as hell would be a great defense against charges of theft of my car.
Yup.
I get that rape is a horrible thing but it is most of the time a he-said she-said battle. If you don't expect interactions, circumstances and whatnot to be brought up and dissected, than you're completely misunderstanding the nature of these trials.
I think the main trouble is that just by the nature of the crime it is an extraordinarily difficult crime to prosecute. It just is, and you won't change that without drastically shifting how we approach prosecuting crime as a whole. I understand women hesitating to come t the stand under such circumstances but I am overwhelmingly against changing how we view presumption of innocence and accused rights because of a difficult to prosecute crime.
You know what would I think help the whole "women lie about rape" thing. If in cases like this where they commit perjury, they would actually be prosecuted. Much like with police misconduct. If you actually drop the hammer on the people who abuse the justice system, the faith in it and benefit of the doubt towards the system is preserved.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
But that's the thing. They did lie.
So anything else that could have happened does not really matter because they chose to try and game the system.
As I've said before, this is all on them. They chose to lie. Not forget or be fuzzy on details but flat out lie.
Not guilty on account that they all tried to pursue further relationships is what you mean, right? Because his lawyer never called them out on being promiscuous but did on the fact they all chased him after the fact. If you don't think that is a massive factor in any decisions I don't know what to say. @tinwhiskers has a pretty great analogy a few posts above if you missed it.
this is really not the case to point out when talking about victims mistreatment.
Just because the system fails sometimes, it does not allow you to try and make up your own rules.
I do like how in the steady attempt to erode the burden for sexual assault cases, we are now no longer allowed to consider the victim's behavior before or after the time of the alleged assault.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
Or it's like someone always has the right to say no, no matter what happened before. And that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to conform and not rock the boat. And that a lot of those "incongruities" are actually societal misconceptions about how victims should act, as opposed to how they do act.
Also, the victim's behaviour before or after the crime is not a factor in any other crime.
A thief is not excused because the victim looked like someone who enjoyed wealth. A drunk-driver is not excused because there were question on why the victim was crossing the street in the first place. A murderer is not excused because the victim was suicidal. A kidnapper is not excused if we can demonstrate the parent had turned their back on the child for a moment. A pickpocket is not excused because the victim was drunk at the time. A con artist is not excused because the victim was too embarrassed to call the cops right away when they realized they'd been had.
Excusing rapists because of the victims' behaviour is a double-standard that we would all find ridiculous to apply in any other situation.
If you took my car on a road trip. And I texted you a bunch while you were driving it, asking how the trip was going. And then you return it, and I ask you if you need to borrow it again next weekend. Then I go to the cops years later and claim you stole it. That sure as hell would be a great defense against charges of theft of my car.
Yup.
I get that rape is a horrible thing but it is most of the time a he-said she-said battle. If you don't expect interactions, circumstances and whatnot to be brought up and dissected, than you're completely misunderstanding the nature of these trials.
I think the main trouble is that just by the nature of the crime it is an extraordinarily difficult crime to prosecute. It just is, and you won't change that without drastically shifting how we approach prosecuting crime as a whole. I understand women hesitating to come t the stand under such circumstances but I am overwhelmingly against changing how we view presumption of innocence and accused rights because of a difficult to prosecute crime.
Rape & sexual asaault, especially ones reported long after the fact, are extremely hard to prosecute.
unlike other big crimes (murder, theft etc...) you have to first prove it actually happened. With a lack of physical evidence it boils down to he said- she said. The accused has the advantage as they are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and doubt is not hard to produce. And there is no way to change that nor should I think it should.
Now, the treatment of victims by the police is another matter and we should totally have some strong reforms. Encouraging women to get rape kits done and to report immediately is something we need to improve as a society.
I have a teenage girl and we talk about these things a lot.
Posts
This is really just another failing of the crown. The letters and emails didn't appear out of the aether, they should have found out about them (if not exact contents) from the witnesses who sent them
The witnesses may well have forgotten about them and/or not had any record of them.
All three though? Perfect recollection of the events they claim then total amnesia about erotic pictures and emails sent afterwards?
And I believe some of the chatter between the witnesses mentioned the emails.
But not remembering that they sent sexually-explicit emails and erotic pictures to a guy who had recently assaulted them as part of a ploy to gather incriminating evidence on him? That one I have a hard time believing. This is not something you do and then forget about.
If they had admitted to the emails from the start none of this would be an issue. I'd even be ok if they had admitted to the emails and misremembered the dates or the content. But explicitly stating that they had no contact whatsoever with Ghomeshi after the assaults only to find out they were sending him sexually-explicit emails begging to see him again? That's not something I can chalk up to a slip of the mind. That's deliberately misleading the court. And that's why they lost their trial.
If it was only one of them i could have believed it?
But all three doing the same then not mentioning it to the crown?
Does not pass the smell test.
considering every article I've seen on the case has mentioned that she was on that show....
MWO: Adamski
No I like watched part of the trial too, and just constantly thought, man she looks familiar
edit: my memory is basically a garbage fire is the knowledge to be gained from this
I know it's a few pages back but I do want to point out that, having recently finished a read through of Scott Alexander's blog, Hedgie is very wrong about Scott and seriously misinterpreted (or misrepresented) the linked articles. For example, Hedgie says Scott wrote in favor of eugenics--the actual article is about how some problems have biological causes and maybe we should focus on those; Alexander's specific proposals include fighting lead poisoning and increasing access to birth control. The horror. Nor is Scott an MRA, and the only time he complains about the feminist community is when they behave exactly like AH was doing here, using SJ as a sword instead of a shield. He has some good points and some bad ones but Alexander is overall an impressively open-minded person.
I don't have much else to say on topic right now because I agree with the general consensus--prevent yourself from being accused of rape by not raping, this guy in particular should not have been convicted, and it's a shame that rape victims are often unclear or lie about what happened but that doesn't mean the justice system can just ignore that and presume credibility.
Women are often alleged to lie in rape accusations. That's a standard trial strategy: a rape trial is generally based on the accuser's word with little to no unambiguous physical evidence supporting the case, so attacking the credibility of the accuser is an obvious tactic. But don't jump from that to stating that "women often lie about what happened". This case, again, is special in that we had unambiguous physical evidence the women were lying to the court. In the vast majority of cases, no such evidence exists, and the defence relies of victim blaming and smear tactics and prejudicial stereotypes of women and sex, like the classic "look how tight her jeans were, there's no way someone could remove them by force" or "she had a few beers and a joint, how can we believe anything she said or did after that" or "she smiled at him and was wearing a miniskirt, she clearly was signalling for sex" or "if she really didn't want sex, why didn't she close her legs".
There's a reason some 90%+ of rapes go unreported. Women literally get smeared and destroyed on the stand for it. And spreading around ideas like "most women lie about rape" is reinforcing that prejudice.
I honestly think on this particular case his fame had a lot to do with it. I honestly can't fathom the accusers motivations for the accusations or their behavior afterwards unless they wanted some of the spotlight.
Also, the CBC case coming up against him is on much, much more solid ground.
And they may have felt like they needed to band together because of his fame and influence, as well as how the justice system treats victims of sexual assault, especially if they don't conform to the model of the "perfect victim".
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
A friend of mine was an RA in college (school pays your room and board and you act as student representative of school to the other students on your floor, tell them to keep the music down during "quiet" hours, report people smoking pot, tell people who to call if they have issues with the heating, etc...).
For a couple of weeks he complained to us that there was some girls on his floor that would go out clubbing and not bring their keys (small or no purse, no pockets), then wake him up a 2:30am to open their door, pretending they "forgot". Several weeks in a row. Then, according to him, one day he refused and one of them next day reported he raped her. I know he went into some sort of hearing with the school and didn't do homework for a few weeks, and in the end he didn't get suspended and kept being an RA and was RA again next year.
Obviously i don't know her perspective, and i have some bias here, but it seems to me she wanted to frame him out of very petty reasons.
Oh come on.
They lied on the stand and colluded to do so. The 3rd accuser changed her testimony hours before she went on the stand as a result of the other two getting caught. They tried to game the system and lost big time.
Also, sending dirty pics and emails after the fact is not how victims act. But they are how someone that was complicit with what went down would.
rape victims have a hard time being believed and I 100% believe some changes need to be made on how we deal with them. But this is absolutely not one of those cases. I don't understand how anyone could rationally think that Gian could be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence and testimony presented.
1- each accuser tried to pursue a relationship with him after the alleged assaults occurred.
2- Each neglected to inform the crown that they did so.
3- each lied on the stand about it.
4- They contacted each other before the trial to make sure their testimonies were consistent.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. I wonder why they might have felt like they had to lie, when the argument that "oh, if they were actually a victim, they wouldn't have continued to pursue him, they wouldn't have sent those pictures and letters" is so damn fucking prevalent. It's almost as if they might have thought "if we tell the truth, nobody will believe we were victims, because they have in their mind an image of what victimhood is."
Our society teaches women to "be nice". To put their needs behind men and society. It's why women routinely use what are called "soft nos", where they say no without actually saying "No." The idea of someone being sexually abused, and yet looking to continue or pursue a relationship with that individual is not absurd, but altogether too common. Why do you think it's so hard to prosecute domestic violence?
If you want a better look at what actually happens with reporting sexual assault, here's the transcript of a talk given by a psychologist who researches the issue. It's worth reading the part where she talks about how the police routinely respond.
Fill in the blank, @AngelHedgie .
Our culture with regards to rape and other forms of sexual violence is fucked. It's fucked up to the Nth degree. That doesn't make lying under oath excusable. In a crime like this it completely torpedoes the case, because the best and only evidence is the victim's testimony, and if that is compromised by falsehood, you then have reasonable doubt.
That said, I'm super uncomfortable with this line of thought that No True Victim acts a certain way.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Here's the thing - you want to fix the issue and make it so victims of sexual assault don't feel like they need to lie?
The first step is admitting there's a problem. Everyone is ready to hop on them lying, but nobody wants to consider that was a symptom of a system stacked against them, that they may very well have felt that they had no choice, because they would have been dismissed out of hand for telling the truth, because "real victims wouldn't have done what they did" is so prevalent.
Apologies if I wasn't clear--I'm not talking about false accusations, but the fact that victims are sometimes confused or selective when they report, often for very reasonable reasons like being traumatized, not wanting to admit to behavior society disapproves of, not wanting to seem like they were "asking for it," etc. I didn't think that was a controversial statement, that not all victims are perfect, but if you have some evidence that I'm wrong here I'd sincerely like to see it so I can reevaluate my beliefs.
Do you believe that they were raped @AngelHedgie ?
Forget how victims should or should not act. do you believe these three women were assaulted?
this is a good read if you have not already seen it by a female lawyer.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-defence-lawyers-take-on-jian-ghomeshis-acquittal-and-the-believewomen-movement
The only reason this case failed was because they lied. So the blame lies 100% on them.
There is literally no other way to read this. We prosecuted only "beyond resolvable doubt" and flat out lying on the stand does exactly that.
It's like rape is some unique time-fabric rending act where the accuser's mental state at that moment is completely causally severed from all previous and following actions, no matter how incongruous with their story. Might as well just dispense with the trial all together.
Yes, I do think that they were sexually assaulted. Again, their behavior is not inconsistent with being assaulted, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, their decision to lie makes a lot of sense given how we as a society view sexual assault.
And she misses the whole point of the #believewomen tag, which is to point out how the system is built on disbelieving women when they state that they were sexually assaulted. From the talk I linked above:
The system pretty much bluntly tells victims that they won't be believed, especially if they are flawed in any way (again, look at the Holtzclaw incident, and how he managed to stay under the radar by targeting women who would have had an especially difficult time pushing any accusation of sexual assault against a police officer.)
I'm sorry, but no. When we have a system that does its level best to tell women "unless you're the perfect victim, we won't believe you (and even then, we probably won't believe you anyway)", placing all the blame on the women is a load of gooseshit.
Because tell me, what do you think would have happened if they had told the truth? Your own comments illustrate what would happen - their actions afterwards would be used to say that they weren't victims, even though none of it showed that they were willing.
Well I agree that victims aren't perfect, and that they often misremember or are confused about details that happened during the traumatizing events of the crime. That extends beyond rape cases, too. It's human nature, really.
I was objecting to saying that rape victims often lie about the details of the rape. Lying, as opposed to being confused, requires them to correctly remember the events and deliberately choose to misrepresent them for their personal advantage. Now after your last reply I'm not sure that's what you meant, but that was how I took the bolded initial statement, and I was quite against that. But sorry if I misunderstood.
Or it's like someone always has the right to say no, no matter what happened before. And that there's a lot of societal pressure on women to conform and not rock the boat. And that a lot of those "incongruities" are actually societal misconceptions about how victims should act, as opposed to how they do act.
Well, women would continue to distrust it.
Yes we should definitely be prosecuting more rape victims like they did in Lynnwood.
https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story
pleasepaypreacher.net
Having a problem with them lying and realizing, at the same time, that the system is messed up are not mutually exclusive.
It sounds like you're saying that because the system is broken, perjury should be forgiven or somehow not factored into this trial. Is that what you're saying?
Also, the victim's behaviour before or after the crime is not a factor in any other crime.
A thief is not excused because the victim looked like someone who enjoyed wealth. A drunk-driver is not excused because there were question on why the victim was crossing the street in the first place. A murderer is not excused because the victim was suicidal. A kidnapper is not excused if we can demonstrate the parent had turned their back on the child for a moment. A pickpocket is not excused because the victim was drunk at the time. A con artist is not excused because the victim was too embarrassed to call the cops right away when they realized they'd been had.
Excusing rapists because of the victims' behaviour is a double-standard that we would all find ridiculous to apply in any other situation.
I honestly have no idea why you would believe they were raped in this case. Their words, actions and lies all point to a completely different story.
So you would have found him guilty because they said he did?
Because there is literally zero evidence and they all perjured themselves. This is a problem and I'm really confused why you would go ahead with a conviction.
I'm seriously trying to see it from your point of view. Let's forget about other cases and some systematic problems and concentrate on this specific case.
Why would you convict Gian (beyond a reasonable doubt) and on what grounds?
If you took my car on a road trip. And I texted you a bunch while you were driving it, asking how the trip was going. And then you return it, and I ask you if you need to borrow it again next weekend. Then I go to the cops years later and claim you stole it. That sure as hell would be a great defense against charges of theft of my car.
Because they don't actually point to a different story to me, because of all those systematic problems you want to toss aside.
And here's the thing - yes, because they had lied, I would have to say there was reasonable doubt. But had they told the truth, with everything that happened?
Yep, I would. Because his entire strategy revolved around the classic "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense - don't actually address the issue at the core, but instead argue that all these other actions indicate that she had to have consented.
Sorry, but that's thin gruel for me.
That is not an argument about your state of mind when I borrowed/stole your car, this is an argument about lying in an official police deposition and under oath. Different argument.
Rapists often walk free because "the victim was drunk, what kind of chaste woman gets drunk around horny men?" or because "look at how tight the victim's pants were / how short that skirt was, she clearly wanted sex" or because "the victim has had sex in the past, how could the rapist reasonably guess she did not want sex that one night?". These are the "victim's behaviour" excuses for rape that are being eroded and rejected. And very rightfully so.
Yup.
I get that rape is a horrible thing but it is most of the time a he-said she-said battle. If you don't expect interactions, circumstances and whatnot to be brought up and dissected, than you're completely misunderstanding the nature of these trials.
I think the main trouble is that just by the nature of the crime it is an extraordinarily difficult crime to prosecute. It just is, and you won't change that without drastically shifting how we approach prosecuting crime as a whole. I understand women hesitating to come t the stand under such circumstances but I am overwhelmingly against changing how we view presumption of innocence and accused rights because of a difficult to prosecute crime.
But that's the thing. They did lie.
So anything else that could have happened does not really matter because they chose to try and game the system.
As I've said before, this is all on them. They chose to lie. Not forget or be fuzzy on details but flat out lie.
Not guilty on account that they all tried to pursue further relationships is what you mean, right? Because his lawyer never called them out on being promiscuous but did on the fact they all chased him after the fact. If you don't think that is a massive factor in any decisions I don't know what to say. @tinwhiskers has a pretty great analogy a few posts above if you missed it.
this is really not the case to point out when talking about victims mistreatment.
Just because the system fails sometimes, it does not allow you to try and make up your own rules.
Rape & sexual asaault, especially ones reported long after the fact, are extremely hard to prosecute.
unlike other big crimes (murder, theft etc...) you have to first prove it actually happened. With a lack of physical evidence it boils down to he said- she said. The accused has the advantage as they are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and doubt is not hard to produce. And there is no way to change that nor should I think it should.
Now, the treatment of victims by the police is another matter and we should totally have some strong reforms. Encouraging women to get rape kits done and to report immediately is something we need to improve as a society.
I have a teenage girl and we talk about these things a lot.