Steve Youngblood
Member
Again, I'd like to state that I don't understand the purpose of this discussion. What do we ascertain by engaging in the discussion of which shitty situation is shittier?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
She cried rape, he went to prison for 6 years. She met up with him years later...
- Thread starter SUPREME1
- Start date
- Status
ReBurn
Gold Member
Better that a dozen innocent men go to prison than one rapist go free, right?
This is a sad story. It's terrible that someone would go to prison for a crime that never happened.
TacticalFox88
Banned
That is such bullshit that it's fucking hilarious.
It's guilty until proven innocent. Sorry to bust your bubble
So if it is indeed difficult to even attempt, what exactly would be the harm in enacting a law like that? I mean if it was easy to simply create a counter suit out of the blue regardless of evidence, then of course it wouldn't be wise for such a thing to happen, but with it already being pretty unheard of, I don't know why adding purposely lying about rape to put an innocent in jail something that would be bad for real rape victims.
If not this, there must be some type of feasible penalty to apply to those that conspire to put innocent people in jail like that and not potentially hurt rape victims in the process.
Ken Masters
Banned
frankie_baby
Member
when the R word starts getting thrown around (wether in court or not) unfortunately thats what (most) people think
No, not really.
frankie_baby
Member
its in the thread somewhere
How many times does it need to be repeated? They would not be accused of a crime unless there were proof they were lying.
frankie_baby
Member
no smoke without fire as the saying goes
This is the exact shit we were talking about in the other thread. Its so damn easy to lie about rape. Unfortunately, making it harder to lie makes it easier to rape and get away with it.
This is why people say men AND women should protect themselves from these types of situations. Not because of rape culture. Not because women are undervalued or because men should panic before having sex with anyone. But because at the end of the day it often is a he said/she said game, a place where neither the man or the woman should want to be.
This is why people say men AND women should protect themselves from these types of situations. Not because of rape culture. Not because women are undervalued or because men should panic before having sex with anyone. But because at the end of the day it often is a he said/she said game, a place where neither the man or the woman should want to be.
Angry Fork
Member
The question is whether there should be a law that punishes people who falsely accuse others of something, and this woman in the story be punished automatically for what she did. This would bring justice to the guy who was innocent but if a woman was raped and doesn't have evidence of it then she won't come forward because she'll be afraid she'll be considered a liar and punished.
The casey anthony shit for example: If I recall correctly there wasn't enough evidence linking her directly to the killing, it wasn't proven beyond a doubt. If you changed the law so that less evidence is required so she could go to jail, then it would create a HUGE increase in innocent people being put in prison because that same little evidence will convict anyone accused of anything.
So you have to choose a system where you're innocent until guilty or guilty until innocent. If a woman comes forward and accuses someone of rape that person should still be considered innocent until the proper evidence is there. If there is no evidence then they can't be convicted, that's just the way it is. It's terrible if a rapist goes free but at the same time those rules enable innocent people to avoid being put in prison.
The 5 year in prison vs. being raped thing is whether or not you think an innocent being put in prison is worse than a guilty person committing a horrible act. I'm saying that innocent people being falsely accused is worse, so stricter laws should be there to protect that from happening rather than allow anybody to accuse anyone and then convict people just based on that.
People are saying it should be innocent until guilty, and 'officially' that's what it's considered to be. And a lot of the time I'd say this is the case except when racists, sexists etc. are looming in the court. But if everyone is fair and intelligent without bias it's innocent until proven guilty.
faceless007
Member
Anybody can be accused of a crime under the law, evidence doesn't come into play until the grand jury investigation and then the trial.
Let's consider a hypothetical. Presume someone was raped by an unknown assailant, and conclusive evidence showed the perpetrator was one of two suspects. If no further evidence could be found to determine which one of the suspects was the guilty one, would you imprison them both despite knowing you'd imprison an innocent man? Or would you let them both walk free knowing you'd released a guilty one?
Actual convictions might not come to those truly reporting rape but the law would be another mental barrier to one coming forward. It's not about the legality of it, it's about the culture of it.
She never came forward! The dude served his ENTIRE sentence and was only cleared when she contacted him after he was out and he secretly taped her!!!
No evidence and it gets thrown out. Nothing happens. This is such a bullshit point to be arguing and everyone arguing against it is willfully ignoring the counterpoint.
I can accuse the guy at the drive thru at McD's of raping me and the case will get thrown out because there is literally zero evidence. That is what would happen if the rape "accuser" were not lying.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
The death penalty costs prisons more then life in prision.
Count Dookkake
Member
Or you can just know what words mean and if you don't, you can read the article.
She "cried rape."
There would be no mental barrier. If they were not falsely accusing there would be zero evidence of a false accusation unless something were fabricated, which is a risk in any legal case.
The point isn't if convictions or even trials would take place... you can't make it against the law to accuse someone of rape without negatively impacting true accusers.
What the fuck are you talking about? There is currently a huge mental barrier for anyone coming out and accusing someone based simply on them getting called a slut just looking for attention. Rape is already seriously underreported because of how we treat rape victims in America and if we enact a law specifically targeting accusers of rape it would get worse.
How hard is that to fucking understand?
This is precisely the problem with the term "cry rape"; it is used as a cudgel against women making allegations of rape "in general". And while you said that my example left you unconvinced, it speaks to precisely this sort of ignorance. In this case, it is you who are apparently unaware of how the term "cry rape" is loaded.
And I do want to clarify something for you about your comment about my explanation: This argument is not about the accuracy of the term "cry rape" (though it is less accurate than "made a false accusation of rape"); it is about how the way we talk about things impacts the way that we think about things. If you respond to what I said by saying "But it's accurate!" you haven't understood the argument.
It seems like you have this idea that rape culture is "Joe hears someone make a fratboy joke. Joe hears someone say a girl cried rape. Joe now thinks he can rape."
In the case of the word "cry rape," the idea is simply that by creating an atmosphere in which every rape allegation is painted with the accusation of the term "cry rape" and it is assumed by a sizeable number of people that rape accusations are a fairly common or significant event, it makes it even less likely that there will be a conviction even if she does go to trial. It is not that the term "cry rape" does this alone; it is merely a part of a much larger emergent system that normalizes sexual assault of women.
And if one looks at the reality of rape in the United States - the rampant underreporting (e.g. 90,000 rapes in 2008; estimated 75,000 unreported rapes), the even lower likelihood that there will be an arrest (25% in 2008); this is precisely the sort of effect that rape culture is supposed to have. It makes it less likely that rapes will be reported and less likely that there will be an arrest in the first place. Given that the arrest rate alone is only 25%, even if the conviction rate were 100%, it would still mean that 3/4s of all reported - and 13 percent of reported and unreported rapes - go unpunished. Do you think this makes it more or less likely that someone will rape? This isn't reliant on subtle connotations and mental effects. And once more, for emphasis: No one is saying that the term "cry rape" does this all on its lonesome. It's merely a small part of the Gordian knot, and we're actually giving it no more time than it deserves.
Rape culture is generally not about "big things." It is more about a lot of little individual attitudes and cultural ideas that together create a larger effect, an emergent system. Unfortunately this means that people who are not as well-versed in the subject of rape culture will tend to be dragged kicking and screaming on each individual issue, because they don't see how that single issue can cause all of rape culture (which it doesn't). So they will complain that it - whatever it is - is not relevant because they don't see the forest for the trees.
It's an unfortunate effect of the forum environment, I think, where I have realized over the years that many peoples' first impulse is to argue a position rather than to see if they have something to learn about a subject that they haven't done much to educate themselves about.
timetokill
Banned
Marrec seems to be arguing a sort of strawman scenario where an unsuccessful rape charge automatically makes you guilty for a false rape charge.
This doesn't make sense because the ruling isn't that he's been proven innocent. It's that he was not proven to be guilty.
It doesn't mean she was guilty of lying, it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict somebody of the crime.
If he filed a false rape charge he would have to meet the exact same standards of justice to prove her guilt. The fact that he wasn't convicted doesn't automatically convict her. It's not evidence one way or the other.
If she hasn't lied about the rape then there is absolutely NO reason why she should fear being accused of falsely charging someone with it. There would be absolutely no evidence to convict her.
This doesn't make sense because the ruling isn't that he's been proven innocent. It's that he was not proven to be guilty.
It doesn't mean she was guilty of lying, it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict somebody of the crime.
If he filed a false rape charge he would have to meet the exact same standards of justice to prove her guilt. The fact that he wasn't convicted doesn't automatically convict her. It's not evidence one way or the other.
If she hasn't lied about the rape then there is absolutely NO reason why she should fear being accused of falsely charging someone with it. There would be absolutely no evidence to convict her.
It's not against the law to accuse someone. It's against the law to be proven to have been lying about it. PROVEN being the key word. What is so hard to understand about this?
Angry Fork
Member
this too
I couldn't believe what she said to him "let bygones be bygones". WHAT THE FUCK. This guy must've punched holes in his wall. What kind of evil is in a person that robs someone of 10 years of their life and reputation and then asks to be friends afterward. The lowest scum right there.
kame-sennin
Member
That's exactly where the term came from. The problem with the term is that it's almost always used to silence survivors of rape and sexual assault:
This kind of stigmatization is common even though:
http://jezebel.com/5908472/my-weekend-in-americas-so+called-rape-capital
There's a pattern of victim shaming that runs counter to the actual data about rape and sexual assault. Using phrases like "the girl who cried rape" perpetuates the empirically false notion that false rape accusations are common. The result is that women who make legitimate claims are stigmatized and bullied, which often times causes them to recant or simply give up.
faceless007
Member
Your faith that any accusation with zero evidence will automatically get thrown out by judges is rather oddly misplaced, especially given the topic of this thread. You know, a guy whose rape charge went to trial despite there being no evidence.
Fuck it then. It doesn't work sometimes so why try to fix it. What's the point?
timetokill
Banned
Fixed
No for fucks sake that's not what I'm arguing!
I'm saying that if you specifically target this then it will make rape even more underreported because it just furthers a culture that we have in America that makes it hard for a woman to even come forward with accusations.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I hope she doesn't have to give back the lawsuit money, so she has plenty of money that this guy can sue her for.
I feel this shit is a byproduct of neofeminism. Everyone will side with the woman, his lawyer probably had the right idea. No one is going to stand up for the man in this case, feminism has scared us into this. We are scared to be politically incorrect and question if the woman is just some crazy bitch. This could be compared to the Duke Lacrosse scandal from a few years ago.
Sorry if it sounds ridiculous. Just how I feel.
Sorry if it sounds ridiculous. Just how I feel.
frankie_baby
Member
if by making it harder for women to come forward with accusations but at the same time makes it harder for innocent men to be convicted of crimes they didnt commit then thats ok
Attackthebase
Member
Well yeah, it is now. My post was referring to its original intention, not the ugly abomination we have in today's society. The days when defense lawyers were held in high respect instead of being seen as cretins like they are today. The prosecution has way too much power in the judicial system.
faceless007
Member
You're the one claiming there is no danger of people being falsely accused of the crime of false rape accusation. Why do you think there would be any less danger of that than of being falsely accused of actual rape, which you are so very concerned about? The evidence for both would be the same, since they revolve around the same act.
WHY DOES IT MAKE IT HARDER? THERE IS ZERO REASONABLE RISK IF THEY AREN'T LYING ABOUT IT!
You're fucking killing me, man.
Wouldn't it be better to attack those mental barriers then? Instead of advocating against protections that would help protect justice and ultimately help both sides? Cases that go to court would be that much stronger because of the convictions of the claimant. Perjury is one thing, but many times the victims aren't even asked to testify or even go to the courtroom.
I might need Devo to explain this one to me because I'm not getting it. So we go *around* the culture instead of challenging it, to let innocent men and women both get victimized?
It doesn't sound ridiculous. It does sound really misogynist, though.
Most women who do file rape claims are questioned if they're "some crazy bitch," for the fucking record.
So would you still be against it still if the culture was at the point where most women would have no problem in reporting rape and others wouldn't resort to slut shaming?(ie the rape capital thread)
She also stole $1.5 mil from state primary education. So her evil is pretty well-rounded.
Steve Youngblood
Member
It's not ridiculous. I, personally, am terrified of stuff like this. That's why I carry around a "not raping someone" whistle. Should I ever find myself alone with a woman, I blow it so that someone will rush in and and witness no raping.
It's the only way to protect myself from this neofeminist nightmare where women clearly have to much power -- as evidenced by a rampant outbreak of cases like this.
Angry Fork
Member
I don't understand why it's hard to come forward though, at the very least an investigation would be opened and she could get a restraining order? It's not like it's all hopeless if she doesn't have direct evidence. Someone will take her story seriously unless it's in some town/state that hates women.
Ok it did sound a little mysogynist, not what I was going for.
And if that is the case then we clearly need some better psychologists doing the questioning. The woman from the Duke case had crazy written all over her and it didn't make a difference.
If they don't accept "He raped me" as enough evidence to convict of rape (which they shouldnt), then "she's falsely accusing me" shouldn't be enough evidence to convict of a false accusation.
You're saying this from a position of not having to be in the situation. There is a reason rape is under-reported in America and if you increase the amount of negativity in someones mind about the accusation of rape then it will just increase.
Make a law against all false accusations if you want, but don't target rape unless you want the number of victims coming out to decrease even further.
I'd probably still be against targeting rape specifically yes, because I'd feel it was a step backwards. See above, make a broad law that encompasses all false accusations.
timetokill
Banned
You don't fix underreporting of rape by sabotaging the justice system. That's completely absurd.
Focus on eliminating rape culture and encouraging women to come forward in rape cases, but sorry if I think it's totally bullshit to abandon the key tenet of our justice system in order to make women feel safe about coming forward.
adamsappel
Member
Unfortunately, I have little doubt that he had to deal with both.
faceless007
Member
You assume (or rather you expect rape victims to assume) law enforcement personnel will always be reasonable and treat rape accusations with gravity and seriousness, and not immediately dismiss women who come forward as just looking for attention or regretting the night before.
I don't know how much it happens, but it does happen, thus increasing the risk.
"Crying wolf" is only used to refer to false allegations, not all allegations. Its point is to highlight how false claims lead to a lack of trust in real ones. The effect is certainly real and almost palpable on GAF.
I don't find your case convincing, because you've misunderstood what the term means or are referring to a completely different usage than is found in this thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked