So you think that anyone who accuses someone of rape should be liable to be sued if they can't get a guilty verdict? Do you really think that's a good idea? Because I can tell you right now that will cause even fewer rape victims to come forward.
-
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.
Rape charge dropped against USC student after evidence of consent presented
- Thread starter norm9
- Start date
So you think that anyone who accuses someone of rape should be liable to be sued if they can't get a guilty verdict? Do you really think that's a good idea? Because I can tell you right now that will cause even fewer rape victims to come forward.
excelsiorlef
Member
By that logic every woman who files rape charges (that get reported in the news) against someone that either doesn't go to trial or results in a not guilty verdict should be sued....
Which is ridiculous.
I think it's fair that accused and the accusers names remain sealed until a verdict is reached.
Edit: this may also help with false accusations, because it significantly limits the leverage one could gain by falsely accusing.
Ah yeah, I confused my posters.
excelsiorlef
Member
Then go fight for that but don't wield the current laws against potential victims.
I'm not advocating for suing her.
Snarky(HEART)
Banned
Seems like a lot of people, like that poster, believe that women who accuse men of rape get waited on hand and foot and hold all the power and DONT get tons of hate and harrassment and shunning.
excelsiorlef
Member
Probably should have mentioned that when you were replying to a conversation thread about that specifically.
Yah, totally. Stories that focus on presumed false accusations are totally overrepresented in the media. This is helps color peoples' perception of victims by immediately planting seeds of doubt and providing low hanging annectdotes. If most of what you hear about is cases being thrown out, you might not appreciate that 2% / 98% statistic.
Always-honest
Banned
He'd be frowned upon.
I assume that the small number of false accusations have some reason behind them and are not just randomly made decisions.
The national sexual violence resource center (the source of that 2% to 7% false reports statistic people use) differentiates between baseless accusations and false reports.
A baseless accusation is one where the details of what happened are correct, but what happened was not a crime. A False Report is a report to police that, after investigation was factually proven not to have occurred.
You can read the report here:
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
False Reports, I'm assuming, are not always well-intentioned. In some instances, they are likely used as a form of revenge, or to somehow box in the other person, I.e. "You can't break up with me or I'll tell the police you raped/beat me". That person may not actually want to send the other person to jail, but is trying to get them to take some other action from the threat of jail or public embarrassment. While not criminal, you see a low key version of this in divorce/custody cases where it is probably way more common. I've seen it more than once in friends and family where crazy ex's claim the other person is on drugs/violent/abusive/engaging in some form of prostitution/whatever.
At any rate, I think the accused should have some protection from a Scarlet Letter in cases where being accused has potentially high negative consequences, even if they are eventually found not guilty. You can see it here, where about half of GAF seems willing to give this guy serious side eye for a crime where there is no proof that he committed.
RichiRamjag
Member
Well said
My father received a false allegation from my stepsister the night he wouldn't let her stay the night at a friends house when I was a young teen. She didn't realize that he let me stay up late that night and we were up watching movies all night. Thankfully, I was able to confirm that she hadn't even been home that night and the rest her story was full of holes. It really could have ruined a couple of lives, mine included.
I don't give a fuck what the stats are. Most people directly involved wouldn't either. Both situations can be horrible and life-ruining.
HawksWinStanley
Member
Not to mention the damage that has already been done. Nobody knows who she is, but guess what will forever be the first hit any time an employer (or anyone else for that matter) googles his name?
Defintely now that I think about it, most of the rape/sexual assault news stories I can recall are about cases that were somehow dismissed or never prosecuted. Whether it is R kelly, Bill Cosby, this one, Duke lacrosse, or University of Virginia. These are the ones that get the most news time. For ones that I can remember that were not somehow dismissed, I'd probably have to go back to like the Liske girls.
That he is not a rapist?
HawksWinStanley
Member
I'd be incredibly impressed with any employer that was willing to overlook him being involved in an incident like this publicly at all, regardless of the outcome.
As if the job market isn't competitive enough already do you think they'll take a chance on a guy with a rape accusation tied to his name over someone else who he barely edged out? And if they did hire him what about the complaints that will hit the HR department from women who might not feel safe with a newly hired accused rapist working alongside them?
I think it's naive to think he won't face any blowback from this in the future just because they didn't have enough evidence to put him on trial.
Conversely, you could read the thread and see if I said that before attacking me for it.
That said, no big deal, we all make mistakes.
benicillin
Banned
If you want to argue that no suspects should ever be named in any crime ever, despite decades of reasons why we do this - murder, fraud, etc because it might harm their job prospects then do that, but if you're only arguing that men should receive special protection from being named in rape trials (rapists usually having more than one victim and it encouraging others to come forward being some reasons why people feel strongly about them being named) then you're arguing for sending a message that rape victims in particular should not be believed.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Why not? If she believes he raped her but is innocent or there was a lot of reasonable doubt, it's fair that he gets to sue. No harm in trying.
Actually an extreme amount of harm in trying, but keep ignoring that I guess
Subpar Spatula
Banned
So the guy should just move on and forget his name was dragged through the mud?
Dude Abides
Banned
Revenge is a really stupid reason to sue. Lawsuits are about money. He's not going to get any. All he'd buy himself is a headache and dragging his own name through the mud.
Yep.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
perfectchaos007
Member
She was the one trying to ruin this innocent guys life. And even though he was found innocent, just being labeled as an "accused rapist" doesn't look good for him. If a company he wants to work for does a thorough background check, this case could come up, and could affect his job opportunities. So yes, he does have a very reasonable right to sue her.
Dude Abides
Banned
She's a 19 year old college student. Even assuming he could prove that she intentionally lied, how much do you think she has on her starbucks card?
I am speaking to you super genuinely as someone who couldn't report it when it happened to me. Opening up lawsuits on people who can't get a guilty verdict on a rapist is extremely idiotic and does an extreme amount of harm. You're going to make it harder for people to step forward for fear of being sued on top of all the other crap that stops us from reporting it.
In this case in particular, he wasn't found innocent. There just isn't any evidence that they can go off from inside the dorm. They don't know what happened one way or the other in there. So I don't even know what you're expecting him to use as proof in your revenge scenario.
perfectchaos007
Member
It's the principal of the matter. Even if her net worth is a negative number, he should still sue her. Think about what would have happened to him if there was no video evidence of the nights precedings.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Enough for a venti ice frapp at least.
In the end, his choice though.
Now this I don't get behind. He needs to make sure there is some type of pay whether it be garnished wages or she has money. Principle and zero amounts don't matter if you're more broke after.
HawksWinStanley
Member
I guess I'm arguing that no one's name should be given until it goes to trial.
It's sucky situation for all involved (especially the accused). We have no way of knowing what really happened in the dorm room, so we can't say with certainty that one person is innocent or not.
Now let's just say a person accused of rape is found innocent (basically the other person lied). In this scenario, I truly believe in a gloves are off approach. That person purposefully lied and tried to ruin an innocent persons life. That false accuser should get sued to oblivion and made sure their name is dragged through the mud to such a degree that they have to live in seclusion. Rape is serious as hell, those who lie about it harm society as a whole. They must be punished.
Now let's just say a person accused of rape is found innocent (basically the other person lied). In this scenario, I truly believe in a gloves are off approach. That person purposefully lied and tried to ruin an innocent persons life. That false accuser should get sued to oblivion and made sure their name is dragged through the mud to such a degree that they have to live in seclusion. Rape is serious as hell, those who lie about it harm society as a whole. They must be punished.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Good.
Don't get me wrong, rapists getting away with it happens far too often, but the opposite is worse.
Don't get me wrong, rapists getting away with it happens far too often, but the opposite is worse.
benicillin
Banned
I didn't think this thread could get any worse, but here we are.
It would end in a 'he said, she said' scenario without enough evidence to convict him?
That would be a big part of the solution, but probably impossible in this day and age. Noone is preventing one of those two parties of leaking the name.
And in his case, he should at least push for a thorough apology. If there is a sex offender register, there might be space for a "I accused someone falsely" register. Because that is a serious situation. Whoever is accused wrongly will either go to jail for a long period of time or live with the consequences of that accusation anyways. And in this case, she knew about that and did so anyway. So there must be some way of punishing her. And that is not about revenge, it's about the law which should protect people both ways. The victims of rape and the victims of false accusations.
However, the threshold of proving guilt is rather high and should stay that way, because of the seriousness of the situation.
Dude Abides
Banned
He would have had his day in court?
You're advocating he spend thousands of dollars in legal fees over feels. Thankfully he's apparently gotten better advice and is moving on.
Rape threads often become indistinguishable from redpill forums.
Scofield94941
Member
She could habe changed her mind when the door was closed ans he wAnted to penetrate her with a foreign object. He could have raped her, why on earth would this girl go through everything just to lie? No one wants to fucking admit they were raped. Dude just had alot of money to pay for good lawyers it seems.
Always-honest
Banned
I agree. But it's very hard to prove.
What the hell is going on with all the vindictive revenge fantasies in here.
The case was dropped because there wasn't enough evidence one way or the other.
It doesn't prove she was attacked. It doesn't prove she wasn't attacked. It doesn't prove he lied. It doesn't prove she lied.
What it proves is that there wasn't enough evidence.
The video shows that at some point in the night she was into him.
It says nothing about what happened later when the two of them were alone.
He hasn't been found guilty of anything.
She hasn't been found guilty of anything.
And now, for some reason, people in this thread seriously think allowing people to sue people who have failed to get a rape conviction is a good fucking idea?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Do you have any idea the sort of statistics rape cases actually see?
I'm in the UK, so here's some UK figures.
Nearly half a million adults are sexually assaulted in England and Wales each year
Approximately 15% of sexual violence cases actually get reported to the police.
Only around 5.7% of reported rape cases end in a conviction for the perpetrator.
The fact is that in a lot of cases there simply isn't enough evidence to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt. Sometimes it isn't reported in time. Sometimes the evidence isn't conclusive. Sometimes you can't prove a lack of consent. Sometimes the perpetrator genuinely thinks they're innocent too - and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're just really damned convincing. Sometimes you can't prove there wasn't consent. Sometimes the victims get slut shamed and people won't find in their favour because they think they should have dressed differently, or because apparently a third of people think a woman is responsible for getting raped if she fucking flirts with anyone (a figure I have no problem believing considering what I've seen in this thread)
And taking all this into account you want to make it so that the people who actually stand up and relive these awful encounters over and over and over again to police, to courts, to juries, can then be sued by the perpetrators? So that not only have they been violated, not only have they had to lay themselves bare to the system, but then the person who hurt them gets to do it AGAIN and hurt them monetarily?
Do you have ANY idea how fucked up that is?
How much damage that could do?
What sort of effect that could have on people coming forward?
People struggle to come forward as it is, and now you want to punish them for daring to do so?
Seriously?
Those people do not deserve to get sued because people have no fucking empathy.
You're outraged on behalf of this guy?
You don't need to be.
This guy hasn't been found guilty of anything. The case has been dropped. The system worked for him.
Anyone googling his fucking name will find out that the case was dropped (and going by this thread people will probably be on his side).
There is no revenge to pursue here.
So take your revenge fantasies where think every girl is out to get you with a false rape charge and you want to be able to garnish her wages and her starbucks card balance and go stow them back in the dark recesses of your mind that they never should have escaped from in the first place.
The case was dropped because there wasn't enough evidence one way or the other.
It doesn't prove she was attacked. It doesn't prove she wasn't attacked. It doesn't prove he lied. It doesn't prove she lied.
What it proves is that there wasn't enough evidence.
The video shows that at some point in the night she was into him.
It says nothing about what happened later when the two of them were alone.
He hasn't been found guilty of anything.
She hasn't been found guilty of anything.
And now, for some reason, people in this thread seriously think allowing people to sue people who have failed to get a rape conviction is a good fucking idea?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Do you have any idea the sort of statistics rape cases actually see?
I'm in the UK, so here's some UK figures.
Nearly half a million adults are sexually assaulted in England and Wales each year
Approximately 15% of sexual violence cases actually get reported to the police.
Only around 5.7% of reported rape cases end in a conviction for the perpetrator.
The fact is that in a lot of cases there simply isn't enough evidence to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt. Sometimes it isn't reported in time. Sometimes the evidence isn't conclusive. Sometimes you can't prove a lack of consent. Sometimes the perpetrator genuinely thinks they're innocent too - and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're just really damned convincing. Sometimes you can't prove there wasn't consent. Sometimes the victims get slut shamed and people won't find in their favour because they think they should have dressed differently, or because apparently a third of people think a woman is responsible for getting raped if she fucking flirts with anyone (a figure I have no problem believing considering what I've seen in this thread)
And taking all this into account you want to make it so that the people who actually stand up and relive these awful encounters over and over and over again to police, to courts, to juries, can then be sued by the perpetrators? So that not only have they been violated, not only have they had to lay themselves bare to the system, but then the person who hurt them gets to do it AGAIN and hurt them monetarily?
Do you have ANY idea how fucked up that is?
How much damage that could do?
What sort of effect that could have on people coming forward?
People struggle to come forward as it is, and now you want to punish them for daring to do so?
Seriously?
Those people do not deserve to get sued because people have no fucking empathy.
You're outraged on behalf of this guy?
You don't need to be.
This guy hasn't been found guilty of anything. The case has been dropped. The system worked for him.
Anyone googling his fucking name will find out that the case was dropped (and going by this thread people will probably be on his side).
There is no revenge to pursue here.
So take your revenge fantasies where think every girl is out to get you with a false rape charge and you want to be able to garnish her wages and her starbucks card balance and go stow them back in the dark recesses of your mind that they never should have escaped from in the first place.
Suing her for slander would be throwing away tens of thousands of dollars. In that context, the burden is on him to prove she lied and he's not going to be able to do that, even with the lowered standard in civil proceedings. In this case, it would be especially difficult, because it would be his word against the word of two women.
It would also bring more attention to this case and it would likely result in the roommate's testimony going public. So far, it's been generally and vaguely summarized as "she walked in on the assault," but if he sues all details of what she saw or believes she saw will come out. And, if the prosecution was willing to base their case on her testimony, I think it's safe to assume it will be negative.
So, he would be risking a lot of money and further risking his reputation, for little to no pay off.
It would also bring more attention to this case and it would likely result in the roommate's testimony going public. So far, it's been generally and vaguely summarized as "she walked in on the assault," but if he sues all details of what she saw or believes she saw will come out. And, if the prosecution was willing to base their case on her testimony, I think it's safe to assume it will be negative.
So, he would be risking a lot of money and further risking his reputation, for little to no pay off.
Always-honest
Banned
You are right. I guess people just have a feeling they could get accused of rape and get their lives ruined and they would just have to suck it up and live with it.
They are mostly talking about a situation where some woman just knowingly lies about a rape situation.
Something that rarely happens i think.
Last comment with a quote from the judge I saw on the Daily Trojan article (I don't think it's in here yet):
There's sort of something for everybody in there.
On the one hand he throws shade at the accuser, by going somewhat past just saying "there's not enough evidence" into "her story is strongly indicated to not be true".
On the other hand he says that the eyewitness testimony alone is not enough to bring charges.
Would be interested in seeing the whole statement but not exactly sure where one would find it.
There's sort of something for everybody in there.
On the one hand he throws shade at the accuser, by going somewhat past just saying "there's not enough evidence" into "her story is strongly indicated to not be true".
On the other hand he says that the eyewitness testimony alone is not enough to bring charges.
Would be interested in seeing the whole statement but not exactly sure where one would find it.
My understanding is that the bail is refunded, but he presumably took out a bond to pay for bail (I think usually 10%) which would not be refunded.
So he's likely out at least $20K on the bond. And probably at least another $5K-20k on legal fees.
excelsiorlef
Member
Again there's not enough evidence to convict her of false accusation but you're already calling to put her on a sex offender list?
The fee's and shit in our legal system never made sense to me. If you're never convicted everything should be reimbursed? I get the legal fee's because you decide to pay for a good lawyer instead of a public defender but holy shit.
There is no evidence of a false accusation.