Why are we not talking about false accusations of s3xual assault?

[SanDiegoMom]

31 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

I am sort of asking why peopl are completely sure he's guilty, but mostly I am asking why people don't have enough doubt of his guilt to recognize the possibility that he is an innocent man.  I am saying.......I don't understand why people (in general) given the facts, don't at least have reasonable (or more) doubt that he is a criminal.  

 

I don't really understand what you are asking - I mean, I understand you are saying "Why do people believe implicitly that he is guilty and she is innocent".. and I am wondering who you are talking about? Because I have seen so many people irl and on social media with a very wide gamut of opinions on this. Some believe implicitly that he is innocent, some believe implicitly he is guilty, and a lot of grey in the middle where people aren't sure or they are more focused on the answers to the other questions he gave during testimony...  We are all coming to this information from different directions with different preconceptions - how would it be otherwise that there is a wide disagreement over something that ultimately can't be fully substantiated?  

[SKL]

46 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

I am sort of asking why peopl are completely sure he's guilty, but mostly I am asking why people don't have enough doubt of his guilt to recognize the possibility that he is an innocent man.  I am saying.......I don't understand why people (in general) given the facts, don't at least have reasonable (or more) doubt that he is a criminal. 

This is a really important question.  It seems that with accusations like this, maybe others too, hearing is believing, even though legally and rationally we should know better.  Also, as we know, the more often something is said, the more people believe it, even without any additional evidence.  Experience teaches us that often what we hear is not true at all, and yet our brain does this.  Even if a person is subsequently exonerated, the original stain never really goes away.

This is one reason why false accusation is such a heinous crime and sin.  It is disturbing to see people suggest it should be taken lightly.

Edited November 6, 2018 by SKL

[berwif]

This is a very sensitive issues that we should also consider discussing. The authority should be able to spot if the sexual accusations are real or not. There are some accusations that are just accusations but left the accused ruined. Intensive investigations should be made pertaining those issues.

[Garga]

28 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am talking about the people who believe he is guilty.

 

Even people in this thread, who seem to have a lot of grey area....still respond to questions like "why do you believe he is guilty" with answers that often start with "I don't believe she's lying because..."

 

I believe it's possible to believe her story as she told it, and yet still believe his testimony also.  

Can you clarify the last sentence?  To me, her story and his testimony are opposites, so how can they both be true?  She says K held her down and tried to remove her clothing.  He said he didn’t do it.  How can we believe both?  Are you thinking it’s mistaken identity or are you meaning something else?  

[Frances]

23 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am talking about the people who believe he is guilty.

 

Even people in this thread, who seem to have a lot of grey area....still respond to questions like "why do you believe he is guilty" with answers that often start with "I don't believe she's lying because..."

 

I believe it's possible to believe her story as she told it, and yet still believe his testimony also.  

Until he testified, I believed both to be likely telling the truth and that he didn’t remember either due to being too drunk or it just was not memorable enough for him. And since there was no way to really prove it either way, I didn’t think it would stop his confirmation. But after his testimony, I found him unfit for the highest court in the land for other reasons including partisanship, disrespect to some Senators (especially the woman from MN), lying or evading answering about other things (yearbook entries, nickname, drinking habits, etc.), and demeanor under testimony not appropriate for a judge, as it would not be allowed in a courtroom. So it no longer mattered to me whether or not he was guilty of Ford’s accusations.

[Terabith]

Yes, even before her testimony, there were numerous reasons he should have been rejected, including past perjury.  After his testimony, even if he was telling the truth (and I don’t believe he was), he was clearly utterly unfit to be a judge of any stripe.  It was appalling behavior and extremely partisan.  

[historically accurate]

9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Yes mistanken identity or similar.  Perhaps there was someone else involved.  Perhaps she's mixing up events in her life.  Perhaps she's mixing up details of particular incidents.  Perhaps she's mixing up people involved.  Or something else.  All of my posts in this thread have been about how she could be telling the absolutely truth....and still be wrong.  

 

I don't understand what this line of thought does for anyone. Do you mean that you believe any witness' or victim's memory is faulty? Or is the perpetrator's memory faulty also? Yeah, trauma does do weird things to memory. Are you suggesting that we can't trust victims of traumatic crimes reporting ever because the memory may be mistaken or are you just not trusting Ford's memory? 

Because all of these are an option, but so is K was so drunk, he just doesn't remember or one of them is outright lying, no one knows. 

[Garga]

21 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Yes mistanken identity or similar.  Perhaps there was someone else involved.  Perhaps she's mixing up events in her life.  Perhaps she's mixing up details of particular incidents.  Perhaps she's mixing up people involved.  Or something else.  All of my posts in this thread have been about how she could be telling the absolutely truth....and still be wrong.  

I started off that way.

I started off thinking she might have been mixing things up. I started off thinking that even if he did do something, he was so drunk that he has zero recollection of it, so when he says, “I didn’t do it,” he absolutely believes it.  Or, that he absolutely didn’t do it!

But then I started watching the hearing.  I did not watch snippets of it.  I did not watch it as presented by a news station—there was zero commentary on what I watched.  I had it on youtube and would watch every chance I got, so I didn’t watch it all in one 8 hour sitting, but I did watch about 6.5 hours of it throughout the course of 2 or 3 days.  I admit that at that point (6.5 hours in), I was so depressed and upset by the whole thing that I stopped watching. It was just plain ugly.  It was heartbreaking all around.  The human misery during that hearing was palpable.  I finally couldn’t take watching such misery any more.

Through it all, Kavanaugh was terribly evasive.  He simply would not answer most of the questions asked of him.  I had heard people say something about how he was evasive and I thought, “oh, you’re just saying that because of whatever...” but when I watched I was surprised at how evasive he was. It was startling and terribly annoying.  I was wondering the answers to the questions he was asked and he simply would not answer them.  He would be asked the same question 5 times and each time he would deflect.  He turned the questions on the askers, which is a classic liar’s trick—to answer a question with a question.  

Ford admitted over and over what she didn’t know.  She admitted where her memory was foggy.  She answered every single question as thoroughly as she could.  She acted the way honest people act when interrogated.

I can’t know for sure what happened, none of us can.  But he was simply not very believable, in my opinion, as I watched on my own, without any commentary from a news station.  He was aggressive and evasive.  And that’s why rather than being a 5 on my 1-10 “is he guilty scale”, I give him a 6 or 7.  In my opinion, he acted like a liar and she acted like an honest person, so I’m a little more inclined to think he actually did do it, rather than to think Ford was mistaken about whether the identity of the attackers.

Edited: to clarify the last sentence.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Garga

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

 

I don't understand what this line of thought does for anyone. Do you mean that you believe any witness' or victim's memory is faulty? Or is the perpetrator's memory faulty also? Yeah, trauma does do weird things to memory. Are you suggesting that we can't trust victims of traumatic crimes reporting ever because the memory may be mistaken or are you just not trusting Ford's memory? 

Because all of these are an option, but so is K was so drunk, he just doesn't remember or one of them is outright lying, no one knows. 

I do think that when there's a long lag time, the quality of memory and other evidence can be impaired.  Doesn't mean they are never telling the truth, but it does affect credibility for multiple reasons.

Ms. Ford changed her own story a number of times.  Even of you believe she is completely honest, there is no way to say that her testimony is 100% accurate.  (Saying this does not mean she made a false accusation/report in the criminal sense.)

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

 

This is one reason why false accusation is such a heinous crime and sin.  It is disturbing to see people suggest it should be taken lightly.

I don’t take any crime lightly But this particular crime is just less likely to happen than many others so I am more concerned about them. I am also not spending much of my day concerned about my house being set on fire by an arsonist. Because it isn’t likely to happen. I am significantly more concerned about say, burglary, because that is more common. But that doesn’t mean I don’t take arson seriously. 

I am however concerned that people seem to be taking the valid point that those proven to have falsely accused someone should be punished and then softening the border around it by talking about those who have accused someone but lack evidence to prove their case. 

[Garga]

17 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Honestly, that's just really interesting.  To me, it seems to discount or ignore actual facts (the ones I already listed) and rely more on....feelings, instinct, etc.   Which, as I understand it, is basically why we have a legal assumption of innocent until proven guilty.  And yes, I know the entire Kavanaugh situation wasn't a criminal trial.  

 

 

What actual facts?  The fact that the men who said they assaulted Ford were discredited? The fact that there is an entry on his calendar that says he had a group just like the one Ford mentioned?  He didn’t list the girl’s names...but how would Ford have known about that gathering unless she was there?  Are we going to go on a long trail and say, “Well, maybe she overheard the guys saying they’d get together and she went to a different gathering...and got assaulted and then thought she was with the first group of guys...and she mistook the second group for the first group...” That would be pretty convoluted and have a lot of imagination involved.

See, I think your facts are shaky and you think mine are.  I suppose we’re just seeing things from a slightly shifted perspective.  

I wrote this originally at the end of the above post:  “I don’t see where you have made a factual case showing his innocence and you don’t see where I’ve made one that he has any guilt on him.”

But actually I don’t feel like I’m trying to make a case that he’s guilty.  We’re back to where I’m probably not the person who should be answering your question, because I don’t 100% believe he’s guilty.  

I just am saying that there are enough things pointing to something fishy going on with him.  The calendar entry doesn’t help him at all.  And his evasions and tetchiness under oath also doesn’t help him.  I wouldn’t convict him on what came out.  But I do think I have a reasonable doubt as to his innocence. 

(Gotta cook dinner, clean the cat water fountain, tidy the house, eat dinner, and get out the door in the next 2 hours.  Will have to stay away from this thread for now.  ?. )

Edited November 6, 2018 by Garga

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I don’t take any crime lightly But this particular crime is just less likely to happen than many others so I am more concerned about them. I am also not spending much of my day concerned about my house being set on fire by an arsonist. Because it isn’t likely to happen. I am significantly more concerned about say, burglary, because that is more common. But that doesn’t mean I don’t take arson seriously. 

I am however concerned that people seem to be taking the valid point that those proven to have falsely accused someone should be punished and then softening the border around it by talking about those who have accused someone but lack evidence to prove their case. 

I did not notice anyone doing that.

I think this thread is weaving around a lot though, so people are getting confused about who's talking about what.

As for the fact that the crime may be rare - so is child rape.  How rare it is has no bearing on whether it should be prosecuted IMO.  Doesn't mean I think we need to march on Washington and scream and set fires.  It's a crime and should be prosecuted.

[SKL]

If we're going to get into gut feelings, personally I feel like neither F nor K were telling the entire truth.  However, an untrue rape allegation is IMO a lot different from an untruth about how drunk and stupid you used to get when you were a teen.

I also think they were both handled and coached in ways that hurt both of their credibility.  But again - they are both adults and responsible for their own behavior.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

I did not notice anyone doing that.

I think this thread is weaving around a lot though, so people are getting confused about who's talking about what.

As for the fact that the crime may be rare - so is child rape.  How rare it is has no bearing on whether it should be prosecuted IMO.  Doesn't mean I think we need to march on Washington and scream and set fires.  It's a crime and should be prosecuted.

Right. Additionally, the thing about saying it is rare is that if people see, manifestly, that this is the ideal way to discredit people whom they hate, are politically opposed to, have a vendeta against, etc., etc., it will cease to be rare.  I don’t know why saying it is “rare” is held up as reason to believe any accuser. 

We don’t say, “well, actual child abductions from their house are so rare; this Elizabeth Smart case surely didn’t happen that way.” 

 

[Garga]

53 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Actual facts-

*The only person SHE named as having been present in the room....gave a sworn statement that he never witnessed such a thing.  Has this ever been in dispute?

*No one she has named as having been present at such an even has ever confirmed such an event.  

*he has written documentation of that specific time frame that has no indication that an even that includes all the people she has specifically listed as having been present (and who all state they remember no such thing) ever took place.  

As far as I know, these are facts and as far as I know, no one who has done investigations have given any indication that they believe the only eyewitness she named is lying, that they believe that any of the other people she named as present are lying, or that his calendars are in any way falsified or inaccurate.

I have not heard that anyone who has been party to the actual documents or investigation have ever doubted these things to be facts or to have found them to be "shaky"

 

 

 

Here's a perspective note however.  I don't believe that his innocence has to be proven.  I believe his innocence should be presumed, because I believe in the reasons that the idea of innocent until proven guilty exist.  I don't believe in a standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of innocence.  

 

And "fishy" does nothing to prove guilt.  

 I’m getting myself confused as to what’s going on in the thread and I think I’m starting to mis-represent myself or am coming across differently from how I actually feel/think/believe.   I think this is my overall contribution to the thread:

#1.  I worry deeply that the time is ripe for false accussations to be on the rise.
#2.  This is a big problem.  It is horrifying to think of people being wrongly accused.  I believe it will ultimately backfire and make people believe victims even less. 
#3.  How in the world can victims get justice?  Both those falsely accused and those who are actually assaulted?
#3.  Legally, Kavanaugh is innocent and should continue to be presumed innocent. There isn’t proof that he did anything. 
#4.  The whole Ford-Kavanaugh debacle was a political maneuvering and was about as slimy as could get from the politicians.
#5.  After watching Ford and Kavanaugh, I have doubts that Kavanaugh actually is innocent, though legally he is. My opinion doesn’t prove guilt. If I was on a jury, I would say “not guilty.” 
#6. But, in my own mind, I wonder about him.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Garga

[Carol in Cal.]

Can I just say, I am so impressed with the civility on this thread, generally.  Keeping it classy/classical!

[shawthorne44]

 

The news about the lawyer recently got me to think about this thread.  I think that the obviously fake allegations made K. seem more innocent.  

Imagine that you are on a jury.   Say the defendant is charged with robbery .  Then you learn that the police had tried to frame the defendant for another very similar crime.   The frame was admitted with the excuse, "I wanted to harm the defendant".   The person that did the frame wasn't the same person, but same police department.  At that point, I think most people would find the defendant innocent of this crime unless there was surveillance video where the defendant looked directly at the camera, and then flipped it off.  

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

 

Re rarity - of course false accusations can be prosectuted, if there's a case to be made.

But in terms where the worry that our boys will be falsely accused should rank on a mother's iist of worries ? It's way, way down. 

??‍♀️ I don’t think it’s way, way down. Maybe I read John Grishom’s novel The Associate with too much sympathy. 

I don’t think the solution to “tons of men get away with sex abuse” is “so any time a woman is pointing, she must be believed.” (To be clear, I don’t think you, said this; just that it’s one idea in the wider world that is treated as if it’s the answer.)

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

But statistically, it is. Boys are way more likely to be victims of violence, including sexual violence, that they are to be falsely accused of sexual assault.

And women are more likely to be disbelieved than believed.

There's a case on here atm involving a famous actor who is sueing for defamation. He was accused of sexual harassment; the judge appears to be very biased in his favour, going by his reported comments so far. But here's the thing - at the time, someone I know expressed concern, when interviewing him, that he was 'handsy' and 'leering' at his (young, female) co-stars. I know for a fact that the theatre company supporting him has, in the past, hushed up another episode of sexual harassment by replacing the female complainant. I also know that the actor involved initiated a 'friendship' with a girl aged 14, and that 'sleeping in his bed' was part of that friendship.

But - he is very likely to succeed in his defamation claim, because the entire indiustry is basically covering for hm. He's likely to get a big payout. The woman he sexually harassed ? Is unlikely to work in theatre ever again.

The odds are still stacked in the harasser's favour.

I just can't get myself worked up about it as a real fear for my son.

 

Statistics, obviously, reflect the past. So the statistics are reflective of women not coming forward even with legitimate claims. The “logic”, therefore goes, “Oh, women, fearful of being disbelieved or themselves shamed, don’t report, therefore this accusing women couldn’t be lying.” Im saying tilting it that way does no good, either, because it then becomes the ideal way for a woman with malicious intent can try to bring down a man. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I'd quibble with the word 'ideal'.

Putting onself up for the kind of scrutiny that comes in a world where still! comments can be made that a woman's choice of underwear indicates she was consenting to sexual activity (recent case in Ireland, eyewitness to the assault notwithstanding) is not ideal, and comes with some very serious consequences, not just for the accused but also the accuser. 

 

Fair enough. 

[Bluegoat]

With regard to stats on people being falsely accused - I really wonder if we really have good numbers on that.  Sure, we know how often people get accused to the police, but I don't really think those are the most common ways for that to play out.  (And for that matter, it may be that it is only the ones that get that far and are very obviously true that are actually found to be true in court.)

Most of the instances where I know of this kind of accusation happening, it was a lot less formal and clear - often it was in a workplace or at school or among friends or family.  Maybe that kind of thing is somewhat inevitable, but the social attitude to accusations will affect how people respond to these kinds of accusations as well, even if they are never subjected to even an investigation.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

With regard to stats on people being falsely accused - I really wonder if we really have good numbers on that.  Sure, we know how often people get accused to the police, but I don't really think those are the most common ways for that to play out.  (And for that matter, it may be that it is only the ones that get that far and are very obviously true that are actually found to be true in court.)

Most of the instances where I know of this kind of accusation happening, it was a lot less formal and clear - often it was in a workplace or at school or among friends or family.  Maybe that kind of thing is somewhat inevitable, but the social attitude to accusations will affect how people respond to these kinds of accusations as well, even if they are never subjected to even an investigation.

Are you talking about by reputation? 

I remember when I was 16, this very good-looking guy I worked with asked me out. I agreed to it. He was a perfect gentleman all evening. He also never asked me out again after that. But I also learned that he had gone out with another girl at work, who was spreading far and wide that it was a horrible date and she had to fight off his “octopus hands”. Upon reflection, I think her story was probably true and he asked me out purely as damage control. 

For all I know, his behavior with the other young lady could have qualified as a sexual assault. 

[Bluegoat]

Just now, StellaM said:

 

I don't think there's a way to solve this less formal type of accusation, unless we make it so it's illegal for girls, boys, women and men to make an accusation without having a legally water tight case. Which isn't going to happen. 

I'd like to see evidence for the 'ife ruined by informal false allegations which didn't go to court' narrative. People seem to get away with all kinds of things in this arena pretty successfully (see Mr Rush upthread).

 

 

I'm not sure there is a way to solve it either, other than to have a strong social consensus that it isn't a thing to do, that what happened objectively really counts.  As far as "lives ruined" I doubt that it always results in that.  But it still stinks.  It's not been all that uncommon in universities that have enabled that kind of accusation, particularly against black men, which makes me think that there is a capacity in society, or among young women, to think that way under the right social conditions.

 

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

Are you talking about by reputation? 

I remember when I was 16, this very good-looking guy I worked with asked me out. I agreed to it. He was a perfect gentleman all evening. He also never asked me out again after that. But I also learned that he had gone out with another girl at work, who was spreading far and wide that it was a horrible date and she had to fight off his “octopus hands”. Upon reflection, I think her story was probably true and he asked me out purely as damage control. 

For all I know, his behavior with the other young lady could have qualified as a sexual assault. 

 

Sure, people will say things to ruin people's reputation.  Young women maybe are some of the worst for that, they will do it to other girls pretty regularly - not usually about being sexually assaulted - more often about something they supposedly consented to sexually that would be embarrassing.  If someone is willing to do that to another girl, claiming a boy did something sexually inappropriate might not be that different.

But it could also be something like a complaint made in a workplace, or to a school.  Many have policies on these types of accusations, and they aren't necessarily ties to taking legal action.  Which makes sense to some extent.  But that will affect someone potentially without it ever coming before a court.  

How common is all this - I don't know.  But I don't know that anyone knows.  I know a saw a little of it in high school, a little in the army, and I know among my sister's social group a lot of that stuff went on - they seemed to have very fraught lives.  I knew one kid who may have been falsely accused in court for reasons of avoiding social embarrassment, though there was never any pursuit of the girl who made the accusation.  But how widespread is that???

[Bluegoat]

10 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't think we do, because legally, I don't think "false accusations" is a concept separated from " misidentification."  It's true that false accusations are rare.....It's also true that misidentification is the leading reason that The Innocence Project has found people convicted  are actually not guilty of what they have been convicted of. 

I don't think mixing the two up gives us any sort of clear picture at all.  

 

Sure, and even if you suspect that it is a false accusation, it could be that it was an error, or that it really happened even though the evidence is poor.  

[gardenmom5]

this came up today.  the ex-girlfriend accused him of assault and carving an X in her chest.  she was very specific it was him.

  he was arrested and charged.  his mother had taken a selfie of them - and posted it to FB - the same time this girl claimed this happened.  65 miles away.  he was facing a 99 year sentence.  even with the rock solid alibi - it took them nine months to drop the charges, and release him.

 

and locally -a guy got a 3 year sentence for raping a girl as she was dying.   (they'd been doing drugs, she OD'd - in his room.) the judge said that was the maximum she was allowed to give him according to sentencing guidelines. 

I consider both to be travesties.

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by gardenmom5

[LMD]

7 hours ago, Quill said:

??‍♀️ I don’t think it’s way, way down. Maybe I read John Grishom’s novel The Associate with too much sympathy. 

I don’t think the solution to “tons of men get away with sex abuse” is “so any time a woman is pointing, she must be believed.” (To be clear, I don’t think you, said this; just that it’s one idea in the wider world that is treated as if it’s the answer.)

I do think that using some of the only leverage we have - making men sh!t scared of false accusations, so afraid that they change their behaviour (like women change their behaviour all the time due to fear of rape/assault) - is a good start to part of the answer.

In the absence of obviously clear evidence to the contrary, I will always err on the woman's side. There's enough in this world against us. Like the 17 year old in Ireland who's 27 year old rapist walked free recently, even though she had been a virgin and he was witnessed strangling her in the mud. The rapist walked free because the underwear the victim wore was too sexy...

[Valley Girl]

7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

this came up today.  the ex-girlfriend accused him of assault and carving an X in her chest.  she was very specific it was him.

  he was arrested and charged.  his mother had taken a selfie of them - and posted it to FB - the same time this girl claimed this happened.  65 miles away.  he was facing a 99 year sentence.  even with the rock solid alibi - it took them nine months to drop the charges, and release him.

 

and locally -a guy got a 3 year sentence for raping a girl as she was dying.   (they'd been doing drugs, she OD'd - in his room.) the judge said that was the maximum she was allowed to give him according to sentencing guidelines. 

I consider both to be travesties.

 

 

I want to know why the accuser in the first case isn't in jail herself as result. She needs to do time. This article details how the lives of the innocent party and his family have been turned upside down.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/selfie-exonerates-man-burglary-charge-girlfriend-accuses-attacking/story?id=59187168

In the second case, it sounds like the judge may have recognized that far more time was warranted. I agree both cases are travesties of justice.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Valley Girl

[ktgrok]

15 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

In criminal cases, defendants are not "found innocent."  They are found "not guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Having said that, I agree with your sentiment here in that...........there is SO much going on with the situation with Kavanaugh, I am often struggling to understand how someone doesn't have any doubts of his guilt.  That doesn't mean we can't have questions of his innocence, but I don't understand not having any question of his guilt.  

 

14 hours ago, Quill said:

??‍♀️ I don’t think it’s way, way down. Maybe I read John Grishom’s novel The Associate with too much sympathy. 

I don’t think the solution to “tons of men get away with sex abuse” is “so any time a woman is pointing, she must be believed.” (To be clear, I don’t think you, said this; just that it’s one idea in the wider world that is treated as if it’s the answer.)

Are you even more worried about a son being raped or assaulted sexually than you are of him being falsely accused, given that being assaulted is more likely than being falsely accused? That's what people are trying to point out, that we don't worry about things way more likely, and focus on the less likely. 

13 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I do agree with what you have said here.

 

In every life there are instances where risk can be measured in both actual risk of the situation AND risk of the consequences should XYZ occur.

 

And example is in driving.  My risk of being in an accident is actually mitigated by things like not drinking and driving, not texting and driving, driving during the day, and other such things. 

BUT....I don't STOP putting my kids in car seats just because I have lowered my risks of being in an accident.  At some point, the potential consequences outweight the statistical risk.  I would rather put my kids in a $100 car seat to try one more thing to keep them alive, than risk having them killed in a wreck caused by a drunken 20 yr old at 2pm.  

 

Just because the risk of my son being incorrectly accused is small simply because of his Y chromosome status, that doesn't mean I am wrong to want to mitigate the damage that such an accusation might cause.  

Right, of course we should talk to our sons about not putting themselves in a bad situation, but we need to include that in a range of other risks, remembering that most of those others are way more likely. 

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Valley Girl said:

 

I want to know why the accuser in the first case isn't in jail herself as result. She needs to do time. This article details how the lives of the innocent party and his family have been turned upside down.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/selfie-exonerates-man-burglary-charge-girlfriend-accuses-attacking/story?id=59187168

In the second case, it sounds like the judge may have recognized that far more time was warranted. I agree both cases are travesties of justice.

for the same reason *proven* false female accusers of assault aren't in prison anywhere.

they refused to charge crystal magnum (duke lacrosse case) "becasue she's been through so much" (she's the one who lied and ran with them.).   if they had jailed her, she wouldn't have shot one boyfriend, and stabbed another to death.

- yes, the judge sounded like she would have liked to give him more time, but couldn't.  she's not an aaron persky. (brock turner 'he's an athlete, so can't ruin his life' so he got nothing but a slap on the wrist.)

Edited November 17, 2018 by gardenmom5

[Guest]

Quote

Are you even more worried about a son being raped or assaulted sexually than you are of him being falsely accused, given that being assaulted is more likely than being falsely accused? That's what people are trying to point out, that we don't worry about things way more likely, and focus on the less likely. 

No, actually, because I find that very improbable. I find the possibility of a young man who looks like my son and who may be where my son may be (i.e., a frat party at college) to be more likely to result in his being entangled in a false accusation of rape than for him to be a victim of rape. It is as a PP said (may have been happysmiley): statistical information is not equally applicable to all. 

Also, my assertion that false accusations are ripe for increase in incidence is persistently ignored. 

It’s just as, about five years ago, arguments about transgender rights were constantly brought along with a statistic about incidence of people being transgender was infinitesimally small, so why be concerned? Well, the number of people now claiming to be transgender is not infinitessimally small anymore. There is one such young person in my (extended) family. Such identities are popping up everywhere, so much so that, at my son’s college orientation, the students assisting had their pronouns printed along with their name and major. My dd’s dorm RA was transgender. I can easily name several people so identifying. Every local public school now has several people who so identify. 

This is my point about how statistics change according to how the public accepts or rejects the current situation. I have not a single doubt in my mind that five years from now the statistics regarding false accusations that have been legally proven to be false (nevermind unproven or non-legal-channel accusations) will have increased, possibly to a stunning degree. I hope I am wrong! But I will be surprised if I am. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I don't think they are likely to increase in number of cases. I think they're being disseminated such that we don't just hear about local cases now, we hear about it every single time it happens anywhere in America and is written down. 

And I think they are being spread more widely because so many more women are speaking up about being raped or otherwise assaulted right now. Ditto men speaking up about childhood abuse. 

I know you disagree ? But that's one reason the assertion wasn't addressed by one corner. 

Yeah. Ok. Thank you for the explanation. I guess time will tell, the way it tends to. 

[Bluegoat]

42 minutes ago, Quill said:

No, actually, because I find that very improbable. I find the possibility of a young man who looks like my son and who may be where my son may be (i.e., a frat party at college) to be more likely to result in his being entangled in a false accusation of rape than for him to be a victim of rape. It is as a PP said (may have been happysmiley): statistical information is not equally applicable to all. 

Also, my assertion that false accusations are ripe for increase in incidence is persistently ignored. 

It’s just as, about five years ago, arguments about transgender rights were constantly brought along with a statistic about incidence of people being transgender was infinitesimally small, so why be concerned? Well, the number of people now claiming to be transgender is not infinitessimally small anymore. There is one such young person in my (extended) family. Such identities are popping up everywhere, so much so that, at my son’s college orientation, the students assisting had their pronouns printed along with their name and major. My dd’s dorm RA was transgender. I can easily name several people so identifying. Every local public school now has several people who so identify. 

This is my point about how statistics change according to how the public accepts or rejects the current situation. I have not a single doubt in my mind that five years from now the statistics regarding false accusations that have been legally proven to be false (nevermind unproven or non-legal-channel accusations) will have increased, possibly to a stunning degree. I hope I am wrong! But I will be surprised if I am. 

 

This kind of thing is a really persistent blind spot people have in discussing changes in either political or legal policy, or social attitudes.  They forget to consider that the change, especially once it has settled in, will often have repercussions.  For some reason people seem to think that pointing out that this can happen is the slippery slope fallacy, but it's ot really (and even if it was, that is not a formal fallacy.)

So, people talk about something controversial, like euthanasia, or maybe legalisation of recreational pot, and they assume that once is is allowed, people will overall still have the same set of opinions about it - say, they see euthanasia as something to be handled very carefully and which people only want in extreme circumstances.   And then you get a few years down the road, and that isn't so much the case.  Or a generation down the road, and the new ideas are now foundational in how people think about what makes for a good life.

Somehow a lot of people seem to think that progressivism means simply denying that sort of social phenomena, or if it does happen, that is just progress.

[ktgrok]

31 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I don't think they are likely to increase in number of cases. I think they're being disseminated such that we don't just hear about local cases now, we hear about it every single time it happens anywhere in America and is written down. 

And I think they are being spread more widely because so many more women are speaking up about being raped or otherwise assaulted right now. Ditto men speaking up about childhood abuse. 

I know you disagree ? But that's one reason the assertion wasn't addressed by one corner. 

I haven't really addressed it because it hasn't happened. It is a known quantity we can discuss and cite evidence for if we talk about false allegations statistics and rape statistics now, but to talk about hypotheticals in the future is hard to do. I mean, no one can prove anything either way. You think false accusations will increase, I don't think so, but neither of us have any facts behind that. 

 

[ktgrok]

I'm curious what makes you think your sons are at less risk of rape than the average male? I'm honestly not up on that info, but can't off the top of my head think what would make me think that about a son? I mean, football players get assaulted, fraternity members get assaulted, marines get assaulted....it's not about size/strength that I know of. Maybe I'm wrong?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

I'm curious what makes you think your sons are at less risk of rape than the average male? I'm honestly not up on that info, but can't off the top of my head think what would make me think that about a son? I mean, football players get assaulted, fraternity members get assaulted, marines get assaulted....it's not about size/strength that I know of. Maybe I'm wrong?

I think they are statistically at the low end of the spectrum of who gets raped. Not at less risk than “the average male.” It is not a belief of mine that “the average male” is at much risk for rape. ??‍♀️ 

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I suppose that depends on what you consider "the average male."  I am not sure if prisoners are considered "the average male" but I am pretty sure that it's a big problem in prisons.  And I am sure there are other examples.  

Right, but that goes back to the statistic thing; I think it was you who posted it. Statistics are not equally distributed. If you have a group of ten prisoners and say, “50% of these men will be raped,” it isn’t equally applicable to ten college kids or ten priests (although - heh) or ten suburban white guys who drive mini-vans and bowl on Fridays. 

 

[ktgrok]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

I think they are statistically at the low end of the spectrum of who gets raped. Not at less risk than “the average male.” It is not a belief of mine that “the average male” is at much risk for rape. ??‍♀️ 

 

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/male-rape-in-america-a-new-study-reveals-that-men-are-sexually-assaulted-almost-as-often-as-women.html

An interesting article on men who are rape and sexual assault victims. 

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I suppose that depends on what you consider "the average male."  I am not sure if prisoners are considered "the average male" but I am pretty sure that it's a big problem in prisons.  And I am sure there are other examples.  

Prisoners are generally not included in rape statistics discussing the general populace. 

[ktgrok]

So wait, if you totally discount any and all statistics/reports we have on the topic, how do we have a conversation about it? I mean, at that point, you are saying that anyone can say anything with no facts to back it up, because you don't believe there ARE any facts/proof to offer. So...then what?

[SKL]

That's an interesting point, that the statistics would be so different if we included men who were influenced to engage in sex while drunk.  Of course to be fair, we would have to know whether the other party was also drunk, if that is even knowable.

I also think we need to break down whether the males reporting rape were adults or not at the time.  I do think that under a certain age, the risk of being raped by an adult is about the same for boys and girls.  That said, if we're focusing on adults' risks, it does not help to include past memories from before the age of consent.

I do believe that men are less likely to report an actual crime than women are, even given that many women don't report rape.  Our culture has a hard time comprehending the idea that a regular manly man can be sexually victimized.