Actually it does. Sounds to me like he is saying that without any other evidence (which may or not be forthcoming) statistics of claims made by other women in similar situations should be taken into consideration. That makes sense to me.
Not seeing a problem. Sorry.
Implausible? No. Appearantly though (as shown by the statistics posted) it is somewhat less likely. It is my understanding, from what Huerta is saying, that the numbers only count until some/any other evidence is introduced.
Until other evidence contradicts his numbers, then I see no fault in what he is saying.
Well, going by the numbers, it would seem one involving a non-white attacker against a black woman.
Without any other evidence it is he said/she said. In those cases where NO other evidence is available then it is reasonable to look at examples of past reports to determine the likelihood of an honest report. The numbers should not, and do not, have any determination as to whether or not to investigate the claim, but rather to determine the possibility of a false report (which seems to happen up to 50% of the time).
I really have no dog in this fight, but what Huerta is saying does make sense to me. I also, based on what I have available to me at this time, do not believe the woman’s claim.
If the only “similarity” you have to go by is that rape is alleged, then that is insufficient information to determine whether any given allegation is 50% likely to be real or not.
Suppose the rate of obesity in this country is 33%. That does not mean that every American has a 33% chance of being obese. A person living in poverty has a different level of risk than a person living in affluence. Women have a different level of risk than men. Young people have a different level of risk than old. And so and so forth.
It is a mistake to apply statistics taken from a diverse population to any one individual and use it to predict that person’s behavior.
Less likely than what?
If the Pope testified that he was raped by a bunch of anti-papist thugs would you be more likely to believe that than if Monica Lewinsky claimed to have been raped by Bill Clinton? If so, how come? What does evidence have to do with your initial assessment of their claims? The fact is, it doesn’t. Intangibles such as the accuser’s credibility come into play. The Pope, being the Pope, has significant credibility. The stats on men-on-men rate are pretty low, but that probably won’t alter how you view his case, in light of this credibility. Right? You give credence to his case because of who he is.
Apply this thought process to other scenarios and you’ll see why stats are irrelevant.
You miss the point then. The numbers are wholly irrelevant.
Most rape is intraracial, whether it is white-on-white or black-on-black. That still has no bearing on the likelihood that this particular allegation is false. Please think about this some more if you still think Huerta is right.
And strippers (who lie for a living in the form of feigning affection and arousal for men they don’t know) have the inherent credibility of the Pope, which is why ((in the absence of any more definitive proof, as Greathouse but not you had the wit to understand is my constant qualifier) we should accept their as yet uncorroborated and statistically-improbable tale at face value?
It’s not about whether Huerta is right or not; he’s not making a definitive assertion. He’s simply saying that without evidence, the statistics cast doubt on the veracity of the woman’s claim. Period.
Why is that so unreasonable? Put it this way: if she claimed to have been gang-raped by a group of women, I would doubt her claim even more strongly based on nothing more than statistics. Of course, remember that this is qualified as being in the absence of evidence.
I feel the same way Greathouse does. I don’t believe the woman, and I see no glaring flaws in either Huerta’s cites or his logically presented position. (If he didn’t carefully qualify them, then obviously there’s a glaring flaw. But he is qualifying them appropriately, IMO.)
Campion seems to feel that none of us should hold any opinion either way until all evidence is presented in open court. In particular that so far we’ve only heard evidence from the defense. This ignores three key things:
First, we are not the jury, so baseless speculation is perfectly fine for us to engage in. (And Huerta seems to be trying to add some basis, which is all the better, IMO.)
Second, the prosecutor is the one who started (and seems to be continuing) to try this case in the media. So don’t lecture about how we should wait to hear from the prosecution when he’s been a Chatty Kathy from the get-go.
And third, the evidence that the defense is making public, (ie: the DNA, or lack thereof) is evidence that the prosecution asked for, right? Therefore, it is (or rather, was) part of the DA’s case, until it blew up in his face. To then label it as only being evidence for the defense is being disingenuous.
In the course of knowing a number of guys who went to (go to) strip clubs pretty regularly, and in two cases who dated strippers, my (equally anecdotal) experience has been that none of them expressed contempt or hatred or violent sentiments toward strippers; to the contrary, I chided them routinely on romanticizing strippers (see my previous point that to be a successful stripper is to be skilled in the lie of convincing a guy that you, an attractive young woman, REALLY CARE about him), buying them gifts, being strung along, etc. You may not know this, but IME the nekkid dancing is the sizzle, whereas the “conversation” is the steak with which they really earn their tips. So . . . I’ve known a lot of guys who want to DATE strippers, I’ve known one guy who almost MARRIED a stripper, but I’ve yet to meet one who wanted to RAPE one.
And that is wrong. The only things that should cast doubt is the lack of evidence and/or assertions that don’t jibe with what is known. Crime stats should not.
Wrong stuff is unreasonable.
But why? What is so unreasonable about the idea that a woman could rape another woman? Just because it is uncommon does not mean that you should view all claims with extra skepticism. Like I said before, avian influenza hasn’t been documented here over, but that wouldn’t make me dismiss out of hand any claims that it was.
This disclaimer is meaningless, though. We are talking about the plausibility of a claim: the likelihood that something could occur. Huerta maintains that he uses stats to gauge the likelihood of a incident. I’m saying that, with or without evidence, his particular approach is flawed.
I agree with her. Feeling strongly one way or the other is wrong when you’re not hearing both sides of the story. It’s okay not to believe the accuser at this point, since she has the burden of proof. But I don’t see how any one can justify calling her a liar just because of what the defense has put out in the media.
Huh. I dated two strippers my self during my misspent youth, and have one very close friend who stripped on & off for 15 years. Each of them has related a story of having been raped (one) or nearly raped (two) but for the intervention of a very badass boyfriend/f*ckbuddy (not me). Strippers usually bring a guy along on private parties like the one described here.
YWTF, Why is it wrong to gauge the probability that this woman is telling the truth based on past occurances of similar situations (black woman raped by white men), when you have nothing else to go on other than one person’s word against another? If no other evidence ever came to light, would you believe the woman was telling the truth and it was simply unfortunate that no evidence was found or would you assume she was lying? I would assume she is lying and that the men had actually done nothing illegal.
If the numbers rolled the opposite direction and showed a huge statistical probability that this woman was telling the truth would you honestly be saying that the numbers were useless in determining that her claim was honest with no other evidence to use?
Crime stats and false rape report rates are part of “what’s known,” although you obviously don’t want them to be. I’m strongly suspecting this is ideologically-driven, and that if DOJ reported that 11 out of 9 black women were gang-raped by the board of directors of Augusta National every night, and that the rate of false rape reporting was 0.02%, you’d not insist (in the absence of other evidence, which you first ignored as being my constant qualifier, then lame-assedly and with no explanation dismissed as “meaningless”) that a particular case needed to be judged, as a first-cut matter, divorced from any factual grounding about the world as we know it and rape as we know it.
[QUOTE=Greathouse]
YWTF, Why is it wrong to gauge the probability that this woman is telling the truth based on past occurances of similar situations (black woman raped by white men), when you have nothing else to go on other than one person’s word against another?
[quote]
Why does race supercede the myriad of other more relevant factors in your assessment of probability? Does the fact that she was a stripper dancing in a houseful of partying men mean anything to you? Or are you so fixated on race that you can’t see that there are more elements to the story than just race?
I would conclude that I don’t know what happened. Maybe I would have suspicions, but I was never come out and pronounce her a liar just because there was no evidence.
Good for you. Hope you don’t take that stance with a loved-one who gets raped but she has insufficient evidence to show for it.
Since the premise of this question is the very thing that I’ve been saying is wrong, I can’t answer it. It does. not. compute.
Why does race supercede the myriad of other more relevant factors in your assessment of probability? Does the fact that she was a stripper dancing in a houseful of partying men mean anything to you? Or are you so fixated on race that you can’t see that there are more elements to the story than just race?
I would conclude that I don’t know what happened. Maybe I would have suspicions, but I was never come out and pronounce her a liar just because there was no evidence.
Good for you. Hope you don’t take that stance with a loved-one who gets raped but she has insufficient evidence to show for it.
Since the premise of this question is the very thing that I’ve been saying is wrong, I can’t answer it. It does. not. compute.
So let me get this straight, is it your position that, lacking any evidence of rape we must assume that she isn’t lying and that the accused should be sent to prison just because she isn’t lying? :rolleyes:
He doesn’t seem to understand that that’s the real-world context. This is not an abstract academic debate about whether we should “blame the victim” or “wait and see.” The DA wasn’t “waiting and seeing.” Jesse Jackson wasn’t “waiting and seeing” before implying that there is an epidemic of white-on-black rape. The people who assumed that there was no reason a woman would lie about rape weren’t “waiting and seeing” before decrying the (possibly non-existent) outrage.
If her story isn’t discredited, it will be, well, credited. If so, this DA has made it plain he intends to go to town on the lax team members. That is a proper result only if her story is true. Sorry, faux-neutrality on this issue (the importance of scrutinizing and proving-up allegations of crime) isn’t an option for them, or for us, if we are truly justice-minded.
When you roll with the intellectual heavyweights, ya gots to come correk.
GF, I honestly think he doesn’t understand how his position leads to your chain of events.
Cut him some slack. The girls at college (?) told him he could get some trim if he kept repeating “women would never lie about rape,” and Neil Young assured him that all Southern Men liked nothing better than flaying, then laying, their slave gals behind the cabins. It’s been tough seeing the foundations of his worldview crumble.
What is so horrible about my stance? The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is not extended only towards the accused you know. The accuser doesn’t suddenly become a liar simply because she fails to prove her case. Otherwise every plantiff who loses their case would be sent to jail for perjury.
The fact that I’m having to explain these basic things to people who should know better really has me concerned. :eek:
Race does not supercede anything. If you can show number to support a different conclusion then go ahead. The numbers that have been shown to me do not support a high likeihood of event unfolding in the manner claimed by the alleged victim. At this point, to me, it I see nothing wrong in using statistics of past crimes and claims of crimes to guauge the likelihood of this allegation being true based on no other evidence.
No. Do you have numbers to support a claim that this should be considered? Do you havce numbers to show how frequently or infrequently strippers dancing in a houseful of partying men are raped? How often those strippers file false charges against the houseful of partying men?
Do you have any numbers to justify the inclusion of these elements into my judgement of the veracity of the story?
I certainly would not believe her.
I hope you don’t take your stance if it is your loved-one being accused.
Do I need numbers to tell me that blindly walking in front of a traffic is dangerous? No, because it is quite plausible that a car will hit someone who is not paying attention. Do I need numbers to tell me that playing with a loaded shotgun is a bad idea. Again, no! Common sense dictates that. I don’t need to look at statistics to determine what is possible or not. Just like I don’t need stats to tell me that it is plausible that a white man could rape a black woman.
Do you have an argument to put forth that compellingly explains why race is a more important consideration than anything else? You are the one who has glommed onto that particular crime statistic as if it is pertinent to this case. So why don’t you explain to the SDMB why you apparently believe rape is a function of race. That’s the only reason why one would think that statistic is relevant.
:eek: