My point is this is not only laughable, it actually implies either a very poor grasp of statistical realities of such things or a viewpoint of women as generally treacherous and prone to such things, or there's something about you that would make women more likely to accuse you of rape, or BONUS ROUND some combination of any of the previous.
None of those are good. All of those are pretty easily avoidable by not being a rapist.
Your argument rests heavily on a point you haven't made any attempt to prove - namely, that false accusations are not just rare, but lightning-strike level rare.
This essay provides some statistical details on the subject. It directly addresses Hedgie's (awful) Buzzfeed article, examines studies in the field, and does a pretty good job of showing its work and assumptions in plain english. It arrives at a false accusation rate of about 3%, even when making fairly conservative assumptions (and an absolute lower bound of 0.3%.) 3% or even 0.3% is not rape-level common, but its nowhere near lightning-strike rare. 0.3% is about the same as the risk of dying in a car crash, which people spend all kinds of time preparing for and worrying about. I'd encourage you to read it and address the points in the essay directly, or otherwise make a case if you think the false accusation rate is substantially lower than what's listed there.
And be aware, if the 3% number is even close to accurate - then you're saying to all of the actual falsely accused people reading your posts that its their own fault. That they're just rapists and its their own fault and they deserve whatever happened to them, even if they never hurt anyone and never violated any boundary, Even if they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So that's kind of unpleasant too.
Somehow, citing a pretty well known MRA about the prevalence of false accusations doesn't really strike me as incredibly compelling evidence. Especially when he argues that rape victims are regularly believed, when in fact they are routinely disbelieved, in large part thanks to societal beliefs about what rape actually is.
(Seriously, this point cannot be be overstated. Despite what Alexander might think, when you actually read about people talking about being raped, the pretty much consistent point that you see over and over is disbelief, which is why you routinely have victims choose to not report. It's how you get stories like this one, where a woman was raped, but the cops and her foster parents disbelieved her to the point that she was gaslit into admitting that she faked her accusation...and then the fucker got caught in another case, and they found the trophies he took of her.)
In fact, the piece you linked to helps to prove the point Pony made. Because I would imagine that most guys aren't worried about false rape accusations, because they are smart enough to actually be careful with who they get involved with, and to not put themselves in situations where genuine questions of consent might actually arise. Like Pony, I always see the men who worry about false accusations coming across from a certain mindset, where they are sure that all a woman has to do is say "rape", and she will be instantly believed, while the man will be immediately pilloried, no matter what he says.
Which is so removed from reality to be laughable.
Hedgie, if you're going to attack the credibility of the author cited instead of actually discussing the article, you may want to link sources better than a Buzzfeed article written by somebody with no statistical background and a much more obvious bias.
Also, to point out how much of a hackpiece the Buzzfeed article is:
Even if you assume that only one in fifty of the cases being claimed as a near-certain false report (with a confession or extremely strong evidence of no guilt), the Buzzfeed article is still off by a larger factor than the blog article's low-end estimate. And at the point we're assuming statistics can be cut to 2% of what they're actually reporting, we're so far into Truthiness that we shouldn't even be citing sources.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
False accusations of rape do not need to be more common than other false accusations to be a bad thing. It was you who posted the hackpiece claiming they were orders of magnitude rarer than lightning strikes.
The author being a shithead is frankly irrelevant and you know that. The numbers are relevant, which again, could be overestimating things by a factor of 50 and still be both within the "reasonably possible" range and orders of magnitude higher than the estimate from the hackpiece you posted.
Nobody in here is arguing there's some sort of massive problem with false accusations of rape in here, just that the argument "It's rarer to get falsely accused of rape than to be hit by a comet, so just don't be a rapist, rapist" is bullshit.
If we want to dive into that statistics a bit more, is there any leeway to either side given for when people go to report sexual abuse and are literally told, don't bother, and are talked out of doing anything because it's "pointless" and you will probably "see nothing come of it" because I know that is not a small % either.
If we want to dive into that statistics a bit more, is there any leeway to either side given for when people go to report sexual abuse and are literally told, don't bother, and are talked out of doing anything because it's "pointless" and you will probably "see nothing come of it" because I know that is not a small % either.
That is a horrible thing that happen, but doesn't really relate to the chance of being falsely accused of rape, just the proportion of false rape accusations to rapes.
The piece Squidget posted had a pretty easy to understand methodology, but the 0.3% lower-end basically assumed the low-end of verifiably-false cases reported to the police, and applied that only to cases actually reported. So stigma against reporting etc. wouldn't affect that number; it's just saying (fake numbers) if you have 100,000 cases a year and 10% of them are false, you have 10,000 false reports a year amongst some number of total adult males.
But okay, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that the risk of being falsely accused of rape is about the same as having a fatal car crash.
Aren't you concerned?
Well, yes. In the case of the car crash, this means that I practice defensive driving: maintain situational awareness, avoid being boxed in, drive the conditions, and if things are bad enough - just don't go. And by doing that, I can mitigate the majority of the risk. And for false accusations, it would mean making sure my partner is comfortable, capable of consent, and enthusiastically consenting - not just looking for the absence of a no, but the presence of a yes.
(And yes, I still do this with my fiancée, because I want her to be engaged and enjoying things.)
The idea of archiving all my conversations with past partners never comes to mind, because my solution to mitigating the risk is to make sure my partner is never in a situation where they feel pressured.
But okay, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that the risk of being falsely accused of rape is about the same as having a fatal car crash.
Aren't you concerned?
Well, yes. In the case of the car crash, this means that I practice defensive driving: maintain situational awareness, avoid being boxed in, drive the conditions, and if things are bad enough - just don't go. And by doing that, I can mitigate the majority of the risk. And for false accusations, it would mean making sure my partner is comfortable, capable of consent, and enthusiastically consenting - not just looking for the absence of a no, but the presence of a yes.
(And yes, I still do this with my fiancée, because I want her to be engaged and enjoying things.)
The idea of archiving all my conversations with past partners never comes to mind, because my solution to mitigating the risk is to make sure my partner is never in a situation where they feel pressured.
You done fucked up.
Instead of describing how to avoid false accusations of rape, you described how to avoid being a rapist.
But okay, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that the risk of being falsely accused of rape is about the same as having a fatal car crash.
Aren't you concerned?
Well, yes. In the case of the car crash, this means that I practice defensive driving: maintain situational awareness, avoid being boxed in, drive the conditions, and if things are bad enough - just don't go. And by doing that, I can mitigate the majority of the risk. And for false accusations, it would mean making sure my partner is comfortable, capable of consent, and enthusiastically consenting - not just looking for the absence of a no, but the presence of a yes.
(And yes, I still do this with my fiancée, because I want her to be engaged and enjoying things.)
The idea of archiving all my conversations with past partners never comes to mind, because my solution to mitigating the risk is to make sure my partner is never in a situation where they feel pressured.
Haven't you been one of the people who has argued against bullshit car metaphors before?
But okay, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that the risk of being falsely accused of rape is about the same as having a fatal car crash.
Aren't you concerned?
Well, yes. In the case of the car crash, this means that I practice defensive driving: maintain situational awareness, avoid being boxed in, drive the conditions, and if things are bad enough - just don't go. And by doing that, I can mitigate the majority of the risk. And for false accusations, it would mean making sure my partner is comfortable, capable of consent, and enthusiastically consenting - not just looking for the absence of a no, but the presence of a yes.
(And yes, I still do this with my fiancée, because I want her to be engaged and enjoying things.)
The idea of archiving all my conversations with past partners never comes to mind, because my solution to mitigating the risk is to make sure my partner is never in a situation where they feel pressured.
So what you are saying is that if someone wants to avoid being the victim of a false rape accusation, they should wear a longer skirt?
+1
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Your argument rests heavily on a point you haven't made any attempt to prove - namely, that false accusations are not just rare, but lightning-strike level rare.
Getting back to Squidgets point: Sounds like this line of argument has been ceded, then? The argument that a man is a horrible crypto-rapist for even considering the outside possibility of a false accusation is contingent on false accusations being as vanishingly rare as advertised. Nothing else has been presented as proof of that besides Gawker.
Scott Alexander is a dickhead but statistics aren't contingent on him being a saint, and Hedgie's criticism of him avoids looking at his numbers because his numbers caught out the lie that Gawker told and Hedgie repeated - that false accusations are literally more rare than death-by-meteor.
It was bad to lie about the frequency of false accusations, and dumb on top of that to double down on a gawker piece saying they are less common than being killed by space rocks and thinking everyone would just go "oh yeah, that sounds right."
There's still a point to be made about the relative infrequency of false accusations and the fact that society needs to do a lot better job of believing women and providing effective, comprehensive investigations of rape claims - just don't lie.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
From the section covering L.R., the first witness:
Under cross-examination, the value of her evidence suffered irreparable damage. Defence counsel's questioning revealed inconsistencies, and incongruous and deceptive conduct. L.R. has been exposed as a witness willing to withhold relevant information from the police, from the Crown and from the Court. It is clear that she deliberately breached her oath to tell the truth.
From the section covering Lucy DeCoutere, the second witness:
Let me emphasize strongly, it is the suppression of evidence and the deceptions maintained under oath that drive my concerns with the reliability of this witness, not necessarily her undetermined motivations for doing so. It is difficult to have trust in a witness who engages in the selective withholding relevant information.
From the section covering S.D., the third witness:
S.D. was clearly “playing chicken” with the justice system. She was prepared to tell half the truth for as long as she thought she might get away with it. Clearly, S.D. was following the proceedings more closely than she cared to admit and she knew that she was about to run head first into the whole truth.
S.D offered an excuse for hiding this information. She said that this was her “first kick at the can”, and that she did not know how “to navigate” this sort of proceeding. “Navigating” this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
From the conclusion:
Each complainant was confronted with a volume of evidence that was contrary to their prior sworn statements and their evidence in-chief. Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion.
The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.
From reading his comments, I'm struck by the attitude the judge adopted that not only did he need to report in his decision that he had reasonable doubt, but in the process he needed to pretty much destroy each of the women who came forward. He also zeroes in on the exact type of "inconsistencies" that are the result of trauma's effect on the brain and memory. From his comments, I wouldn't conclude he "hates liars," I would conclude he hated the women in this case.
Trust me from experience, there is a way to convey that the evidentiary burden was not met in a case without also engaging in reinforcing of rape myths.
He just gave women in Canada a big reason not to report sexual assault. His conclusion that the "stereotype" of sexual assault victims is that they are always assumed to be truthful is not grounded in reality.
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.
So It Goes on
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah, isn't the idea that you dont ask a question in court you don't already know the answer to?
Yeah, isn't the idea that you dont ask a question in court you don't already know the answer to?
The idea is that if you have bad facts you get them out in your case in chief so the witness has a chance to explain and it doesn't look like you're hiding something. You also prepare your witnesses properly for anticipated cross examination.
okay I'm going to try very hard not to infodump too much but here is also another good article on sexual assault investigations for people who are interested
From the section covering L.R., the first witness:
Under cross-examination, the value of her evidence suffered irreparable damage. Defence counsel's questioning revealed inconsistencies, and incongruous and deceptive conduct. L.R. has been exposed as a witness willing to withhold relevant information from the police, from the Crown and from the Court. It is clear that she deliberately breached her oath to tell the truth.
From the section covering Lucy DeCoutere, the second witness:
Let me emphasize strongly, it is the suppression of evidence and the deceptions maintained under oath that drive my concerns with the reliability of this witness, not necessarily her undetermined motivations for doing so. It is difficult to have trust in a witness who engages in the selective withholding relevant information.
From the section covering S.D., the third witness:
S.D. was clearly “playing chicken” with the justice system. She was prepared to tell half the truth for as long as she thought she might get away with it. Clearly, S.D. was following the proceedings more closely than she cared to admit and she knew that she was about to run head first into the whole truth.
S.D offered an excuse for hiding this information. She said that this was her “first kick at the can”, and that she did not know how “to navigate” this sort of proceeding. “Navigating” this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
From the conclusion:
Each complainant was confronted with a volume of evidence that was contrary to their prior sworn statements and their evidence in-chief. Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion.
The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.
Wow, Justice Horkins sure does hate liars.
This is like 66% "Who the fuck knows how many seconds they were choked for, dude?"
and 33% "Holy cow, what were these witnesses thinking?"
Discussing the trial in detail with other witnesses is completely ridiculous, especially when one is being sly about it. Some of the other stuff could go either way, and I think the judge was a bit too harsh on some other elements in isolation, but out of court collaboration against the defendant is, again, while possibly legitimate, also exceedingly worrying in a testimony, as opposed to a physical evidence based trial. Even assuming good faith, it's still worrying that they might accidentally change each others testimony.
From reading his comments, I'm struck by the attitude the judge adopted that not only did he need to report in his decision that he had reasonable doubt, but in the process he needed to pretty much destroy each of the women who came forward. He also zeroes in on the exact type of "inconsistencies" that are the result of trauma's effect on the brain and memory. From his comments, I wouldn't conclude he "hates liars," I would conclude he hated the women in this case.
Trust me from experience, there is a way to convey that the evidentiary burden was not met in a case without also engaging in reinforcing of rape myths.
He just gave women in Canada a big reason not to report sexual assault. His conclusion that the "stereotype" of sexual assault victims is that they are always assumed to be truthful is not grounded in reality.
Just sad and upsetting to me.
Yes, Like "not remembering" that you corresponded with the other alledged victims a decade after the trama took place, and decided to "bait" the defendent.
From reading his comments, I'm struck by the attitude the judge adopted that not only did he need to report in his decision that he had reasonable doubt, but in the process he needed to pretty much destroy each of the women who came forward. He also zeroes in on the exact type of "inconsistencies" that are the result of trauma's effect on the brain and memory. From his comments, I wouldn't conclude he "hates liars," I would conclude he hated the women in this case.
Trust me from experience, there is a way to convey that the evidentiary burden was not met in a case without also engaging in reinforcing of rape myths.
He just gave women in Canada a big reason not to report sexual assault. His conclusion that the "stereotype" of sexual assault victims is that they are always assumed to be truthful is not grounded in reality.
Just sad and upsetting to me.
Yes, Like "not remembering" that you corresponded with the other alledged victims a decade after the trama took place, and decided to "bait" the defendent.
That on it's own should sink just about any case.
There is a lot more going on here than reducing it to that.
So It Goes on
+5
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
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.
Some people said this in this thread. With a bonus comparison to rapists.
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)
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)
Does Canada not have discovery like in the US? Because in the US that would not fly you don't get to pull some surprise shit in court.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I thought you couldn't present surprise evidence in court.
You can't in the US. Only way you can kind of get away with it is if the attorney doesn't "know" about it prior to being handed it, but you still have to give the other side that evidence if you want to use it in court.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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)
Uhhh. Interesting! Not how it works in American courts.
I thought you couldn't present surprise evidence in court.
You can't in the US. Only way you can kind of get away with it is if the attorney doesn't "know" about it prior to being handed it, but you still have to give the other side that evidence if you want to use it in court.
And even then based on my vast knowledge from watching many seasons of Law and Order I would assume the court would recess to give the other side a chance to review the evidence.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Yeah, isn't the idea that you dont ask a question in court you don't already know the answer to?
The idea is that if you have bad facts you get them out in your case in chief so the witness has a chance to explain and it doesn't look like you're hiding something. You also prepare your witnesses properly for anticipated cross examination.
Just wow.
This is an oversimplification, but:
Here, the Crown must present all of their evidence up front, while the defense must present some of their evidence up front. Ostensibly, these rules are in place to allow defense attorneys some flexibility given that the state (at least in theory) has more resources at it's disposal than Joe Law Firm; if the Crown is able to presented CCTV tapes as evidence, so the argument goes, the defense should have the opportunity to present evidence that may falsify the tapes as being genuine (presenting evidence that the footage o the tapes was doctored, for example).
In the Ghomeshi trial, the Crown almost exclusively had testimony from the victims, ergo the defense was given an opportunity 'post discovery', if you will, to falsify that testimony (you may note of course how the spirit of the rule is not exactly being adhered to).
There are a lot of nuances, exceptions, objections, procedural details, etc, but that is the gist of it.
But honestly, I' dubious that the particulars of the game are what mattered. Henein is a platinum-league lawyer who cut her teeth successfully defending politicians who killed other people while driving drunk & little league hockey coaches who distributed pornographic images of their players; Callaghan is a bronze-league lifer who, until the Ghomeshi trial, spent his career pubstomping mentally ill violent offenders who could not afford their own counsel. Only a fool would bet on the latter, regardless of the game's rules (so long as the game isn't totally rigged, anyway).
I think that this better illustrates the problem rather than the fact that some of the court procedures may not be optimal.
Posts
Hedgie, if you're going to attack the credibility of the author cited instead of actually discussing the article, you may want to link sources better than a Buzzfeed article written by somebody with no statistical background and a much more obvious bias.
Even if you assume that only one in fifty of the cases being claimed as a near-certain false report (with a confession or extremely strong evidence of no guilt), the Buzzfeed article is still off by a larger factor than the blog article's low-end estimate. And at the point we're assuming statistics can be cut to 2% of what they're actually reporting, we're so far into Truthiness that we shouldn't even be citing sources.
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.
Persons like Scott Alexander, who is a rational sort who writes pieces where he conflates anti-Gibbletygoop cartoons with anti-Semitic ones (NSFW because holy fuck anti-Semitic cartoons) and waxes poetic on the merits of eugenics.
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.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Under that criteria everything is a massive problem because it occurs, no matter the frequency of the event.
pleasepaypreacher.net
False accusations of rape do not need to be more common than other false accusations to be a bad thing. It was you who posted the hackpiece claiming they were orders of magnitude rarer than lightning strikes.
The author being a shithead is frankly irrelevant and you know that. The numbers are relevant, which again, could be overestimating things by a factor of 50 and still be both within the "reasonably possible" range and orders of magnitude higher than the estimate from the hackpiece you posted.
Nobody in here is arguing there's some sort of massive problem with false accusations of rape in here, just that the argument "It's rarer to get falsely accused of rape than to be hit by a comet, so just don't be a rapist, rapist" is bullshit.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
No. You skipped the "it's a fucking awful thing when it happens" part.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
That is a horrible thing that happen, but doesn't really relate to the chance of being falsely accused of rape, just the proportion of false rape accusations to rapes.
The piece Squidget posted had a pretty easy to understand methodology, but the 0.3% lower-end basically assumed the low-end of verifiably-false cases reported to the police, and applied that only to cases actually reported. So stigma against reporting etc. wouldn't affect that number; it's just saying (fake numbers) if you have 100,000 cases a year and 10% of them are false, you have 10,000 false reports a year amongst some number of total adult males.
Aren't you concerned?
Well, yes. In the case of the car crash, this means that I practice defensive driving: maintain situational awareness, avoid being boxed in, drive the conditions, and if things are bad enough - just don't go. And by doing that, I can mitigate the majority of the risk. And for false accusations, it would mean making sure my partner is comfortable, capable of consent, and enthusiastically consenting - not just looking for the absence of a no, but the presence of a yes.
(And yes, I still do this with my fiancée, because I want her to be engaged and enjoying things.)
The idea of archiving all my conversations with past partners never comes to mind, because my solution to mitigating the risk is to make sure my partner is never in a situation where they feel pressured.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Instead of describing how to avoid false accusations of rape, you described how to avoid being a rapist.
This is incredibly telling.
Haven't you been one of the people who has argued against bullshit car metaphors before?
So what you are saying is that if someone wants to avoid being the victim of a false rape accusation, they should wear a longer skirt?
Getting back to Squidgets point: Sounds like this line of argument has been ceded, then? The argument that a man is a horrible crypto-rapist for even considering the outside possibility of a false accusation is contingent on false accusations being as vanishingly rare as advertised. Nothing else has been presented as proof of that besides Gawker.
Scott Alexander is a dickhead but statistics aren't contingent on him being a saint, and Hedgie's criticism of him avoids looking at his numbers because his numbers caught out the lie that Gawker told and Hedgie repeated - that false accusations are literally more rare than death-by-meteor.
It was bad to lie about the frequency of false accusations, and dumb on top of that to double down on a gawker piece saying they are less common than being killed by space rocks and thinking everyone would just go "oh yeah, that sounds right."
There's still a point to be made about the relative infrequency of false accusations and the fact that society needs to do a lot better job of believing women and providing effective, comprehensive investigations of rape claims - just don't lie.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-verdict-read-justice-horkinss-full-decision-in-the-sexual-assault-and-choking-trial Wow, Justice Horkins sure does hate liars.
Trust me from experience, there is a way to convey that the evidentiary burden was not met in a case without also engaging in reinforcing of rape myths.
He just gave women in Canada a big reason not to report sexual assault. His conclusion that the "stereotype" of sexual assault victims is that they are always assumed to be truthful is not grounded in reality.
Just sad and upsetting to me.
Also: Interview with Lucy De Coutere
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/25/jian-ghomeshi-trial-lucy-de-coutere-interview
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.
The idea is that if you have bad facts you get them out in your case in chief so the witness has a chance to explain and it doesn't look like you're hiding something. You also prepare your witnesses properly for anticipated cross examination.
Just wow.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/581/anatomy-of-doubt (This American Life multi series episode)
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/12/16/an-unbelievable-story-of-rape?ref=hp-4-122#.oY2a7ewTt (print version)
This is like 66% "Who the fuck knows how many seconds they were choked for, dude?"
and 33% "Holy cow, what were these witnesses thinking?"
Discussing the trial in detail with other witnesses is completely ridiculous, especially when one is being sly about it. Some of the other stuff could go either way, and I think the judge was a bit too harsh on some other elements in isolation, but out of court collaboration against the defendant is, again, while possibly legitimate, also exceedingly worrying in a testimony, as opposed to a physical evidence based trial. Even assuming good faith, it's still worrying that they might accidentally change each others testimony.
Yes, Like "not remembering" that you corresponded with the other alledged victims a decade after the trama took place, and decided to "bait" the defendent.
That on it's own should sink just about any case.
There is a lot more going on here than reducing it to that.
Some people said this in this thread. With a bonus comparison to rapists.
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)
MWO: Adamski
Does Canada not have discovery like in the US? Because in the US that would not fly you don't get to pull some surprise shit in court.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You can't in the US. Only way you can kind of get away with it is if the attorney doesn't "know" about it prior to being handed it, but you still have to give the other side that evidence if you want to use it in court.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It is real in Japan (the games were created in part as a protest against the Japanese judicial system, which pretty much defines "kangaroo court".)
Uhhh. Interesting! Not how it works in American courts.
And even then based on my vast knowledge from watching many seasons of Law and Order I would assume the court would recess to give the other side a chance to review the evidence.
This is an oversimplification, but:
Here, the Crown must present all of their evidence up front, while the defense must present some of their evidence up front. Ostensibly, these rules are in place to allow defense attorneys some flexibility given that the state (at least in theory) has more resources at it's disposal than Joe Law Firm; if the Crown is able to presented CCTV tapes as evidence, so the argument goes, the defense should have the opportunity to present evidence that may falsify the tapes as being genuine (presenting evidence that the footage o the tapes was doctored, for example).
In the Ghomeshi trial, the Crown almost exclusively had testimony from the victims, ergo the defense was given an opportunity 'post discovery', if you will, to falsify that testimony (you may note of course how the spirit of the rule is not exactly being adhered to).
There are a lot of nuances, exceptions, objections, procedural details, etc, but that is the gist of it.
But honestly, I' dubious that the particulars of the game are what mattered. Henein is a platinum-league lawyer who cut her teeth successfully defending politicians who killed other people while driving drunk & little league hockey coaches who distributed pornographic images of their players; Callaghan is a bronze-league lifer who, until the Ghomeshi trial, spent his career pubstomping mentally ill violent offenders who could not afford their own counsel. Only a fool would bet on the latter, regardless of the game's rules (so long as the game isn't totally rigged, anyway).
I think that this better illustrates the problem rather than the fact that some of the court procedures may not be optimal.