Ain’t nobody suggesting that men be given the “right” to demand that a second party end their pregnancy, just suggesting that a first party has no right to require a second party to be financially responsible for the first party’s “private” concern.
I would hope a sleepy midwestern town would be safer than New York. At least it is usually a common assumption that is generally the case. If New York has a population of 8 million and has 4,000 rapes a year (your study said 2,000 in six months) then that is a 1 in 2,000 ratio. If you take the midwestern town from the rape study and assume a 12 rape/year (109 rapes/9 years) in a population of 70,000 that is a 1 in 5,833 ratio. These numbers are of course VERY loose but it doesn’t seem too far off from what I would expect. Big cities are more dangerous than little towns.
What I think is really interesting is that the Kanin study showed a 40% false accusation rate in the little town while the New York study showed a 10% false accusation rate. That is a discrepancy I would like to see explained.
This also shows the FBI numbers don’t account for many rape cases. If New York has 4,000 rapes per year and the FBI has 10,000 DNA tests per year I’d say the vast majority of rape cases do not get DNA testing done (unless you want to suggest that the rest of the country besides New York only have the other 6,000 rapes all told). I know DNA is not available in many cases and cases where it is a consent issue it wouldn’t matter but one would hope this number was better as DNA is such a powerful tool.
No way. A verdict of ‘innocent’ does not mean the accused is actually innocent. It just means the prosecution didn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course the accused might really be innocent too. Not sure if it is even possible to get a real handle on that one.
I don’t see how DNA testing brings in any other factors such as racial bias. You have DNA, you test it and it either matches the accused or it doesn’t. Seems pretty objective to me.
I don’t see how the exclusion of male rape victims affects the FBI numbers. They are what they are as regards female rape. Indeed I don’t think you would want to combine male rape with female rape in this instance as you would want to see the false accusation rates for both separately. What would combining them get you? If you want to impeach the FBI report itself as being flawed that is fine but in this case at least the numbers seem like an easily collected number. X total number of DNA tests, X number positive, X number inconclusive and X number negative. Seems straightforward enough to me.
If the first party drugged the guy, and manually collected semen while he was un conscious, and then impregnated herself, then no, he’s off scot free. Otherwise, seeing as how the second party knowingly and willingly bedded the first party, he is every bit as responsible for the consequences as she is. If you play, you pay. {period}
Not in the case of Shane Seyer previously cited.
A twelve year old is incapable of giving consent. He was raped.
Nonetheless, he is on the hook for eighteen years of child support payments.
What was that about choice again?
Regards,
Shodan
Under current law malfeasance by the mother does not excuse the father of child support payments. This is because child support is a duty owed to the child, not to the mother. If you don’t want to pay for child support in such a case, petition for custody; then the mother will have to pay you child support.
KellyM, nobody is denying that current law allows a woman to rape a boy and then force him to pay child support.
The argument is that such law is wrong and needs to be changed.
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.
And getting custody as the only alternative? I’m almost in disbelief that you would suggest that, given your history of being strongly against rape.
Let’s get this straight here, KellyM: A person who is raped is no more responsible for supporting a child born of that rape than anyone else. That law is a disgrace to our country.
Nightime, actually, a woman who gives birth to a child born of a rape is responsible for supporting it. Why is it that people do not recognize that actually caring for a child is a form of supporting it?
It’s not fair to deprive a child of support merely because it was conceived in an immoral act. The Kansas rule for child support respects this truth.
She can choose to get an abortion or an adoption. And yes, the state should pay for her expenses in getting an abortion or adoption in cases of rape.
You know, I really am in disbelief here that you are defending this.
Why is the person who was raped more responsible for the child than anyone else?
I just can’t believe you are saying this.
You’re saying that if a ten year old orphan gets raped, the state should force them to get a job and pay for 18 years.
And you know what the sickest thing about what you are saying is? 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. I just can’t believe it.
Let’s see what it means: 200 of the 250 were simple administrative errors. They should never have been called rapes in the first place; for example, a woman phones the station and yells rape. The police car goes out and there’s no one home. The next day a detective goes to follow the incident up and the woman says "Oh yes, my boyfriend and I had a fight last night and I yelled “rape”’. ‘Why did you yell rape?’ ‘Because if I had yelled disorderly conduct, nobody is going to come, but if I yell rape I know damn sure that a cop is going to come in a hurry.’ That kind of thing is not a false rape charge, but a mild inconvenience to the police.
Of course you understand - you’re just having fun, aren’t you? It’s not a formal charge - it’s a call intended to get the police on the scene faster. Do you live in NYC? At one time, it was common for people to call 911 with the false addition of “police officer down on the scene”. It insured a fast response. And yet it wasn’t reflected in the statistics of how many officers were injured or killed. Using your logic here, it should have been, right?
This is what I mean about using spin to avoid seeing the real problem.
Razorsharp was originally asking about sex between two consenting adults in a scenario where the man was going to pull out as a means of contraception, but the woman “wrapped her legs around him” and he didn’t. Razorsharp’s argument was that should she end up pregnant, it’s HER problem, not his, because he ‘wanted’ to stop, but she didn’t “let” him. I pointed out {correctly} that the minute a rational adult decides to have sex with another rationsal adult, they are BOTH responsible for any offspiring that may be produced. “Pulling out” never has been and never will be a 100% effective contraceptive method, and if that’s all the guy was relying on, he is already gambling on his future.
In the case of Shane Seyer, there is not much to say except that the Kansas court is woefully lacking in common sense. Children are not rational adults, which is why an impressionable 12 year old should not be held accountacble for their actions in the same way a horny 27 year old is. You are trying to use one extreme case involving a criminal act with a child and make it apply to all cases involving two consenting adults; sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. Despite the stupidity of the Kansas system concerning this one case, the fact remains that once an adult makes the decision to have sex with someone, they are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
The scenario was that the man repeatedly said he needed to stop, and the woman responded by holding him by force. I don’t know if that changes your opinion, but you are misrepresenting the circumstances.
What if the genders were reversed? What if it was the woman who repeatedly said she needed to stop, was ignored, and then as she attempted to escape the man responded by holding her by force for maybe 5 seconds so he could finish.
Is that rape?
You do make a valid point that pulling out is not 100% effective contraception, and as the baby could have been conceived before consent was withdrawn the man may be responsible.
However, do you agree that in cases where there was NEVER any consent, in which someone either stole genetic material or raped someone, that the victim should not be forced to pay?
What I think is really interesting is that the Kanin study showed a 40% false accusation rate in the little town while the New York study showed a 10% false accusation rate. That is a discrepancy I would like to see explained.
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.
This also shows the FBI numbers don’t account for many rape cases. If New York has 4,000 rapes per year and the FBI has 10,000 DNA tests per year I’d say the vast majority of rape cases do not get DNA testing done…
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 don’t see how DNA testing brings in any other factors such as racial bias. You have DNA, you test it and it either matches the accused or it doesn’t. Seems pretty objective to me.
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.
I don’t see how the exclusion of male rape victims affects the FBI numbers. They are what they are as regards female rape. Indeed I don’t think you would want to combine male rape with female rape in this instance as you would want to see the false accusation rates for both separately. What would combining them get you?
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.
? If you want to impeach the FBI report itself as being flawed that is fine but in this case at least the numbers seem like an easily collected number. X total number of DNA tests, X number positive, X number inconclusive and X number negative. Seems straightforward enough to me.
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.
Then again - and this is important, remember that intercourse and ejaculation is not the only definition of rape/sexual assault. There are cases where there is no semen available: no ejaculation, oral sex where the ejaculate is swallowed, ejaculating outside the body and forcing the woman to clean up, even using a condom. DNA doesn’t solve all the problems. It’s not that straightforward.
I still maintain that it is criminal for these women to cry rape to the police when no such thing occurred. At the very least it is no different from pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire. Granted the police may respond more quickly but the woman is pulling a resource from somewhere that they might very well be needed. As a result someone else in legitmate peril may not get a response as quickly as they need it. This also doesn’t help legitimate rape victims if there a a ‘cry wolf’ thing going on that may cuase police to be less responsive. In theory the police should take ALL claims of rape seriously regardless of those who ‘cry wolf’ but having women do so certainly doesn’t help.
No, it was a serious question, and remains so.
No, not in the statistics of how many officers were injured or killed, but certainly in the statistics of how many false accusations of “officer down” were made.
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?
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.
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.
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?
On preview:
Not in your scenario.
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?
Regards,
Shodan
I think the point is there’s a qualitative difference between a false charge of rape that does not name a particular individual, and one that does.
The former is bad, of course, but not nearly as disastrous as the latter.
Not exactly true. The man’s consequences are determined by the “choice” that the woman makes. The woman is not beholden to any wishes of the man. Therein exists an inequity in the law.
Well, Shodan, a woman who conceives as the result of a rape is going to end up responsible. She has the choice to keep the kid, abort it, or give it up for adoption. If she chooses to give it to the rapist father (or it is given to the rapist father for some reason) I’d imagine she would have to pay child support.
However, there is no chance that the kid will be picked up, given to the rapist (because it is his responsiblity) and never seen again by the victim (which seems to be what you are arguing should happen to men who are raped).
Because in this case, the woman was the rapist. Why should she force her victim to suffer further?
That would be like, say a woman was raped and conceived a child. If the rapist petitions for custody and/or visitation rights, should he get it? Hell no!
We’re talking about a TWELVE-YEAR-OLD BOY here!
No, even sven, that is not what anyone is arguing.
I have no idea where you get the idea that the child should be forced to go with whichever parent was the rapist. That is a ridiculous argument which nobody made. In fact, in most cases the rapist should not even have a chance of getting custody.
This is not even a matter of gender:
If ANYBODY is raped, they should not be forced by the state to pay for a child resulting from that rape.
That doesn’t mean they can’t choose to support the child.
I can’t believe so many people believe the state should force the victim of a rape to support the child against their will, often paying their own rapist!
Why not just force the victim of a rape to marry their rapist while you’re at it. This is unbelievable.
Agreed. I still think both are criminal just that one is deserving of a lengthy jail sentence and one maybe a fine and community service.