About that FBI number, it’s worth emphasizing this part:
They don’t really go to great lengths to explain why that “must be stressed” (or to define ‘ordinarily’), but the thing is, we have no way of knowing the proportion or the relative strength of the cases that have each of those four characteristics compared to all claims of sexual assault. Even if the 25% number is bulletproof with respect to the kinds of cases it applies to (and the authors definitely aren’t claiming it is), it doesn’t tell us anything about all the cases that, for instance, involve consent defenses. And it doesn’t tell us how many of those cases there are.
Wikipedia is a pretty shitty source, particularly for a controversial topic like this.
Anyway, can anyone point to a legitimate, reliable study suggesting that one out of every five accusations of rape is a lie(and mistaken identifications don’t count).
Er… immediately after using the word “false” he said “These cases often never make trial because the cops or prosecutors can usually figure out that the woman is lying” which makes it pretty clear he was talking about women lying not accidentally picking the wrong person out of a lineup.
No, I’m not moving the goal posts, merely asking him for a cite for his claim that one out of every five women who comes forward claiming to be raped is lying.
Well, yeah, but then again their legal costs would have been fairly limited. All they had to do to win a court case was send in a monkey holding a sign saying “:rolleyes:. The defence rests.”
Ah, well. Next time I come over to the US and I get my wallet took, I’ll be sure to remember to sue the city for “poor theft control” :D.
Getting sued over “poor safety” because one student purportedly interacted with another in a deserted spot on campus grounds. It’s not like the school realistically could have prevented the alleged rape from ever happening in the first place.
But I now understand you were talking about the problem with getting those 750k back. I hadn’t had much sleep when I made that post :o
Because short of 24/7 cameras on every inch of the school monitored in real time and one (1) rent-a-cop per hallway, staircase, etc… at all times (which would be a) irrealistically expensive and b) not well received by the students or the teachers alike) ; the school can’t possibly prevent any and all assaults from happening on campus grounds, particularly those that involve students which checking IDs at the gate wouldn’t prevent, any more than the police can prevent all wallet thefts from happening in the city.
Or, to turn your question around: how would anyone know they could have ?
A civil trial, the same way any other breach of duty is determined. It’s not a question of whether the school can prevent all assaults from happening on a campus. It’s a question of whether the school took reasonable measures to prevent this one.
Do you think the school district settled with Gibson because they thought she was a nice girl and needed the money?
They probably settled because they feared a jury would look at the victim and award 10x that amount and their lawyers told them that was cheaper than fighting it.
I’m sure they settled because they figured it would ultimately be cheaper than fighting so nebulous a concept in court (as well as to avoid the publicity and public scrutiny that comes with a trial). That’s part and parcel of the eye-roll. It’s cheaper to just give someone 3/4th of a million dollars in school money than it is to prove the school did “enough” to prevent an assault that never happened. And risk losing thatbattle.
What she did was pretty much legal trolling, except you get money out of it.
(unless the school really is a shithole where assaults are routine and the PTBs avert their eyes I guess, but in that case she just used a community problem as a platform to pad her own wallet… and likely perpetuate the community problem since that’s almost a million fewer bucks that won’t go towards better security. That’s still worth a rolleye or two.)
I wonder if her attorneys received part of the $750,000 settlement. If they did, would they be required to reimburse any of it if she is legally found to have perjured herself or committed fraud (which I know that as of yet she hasn’t, but IF she were)?
Ok, please show the reliable, thoroughly well-documented study that proves Damuri’s assertion that one out of every five women who claim they’ve been raped are lying.
Unfortunately, there ARE colleges which don’t take rapes seriously. The schools tend to give the offenders a pass, if the offenders can put on a show of remorse. And the offenders are frequently allowed to continue to attend college or school, while the survivor has to drop out if s/he wishes to avoid the attacker in the future. The offender might get counseling or community service, even if s/he is a repeat offender.
What I’m saying is, this particular college might have been trying to get its act cleaned up after a lot of rapes on campus, and that’s why it was willing to pay damages to the lying woman.
Now, the woman who brought false charges was very, very wrong. She has no excuse, either for the false accusation or for accepting the monetary damages. But rape is real, it’s frequently covered up, and a lot of people who are raped are disbelieved and even prosecuted for trying to get their cases into court.
It’s not a “nebulous concept”. It’s the basis of all tort liability. The fact that the assault didn’t happen is irrelevant; what matters is that their attorneys thought there was a good chance the jury would find them liable.
“Too expensive to litigate” money is called nuisance value, and you’re talking about figures of $50,000 or less. Much less, in most cases. $750,000 is “oh shit” money. Even a demented jury would have been unlikely to award the school that much, no matter how likeable a witness she might have been.
That said, it’s true that California is an outlier in terms of the size of civil judgments, especially in terms of judgments against the state, because it’s one of very few states that doesn’t have a statutory cap on its own tort liability.
Attorneys’ fees stemming from a final judgment are typically not subject to modification unless the attorney committed fraud. So, unless there’s some evidence that they knew she was lying, no. CA law might be different