New Il. Rape law

[annaplurabelle]

Important info regarding the Shane Seyer case:

Originally posted by Shodan
Not in the case of Shane Seyer previously cited.
A twelve year old is incapable of giving consent. He was raped.

First problem: Technically, he wasn’t raped. The mother was never convicted (due to a plea bargain for a lesser charge). She was also a minor at the time (17), which negated the defense appeal of statutory rape (according to Kansas statute). The Kansas SC couldn’t rule on the basis of a crime that wasn’t officially recorded.

Second, consider the politics involved here. The court didn’t want to open a can of worms via case law where minors could produce children and then absolve themselves of responsibility by calling (statutory) rape.

The interests of the State in this matter is quite plain: They don’t want to set a precedent for the State to take financial responsibility for children conceived by minors, consensually or otherwise. It’s about money and the entitlements programs.

Something else, that oddly enough, never gets mentioned: the SRS (social services/welfare dept) never moved forward to collect this judgement. From the official court transcript:

Finally, we call attention to the fact that no issue was raised as to the propriety of the judgment against a youngster who was still a full-time student when these proceedings were commenced. When questioned in oral argument about the policy of SRS in seeking a judgment in excess [***23] of $ 7,000, counsel replied with the surprising statement that SRS had no intention of ever attempting to collect its judgment. Under such circumstances, the reason for seeking that portion of the judgment still eludes us.

I was not able to find any records of the SRS subsequently enforcing the ongoing support monies judgement. I’d be willing to bet they didn’t. The reality is, as long as he hasn’t got the money, there’s not much they can do (please note the court absolved his parents from responsibility). The situation could change for a number of reasons (the mother could sue him later on), but AFAIK it is not the policy of welfare depts. to pursue judgements barring extraordinary circumstances, if then (there are cases where wealthy fathers avoid these judgements on record).

The irony is, this case gets trotted out as the pet poster boy by right wing conservatives and anti-feminists, even though the principle behind it is one of their other pet projects: reducing State entitlements.

Form your own opinion (and don’t forget to read the fine print!).

[melody]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**
Your description is one where the male is denied the opportunity to withdraw consent (she wrapped her legs around him and wouldn’t let go.) You claim that both are responsible for the resultant child.

Would you say the same if the woman was the one who withdrew consent, and the man refused to let go? Would you then say they were both responsible because she was relying on withdrawal as a contraceptive measure?
**

Shodan, are you trying to claim there is a rational adult, sexually active male who doesn’t know that having sex can produce babies? Whether he “pulls out” in the last five seconds, or 5 seconds into the game, there is still the chance that sperm could have already been released and are even now zeroing in on that egg. Once he consents to having sex with her, and regardless of whatever contraceptive method they may or may not be using, he is every bit as responsible as she is for any offspring produced from that union. Note; I am talking about consensual sex between rational adults, not rape, and certainly not child molestation, because that is the scenario Razorsharp suggested.
Trying to claim that “she put her legs around me for that last five seconds and I couldn’t get awaaaaaay” {What, is he having sex with Tonya Harding?} isn’t going to absolve him of his responsibility, any more than a woman whining that “I tried to make him pull out at the very end but he didn’t”.
I would not say you are talking about rape when a woman waits until the last five seconds to say ‘I’m done, pull out, get off’, anymore than I would try to claim a woman “raped” a man who was five seconds from orgasm and simply held on to him tightly until his ejaculation. Ample evidence of incredibly poor judgement on both his part and hers, yes, but not rape. Stupidity is not a criminal act in and of itself; there is also something about “intent”.

But let’s say that during copulation between two rational, otherwise consenting adults, that for whatever reason 5 seconds into the act he changes his mind about wanting to have sex with her {Oh My Gawd! I didn’t see that nasty gaping sore before! I think I’m gonna be sick!} and she had physically restrained him, and manually managed to maintain his erection until she was finished with him? Then yes, I would agree that she has raped him. Likewise, if five seconds into the act the woman said, “no, this isn’t working. Stop”, then for him to continue is rape. But waiting until the last five seconds doesn’t qualify for anything other than stupidity, IMHO.

That said, I have to be honest and admit that I would have some trouble buying into the story of a man who suddenly decided that he didn’t want to have sex with a woman and yet somehow managed to continue to maintain an erection for five minutes which ultimately resulted in ejaculation. Medically, I have no doubt it’s possible; mentally, well, maybe. {I have little doubt several of the gentlemen here will inform me that it probably happens all the time.} But basically, somebody would have some serious 'splaining to do.

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by annaplurabelle *
Exactly my point. If the results don’t make sense, there must be something that wasn’t factored properly. That’s why I think using any of these studies as “proof” is just spin.

Not proof but I would say they count as sufficient evidence that it merits a closer look.

I think you’re forgetting something: Those figures are for reported rapes. Not all of them make it to trial. In fact, the sad reality is, if you were actually raped, there’s no guarantee the DA will go forward with the case. If he/she doesn’t move to indict, the DNA isn’t ordered. Please don’t forget this in your focus on false charges.

I mentioned this before but it an take an attorney to settle it (where’s Bricker when you need him?). I suspect )do not know) that DNA tests aren’t ordered up till a case has progressed to some extent. That is, the woman is sticking to her story and a suspect has been named. If the DNA test comes back negative I would be surprised if it still went to trial unless there was some other extremely compelling evidence. If the DNA test comes back positive (a match with the suspect) I would likewise be surprised if the case went to trial and the defendant didn’t try to cop a plea absent some likewise exceedingly compelling evidence that might exonerate him. My point here is that in the cases where DNA is tested I would assume the case is being pushed forward and not a case where the woman backs off for one reason or another.

I will say that I do not know how this is all handled these days. It used to be that DNA tests were expensive and took a long time to do. Technology has advanced and certainly DNA tests are faster and cheaper than they once were…I just don’t know how fast and how cheap such that the police need to decide at what level submitting a test is worthwhile. At the very least testing labs have finite resources so I doubt the police will throw a DNA test at them without some reason to suppose they have a case.

We’re missing each other here. I’m referring to the older cases now being overturned through DNA - convictions from the time before DNA testing. Many of those men were railroaded, and many of them are black, many had priors (and certainly all of them were poor). Remember Jim Love - he was convicted for a crime that occured while he was out of the country.

No doubt this was the case but the woman in most instances still needs to be complicit in railroading the defendant. I suppose it is possible that a case can be made absent the woman’s testimony if the evidence is strong enough but I would think the vast majority require the woman to finger her supposed assailant. As such I think you are still left with a false accusation from the woman in most cases no matter how old.

As to Love’s case I am not so sure. It seems beyond belief that someone could be convicted for a crime when they were thousands of miles away. Either he ordered the crime committed (making him just as guilty as if he did it himself) or he can’t prove he was out of the country. The alternative that the judicial system convicted a guy with such an ironclad alibi beggars belief and is more than a little scary.

It still alters the percentages - and distorts the true impact of violent crime. I’m not invalidating your concern about false charges, but it’s not the only concern here. In any case, my example points to the possibility of flawed numbers and estimates for any given grouping, not necessarily the particulars of false charges by gender.

I do not see the value of lumping all false accusations together except maybe as an indictment of of the judicial system as a whole. How does wrapping aggravated battery with sexual assault false accusation statistics gain you anything? Say (for the sake of argument) false aggravated battery complaints are at 1% and false rape complaints are at 25%. You have a combined stat of 13% false accusations. The separate stats show a need to focus efforts on lowering false rape accusations and can practically ignore false battery charges as there are certainly bigger fish to fry first. Combined all you know is there is a false accusation problem out there but it doesn’t tell you where the efforts need to be applied to correct the problem. Likewise with men who are raped and women who are raped. Rolling them together doesn’t help anything. The problem needs to be narrowly defined so you can start to fix it.

But again, it’s not a percentage based on the total number of cases, even the ones that make it to trial. First, the DNA issue is not a factor in cases where consent is the defense. And it appears that the trend is an increase in cases of “date-rape” or acquaintance rape, where establishing that sex occured is not the issue.

I agree but I would place the DNA tests towards a lower limit on false accusations. When you get into date rape the question of rape gets decidedly more gray and difficult to determine. If women claiming a full-blown rape (as in the guy jumped out of the bushes…I’m not saying date rape isn’t rape) get it wrong 25% of the time why would you expect the more dicey area of date rape to be an improvement on that number? I admit I’m just speculating here but logic seems to indicate this is a fair hypothesis (you or anyone of course is free to call my logic into question). Kanin’s study even stated as much with a claimed 50% false accusation rate on college campuses (which I suspect are largely cases of date rape although certainly they get all types as well).

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Nightime *
**
Honestly, I don’t see how you can take seriously anyone’s views on rape that believes a rape victim should be forced to pay their rapist for getting raped.
**

I believe KellyM’s point is that the victim is not paying the rapist, but rather the child. It’s called “child support” not “other parent support” for a reason, and although some parents may misuse the money it is intended to go towards providing for the child. And a child conceived during a rape needs just as much support as any other child.

The real problem as I see it is not that rape victims are expected to help provide for their biological offspring, but that rapists are allowed custody of their biological offspring at all. A convicted rapist or child molestor has no business raising children.

If the rapist is a man, he should never be allowed near the child and his consent should not be required if the bio mother wants to put it up for adoption. He should have no rights in regard to the child at all, although I would be happy to see the state take away whatever money he earns making license plates and put it towards child support. If the rapist is a woman, the state should take the child away from her as soon as it is born and give it to the biological father. He can then either choose to raise it himself or put it up for adoption. Either way the bio mother should have no rights to the child, although again I think she should pay child support if the bio father chooses to raise it.

This would neatly avoid the problem of any rape victim ever feeling that they were being forced to “pay their rapist”, and would also protect children from being raised by convicted sex offenders.

Now, as I see annaplurabelle has pointed out on preview, there are cases where the sex offenders who impregnante or are impregnated by their victims are not convicted. That is upsetting, but the state cannot punish people for crimes they have not been convicted of.

[annaplurabelle]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**I don’t see how this is “spin” in the least.

We were talking about false accusations of rape. This was certainly an accusation, the woman admitted that it was false, and it was an accusation of rape.

I don’t see how this can be construed as “avoiding the real problem”. Is the real problem that police don’t pay enough attention to charges of rape? Is it that many rapes aren’t reported? Or that people don’t take the problem of sexual assault seriously enough?**

Okay, you’re right - you don’t understand.

It would seem to me that if irresponsible women can stop using false accusations of rape to get attention for their disorderly conduct complaints, then we can deal with the “real problem” of rape.

Then and only then, right?

Here’s why it’s spin: You want to use this example as part of a blanket percentage, and then use that distorted percentage as a way of saying: “Innocent men are in danger!” or “There’s an alarming possibility that women are lying - look at these percentages!”

That’s why it’s spin.

I cannot believe that trying to overlook someone crying “Wolf” is a good idea. Because I am sure you and I would agree that there are really wolves out there, and some of them are pretty nasty.

There are wolves on both sides of this issue. Tell you what, you speak the truth about the anti-feminist agenda, the way I have done regarding radical feminism, and we’ll take it from there. Maybe we just disagree about which wolves are the most dangerous. But if you’re presenting an obviously slanted view, I can’t expect you to see my points clearly, or debate the issue fairly.

None of this should be taken as trying to minimize the impact of rape on those who are really attacked. But aren’t you concerned about trivializing accusations of rape when the irresponsible use it just to get back at their boyfriends?

Ah see, now you change the scenario to “getting back at a boyfriend”. That was not the original scenario, was it? Which is exactly my point - some charges are much more serious than others. Dwelling on the semantics of the term “false charges” to make a distorted point, trivialises the “real problem” of actual rape, and (sneakily) maligns the integrity of women in general. It even trivialises the seriousness of the malicious intent false charges, and belies the supposed concern for innocent men.

I’m sorry if you really can’t understand that’s exactly what you’re doing.

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by annaplurabelle *
Here’s why it’s spin: You want to use this example as part of a blanket percentage, and then use that distorted percentage as a way of saying: “Innocent men are in danger!” or “There’s an alarming possibility that women are lying - look at these percentages!”

You are correct in trying to point out an easily abused point of view but I worry that in that effort you trivialize it as well. Lying about rape is a BIG deal! Even if the lie doesn’t specify a target it is a rather despicable thing to do. What would you say to your daughter (assuming you had one) who came home and pleaded she was raped only to find out later she said that to avoid trouble for breaking her curfew?

To be clear, I think it is appropriate and useful to distinguish between false accusations that accuse another individual and those accusations that do not. Nevertheless ALL false accusations have a detrimental effect and not just to men. Women who are legitmately raped see their pleas fall on suspicious ears as a result and that is not a good thing.

[annaplurabelle]

**I agree but I would place the DNA tests towards a lower limit on false accusations. When you get into date rape the question of rape gets decidedly more gray and difficult to determine. If women claiming a full-blown rape (as in the guy jumped out of the bushes…I’m not saying date rape isn’t rape) get it wrong 25% of the time why would you expect the more dicey area of date rape to be an improvement on that number? I admit I’m just speculating here but logic seems to indicate this is a fair hypothesis (you or anyone of course is free to call my logic into question). **
Whack-a-Mole, your logic is incorrect.

First of all, you can’t use the 25% in your logic at all, as it’s based on the total # of rapes reported, not, as you say here, only the stranger rape cases. The percentage is wrong for that sample.

Second, the issue in the date rape scenario is consent, not mistaken identity. You can’t apply the first premise to the second, regardless of what the real percentage is for the first. How many women mistake consent for non-consent is a completely different question. But here you’re mixing up “getting it wrong” with “false charges”. It doesn’t fly.

More about mistaken identity: It’s not that implausible in the stranger rape cases. Any police officer will tell you the same. Have you ever been a witness to a crime, or a victim of one where the perpetrator was present? I have been, on 3 occasions. Once you look at mug shots and line ups, it’s very easy to make a mistake. The police will often show false mug shots and line up subjects just to determine the accuracy of the witness.

And again, when there’s a racial difference between the accused/accuser, the mistake is even easier (sad but true, although it’s probably better than it used to be). It’s not always malicious intent - someone who has been victimised is very anxious for closure and really wants to believe that the perpetrator is the one in custody. It’s up to the criminal justice system to minimise this problem, and in the past at least, it would often overlook this in favour of clearing dockets and higher conviction rates. Again, a systemic problem.

[Guinastasia]

If the rapist is a man, he should never be allowed near the child and his consent should not be required if the bio mother wants to put it up for adoption. He should have no rights in regard to the child at all, although I would be happy to see the state take away whatever money he earns making license plates and put it towards child support. If the rapist is a woman, the state should take the child away from her as soon as it is born and give it to the biological father. He can then either choose to raise it himself or put it up for adoption. Either way the bio mother should have no rights to the child, although again I think she should pay child support if the bio father chooses to raise it.

And my comrade Lamia said it better than I could.

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by annaplurabelle *
First of all, you can’t use the 25% in your logic at all, as it’s based on the total # of rapes reported, not, as you say here, only the stranger rape cases. The percentage is wrong for that sample.

No…the DNA tests are the total number of rape cases for which DNA was submitted…not the total number reported. Clearly when the question of rape is a consent issue DNA is unneeded. The accused essentially admits to having had sex with the woman so why bother with a DNA test? DNA will be used only where the accused says it simply wasn’t him that did it…whether he is a stranger or, more likely, an acquaintance is beside the point.

Second, the issue in the date rape scenario is consent, not mistaken identity. You can’t apply the first premise to the second, regardless of what the real percentage is for the first. How many women mistake consent for non-consent is a completely different question. But here you’re mixing up “getting it wrong” with “false charges”. It doesn’t fly.

See my response just above. The Kanin study cited a 50% false accusation rape on college campuses which I think largely will be date-rape scenarios (although again they certainly get all kinds).

More about mistaken identity: It’s not that implausible in the stranger rape cases. Any police officer will tell you the same. Have you ever been a witness to a crime, or a victim of one where the perpetrator was present? I have been, on 3 occasions. Once you look at mug shots and line ups, it’s very easy to make a mistake. The police will often show false mug shots and line up subjects just to determine the accuracy of the witness.

I’m glad you brought this up. It was something that occurred to me earlier but I forgot to work it in.

I realize the eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. However, ther is a big difference between somone mugging you for a minute and someone raping you for five minutes (or however long but I doubt they are generally crimes committed in a minute or less). What is the reliability of a woman as an eyewitness in being able to point out her attacker? Given that 80+% of rapes are committed by acquaintances (someone the woman already knows) and given the lengthier and, to put it lightly, more personal nature of the crime are women actually as bad an eyewitness (again to put it mildly) as someone who is mugged? Certainly the abhorrent nature of the crime can have who knows what psychological impact on the woman such that she shuts-down or closes herself off from what is happening and may not take notice of who is attacking her. I’m serious in this question…I just don’t know and would be interested in the answer.

[annaplurabelle]

You are correct in trying to point out an easily abused point of view but I worry that in that effort you trivialize it as well…

I don’t have to cap and bold my basic agreement with you again, do I?

I try to keep a balanced POV, but if a particular post is abusing the issue then I think it’s right to point it out too. The squeaky wheels get the oil, which is why these rape threads tend to get hijacked by flame wars between feminists and misogynists. It’s more fun than thinking of a solution, right? The reasonable posts get lost in shuffle (as your mistaking my position awhile back surely proves).

Note that my post about male rape victims, and the question of if there is an actual consensus about what constitutes consent in society (as opposed to the legal def.) were not addressed. I think they are both BIG deals too, and yet…the hypothetical scenarios continue…

[Nightime]

Lamia:

The real problem as I see it is not that rape victims are expected to help provide for their biological offspring, but that rapists are allowed custody of their biological offspring at all.

I already made this point:

“It isn’t about the kid. The kid could be put up for adoption. No, it is about the rapist. You are willing to sacrifice the victim of the rape, in order to help the rapist.”

However, the fact that it is a problem that rapists are allowed custody of children does not mean that it isn’t a problem that rape victims are forced to support their offspring!

It’s not a situation where you have to choose only one to be wrong. If a person is raped, they should not be forced by the state to support the child. Just because the problem could be averted by not allowing custody to the rapist does not mean that isn’t just as true.

Also, your solution would not handle cases in which genetic material is stolen by other means than rape. If a man has sperm stolen from him, or a woman has her eggs stolen, they should not be forced to pay for any children born from their genetic material.

I just can’t believe that the same people who are so adamant in their fight against rape, are fine with forcing rape victims to suffer such enormous harm afterwards as a matter of law.

Now, as I see annaplurabelle has pointed out on preview, there are cases where the sex offenders who impregnante or are impregnated by their victims are not convicted. That is upsetting, but the state cannot punish people for crimes they have not been convicted of.

It is doubtful that this is even relevant. The law specifically says that consent is irrelevant. It specifically says that criminal acts by the mother resulting in conception are irrelevant. So what reason is there to believe that had she been convicted of the original crime, anything would have been different?

You are also forgetting that there is civil court. Even if the girl was able to plea bargain in the criminal trial (which I doubt a male babysitter who impregnated a 12 year old girl would be able to do) the victim should still be able to ask for restitution in civil court.

Criminals can be held liable for monetary damages in civil court. In this case, the monetary damages from her criminal act (which she was convicted of) are the child support payments.

Therefore, she should be held liable for the full amount of child support payments. As soon as he pays her, she should have to give it right back.

But the law does not allow this. The law says consent is irrelevant. The law says criminal acts are irrelevant. The law is wrong, and I really wish people would admit this so I wouldn’t feel like I am living in bizarro world here.

[annaplurabelle]

Certainly the abhorrent nature of the crime can have who knows what psychological impact on the woman such that she shuts-down or closes herself off from what is happening and may not take notice of who is attacking her. I’m serious in this question…I just don’t know and would be interested in the answer.

I would say that you deliberately avoid eyeballing the rapist. Many times the rapist will conceal identifying features (head cap or face covering), or physically block your view, but almost always there is the awareness that If I can identify this guy, and he knows that, he might just kill me now. How many rapists would you guess actually say that as a form of intimidation?

Also, the more intimate features of rape are not usually available for ID purposes later: smell, taste, personal behaviour while committing the act, etc.

There are variations as to time as well (just as with consensual sex). Sometimes it’s a very short contact situation. In varying degrees of light/dark.

Also, depends on how long between the rape and the apprehension. Memories fade, both good and bad.

Does that answer your question?

No…the DNA tests are the total number of rape cases for which DNA was submitted…not the total number reported.

Then we still don’t know what the overall percentage is, or any specific sample percentage. I’m not sure what the SOP is right now, so I can’t argue, but how are you certain that all the cases submitted fit the specific criteria you’re arguing?

And again, “getting it wrong” in a stranger rape is not the same as a “false charge”. I would postulate that many DNA reports are done with the intention of ruling out an uncertainty to begin with (in some cases ordered by the defense counsel). So it doesn’t seem to me it’s a reflection of how many women will lie about rape. Are we missing each other on this point?

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by annaplurabelle *
I don’t have to cap and bold my basic agreement with you again, do I?

Whoa there. I think you’ve been an excellent contributor to this thread and have kept your arguments even keeled. Like you I was only trying to balance the boat and while there may be some rocking getting there I so far see no reason to think we’re in danger of capsizing.

Actually I have to apologize somewhat…when initially written (the post you take exception to) I had included a little snippet acknowledging where you have been and our agreement (of sorts) on the basic rules of the game (more understood than explicitly stated). I just went back to quote it and see why you missed it but it seems when I was editing my post I cut it out and it isn’t there. Long story short is I do not mean to start a flame fest with you so please take my statements as honest debate and not inflamatory rhetoric. I still stand behind my statements and uou (or anyone) are of course more than free to rip it apart as you see fit.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Nightime *
**
Also, your solution would not handle cases in which genetic material is stolen by other means than rape. If a man has sperm stolen from him, or a woman has her eggs stolen, they should not be forced to pay for any children born from their genetic material. **

Experience in this forum has taught me that once people start bringing up “stolen sperm” then there’s little point in discussing the matter further. I’m sorry if this is unfair to you, and your other posts in this thread do seem pretty reasonable (even when I don’t agree with you), but I’ve been down this particular road before and I’m not up to doing it again right now.

[KellyM]

Also, annaplurabelle, if you never see his face, it won’t show up in your nightmares. A lot of women have advised women who are being raped to avoid making any eye or facial contact with the perp in order to reduce the emotional damage. The loss of evidence is considered by many to be a reasonable price to pay because the criminal justice system probably won’t try very hard to catch or prosecute the perp anyway.

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by annaplurabelle *
Does that answer your question?

Yes and no. I suspect the answer is hard to come by as I imagine it depends on many variables. I heard one story of a teenage girl abducted by a serial murderer/rapist who made a point of noticing everything she could and leaving evidence at every opportunity (the guy had her for a few days). For some reason she was the only person this man let live (no doubt in large part to her smarts in complying and being ‘nice’ to the man while she was his captive) and as a result they caught the guy and were able to use her trail of evidence to convict him and send him away forever. On the flip side I’m sure there are women who become catatonic in such a circumstance. I am making no judgements on anyone here…who can say how they will respond in such extreme circumstances…I doubt anyone can say with certainty unless till they’ve been through it.

That said I would think plenty of psychological profiles have been done by now that general assumptions can be made. Certainly any individual case might be different but I am asking for the broad stroke here. You mention that a woman’s life might be threatened by her attacker and as such avoid giving him reason to think he has been identified. I’ve thought to myself that were I a victim of a crime (not rape but say mugging) I would avoid giving my attacker reason to think I eyeballed him and give him what is in my pocket and hope he goes away. What I don’t get is how you reconcile the fact (given by women’s abuse organizations no less so I think they are valid in most people’s eyes) that women know their attacker as a prior aquaintance over 80% of the time. Far more often than not it is not a stranger but someone she knows. Does this affect your take on a woman’s ability to identify her attacker?

Then we still don’t know what the overall percentage is, or any specific sample percentage. I’m not sure what the SOP is right now, so I can’t argue, but how are you certain that all the cases submitted fit the specific criteria you’re arguing?

I’m not certain about anything here…I’m working on assumptions and logic based upon statistics that are open to multiple interpretations. All I can say is what I think seems likely. The numbers for total false accusations may indeed be lower than the FBI’s 25%. I don’t think so for reasons I have stated but I will allow, easily, that I could be wrong. All I need to change my opinion are better/more complete statistics or a better argument.

I understand that the FBI stats are only those for which DNA testing was submitted. How do the police decide when it is appropriate to submit a DNA test? Why would you suppose that times where DNA was not found would vary in percentage form when DNA was found? Why would you suppose that cases where DNA is not an issue (questions of consent) would be lower than what the DNA numbers show? I know we don’t have definitive answers to these questions but if the studies were done what would you expect them to show and why?

And again, “getting it wrong” in a stranger rape is not the same as a “false charge”. I would postulate that many DNA reports are done with the intention of ruling out an uncertainty to begin with (in some cases ordered by the defense counsel). So it doesn’t seem to me it’s a reflection of how many women will lie about rape. Are we missing each other on this point?

Maybe (about missing each other on this point). DNA evidence is a wonderful tool for both sides in a criminal case from a justice perspective. Both sides in a criminal case may make use of it to come close to definitively settling the issue. As such both sides may make use of it. You have 25% of the DNA testing showing the suspect was not the culprit. You HAVE to gave a culprit to compare against and say it is or isn’t him. How do you get that person? Maybe there is evidence sufficient to focus on a giy without the woman’s testimony but my sense is most of the time it takes the woman to finger someone who they then compare a DNA test against.

Even if you say the woman is never malicious in her accusation as a guy should I feel any better about that? What are women doing hanging a rape accusation on someone when they don’t know the guy they claim to have done it is indeed the guy (forget malicious accusations for the moment)? She has been through a brutal experience and her need for closure, for justice, is understandable but the notion of pegging a rape charge on someone when she is unsure is criminal too. She doesn’t get justice…indeed the real criminal may go free. She has merely created two offenses where there was just one.

[Nightime]

Experience in this forum has taught me that once people start bringing up “stolen sperm” then there’s little point in discussing the matter further. I’m sorry if this is unfair to you, and your other posts in this thread do seem pretty reasonable (even when I don’t agree with you), but I’ve been down this particular road before and I’m not up to doing it again right now.

You know, if you don’t feel like responding to someone, there are better ways to handle it than deliberately misinterpreting them, quoting two words out of context from a point that was already tangental to their main argument, and then casting vague aspersions.

I’m disappointed.

I am amazed that you are not willing to admit that forcing rape victims to pay child support against their will is wrong.

Even if the problem could be solved by never allowing rapists to get custody, it would not make it any less wrong. Would murder no longer be wrong if we could guarantee it would never happen?

And I do not believe that solution would work, and here is why:

It ignores methods of stealing eggs or sperm other than rape. Apparently you think it is strange to say this, but the case in this very thread refutes you! The babysitter was not convicted of statutory rape. I bring this up, because no matter HOW the genetic material is stolen, the victim should not be held responsible for the crime commited against them. The law should be general in that sense, rather than specific to the crime of rape. Perhaps I did not make this point clear.

Also, your solution runs into problems with statutory rape. It is very possible that in some cases of statutory rape we would not want to take the child away. However your solution seems to make that mandatory.

And finally, you were mistaken in saying that we had to rely on a criminal conviction for rape. Criminals can be held liable in civil court for monetary damages that resulted from their crime. Therefore even with a plea bargain, they could be asked to make restitution for the monetary damages, which in this case would be the child support payments.

The law that prevents all this, and forces the victim to pay with no regard to consent or criminal acts, is wrong. And still, you are unwilling to admit this.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
I’m glad you brought this up. It was something that occurred to me earlier but I forgot to work it in.

I realize the eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. However, ther is a big difference between somone mugging you for a minute and someone raping you for five minutes (or however long but I doubt they are generally crimes committed in a minute or less). What is the reliability of a woman as an eyewitness in being able to point out her attacker? Given that 80+% of rapes are committed by acquaintances (someone the woman already knows) and given the lengthier and, to put it lightly, more personal nature of the crime are women actually as bad an eyewitness (again to put it mildly) as someone who is mugged? Certainly the abhorrent nature of the crime can have who knows what psychological impact on the woman such that she shuts-down or closes herself off from what is happening and may not take notice of who is attacking her. I’m serious in this question…I just don’t know and would be interested in the answer.

In my view, this variant of a false rape accusation has no real bearing on what we’re discussing.

It’s undoubtedly true that it happens - but it’s equally true of every crime involving an eyewitness. There is no malice on the part of the accuser; she is, for whatever reason, simply mistaken. To lump this in with deliberate false reports and then attempt to draw some inference from the combined statistic is valueless.

• Rick

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**In my view, this variant of a false rape accusation has no real bearing on what we’re discussing.

It’s undoubtedly true that it happens - but it’s equally true of every crime involving an eyewitness. There is no malice on the part of the accuser; she is, for whatever reason, simply mistaken. To lump this in with deliberate false reports and then attempt to draw some inference from the combined statistic is valueless.**

I disagree. I doubt a guy rotting in jail for rape for the next 15 years due to an honest mistake is any happier than a guy rotting in jail because a woman maliciously stuck a rape charge on him.

[annaplurabelle]

Far more often than not it is not a stranger but someone she knows. Does this affect your take on a woman’s ability to identify her attacker?

Of course. I wasn’t referring to anything other than stranger rapes. Although, there are circumstances where the woman is either unconscious or drugged/inebriated and therefore may not be able to ID a particular (known) individual with certainty. Also: gang rape.

You have 25% of the DNA testing showing the suspect was not the culprit. You HAVE to gave a culprit to compare against and say it is or isn’t him. How do you get that person? Maybe there is evidence sufficient to focus on a giy without the woman’s testimony but my sense is most of the time it takes the woman to finger someone who they then compare a DNA test against.

Okay. They apprehend suspects based on a general ID description. But let’s say the witness (rape victim) says “I think so, but I can’t be sure.” So they order the DNA to see if they can connect the suspect with the crime. With this evidence, they might have a basis for a case even w/o the witness ID. Her evidence is the rape kit DNA, not her testimony. If it’s ruled out, they move on - no false charges.

So what I’m saying is: DNA testing can be ordered to rule out suspects - it doesn’t imply that the woman “fingered” anyone - in fact, just the opposite. I don’t count that as a “false charge”. Meanwhile, the “numbers” on the DNA cases that are negative get skewed in the process of “ruling out” (possibly) numerous suspects. In a way, we can point to that as justice at work - not allowing uncertain testimony to decide whether a case has merit. Does that make sense?

What are women doing hanging a rape accusation on someone when they don’t know the guy they claim to have done it is indeed the guy (forget malicious accusations for the moment)? She has been through a brutal experience and her need for closure, for justice, is understandable but the notion of pegging a rape charge on someone when she is unsure is criminal too. She doesn’t get justice…indeed the real criminal may go free. She has merely created two offenses where there was just one.

I doubt a guy rotting in jail for rape for the next 15 years due to an honest mistake is any happier than a guy rotting in jail because a woman maliciously stuck a rape charge on him.

Again, it’s NOT malicious. Not if you accept the logic I’m asserting above. Being “unsure” is not a crime, and it’s to her credit to admit that. Anyway, we’re talking stranger rape here - providing an uncertain ID is sometimes the only recourse - as long as there’s DNA to back it up, I don’t see a problem with it. Before DNA, or in absence of DNA, there would be a problem. Different story there, and you then might consider malicious intent as a possible factor. But I expect more go free because of uncertain ID, even if guilty, than vice-versa. Do you doubt that?

Why would you suppose that cases where DNA is not an issue (questions of consent) would be lower than what the DNA numbers show? I know we don’t have definitive answers to these questions but if the studies were done what would you expect them to show and why?

I’m not supposing they would be lower - I’m saying they don’t apply to the “mistaken identity” factor (except drug or gang rape). I’m not supposing anything except that the results of these studies are too variable to suppose any percentage validity with certainty. But really, why argue the numbers? I don’t care if it’s 2%, 10%, 25%, or 50% - proposing and implementing preventative solutions is still the only recourse.

We can isolate the various factors involved and approach them differently (with priority for the charges that are most likely to involve victims, like malicious intent and date rape consent confusion).

The “attention seeking” false charges w/o victims most often result in a psych/counselling referral - this should be mandatory. Apart from that, there’s not much else you can do outside of increasing mental health overall in society. You want to put them in jail?

The “alibi” cases are similar: If there’s a perceived domestic problem, social services will investigate the case. Maybe it’s a cry for help, and again, as long as there are no corrollary victims named, maybe it’s a good thing that the police were made aware of it. Being that frightened to go home w/o an alibi sounds like a potential future crime in the making. Anyway: mandatory counselling, as above.

That leaves revenge and the date rape consent problem. If I do want to know numbers, these are the numbers I’m interested in. And these are the only numbers that should concern men who might be worried about being falsely accused.

It’s the actual rape victims who suffer as a result of the blanket percentages.