Why is this something you expect me to “admit”? Have I said that I believe the scenario you describe above is right? No, I have merely said that I do not believe it is the real issue. It is something that should never even come up if the system is working properly.
I’m not even convinced that it does come up – it seems that, regardless of what the court ruling said, the boy in the case above has never paid child support and the state does not intend to make him do so. And that’s great for everyone involved…except the baby, who is apparently being raised alone by a woman who likes to have sex with children.
The system is in fact set up for exactly this to happen. How can you argue otherwise? The law specifically says that consent and criminal acts are irrelevant. Even if the mother was convicted of statutory rape he would still have to pay child support.
Your argument has been repeatedly disproved and yet you continue to ignore this.
Cite?
They say they are going to make him pay, and I see no reason to doubt their word. Maybe he hasn’t paid yet, but don’t you think that could be related to not having any income?
Okay but you must incorporate the numbers we do know into this. If we assume 80% of women know their attacker leaving 20% where it is a stranger. 20% of 25% is 5% (or 80% of 25% is 20% if you prefer). So, 20% are getting it ‘wrong’ for one reason or another when they are acquainted with their attacker prior to the incident. I grant that date rape drugs, inebriation and so on can mitigate that number but it is still alarming as you yourslef allow that these women should be more likely to be able to positively identify their attacker.
Good point and well taken.
Yes, it makes sense. I see that the implication a woman fingered someon can’t be made in all cases. I don’t think the police take a shotgun approach to DNA testing (e.g. test everyone in a school till they find a match) so I still think the woman needs to be a part of directing them but I can see how she can waffle uncertainly but still peg a guy and have him DNA tested.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
I agree and see no problem with the testing either. I wholeheartedly support the testing when it is relevant as it either absolves someone who is innocent or nails the puke who is guilty. My point is if women get it wrong 25% of the time, regardless of intent on their part, what does that imply for the times when DNA evidence is unavailable? Clearly the vast majority of rape cases never get DNA testing done to settle the issue (I understand that in consent cases it is a non-issue and wouldn’t help). In short, DNA can absolve a guy of wrongdoing but if that evidence doesn’t exist we go back to he said/she said with maybe some less certain evidence.
I’m not sure if I doubt that or not. Uncertain evidence should supposedly favor the accused. But as mentioned ealier by *Bricker it more often than not comes down to who the jury/judge believes which leaves the question open to endless speculation. If the woman is painted as a tramp and the defendant as an up-standing member of society the guy probably walks. If the woman is portrayed as a sympathetic victim and the guy is a slimeball the guy probably goes to jail. You could come up with tons of variations on that theme and would probably have to go on a case-by-case basis and it may not reflect the truth.
I think the numbers are very important. People earlier in this thread were openly wondering why the hell us guys would bitch about false accusations (I know…not you) with the implication it was a small issue. At 2% it is a non-issue. At 10% its not good but inline with with the overall false conviction rate cited by Love. 25% it is getting pretty bad. 50% it is staggering.
Society has limited resources. It would be nice to address even a 1% problem but there are bigger problems to worry about. At 25% I’d say the issue needs a long, hard look.
As an end result for men I think overall false charges are fair regardless of how they came about. Rotting in jail is rotting in jail regardless of the mistake that git you there (if there was no mistake you’re supposed to be there so no problem on that count). By saying “25% of men in jail for rape are innocent” (just an example) should prod the system into stopping that problem.
When you take the other side (the accuser’s side) it becomes relevant to determine how the mistake was made as it affects the solutions you may come-up with to lessen the overall problem. The solutions would likely be some combination of criminal penalties (for malicious accusations) to counseling as you suggest for ‘lesser’ mistakes. However, I would not be so forgiving as you and would want to see criminal penalties of some sort (e.g. community service) for the false fire-alarm type cries of rape. I have no problem with a woman who is honest and says she ‘thinks’ it might be guy X but admits she isn’t sure. The police can then use that to try and gather more evidence one way or the other to see if it is indeed guy X.
There are multiple cases of women actually being convicted of statutory rape, and still collecting child support.
Here is just one of them:
“A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child’s father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, section 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support.”
Honestly, what do you think would happen if a 34 year old man in California impregnated a 15 year old girl?
But why should I think you care. You don’t even care if it’s a 12 year old boy being sexually molested. Apparently if the victim is male it is none of your concern.
Then the system is not set up properly. You won’t catch me saying that the current system is perfect.
I do not know more about this particular case than what I have seen here, but that is not my interpretation of the information annaplurabelle graciously posted. The crucial phrase, one that she underlined, was: “SRS had no intention of ever attempting to collect its judgment”.
I suppose this is what I get for giving you the benefit of the doubt even after you brought up sperm theft. Next time I will try not to second-guess myself that way.
My concern for babies conceived in rape does not prevent me from feeling concern for the victims of rape, and I have said nothing to suggest that I give more weight to female rape victims than males. I would never say such a thing, because I do not believe it. I also care very much that children are being sexually molested. I care so much that I do not think people who molest children should ever be allowed to raise children of their own. See, I am capable of recognizing that the victim of a sex crime is not the only victim if that crime results in a baby.
I have sketched out a system that would protect the victims of rape from unwanted financial responsibility yet would give them full parental rights if they want them, and would also protect the children conceived in rape from being raised up in poverty by sex offenders. You have nothing but criticism for this little plan of mine, but tell me, what is your brilliant solution? If it is simply to absolve the rape victim of all responsibility but to leave the child in the custody of the rapist then I think I would be justified in saying “apparently if the victim is a baby it is none of your concern”.
“It is something that should never even come up if the system is working properly.”
This implies that if it comes up it is because the system is not working properly, rather than because it is exactly what the system is designed for.
That was about a particular judgement for money already spent while he was in school full time.
It is no way means that he will be immune to child support payments once he has a job. And in fact, anna said exactly that. She has been quite honest in this thread, which is more than I can say for you.
Oh please. How disingenuous can you get? I was making the point that there is a general issue of genetic materials being used without consent, that is not covered by your strategy of focusing only on rape.
And AGAIN, this very case is one of those situations. The woman was never convicted of rape. Although if she had been the judgement would have stood anyway.
I never said “sperm theft” was a problem any more than I said “egg theft” was a problem. I brought them both up simply to use more general terms than rape. Because rape is too specific a term, given that people who have sex with 12 year olds can very well get off on a plea bargain.
This is ridiculous. There is no reason the victim of a sex crime should have that tragedy added to by being forced to support the child.
It would be better to have the taxpayers support the child, or hold a lottery to see who pays for the child, than to force the victim of the crime to do it.
I have already explained to you the problems in your plan.
First, it is too rigid. Not all cases of statutory rape are equal. If an 18 year old female has sex with a 17 year and 11 month male, the baby should not be taken from her automatically.
Do you not see that?
Also, your plan depends on the legal system to convict for rape, when in fact even someone who molests a 12 year old boy can get a plea bargain!
In other words your plan would simply not work. I think it would be the perfect solution in a lot of cases, but in cases like 18 yr girl with 17.9 yr boy there should be some leeway.
And in cases where the sex offender gets a plea bargain, the victim should be able to take the case to civil court and get restitution.
Personally, I don’t see where I am being unreasonable. You have not argued against any of my points, you are merely ignoring and insulting.
Oh, and I see you didn’t respond to this:
"“A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child’s father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, section 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support.”
Okay but you must incorporate the numbers we do know into this. If we assume 80% of women know their attacker leaving 20% where it is a stranger. 20% of 25% is 5% (or 80% of 25% is 20% if you prefer). So, 20% are getting it ‘wrong’ for one reason or another when they are acquainted with their attacker prior to the incident. I grant that date rape drugs, inebriation and so on can mitigate that number but it is still alarming as you yourslef allow that these women should be more likely to be able to positively identify their attacker.
No! Why are you still using the 25% as a factor in assessing something other than the percent of DNA samples reports given to the FBI that are negative? That is all it can be applied to, so the rest of your logic, and resulting numbers, have no valid basis. The 80%/20% breakdown does not apply to the DNA samples, and vice versa. You cannot incorporate these numbers and get a valid result.
I’m not disputing the numbers, I’m disputing your statistical abilities - do you understand the difference? Now we need a statistics expert instead of a lawyer to explain this to you (not my strong suit, apparently). If I’m wrong, I wish someone would point that out too.
As an end result for men I think overall false charges are fair regardless of how they came about. Rotting in jail is rotting in jail regardless of the mistake that git you there (if there was no mistake you’re supposed to be there so no problem on that count). By saying “25% of men in jail for rape are innocent” (just an example) should prod the system into stopping that problem.
No again. No one can possibly be rotting in jail as a result of false charges that don’t name a perpetrator. What part of that do you not understand? Those false charge percentages don’t apply period.
Further, even in situations where an accused is named, more evidence is required before the police and the DA to decide to move beyond just questioning the “suspect” (as with any routine investigation of a reported crime).
Unless you believe that the police and DA are so corrupt that they intend to railroad every man accused of rape into prison, the most common scenario a woman faces when reporting a rape is convincing the police and DA that she’s not lying. Evidence of physical force or assault is probably the only time investigators move forward before establishing “beyond a reasonable doubt” in their own minds.
Yes, DA’s are not perfect or angels - they want to “win” cases. Not every charge can be tried (remember, only about 2% of all cases go on to trial with limited court availability), so they choose the strongest cases to move forward with. Your speculations here do not reflect this reality. An uncertain witness with no other evidence will not go to trial. Even in the withdrawn consent cases: the established fact of sex and a verbal accusation - without strong corroborative evidence - will not go to trial. If it does, look for an outside reason such as politics or influence/pressure exerted by a third party with power (i.e. don’t rape a Senator’s daughter, etc.). Don’t be misled by celebrity cases or “landmark” cases. They make it into the media for a reason: Because they are the exceptions.
Your concern isn’t helpful to anyone if it veers into statistical illogic and assumptions that defy reality.
<hijack> BTW, Love’s comment about jury bias due to enhanced sentencing might be due to more than the examples offered by Bricker. Apparently, State laws about jury instructions vary too. Here’s a cite about jury reform in Arizona that mentions it: INFORMING CRIMINAL JURIES OF THE POTENTIAL RANGE OF PUNISHMENT
It is mathematically possible that ALL of the DNA tests that came back negative were in cases where the victim did not know the attacker.
If this is so then they would be entirely irrelevant to the issue of cases where consent is used as the defense. So we really can’t say much about this issue based on those statistics.
To be fair, most of the DNA tests that exonerate the main suspect (or in some cases the convicted suspect) are probably in cases where a perpetrator was at least pointed to, if not named. Not all of them, of course.
What this tells us is that there is a chance a victim will identify the wrong person. This is not surprising, due to all the factors previously mentioned, such as darkness, not looking at him, etc.
It seems to me, however, that this problem must be lessened now that DNA tests are more common. In the past I can well believe that a lot of men, especially minorities, were falsely convicted. But nowadays it is more likely that the DNA test will be done before conviction, thus the conviction will never happen.
But again, this is mostly irrelevant to cases in which consent is the defense.
I said flat out that if it comes up then the system is not working properly. If the system is arranged in such a way that such things are bound to come up then that implies that…wait for it…I don’t think it’s a proper system at all!
**
Again you pretend as though I think the state should force rape victims to pay child support. And you accuse me of being dishonest! Show me where I said rape victims should be forced to pay child support to their rapists. Can’t do it, can you? That’s because I believe no such thing, and have never claimed to. I have looked over my posts again and I don’t even see anything that I think could be reasonably misinterpreted that way, although I suppose I may have unwittingly used some turn of phrase that seems perfectly clear to me but not to you. The closest I have come is saying that if rape victims are forced to pay child support then there is something wrong with the system that is far worse than the child support issue itself. The real problem it is that the rapist has custody in the first place.
I believe rapists should never have custody of children. The victims of rapes that result in children should be allowed to raise those children if they like. If they do not then the children should be given up for adoption. Nowhere in my little fantasy world do rape victims end up paying child support. They either have sole custody and receive child support, or the child is adopted by other people and provided for by them.
**
I do not believe such a case should be considered statuatory rape at all, and in fact it would not be in many US states and most other countries. But the flaws in certain current state statuatory rape laws is an issue best left to another thread.
I also freely admit that I am no lawyer and have no formal legal background. Any plan I could dream up to address a complicated legal issue is bound to have at least a few bugs in it. It’s not as if I’ve got a bill that’s about to become a law here, it’s just my suggestion of an idea for a basic scheme as to how things might be better arranged. I’m sure if anything of the sort were ever to become law then the lawyers and legislators would go over it first and do their best to work out any problems or loopholes…that is their job, after all.
**
Well, at least I was able to suggest something that, although imperfect, in many cases probably would work just fine and would be an improvement over the current system. I haven’t seen you offer a miracle solution yet. You’ve had your fun bashing my little dream plan, but the best you can come up with is sticking the taxpayers with the bill or holding a lottery that will force a random person to take responsibility. Do you honestly think that would be better than allowing the rape victim to choose between raising the child him/herself or placing it with an adoption agency that will find a family that actually wants a baby and is qualified to care for one?
**
Funny, I think I could say much the same, and perhaps with even more justification.
"No again. No one can possibly be rotting in jail as a result of false charges that don’t name a perpetrator. What part of that do you not understand? Those false charge percentages don’t apply period."
Thanks Nightime for pointing out the confusion.
I agree with what you say here too, but I was referring to the false charges due to “attention seeking” or “needing an alibi”, not the stranger rape uncertain witness situation. The types I mention rarely follow up after the initial charge, and usually don’t name a perpetrator. Still wrong, and a nuisance, but no corrollary victim. Maybe Whack-a-Mole and I are confusing our categories in the back and forth here.
About the Seyer case: I’m no lawyer, but from reading the transcript I notice the court left a few “gaping holes” in the ruling. I think judges do this deliberately with “touchy” cases, to allow for a subsequent ruling should a different but similar case come up on appeal.
To be fair, I can’t see how they could rule for something that didn’t reflect the child’s best interests. It seems like a gross injustice in this particular case, but setting a precedent for not putting the child before the parents? They clearly didn’t want to touch it. They also noted that counsel for Seyer was inadequate (indirectly, of course). Who knows what a better lawyer will do down the pike…
I understand that now. But can you see how saying “if it comes up the system is not working properly” could be interpreted as meaning that if the current system were working properly it wouldn’t come up? Especially when immediately followed by the statement that you don’t believe it does come up.
Your solution provided no recourse for those who were raped, but the rapist got a plea bargain. That was in fact my main objection, and the objection most relevant to the case in question. I also had a very hard time getting anyone to specifically say, as you now have, that forcing rape victims to pay their rapists was wrong, and was getting a little crazy over that failure. Sorry.
I may be wrong, but I think in at least some places statutory rape can occur with such circumstances. I’m just saying that if so, there should be some leeway for the mother.
I did say that your plan would work in many cases.
But what you did not address was the cases, including the main one we are talking about, in which there is a plea bargain.
My plan would be very similar to yours, except that even if there was a plea bargain the victim could take the case to civil court. I think this is very necessary, given that a babysitter who has sex with a 12 year old can get a plea bargain. In such cases I think it would be better to have the taxpayers pay, if necessary, because due to the plea bargain it might not be feasible to take the baby away.
You still have not responded to this:
"“A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child’s father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, section 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support.”
The law specifically says that even if the mother is convicted, the victim still has to pay. And there are a lot of cases like this. You said that you were not convinced the issue ever came up. You also tried to say that the 12 year old boy would never have to pay, when there is no reason to believe that.
Looking back I can see that I misinterpreted you in a few places, largely due to a hostile tone that made it seem like you were in complete disagreement. I’m sure this went both ways, so I apologize.
Yes, there are a few different categories being talked about.
One argument was that false cries of rape that turn out to be “attention seeking” and never name a perp should be included among statistics of false rape allegations.
Personally, I agree with you that they should not be included. They are definitely wrong, but since they don’t accuse anyone it would be misleading to include them.
Another argument was that 25% of DNA results exonerate the main suspect. This argument is not about “attention seeking”, because once there is a DNA test there is a serious suspect.
These statistics are disturbing, but they also need to be looked at closely. Cases in which DNA tests are negative are obviously not cases in which consent is used as a defense.
The biggest thing these statistics show is not that women lie about rape, but rather that women may well identify the wrong person.
Sadly, this does result in the convictions of innocent men. This problem can be reduced by having DNA tests in all cases in which the suspect says he did not even have sex with the victim, but there will always be cases with no DNA evidence.
In the end the statistics are very specific - they say nothing of consent defense cases, and are not too scary in cases with DNA evidence, but they are alarming when you consider cases with no DNA evidence in which the suspect claims he was not even at the scene of the crime.
No, what you fail to recognize is that the term “child-support”, is somewhat akin to Orwellian “newspeak”.
What is now called “child-support” was, in actuality, a sharing of liabilities that two people incurred through a mutual contract (marriage), upon dissolution of that contract (divorce).
“Child-support” is NOT a “right” of the child, but rather, the extension of support that existed within the contract of marriage, upon dissolution of that marriage.
The evolution of child-support into a “right” is a fairly recent phenomenon. In years past, if a woman gave birth to a child outside of the institution of matrimony, that child was considered hers. (It was considered a “private” concern as echoed in Roe v Wade.) If she was independently wealthy, she may have made the “choice” to raise her child by herself. If she was indigent, she would likely resort to putting her child up for adoption so as to not to be burdened with raising a child alone. If she was a teenager, she would probably make the “choice” to put her child up for adoption so as to continue her life’s goal unencumbered with the burden of raising her child. No, the child did not have a “right” to support from it’s biological parents.
This was how society recognized illegitimacy for the first one-hundred seventy-five years of America’s history. Prior to the mid-1960’s, illegitimacy was relatively rare. Private charities, in conjunction with society’s “safety-net” programs, lent support where it was needed. Then society was delt a liberal “one-two punch” with the “sexual revolution”, which was to put women on equal footing with men with regards to sex, and President Johnson’s “Great Society” programs that had the effect of rewarding illegitimacy.
This “one-two punch” caused an explosion of illegitimate births. As state treasuries were becoming drained as a result of the sky-rocketing welfare costs, state legislators began to scramble for solutions.
Not wishing to stir-up the hornet’s nest of feminism and alienate the “women’s vote”, state legislatures concocted the “Deadbead Dad” villian and, through a legislative sleight-of-hand, came up with the concept of a child’s “right” to support.
Funny thing about that so-called “right”. It is only recognized as a “right” when a birth mother wants financial assistance with a “choice” that she unilaterally made.
Wrong, and I’ll thank you not to try to put words in my mouth.
False accusations of rape are a distraction from the “real problem” of rape, which is that it really occurs. Every time someone lies about rape, he or she damages the credibility of those who have been genuinely attacked. And makes it that much harder to address the issue.
False accusations are wrong in and of themselves. They are also wrong because they make it that much harder to believe those who are speaking the truth.
You don’t find it alarming that the innocent are being accused? You don’t find it alarming that the credibility of women is being undermined? You don’t find it alarming that women who have been genuinely attacked are being belittled?
This is what you call “spin”?
Again, I don’t understand.
If we both have a bias, why is it only me who cannot “debate the issue fairly”?
Although you are correct that I don’t always understand your points. Possibly because of my agenda; possibly because they may not be as clear as you think to someone who does not share your agenda of “radical feminism”. It cuts both ways, as you probably already know.
Yes, it was the original scenario. We were discussing something that you cited - a detective who claimed that false rape charges were made by women who were having arguments with their boyfriends, and did not feel that “disorderly conduct” would get enough attention. Therefore they made a complaint of rape.
As far as I can tell, you are arguing that these kinds of false accusations are not serious. I disagree. Every time a police dispatcher receives a complaint of rape that turns out to be a bogus attempt to get the attention of police for a domestic dispute, it adds just a little bit of hesitation before the squad car is sent out. And then, eventually, someone suffering a real assault is going to be hurt by all the other times somebody else cried “Wolf!”
If that is your point, you are arguing against it.
Some charges are more serious than others. The true complaints of rape are far more serious than the false ones. You seem to want to imagine that every accusation of rape is as serious as any other.
If you do that, every woman who has really been assaulted is going to have to get in line behind Tawana Brawley.
I am not the one maligning the integrity of women or trivializing the problem. This is what happens when someone lies about a real problem - or someone defends them.
And here you take the fatal step into absurdity.
Who would you say is showing more concern for the falsely accused - those who recognize that it is an injury to the effort to fight sexual violence, or those who wave their hands and say, “Oh, it isn’t that big a deal. Men who are in prison, or hassled by police, for crimes they didn’t commit, should just suck it up for the cause.”
Can’t make an omelette without breaking a few ova, right?
I think the law is attempting to recognize the difference between “statuatory rape” and just “rape”. They don’t want to leave minor teen boys a loophole that might allow them to knock up all the girls they like (provided the girl is at least slightly older!) and never pay a dime. The real solution to this would be a reworking of all US statuatory rape laws so they would protect children and adolescents from adult predators while not criminalizing consensual sex between a 16 year old and an 18 year old, but such a reworking might be a long time coming.
I think you are missing the fact that an “attention seeking” or “needing an alibi” claim of rape never shows up in DNA statistics. If a woman was not raped at all but claims she was for whatever reason there is no DNA to use for comparison. The police could have the DNA on file for every man in the country but with no sample to collect from the woman they have nothing to match against. As a result all DNA tests in the FBI stats were done with suspect(s) in mind so they can collect his DNA and see if it matches the evidence collected from the woman/crime scene.
I agree with you that in the abstract, men should have the right to choice just as much as women.
However, in the real world you have to have a real solution.
It just isn’t workable to give men the same choice, because that would cause an explosion in the population of children dependant on the state.
The solution that I came up with was that men who have vasectomies should not have to pay child support if a baby is born despite the vasectomy. The reason this would work is that more money would be saved than would have to be paid to the rare cases in which vasectomy failed. You know this is a fair solution, because neither side likes it.
Shodan:
Shodan, she was specifically talking about women who use cries of rape to get attention or an alibi, but never accuse anyone. This is definitely very wrong, for a lot of reasons, but it is misleading to lump these together with malicious intent false rape accusations.
Lamia:
I agree. But you also have to take into account that even if the laws were reworked, plea bargains might still happen, and there should still be a recourse for a 12 year old boy whose babysitter was allowed to plea bargain.
Sure it was “relatively rare”, that is, relative to today’s illegitimacy rate.
Oh, sure, there was illegitimacy, but fifty years ago, the unwed parents were likely to get married. That is not the case today, especially when the state takes up the role of provider.
The state, in taking on the role of provider, has only exacerbated the problem by removing the need for women to selectively choose a mate based on the mate’s potential to provide for the family.
