Sorry, I’ve played enough of your game for today.
You’re being thoroughly disingenuous.
From now on when I see your name, I’ll just assume it’s intended as an invitation --Whack-a-Mole?-- one which I shall probably decline.
I am ignorant of many things, but I’m pretty sure I know what you’re up to when you say
Still, if you’ve got some justification for saying that, lemme hear it.
:rolleyes: Oh well, so much for the brief visit from common sense. No, even prison rapists are human beings with responsibility for their own criminal actions, not piranhas.
We’ve all agreed that falsely accusing somebody of a crime is a very bad thing, and even worse if the accuser persists in it to the extent of enabling an unjust conviction and imprisonment. But even that does not make the accuser directly responsible for a prison rape committed on the unjustly imprisoned person by a fellow inmate. The responsible party in the case of that crime is the prison rapist (and, to a lesser extent, prison employees and officials guilty of any negligence in safeguarding their charges from such crimes).
This sort of thinking is very typical of ingrained rape-culture attitudes in our society, in which it’s commonly assumed that rape is just “something men do”. It’s somehow a kind of natural hazard “akin” to being eaten by piranhas if you recklessly jump or get thrown into a piranha pool.
In this type of thinking, it’s women who are held primarily responsible for preventing rape by men, by making sure that they stay away from the piranha pool. If they somehow get into the piranha pool then it’s their doing if they get eaten, not the piranhas’. And naturally, if they maliciously push someone else into the piranha pool, then all the responsibility for that harm rests with them.
Of course, if we assume that men are not piranhas but self-aware human beings with control over and responsibility for their own actions, then this type of argument becomes absurd. But a lot of people are unconsciously willing to temporarily suspend that assumption in order to excuse men from some or all of the responsibility of committing sexual assault.
Me, I’d pick whichever one was my frat bro, like in reality. chest bump
Or maybe, just maybe, it depends on what I’ve heard, what I think about the truth or falsehood of that particular accusation, etc. I don’t have a one-size fits all answer. I tend to believe accuser over accused about grey cases, because there’s much more rape than false accusations, but the guy in the OP, for instance, isn’t a grey case - if he came in for a job, I wouldn’t hold that case against him at all.
:rolleyes: What about my 13 yo son?
What 13 yo needs a babysitter? 13 yo should be doing the babysitting. But otherwise, same answer as the job interview. It depends on a lot more than your barebones setup.
I’d set her up with whichever one I thought matched her best - and I’d tell her about the accusation, if it’s Steve. And again, same answer as the job applicant.
I have friends like that, so clearly yes, I can tell you that. I also have ex-friends - because I did believe the accuser retracted under social duress.
I tend to do the investigation and analysis thoroughly up front, and then leave it at that, actually. Not that I’m not open to having my mind changed about someone, but I don’t run around second guessing all my relationships based on what I hear “through the grapevine” - if I hear something, I ask the people involved.
All that and your last bit is acknowledgement I am not proposing the first bit you spent so much energy getting into a tizzy over.
Indeed I said in my first post in this thread that same thing.
But you are too wrapped up in indignation and too eager to chastise me that you missed it…even in your own response.
The false accusers actions put the accused in the dangerous position that is jail. A place they would not be but for the false accusation. If I dump you in the middle of a battlefield that you otherwise would not be near I think I have some responsibility for you getting shot. I would not suggest I am free and clear because someone else pulled the trigger.
Besides which there are plenty of very real harms aside from the violence of prison as have been mentioned.
And there’s the strawman. Nothing I have said is a product of “rape culture” or condoning it.
So you’ve got nothing. Roger that.
There is nothing disingenuous about it.
Indeed the law deems a false accusation as inherently doing damage. In civil law there is something called defamation per se. In most defamation cases you need to prove damages to recover some money. In defamation per se cases the false statement is presumed harmful.
A false rape accusation would count as defamation per se.
Wave your hands all you want about “hypothetical” damage. The law presumes damage in such a case. I wonder why that is?
One thing it will certainly do is reduce the number of reported rapes.
Now if a woman isn’t confident she (or her lawyer) can get a conviction then she’s at a huge risk going to jail.
Is that how you want the justice system to work, every criminal trial ends up with someone in jail?
Again, that is not the way it works. If Alice accuses Bob of rape, and Bob is found not guilty, that does not mean that Alice is guilty of false accusation. Both get the benefit of reasonable doubt. If the juries are unsure of whether the crime actually happened or not, then both should be acquitted, because both have reasonable doubt. Even if the juries are 100% certain that the crime did not occur, then they’d still have to prove that Alice knew that the crime did not occur: If there’s even a reasonable doubt that Alice, in good faith, thought that Bob raped her, then that’s still enough for her to be found not guilty.
Well, at least now you’re sufficiently embarrassed about the illogicality of your position that you’re trying to change the subject away from your insistence that it would be appropriate to your concession that it would be impractical to actually implement. Doesn’t make it any less stupid that you seriously tried to claim that
No, it would not be “appropriate” to penalize a false accuser for the severity of the (nonexistent) crime in the false accusation rather than the severity of the actual crime they committed. Not even in theory.
And nobody is in any way trying to claim that that’s not a bad and criminal thing to do.
And you’re still trying to tap-dance around the difference in the responsibility for the violence in those situations.
By the laws of war, a battlefield is a place where those present are supposed to get shot. A prison is not a place where those present are supposed to get raped. Shooting people on a battlefield whom you believe in good faith to be enemy soldiers is not a crime. Raping people, even in prison, is.
In your eagerness to maximize the guilt and responsibility of somebody making a false accusation (which, again, we’ve all already agreed several times is a very bad thing in and of itself), you’re downplaying and minimizing the guilt and responsibility of somebody who deliberately rapes a fellow inmate.
Nobody’s accusing you of deliberately condoning rape culture, but pretty much everything you’ve said in this thread is a product of long unthinking immersion in a societal mindset that includes rape culture. Particularly your “piranha pool” simile for rhetorically morphing violent rapists, and their enablers in what’s supposed to be a secure environment, from responsible conscious agents into some kind of blind force of nature.
The more Whack-a-Mole exhorts how false accusations of rape are a neutron bomb on a person’s life, the more I think he’s engaged in sexual activities that he thinks are juuuuuuuust this side of the line.
I hate this kind of post. He’s crazy, he’s wrong, he’s crazy-wrong–but suggesting that people can only make this sort of argument if they’re a rapist is a bullshit argument. I find him all kinds of fucked up and called him on it, but that sure as hell doesn’t mean that I’ve made a false rape accusation.
I didn’t say he was a rapist, fuckwit, I said it seems like he’s arguing out of concern for himself.
I didn’t say you said he was a rapist, fuckwit, I said you suggested it, dimwit. Which you did, nitwit. There’s no more evidence he’s arguing out of concern for himself than that you or I are arguing out of concern for ourselves, halfwit.
LHoD, for maximum artistic effect you’d have put your wits in alphabetical order, there.
Okay, quarterwit, how does an idiot like you get inside my head and know what I reeeeeeaally meant as opposed to what I typed? You don’t. I have literally no opinion on his sexual activities, and cannot even guess whether he’s done anything wrong. I’m saying that his obsession with this make me think that he feels personal jeopardy in this matter – and I have no damned clue whether that’s something he ought to be concerned about, or whether he’s paranoid.
ETA: this is the difference between something implied and something inferred. You can take your statements that I accused him of rape and cram it.
You didn’t see the order I put them in?
The same way you get inside Whackaloon’s head, no doubt, you twit.
You call him whacko, that’s okay. I call him potentially paranoid, and I’m the dick. Sure.
I’ll hold off from name-calling for a moment, because this is the part I think is a terrible way to post:
You didn’t emphasize his fears–you emphasized his engaging in sexual activities. That really doesn’t read to me like, “Dude is unnecessarily fearsome of a false accusation,” it reads like, “Dude is a creepster toward women.”
It is 100% possible to hold a shitty and terrible opinion like his without having a personal stake in that shitty, terrible opinion.
The emphasis in that part of the quote should be…
I suppose I could have underlined and bolded that part to be clearer from the outset, but my intention all along was a commentary on his conscience, not his activities.
I’ll just start by saying that it’s pretty clear that the young woman very easily could have suffered a much stiffer sentence, but only barely dodged it due to extenuating circumstances of age and behavior. Saying that her light sentence destroys the deterrent effect against falsifying rape claims is like saying that when a child steals a candy bar he must be put through a trial by jury or it’s undermining the legal system.
That said, I don’t know what she would have gotten absent the extenuating circumstances, but I certainly hope it would be less than if she’d actually raped someone, because that would be bumfuck stupid.
It sounds like you’re saying that prison is cruel and unusual punishment. Which very well may be the case - though, wait, I only know about american prisons. Are british prisons unconstitutional hellholes too?