Not sure where you are, but in my state, prosecutors dismissing a charge typically ask the judge to “null pross” the case, meaning that they are making a motion for nolle prosequi, what every other state would call a dismissal without prejudice.
It’s true that if you have some leverage or the dismissal is part of a plea deal, the prosecutor will move for dismissal instead, which everyone always understood was a dismissal with prejudice.
The distinction between the two is that a case null prossed can always be refiled. A case dismissed with prejudice cannot. Interestingly, although this was long understood to be true when I practiced criminal law, it wasn’t until 2006 that the issue was finally settled, in a case in which the defendant, Roe (his real name, by the way!) faced a second indictment after his case was dismissed, but not nul prossed, by the Commonwealth.
Because there’s actually a history of black men being falsely accused of rape. It’s not “a trope”.
For that reason it is somewhat understandable for black men to be nervous about false accusations.
However, it’s hysterically absurd watching white men run around like chickens with their heads cut off squawking about how common it is for women to falsely accuse men of rape.
Ditto. I’m not willing to credit the more extremist studies I’ve seen, but the last time I tried to get serious numbers about this the false accusation rate was extrapolated to be somewhere around 5-10%. Not insignificant.
I’m genuinely surprised that someone who is so passionate about false rape accusations would be unaware of the long history in the US of black men being lynched after falsely being accused of raping white women.
I’m not sure you guys are really disagreeing with each other.
False rape accusations against blacks have historically been a little cog in the machine that was the systemic hatred of them by white Americans, that’s true. I think it’s inevitable that for almost any indicator of societal prejudice, your average black person will have historically had much more to worry about in terms than your average white person, and that’s true of getting railroaded for rape as much as anything else.
But that doesn’t make it true that false accusations were made less often against whites overall, or that that’s true today even if it was true then; it just means it’s historically been a lot better to be white than black in the event that it happens. And, since whites are currently arrested for rape twice as often as blacks, either blacks almost never actually commit rape, compared to whites, or more whites are falsely accused than blacks are, which on the other hand says nothing about what the experience for any one individual who is accused might be.
I’m perfectly aware of that in its historical context. I’m also aware that, with the best statistics I can currently muster, around 5-10%of rape accusations are false, regardless of the gender of the alleged perpetrator.
So as soon as you explain what the blue hell the historical trends in false rape accusations have to do with the facts on the ground today, I’ll be happy.
My personal annoyance is with the broad “hysterical” brush being used by the man–there are people (in this thread!) who are practically in hysterics about it, true, but their existence doesn’t say anything about the actual risk, which I understand to be small but significant.
I really dont understand Ibn Warraq’s obsession with turning the DSK case (and the commentaries associated with it) into a race case. I could understand the poor vs rich angle, but the race angle seems really weird here.
I wasn’t making a comment about the DSK case just that I could at least understand black men being terrified of false rape accusations due to their history.
That said, had the maid in the DSK rape case Bern white I don’t think for two seconds the media would have been recklessly throwing around charges that she was a hooker.
I cannot believe that Bricker doesn’t know about those incidents, and I seriously doubt he’s claiming that black men have not been disproportionately accused of rape. Rather, I read his comment as being a subtle (perhaps too subtle) allusion to the fact that white men outnumber black men in this country by a considerable margin, and always have. If there were 10 times as many white men as black men in the population in, say, 1950, then the rate of false accusations of rape against black men would have to be very high for the absolute numbers to be higher than those against white men.
In fact I think that black men probably HAVE been accused in greater numbers as well as with greater frequency. But that’s just a feeling, and Bricker’s not unreasonable to ask for statistics.
Sure. And the Titantic is a well-known event too. But you cannot argue that it’s rational to be concerned about hitting an iceberg, get challenged on the frequency of that event, and respond by advising your interlocutor to study the history of the Titanic.
I’m hip to American history. I don’t agree that, numerically, you have a case.
When she admitted to having fabricated the gang rape story she claimed that she had done so in order to apply for asylum. Subsequently the prosecution discovered that the story was not part of her asylum request, and the claimed origin of the lie turned out to itself be a lie.
“I don’t agree that numerically that is the case”.
“Convince me otherwise with some hard data.”
I didn’t realize that you were ignorant of the thousands of black men lynched on false charges of raping white women.
Go to a library and you’ll find plenty of evidence of this.
By contrast I’m not aware of white people getting lynched after falsely being accused of rape.
Now if you want to argue that historically black men have not historically been persecuted and falsely accused of rape by white men who were felt threatened by them then go ahead.