Belowjob, I think you’re a fair-minded poster based on what I’ve seen you post in the past. So it amazes me you could post this and not see how this last sentence completely invalidates your rant. That you actually typed out the word proof (twice)) without collapsing from the cognitive dissonance…how were you able to do that?
The charges made against the Lacrosse players were dropped when evidence was found to be lacking, and the prosecutor was punished when the system determined he’d abused his power. So where exactly is the proof that the criminal justice system is biased in favor of rape accusers?
You’re railing against the court of public opinion. It’s the same court who called those boys rapists simply because a charge was made, and it’s the same court who is calling this “lying whore” a psychotic bitch murderer because a charge was made.
In short, you are no better than the people you are pitting.
Don’t accept the statistics in this thread as actual statistics. I could throw a bunch of websites at you that say the false reporting rate is actually less than 2%. Actually, I could also point you toward some “statistics” that say that 90% of all rape claims are false. There’s a bit more to it than that, is what I’m suggesting, and very likely, considering all the factors involved, it isn’t even possible to reach the level of real statistical proof.
But anyway, since at least one reasonable person has accepted that the two outcomes are equally likely, I wanted to speak up and point out that there are many very different perspectives on that point. Plenty of police departments have published studies within their own jurisdictions, for instance, and ended up with numbers not remotely approaching 50%. Rather than handpick some of them myself, I’ll just link to somebody doing it for me. I don’t vouch for that blog as I only found it by googling; I’m only concerned with the actual data collected in the post, e.g.:
This is where I also get the idea the OP has a problem with women. You’re just pulling shit out of your ass now, with nothing to back up your “opinion” and “suspicion”. Your hard-on for this case seems to be based on more than mere justice being served.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, given at least part of the “victimization” of false accusation victims is social and not legal, the higher counts included things like my personal experience (reported to campus police, then the report was dropped immediately afterward by the supposed victim, who claimed to not want to drag HER good name through the courts. And then continued to claim I was a rapist in informal contexts).
The larger part of my point stands, I think–you can be skeptical of individual rape claims without necessarily being evil, and you can acknowledge that false accusations happen and are a problem while still understanding the differences in severity between that and rape.
She wasn’t convicted of lying, but only because the Attorney General of North Carolina decided not to prosecute her, based on his belief that she was mentally unstable.
Her accusations were found to be absolutely without merit; i.e. fabricated from whole cloth, i.e. lies.
Do you have a cite other than “I have read some stuff”? I’d be interested to see if there’s actually any policy suggesting that police treat rape accusations differently from any other accusations that are basically on a he-said/she-said basis.
It’s my understanding that ALL accusations* are believed until investigation suggests otherwise; would you really want it any other way?
Are you suggesting that rape accusations be the only criminal accusations that are assumed to be *false *before they’re investigated?
*Obvious exceptions like people who have a prior history of false accusations aside.
And let’s not forget that the media outlets that have strict policies about naming alleged rape victims will gladly publish the name of the accused, his picture, and all kinds of details about the alleged crime. It’s even worse when the alleged victims underage. And in the US it’s usually (though not always) perfectly legal to for legal for the media to name alleged vicitims, but “it’s against journalist ethics” to do so. Yet somehow it’s not unethical to broadcast every little detail about the defendant they can get there hands on? :dubious: Either the defendant’s identity should be kept secret as well (only to be revealed upon conviction) or the victim’s should be published by every media outlet that want’s to name the defendent.
To which mental instability is a defense. And yes, sometimes people who have trouble with the law due to mental instability get in more trouble with the law. This woman has what we conclude as low moral character due to her mental instability, not because she lacks humanity.
"DSAC emphasizes that they believe false allegations are extremely rare, and that they see their role as police medical officers as advocates for the complainant. DSAC doctors giving evidence in court in cases involving alleged sexual touching commonly describe normal findings as “consistent with abuse.”
Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, sexual abuse workers in many disciplines, including police, DSAC doctors, social workers, psychologists, and therapists, are instructed that it is extremely unlikely for a sexual allegation to be false. At the recent DSAC conference on rape (DSAC Inter-disciplinary Conference: Rape: 10 Years’ Progress?, held in Wellington on March 27-30, 1996), there was continual emphasis on the importance of police and other professionals believing a complainant".
We wouldn’t be having these problems if a) the media held the accusers to the same standards of reporting as the do those accused and b) the courts brought charges against those knowingly bringing false rape accusations.
If balloon boy’s mom and dad can be brought to court for their stupid stunt, certainly people lying about a rape charge can be.
I never said she did lack humanity. It must be noted, however, that she told her friends that she was going to get a big payday from “some white boys.” So any attempt to cast her behavior as simply a manifestation of mental instability (which was only mentioned by the AG as a reason not to prosecute her, and never as a defense for her actions), must be mitigated by her obvious greed.
You, however, said :
Which is at best a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened. They were internally inconsistent, yes, but with regards to the truth, they were absolutely lies. Not inconsistencies. And far from being “not enough to proceed”, there was simply nothing about what she said that was accurate. So if having no case whatsoever means not enough to proceed, I suppose you are right. Most folks would see that as having a double handful of bullshit.
I agree with your point, but its pretty sad reflection on the system when how the balloon boy fiasco was handled is an example of proper juris prudence
As much as anything else, I think that the mere fact that the case got as far as Nifong in the first place is very very sad. I don’t think police should be judging guilt or otherwise, but one would hope proper policework would have uncovered a lot more a lot earlier…
In an almost unprecedented move, Nifong took over the investigation at a very early stage. It is clear that he saw an opportunity to attract Black voters in what was shaping up to be a closely contested bid for election.
I suppose this point has been made before, but it’s new to me, so I’ll throw it out here.
If the Duke players had been convicted, they stood a pretty good chance of being raped in the North Carolina prison system. They could have joined the Aryans for protection, of course.
When they were finally released from prison, they’d be bitter neo Nazis with no hope of getting decent jobs or having anything remotely resembling a life. Just what America needs more of!
