An intermediate level of allegation credibility

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I was considering putting this in the Kavanagh megathread, but I think this particular line reflects on an issue much broader than Kavanagh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ7w39lyfE#t=8m19s

"If you're not careful, pretty soon there will be no accused sex offenders in government." - Stephen Colbert

The qualifier "accused," while I appreciate Mr. Colbert's honesty in mentioning it, reduces this statement to meaninglessness. During witch hunts, a great many people were accused of witchcraft. Surely they couldn't have been guilty. Such a tendency toward false accusations is in our blood.

While I get that there needs to be a middle ground between "sure enough he's innocent to put him on the bench" and "sure enough he's guilty to throw his ass where he'll get raped himself" shouldn't this middle ground ALSO be assessed by the courts, rather than leaving it to the common man's unfounded speculation?

[The New California Republic]

Such a tendency toward false accusations is in our blood.

No it isn't. That implies that we are all on some level predestined to falsely accuse. Some are, not all.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Such a tendency toward false accusations is in our blood.

No it isn't. That implies that we are all on some level predestined to falsely accuse. Some are, not all.

Key phrase, "on some level." There is variance in that, but that doesn't necessarily mean any, let alone many, are completely immune.

Of course, to the extent there is variance, that's all the more reason that government shouldn't consist of whomever is most prone to false accusations wants it to consists of.

[NERVUN]

I was considering putting this in the Kavanagh megathread, but I think this particular line reflects on an issue much broader than Kavanagh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ7w39lyfE#t=8m19s

"If you're not careful, pretty soon there will be no accused sex offenders in government." - Stephen Colbert

The qualifier "accused," while I appreciate Mr. Colbert's honesty in mentioning it, reduces this statement to meaninglessness. During witch hunts, a great many people were accused of witchcraft. Surely they couldn't have been guilty. Such a tendency toward false accusations is in our blood.

While I get that there needs to be a middle ground between "sure enough he's innocent to put him on the bench" and "sure enough he's guilty to throw his ass where he'll get raped himself" shouldn't this middle ground ALSO be assessed by the courts, rather than leaving it to the common man's unfounded speculation?

So you are therefore proposing that all candidates for elected office first be brought before a court and judged to be guilty or not?

Interesting.

[Costa Fierro]

So you are therefore proposing that all candidates for elected office first be brought before a court and judged to be guilty or not?

Interesting.

I would suspect the OP is talking about a standard of evidence that is able to be determined by a court of law and that any and all accusation made by members of the public should be judged by that standard.

What concerns me most is that this is increasingly being used as a weapon against men. Not only will innocent men have their lives ruined, genuine victims of sexual assaults, harassment, and rape will face an even more uphill battle to get justice rendered. That's why I suspect the "listen and believe" aspect of #MeToo exists: to force people to believe women regardless of the veracity of claims.

[Uxupox]

So you are therefore proposing that all candidates for elected office first be brought before a court and judged to be guilty or not?

Interesting.

I would suspect the OP is talking about a standard of evidence that is able to be determined by a court of law and that any and all accusation made by members of the public should be judged by that standard.

What concerns me most is that this is increasingly being used as a weapon against men. Not only will innocent men have their lives ruined, genuine victims of sexual assaults, harassment, and rape will face an even more uphill battle to get justice rendered. That's why I suspect the "listen and believe" aspect of #MeToo exists: to force people to believe women regardless of the veracity of claims.

People that make false accusations (be it against women or men) and are proven in court to be actually the case should be punished by the same level of treatment that would have happened if the accused was guilty.

[Petrasylvania]

I was considering putting this in the Kavanagh megathread, but I think this particular line reflects on an issue much broader than Kavanagh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ7w39lyfE#t=8m19s

"If you're not careful, pretty soon there will be no accused sex offenders in government." - Stephen Colbert

The qualifier "accused," while I appreciate Mr. Colbert's honesty in mentioning it, reduces this statement to meaninglessness. During witch hunts, a great many people were accused of witchcraft. Surely they couldn't have been guilty. Such a tendency toward false accusations is in our blood.

While I get that there needs to be a middle ground between "sure enough he's innocent to put him on the bench" and "sure enough he's guilty to throw his ass where he'll get raped himself" shouldn't this middle ground ALSO be assessed by the courts, rather than leaving it to the common man's unfounded speculation?

Or he's saying if nothing is done to insure allegations are thoroughly investigated and consequences meted out if guilt is proven, we'll soon have convicted rapists or worse in government.

[Costa Fierro]

I was considering putting this in the Kavanagh megathread, but I think this particular line reflects on an issue much broader than Kavanagh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ7w39lyfE#t=8m19s

"If you're not careful, pretty soon there will be no accused sex offenders in government." - Stephen Colbert

The qualifier "accused," while I appreciate Mr. Colbert's honesty in mentioning it, reduces this statement to meaninglessness. During witch hunts, a great many people were accused of witchcraft. Surely they couldn't have been guilty. Such a tendency toward false accusations is in our blood.

While I get that there needs to be a middle ground between "sure enough he's innocent to put him on the bench" and "sure enough he's guilty to throw his ass where he'll get raped himself" shouldn't this middle ground ALSO be assessed by the courts, rather than leaving it to the common man's unfounded speculation?

Or he's saying if nothing is done to insure allegations are thoroughly investigated and consequences meted out if guilt is proven, we'll soon have convicted rapists or worse in government.

If #MeToo continues, yes.

[The New California Republic]

No it isn't. That implies that we are all on some level predestined to falsely accuse. Some are, not all.

Key phrase, "on some level." There is variance in that, but that doesn't necessarily mean any, let alone many, are completely immune.

Of course, to the extent there is variance, that's all the more reason that government shouldn't consist of whomever is most prone to false accusations wants it to consists of.

You never said "on some level" though, I said that (I was being far too generous...), your phrasing was far more absolute. Saying "it's in our blood" has the implication that it is universal and inescapable.

[Publica]

I would suspect the OP is talking about a standard of evidence that is able to be determined by a court of law and that any and all accusation made by members of the public should be judged by that standard.

What concerns me most is that this is increasingly being used as a weapon against men. Not only will innocent men have their lives ruined, genuine victims of sexual assaults, harassment, and rape will face an even more uphill battle to get justice rendered. That's why I suspect the "listen and believe" aspect of #MeToo exists: to force people to believe women regardless of the veracity of claims.

People that make false accusations (be it against women or men) and are proven in court to be actually the case should be punished by the same level of treatment that would have happened if the accused was guilty.

So...everytime the DA thinks someone is guilty of murder, but they're proven innocent, we should execute the DA?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Key phrase, "on some level." There is variance in that, but that doesn't necessarily mean any, let alone many, are completely immune.

Of course, to the extent there is variance, that's all the more reason that government shouldn't consist of whomever is most prone to false accusations wants it to consists of.

You never said "on some level" though, I said that (I was being far too generous...), your phrasing was far more absolute. Saying "it's in our blood" has the implication that it is universal and inescapable.

Everything's "in our blood," the only question is to what extent or how directly or indirectly. No contradiction there.

Me typing this is in my blood. It was in previous generations' blood to develop the technologies leading to this computer and in my blood to have the personality traits leading to me using it this way.

I was considering putting this in the Kavanagh megathread, but I think this particular line reflects on an issue much broader than Kavanagh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ7w39lyfE#t=8m19s

"If you're not careful, pretty soon there will be no accused sex offenders in government." - Stephen Colbert

The qualifier "accused," while I appreciate Mr. Colbert's honesty in mentioning it, reduces this statement to meaninglessness. During witch hunts, a great many people were accused of witchcraft. Surely they couldn't have been guilty. Such a tendency toward false accusations is in our blood.

While I get that there needs to be a middle ground between "sure enough he's innocent to put him on the bench" and "sure enough he's guilty to throw his ass where he'll get raped himself" shouldn't this middle ground ALSO be assessed by the courts, rather than leaving it to the common man's unfounded speculation?

So you are therefore proposing that all candidates for elected office first be brought before a court and judged to be guilty or not?

Interesting.

But also, that the accusation must be determined, by a court, to have some validity before it can be published.

[Chestaan]

People that make false accusations (be it against women or men) and are proven in court to be actually the case should be punished by the same level of treatment that would have happened if the accused was guilty.

So...everytime the DA thinks someone is guilty of murder, but they're proven innocent, we should execute the DA?

To be fair there's a difference between making a knowingly false accusation and making a mistake.

[Chestaan]

I think a large part of worry about false accusations would dissipate if the accused's identity was kept hidden unless they were found guilty. This could work in the same way that the identities of accusers are kept hidden in some countries.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I think a large part of worry about false accusations would dissipate if the accused's identity was kept hidden unless they were found guilty.

And unless the accusation could be deemed at least credible; even if not necessarily credible to the point of a conviction; then that's exactly the way it should be.

[Page]

About 2% of allegations of sexual abuse are false. And that is not an insignificant number, but it is worth mentioning that 2% is the false allegation figure for all felonies. Which means just as many people will be falsely accused of a crime like robbery. There is talk about there being an epidemic of false allegations of sexual misconduct, but the numbers show that we either shouldn't consider it an epidemic, or that we should be also concerned about false allegations of other crimes.

And while I see that the notion "automatically believe all accusers" is thrown around, the reaction to that has not been "assess the evidence and keep an open mind", but rather has manifested as "automatically disbelieve all accusers." I have seen many times in the last year that the moment an allegation breaks, there is a barrage of commentary about false allegations and #MeToo going to far and that this world isn't safe for men now.

The irony of that last thing is men are also victims of sexual assault and sometimes even less believed. I was discussing the whole Kavanaugh thing with my own parents, and my mom says to me "I'm thinking of you and how it would be if you were wrongfully accused." She didn't consider that I might have been sexually assaulted myself, which happened in the last year. And I never really told anyone except my wife and internet strangers, I didn't want to make a big drama of it. The story isn't particularly unique, I was in a hot tub at a public spa and some guy came in with me and started flirting with me, I rebuffed him and told him I was married, he touched my arms and I drew back, then later he grabbed my penis and I left. And I didn't report it because I figured if I did, I would have to talk to people I didn't want to talk to about a thing I didn't want to talk about, and he would deny it anyway and nothing would happen, so why go through that? Then my parents even joke about it not being sexual assault if you're a man because "men would enjoy it."

I'm wondering why so many men are more likely to imagine themselves as the accused than the accuser, as if it doesn't happen to men too.


Anyway, there can be no middle ground in a criminal court. Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and it's that way for a reason. If a 100 people who did it get away with it for every 1 person who is wrongfully accused, I say it's worth it to protect those who aren't guilty. But in a Supreme Court confirmation, it's the prerogative of the Senators, and a Senator has every right to deny a confirmation based on a maybe.

[Chestaan]

About 2% of allegations of sexual abuse are false. And that is not an insignificant number, but it is worth mentioning that 2% is the false allegation figure for all felonies. Which means just as many people will be falsely accused of a crime like robbery. There is talk about there being an epidemic of false allegations of sexual misconduct, but the numbers show that we either shouldn't consider it an epidemic, or that we should be also concerned about false allegations of other crimes.

And while I see that the notion "automatically believe all accusers" is thrown around, the reaction to that has not been "assess the evidence and keep an open mind", but rather has manifested as "automatically disbelieve all accusers." I have seen many times in the last year that the moment an allegation breaks, there is a barrage of commentary about false allegations and #MeToo going to far and that this world isn't safe for men now.

The irony of that last thing is men are also victims of sexual assault and sometimes even less believed. I was discussing the whole Kavanaugh thing with my own parents, and my mom says to me "I'm thinking of you and how it would be if you were wrongfully accused." She didn't consider that I might have been sexually assaulted myself, which happened in the last year. And I never really told anyone except my wife and internet strangers, I didn't want to make a big drama of it. The story isn't particularly unique, I was in a hot tub at a public spa and some guy came in with me and started flirting with me, I rebuffed him and told him I was married, he touched my arms and I drew back, then later he grabbed my penis and I left. And I didn't report it because I figured if I did, I would have to talk to people I didn't want to talk to about a thing I didn't want to talk about, and he would deny it anyway and nothing would happen, so why go through that? Then my parents even joke about it not being sexual assault if you're a man because "men would enjoy it."

I'm wondering why so many men are more likely to imagine themselves as the accused than the accuser, as if it doesn't happen to men too.


Anyway, there can be no middle ground in a criminal court. Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and it's that way for a reason. If a 100 people who did it get away with it for every 1 person who is wrongfully accused, I say it's worth it to protect those who aren't guilty. But in a Supreme Court confirmation, it's the prerogative of the Senators, and a Senator has every right to deny a confirmation based on a maybe.

I've seen various numbers thrown around for the false accusation percentage, but I always am wary of them. Like how is it calculated? Is it accusations that were not true? Accusations that were maliciously false? And then how do we know how many of those there even are? Is it the percentage of rape cases that went to trial that were not proven guilty? Is it the number of those who were tried and found guilty of false accusations? I mean some false accusations wouldn't ever go to trial but are they counted?

[Page]

About 2% of allegations of sexual abuse are false. And that is not an insignificant number, but it is worth mentioning that 2% is the false allegation figure for all felonies. Which means just as many people will be falsely accused of a crime like robbery. There is talk about there being an epidemic of false allegations of sexual misconduct, but the numbers show that we either shouldn't consider it an epidemic, or that we should be also concerned about false allegations of other crimes.

And while I see that the notion "automatically believe all accusers" is thrown around, the reaction to that has not been "assess the evidence and keep an open mind", but rather has manifested as "automatically disbelieve all accusers." I have seen many times in the last year that the moment an allegation breaks, there is a barrage of commentary about false allegations and #MeToo going to far and that this world isn't safe for men now.

The irony of that last thing is men are also victims of sexual assault and sometimes even less believed. I was discussing the whole Kavanaugh thing with my own parents, and my mom says to me "I'm thinking of you and how it would be if you were wrongfully accused." She didn't consider that I might have been sexually assaulted myself, which happened in the last year. And I never really told anyone except my wife and internet strangers, I didn't want to make a big drama of it. The story isn't particularly unique, I was in a hot tub at a public spa and some guy came in with me and started flirting with me, I rebuffed him and told him I was married, he touched my arms and I drew back, then later he grabbed my penis and I left. And I didn't report it because I figured if I did, I would have to talk to people I didn't want to talk to about a thing I didn't want to talk about, and he would deny it anyway and nothing would happen, so why go through that? Then my parents even joke about it not being sexual assault if you're a man because "men would enjoy it."

I'm wondering why so many men are more likely to imagine themselves as the accused than the accuser, as if it doesn't happen to men too.


Anyway, there can be no middle ground in a criminal court. Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and it's that way for a reason. If a 100 people who did it get away with it for every 1 person who is wrongfully accused, I say it's worth it to protect those who aren't guilty. But in a Supreme Court confirmation, it's the prerogative of the Senators, and a Senator has every right to deny a confirmation based on a maybe.

I've seen various numbers thrown around for the false accusation percentage, but I always am wary of them. Like how is it calculated? Is it accusations that were not true? Accusations that were maliciously false? And then how do we know how many of those there even are? Is it the percentage of rape cases that went to trial that were not proven guilty? Is it the number of those who were tried and found guilty of false accusations? I mean some false accusations wouldn't ever go to trial but are they counted?

I believe that false allegations are counted by those who have recanted their accusation and when evidence has proven they could not have possibly been in the place and with the person at the time, that the accused was somewhere else entirely or otherwise could not have done it.

Being acquitted of rape doesn't mean the allegation is false. The police declining to prosecute doesn't mean the allegation is false. Just like any other crime, a false allegation has to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Chestaan]

I've seen various numbers thrown around for the false accusation percentage, but I always am wary of them. Like how is it calculated? Is it accusations that were not true? Accusations that were maliciously false? And then how do we know how many of those there even are? Is it the percentage of rape cases that went to trial that were not proven guilty? Is it the number of those who were tried and found guilty of false accusations? I mean some false accusations wouldn't ever go to trial but are they counted?

I believe that false allegations are counted by those who have recanted their accusation and when evidence has proven they could not have possibly been in the place and with the person at the time, that the accused was somewhere else entirely or otherwise could not have done it.

Being acquitted of rape doesn't mean the allegation is false. The police declining to prosecute doesn't mean the allegation is false. Just like any other crime, a false allegation has to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

So basically, its really the lower bound of false accusations, not the actual number.

And I agree that not bringing to trial, or not prosecuting doesn't mean the allegation is false, but similarly not all false allegations will be provably false.

[Page]

I believe that false allegations are counted by those who have recanted their accusation and when evidence has proven they could not have possibly been in the place and with the person at the time, that the accused was somewhere else entirely or otherwise could not have done it.

Being acquitted of rape doesn't mean the allegation is false. The police declining to prosecute doesn't mean the allegation is false. Just like any other crime, a false allegation has to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

So basically, its really the lower bound of false accusations, not the actual number.

And I agree that not bringing to trial, or not prosecuting doesn't mean the allegation is false, but similarly not all false allegations will be provably false.

Yes, it would be fair to say that it's the lower bound of false accusations. But the amount of rapes/sexually assaults as counted by convictions or guilty pleas is also the lower bound, with the actual number being significantly more. The vast, vast majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

And while people frame this as a women vs. men issue, women's accusations vs. what men actually did, I would say that even as a man, you are significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted or raped (by someone who will almost definitely get away with it) than to be falsely accused.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So basically, its really the lower bound of false accusations, not the actual number.

And I agree that not bringing to trial, or not prosecuting doesn't mean the allegation is false, but similarly not all false allegations will be provably false.

Yes, it would be fair to say that it's the lower bound of false accusations. But the amount of rapes/sexually assaults as counted by convictions or guilty pleas is also the lower bound, with the actual number being significantly more. The vast, vast majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

And while people frame this as a women vs. men issue, women's accusations vs. what men actually did, I would say that even as a man, you are significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted or raped (by someone who will almost definitely get away with it) than to be falsely accused.

Then make sure the case isn't published until it's been deemed plausible by judges qualified on the matter. Both sexual assault and false accusations thereof could happen to any of us. But I doubt "publication of the accusation, when there are both guilty-unaccused and non-guilty accused" is going to be that much of a deterrent to sexual assault anyway.

[Chestaan]

So basically, its really the lower bound of false accusations, not the actual number.

And I agree that not bringing to trial, or not prosecuting doesn't mean the allegation is false, but similarly not all false allegations will be provably false.

Yes, it would be fair to say that it's the lower bound of false accusations. But the amount of rapes/sexually assaults as counted by convictions or guilty pleas is also the lower bound, with the actual number being significantly more. The vast, vast majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

And while people frame this as a women vs. men issue, women's accusations vs. what men actually did, I would say that even as a man, you are significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted or raped (by someone who will almost definitely get away with it) than to be falsely accused.

I agree 100% that it's not a men vs women's issue. Especially with the added problem of male victims rarely being taken seriously.

I just don't think it's helpful to put a definite number on false accusations because its really hard to do so. Are false accusations a big deal? Maybe, maybe not. I think the issue is that rape is so hard to prove either way. Its hard to prove that its true and its hard to prove that its false. Because of that accusations tend to stick, even if they go nowhere. Everyone will always have some doubts. That's why people are so afraid of false rape accusations, well that and that rapists tend to, rightly, be treated particularly harshly by society.

EDIT: Which is why I think that the names of all accused in any crime shouldn't be published unless they are found guilty.

[Gravlen]

I think a large part of worry about false accusations would dissipate if the accused's identity was kept hidden unless they were found guilty. This could work in the same way that the identities of accusers are kept hidden in some countries.

It would probably prevent serial abusers like Bill Cosby and Larry Nasser from being convicted as well.

[Chestaan]

I think a large part of worry about false accusations would dissipate if the accused's identity was kept hidden unless they were found guilty. This could work in the same way that the identities of accusers are kept hidden in some countries.

It would probably prevent serial abusers like Bill Cosby and Larry Nasser from being convicted as well.

I doubt it would make it less likely than keeping the name of the victim secret, which is currently done in some places such as Northern Ireland.

[Gravlen]

It would probably prevent serial abusers like Bill Cosby and Larry Nasser from being convicted as well.

I doubt it would make it less likely than keeping the name of the victim secret, which is currently done in some places such as Northern Ireland.

You doubt it, and I want empirical evidence to be sure. We already know that people often come forward when the names of accused are published, so any evidence that it won't make it less likely that serial abusers are caught and convicted is appreciated.

Also, is it a good idea to remove the posibility for people who can speak up for the accused to come forward?

[Chestaan]

I doubt it would make it less likely than keeping the name of the victim secret, which is currently done in some places such as Northern Ireland.

You doubt it, and I want empirical evidence to be sure. We already know that people often come forward when the names of accused are published, so any evidence that it won't make it less likely that serial abusers are caught and convicted is appreciated.

Also, is it a good idea to remove the posibility for people who can speak up for the accused to come forward?

Well several things make convictions less likely, and we accept them. For example, mandating that guilt must be proven rather than innocence proven prevents plenty of rapists from going away. But we accept that because we don't believe that someone should have to suffer unless we are certain they are guilty.

Tell me, do you think alleged victims should have their names revealed or not?