This woman thinks all men support rape

[Neo Art]

That only applies to those that go to trial and are not convicted, there are accusations that are dropped based on lacking (or even contradictory) evidence, and those are 'proven' guilty, who in fact aren't guilty.

That is incorrect. The FBI study cited did not review trials, it reviewed accusations, and police files. It found that approximately 8% of rape allegations were "unfounded", which is to say that it explicitly included cases that were dropped based on lacking or contradictory evidence.

It is important to note that "unfounded" does not mean, and should not be confused with "false". An unfounded allegation means just that, an allegation without foundation. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means that there exists no corroborating evidence to support the accusation.

And if accusations of rape have a higher than average level of "unfoundedness" it is intellectually dishonest to claim that this means accusations of rape have a lower than average level of veracity. The broader question is, is there something inherent in the nature of the crime of rape that makes true allegations less likely to have corrobrating evidence.

Words, when used in a criminal justice context, have specific meaning, and conflaiting "unfounded" with "untrue" is sloppy at best, and deliberately disengenuous at worst.

[Neo Art]

Probably much higher than 8%, and considering that as a man, you are about 90% likely to be raped in prison, I think so new evidence standards are in order, and stricter 'false reporting' laws to boot.

Speaking of which, I was looking into this kind of thing while I was looking for statistic on false rape convictions (Couldn't find them.)

I don't know if this is true, but, uh...

http://www.falsely-accused.net/rapecases.html

In many states, the judge now informs the jury that:

an allegation of rape does not require any evidence of corroboration;
there is no requirement for medical evidence;
there is no requirement for DNA evidence; and
there is no requirement for a second witness.

In short, the only requirement for a conviction is the bare allegation made by a complainant. Even the manner in which the jury is selected is tainted with this attitude that evidence does not matter. In many states, prosecutors can demand that during the selection process, each prospective juror must agree that he/she would not require corroboration of a crime. If the juror disagrees with this demand, he/she can be excused.

This is technically true and yet deliberately misleading. There is no statute defining ANYTHING that must be proven in ANY crime, other than the elements of the crime itself. No crime requires a "laundry list" of check boxes that must be met before the case is "proven".

Like any other crime, the jury is the final say of fact, there is no REQUIREMENT of any SPECIFIC thing in ANY crime, the jury decides, themselves, whether the evidence is sufficient or not to prove the crime.

Like every other trial.

[The Atlantean Menace]

This is technically true and yet deliberately misleading. There is no statute defining ANYTHING that must be proven in ANY crime, other than the elements of the crime itself. No crime requires a "laundry list" of check boxes that must be met before the case is "proven".

Like any other crime, the jury is the final say of fact, there is no REQUIREMENT of any SPECIFIC thing in ANY crime, the jury decides, themselves, whether the evidence is sufficient or not to prove the crime.

Like every other trial.

Then I suppose the main question here is, "does the judge say that at the start of the trial for any crime?"

[Neo Art]

The rape conviction rate is about 58%, so only 58% of that 92% (Presumably the unfounded cases do not go to trial) are rapists. If they aren't convicted of rape, that would seem to mean there was insufficient evidence to prove that they committed a rape or to prove that a rape occurred, and therefore they aren't rapists.

What a nonsensically untrue statement. The very design of a presumption of innocence creates the very real fact that a great many guilty people are not convicted of any crime. To say that if they aren't convicted of rape means they are not rapists is absurd, and untrue. It means that they have not been convicted of the crime of rape. Not that they didn't commit it.

And even if it were true, that would mean 58% of 92% of accusations, would mean still around 53.3%, which is more than half, and STILL makes the claim that "generally people accused of rape are rapists" true, something is "generally true" if it happens most of the time. 53.3% is still most of the time.

It's also extremely bad form to argue that if someone isn’t convicted of rape then they’re not a rapist, but in the same breath argue that 10% of those who are convicted aren’t rapists. You can not have it both ways, and maintain a shred of intellectual honesty. Either you’re not a rapist if you’re not convicted (in which case you are a rapist if you are convicted), or that conviction does not mean, as a matter of fact, one way or another.

So if you want to factor in your 10% of “convicted rapists who are not rapists” then it’s only fair to factor in those who are, in fact, rapists, but weren’t actually convicted.

Either way you slice it, that number comes out well north of 50%.

[Neo Art]

This is technically true and yet deliberately misleading. There is no statute defining ANYTHING that must be proven in ANY crime, other than the elements of the crime itself. No crime requires a "laundry list" of check boxes that must be met before the case is "proven".

Like any other crime, the jury is the final say of fact, there is no REQUIREMENT of any SPECIFIC thing in ANY crime, the jury decides, themselves, whether the evidence is sufficient or not to prove the crime.

Like every other trial.

Then I suppose the main question here is, "does the judge say that at the start of the trial for any crime?"

I don't know, do you have the jury instructions on the roughly 100ish recognized felonies in the roughly 53 jurisdictions in the united states?

[Hydesland]

The broader question is, is there something inherent in the nature of the crime of rape that makes true allegations less likely to have corrobrating evidence.

Of course, it is one of the few crimes that are very serious and yet do not have to leave any physical scars or serious trauma (or even any trauma at all). Unlike with serious violent assault, which will certainly leave signs of serious physical trauma among other pieces of hard evidence (e.g. blood stains, signs of weapon use etc...).

[The Atlantean Menace]

The rape conviction rate is about 58%, so only 58% of that 92% (Presumably the unfounded cases do not go to trial) are rapists. If they aren't convicted of rape, that would seem to mean there was insufficient evidence to prove that they committed a rape or to prove that a rape occurred, and therefore they aren't rapists.

What a nonsensically untrue statement. The very design of a presumption of innocence creates the very real fact that a great many guilty people are not convicted of any crime. To say that if they aren't convicted of rape means they are not rapists is absurd, and untrue. It means that they have not been convicted of the crime of rape. Not that they didn't commit it.

Yes, but it is equally absurd to assume any one found not guilty of rape actually did commit a rape and just got off on the charge.

...That sentence took some wording, due to the alternate meaning of "got off on it."

Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to believe that someone found not guilty is, in fact, just that - not guilty.

And even if it were true, that would mean 58% of 92% of accusations, would mean still around 53.3%, which is more than half, and STILL makes the claim that "generally people accused of rape are rapists" true, something is "generally true" if it happens most of the time. 53.3% is still most of the time.

You forgot the other part of the math, the "1 in 10 people are falsely convicted." This would drop the number of actual rapists down to about 48%, meaning, to use your words, accused rapists are innocent "most of the time."

You can't factor in those that got off but were rapists, because there is no reason to think those that got off were rapists. If a rape cannot be proven, there is no reason to think it occurred.

[Neo Art]

Yes, but it is equally absurd to assume any one found not guilty of rape actually did commit a rape and just got off on the charge.

...That sentence took some wording, due to the alternate meaning of "got off on it."

Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to believe that someone found not guilty is, in fact, just that - not guilty.

No, the only REASONABLE thing to do is believe that when someone is found not guilty then there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That's the only reasonable thing to assume because that's the only thing it means.

I'm not sure what universe you live in, but generally all that can be "reasonably assumed" is bound by the circumstances. If someone is found "not guilty" it merely means that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

After all, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of killing Nichole Brown Simspon in a criminal trial, but found to have killed her in a civil trial, which has a much lower standard of guilt. You can not assume anything more than what it is.

You forgot the other part of the math, the "1 in 10 people are falsely convicted." This would drop the number of actual rapists down to about 48%, meaning, to use your words, accused rapists are innocent "most of the time."

already addressed in the edit:

It's also extremely bad form to argue that if someone isn’t convicted of rape then they’re not a rapist, but in the same breath argue that 10% of those who are convicted aren’t rapists. You can not have it both ways, and maintain a shred of intellectual honesty. Either you’re not a rapist if you’re not convicted (in which case you are a rapist if you are convicted), or that conviction does not mean, as a matter of fact, one way or another.

So if you want to factor in your 10% of “convicted rapists who are not rapists” then it’s only fair to factor in those who are, in fact, rapists, but weren’t actually convicted.

Either way you slice it, that number comes out well north of 50%.

[Hydesland]

This is missing the point, as with any crime, you should judge based on the context and information you know about the people involved. Relying on observational statistics on something incredibly hard to get reliable data on, with from what I've seen contains a very large standard deviation of estimates, to make such a strong assumption about someone's guilt or innocence is junk science.

[Neo Art]

So let me recap. First let’s discount EVERY “unfounded” allegation, so there goes 8%. Every single “unfounded” allegation taken as untrue (again, despite my and Hydesland’s point that rape often lends itself to not having corroborating evidence), all 8% of them are false.

Then let’s discount every SINGLE trial that does not result in conviction. So there goes 42%.

THEN let’s say “well, 10% of those ACTUALLY convicted didn’t actually do it!”

We’re left with 48%. Which means that taking every number, every SINGLE possible inference utterly in your favor (NO unfounded allegations are true, EVERY failure to convict means factual innocence, and 10% of actual convictions are false), every SINGLE POSSIBLE inference in your favor and you’re still coming out in the very razor’s edge of minory.

So much so that the very nature of rough approximations and margins of error could easily tip it into 50%.

You’ve made amazing leap frog motions of logic here to support your claim, thrown out a series of presumptions, such that:

1) all unfounded accusations are untrue
2) all accusations taken to trial but do not result in conviction are untrue
3) 10% of actual convictions are untrue (I’ve yet to see a study THAT high myself)

And even then you’re barely holding on to 48%. Using numbers, I may add, that you haven’t actually sourced.

Seriously, this level of math would be impressive, if it wasn’t so utterly intellectually dishonest.

[Sedgistan]

<snipped flame> This needed to be said.

No it didn't. *** 1 day ban *** for flaming.

Where the hell are the mods? Why is this tolerated when the point of view expressed is politically correct or the person flamed unpopular or politically incorrect? This is bullying, plain and simple. You, sir or ma'am, can get the fuck off this board if this is how you're going to be and let the adults settle this, shall we?

Report rules-violators in the Moderation forum, rather than telling them to GTFO - it tends to get a better response.

[Dungeyland]

Someone's been watching the Amazing Atheist...

[The Norwegian Blue]

I would be amused at the ridiculousness of the "the legal presumption of innocence means you can never, ever believe someone committed a crime or treat them differently in any way because of it unless they have been convicted of it" argument if it didn't require such an insane level of misogynistic doublethink for anyone seriously to put such a ludicrous argument forward.

Let's try making it NOT about rape for a second: say your best friend, whom you know to be trustworthy, tells you that he has evidence that the woman who runs your child's daycare is a psychopath who murders children. You investigate and discover extensive evidence that she has, indeed, murdered multiple children. Heck, how about you even find dismembered toddler-corpses in the woods behind her house, wrapped up in bags full of trash that is clearly hers - envelopes addressed to her, old pill bottles with her name on them, etc., along with a note in her handwriting saying, "I'm totally going to murder more children soon"...but you know she has not yet been convicted of killing any children, so by the insane "I presume everyone is innocent until they're convicted and treat them accordingly" logic, you would NOT pull your child out of this woman's care at any point in this process.

You would, in other words, be a raving lunatic.

If I have evidence that someone is a rapist (and yes, someone saying "he raped me" is generally pretty good evidence, since by any measure, it is true much more often then not), then I'm going to treat them like someone who might be a rapist. Duh. This has fuck-all to do with the legal presumption of innocence and everything to do with common sense. I am manifestly not arguing that every accusation of rape should lead immediately to a conviction, skipping over trials and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Of course it shouldn't. But pretending that the legal presumption of innocence somehow controls reality itself and no one committed a crime until someone is convicted of it is nonsensical beyond measure.

[Tekania]

The problem is is your effect of vilification extends LONG past the trial, and cause permanent harm to, what is in reality now, effectively a victim of false accusation. They get shit upon, and then tossed off to the side, with the allegations (even when proved false) still hanging over them and publicly following them everywhere they go. All because of an insane need by you and the rest of the peanut gallery to get your perverse kicks in.

[The Norwegian Blue]

The problem is is your effect of vilification extends LONG past the trial, and cause permanent harm to, what is in reality now, effectively a victim of false accusation. They get shit upon, and then tossed off to the side, with the allegations (even when proved false) still hanging over them and publicly following them everywhere they go. All because of an insane need by you and the rest of the peanut gallery to get your perverse kicks in.

I seriously have no idea what you're on about. Could you possibly slow down the tinfoil-hat-style ranting long enough to tell me what exactly you think it is I do to the poor, poor alleged rapists of the world?

[Tekania]

The problem is is your effect of vilification extends LONG past the trial, and cause permanent harm to, what is in reality now, effectively a victim of false accusation. They get shit upon, and then tossed off to the side, with the allegations (even when proved false) still hanging over them and publicly following them everywhere they go. All because of an insane need by you and the rest of the peanut gallery to get your perverse kicks in.

I seriously have no idea what you're on about. Could you possibly slow down the tinfoil-hat-style ranting long enough to tell me what exactly you think it is I do to the poor, poor alleged rapists of the world?

You promote and aid a system of public vilification of alleged rapists.

[Caninope]

I'm aware that as a woman, it's something she has probably never had cause to worry about

Wow. Just....wow. If we want to talk about "facts that have come up before on NSG," the fact that you could seriously say something this ridiculously offensive to ME...well, it says a lot about you. Congratulations, you've just made the list of "posters I will never be able to respect or take remotely seriously again." If you'd like to keep baiting me, please do it inside your head, because I'm done engaging with you in this thread if these are the depths to which you'll stoop.

Somehow, I doubt that there are as many false accusation rates of women then men. On the whole, accusations of women raping men are less likely to be took seriously, IIRC.

[Keronians]

Wow. Just....wow. If we want to talk about "facts that have come up before on NSG," the fact that you could seriously say something this ridiculously offensive to ME...well, it says a lot about you. Congratulations, you've just made the list of "posters I will never be able to respect or take remotely seriously again." If you'd like to keep baiting me, please do it inside your head, because I'm done engaging with you in this thread if these are the depths to which you'll stoop.

Somehow, I doubt that there are as many false accusation rates of women then men. On the whole, accusations of women raping men are less likely to be took seriously, IIRC.

And more likely to go unreported.

Seriously, one of the most tragic things about male rape is that the victims get mocked and suffer from social stigma, rather than the support and sympathy they deserve.

[The Atlantean Menace]

The problem is is your effect of vilification extends LONG past the trial, and cause permanent harm to, what is in reality now, effectively a victim of false accusation. They get shit upon, and then tossed off to the side, with the allegations (even when proved false) still hanging over them and publicly following them everywhere they go. All because of an insane need by you and the rest of the peanut gallery to get your perverse kicks in.

I seriously have no idea what you're on about. Could you possibly slow down the tinfoil-hat-style ranting long enough to tell me what exactly you think it is I do to the poor, poor alleged rapists of the world?

Promote a cultural environment that leads people to believe that 100% of rape allegations are true, perhaps?

[Caninope]

No it's not. These people want to talk about "Rape culture" and dismissing of it. Yet, they would not only themselves engage in acts to vilify the accused, but do so additionally under the guise "they are likely guilty anyway" and thus empowering situations of peoples lives being forever marred by a false allegation? Doesn't matter if most accused are guilty. That's not a fucking excuse for the vilification of even one single innocent.

So, if everything I know points towards John Doe being a rapist, I should not conclude that he's probably a rapist? That sounds like a terrible idea.

Except you don't usually know all the facts.

[Keronians]

The problem is is your effect of vilification extends LONG past the trial, and cause permanent harm to, what is in reality now, effectively a victim of false accusation. They get shit upon, and then tossed off to the side, with the allegations (even when proved false) still hanging over them and publicly following them everywhere they go. All because of an insane need by you and the rest of the peanut gallery to get your perverse kicks in.

I seriously have no idea what you're on about. Could you possibly slow down the tinfoil-hat-style ranting long enough to tell me what exactly you think it is I do to the poor, poor alleged rapists of the world?

Not to interfere or anything, but it sounds like you support a system in which accused rapists are vilified publicly.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Wow. Just....wow. If we want to talk about "facts that have come up before on NSG," the fact that you could seriously say something this ridiculously offensive to ME...well, it says a lot about you. Congratulations, you've just made the list of "posters I will never be able to respect or take remotely seriously again." If you'd like to keep baiting me, please do it inside your head, because I'm done engaging with you in this thread if these are the depths to which you'll stoop.

Somehow, I doubt that there are as many false accusation rates of women then men. On the whole, accusations of women raping men are less likely to be took seriously, IIRC.

....I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Keronians]

Somehow, I doubt that there are as many false accusation rates of women then men. On the whole, accusations of women raping men are less likely to be took seriously, IIRC.

....I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

You disagree?

[The Norwegian Blue]

....I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

You disagree?

No, kiddo. I'm just amazed at the level of tunnel vision that would be necessary to lead one to believe that reply has anything to do with what I said.

[Keronians]

You disagree?

No, kiddo. I'm just amazed at the level of tunnel vision that would be necessary to lead one to believe that reply has anything to do with what I said.

Oh.