Support NeoGAF

[frankie_baby]

... But my opinion is supported by the facts and your opinion isn't.

So you should change your opinion.

no supported by studies and reports based on opinions, who oppointed the authors of said reports judge and jury for each of the cases they analysed? were the accused in each case properly defended?

 

[Ponn]

No it isn't because false accusations of rape of extremely rare.

For some reason I think the victim in the OP would feel differently. What kind of numbers would be acceptable for you?

Oh actually I had another thought, iphone and android app. Just sign it right on the phone.

 

[marrec]

If we stop those two points there, then there is no issue. The problem is we don't attack the bias, and we let the "game" play out. Authorities should do full investigation and prosecute based on any evidence they have. If it's just his word against hers about consent, and proof that she was in fact drunk, and they did in fact have sex, then go on that. If she says that she said no, and he continued while she was incapacitated, that's rape. Her sexual history shouldn't affect that claim. If she's free and open with her sexuality, then why would she suddenly feel enough remorse and shame to make a false claim against this football player. The slut-shaming part doesn't really fit except to assume that if she's sexual then she could also be a liar. But it doesn't make logical sense. If she has sex when she wants to, then wouldn't she only claim rape when she was forced to have sex when she didn't want to?

All of what you've said makes sense, but it doesn't help the women who go through that exact thing. Look at the 'Rape Capital' thread for some more examples.

I'm not so sure that's true. Maybe in comparison to truthful accusations, but in and of themselves, I'm not so sure.

I suppose taken in a vacuum it's impossible to have any context for how often it occurs.

 

[frankie_baby]

So she's left to be victimized then?

unfortunately your hypothetical person would yes, however the real man in the OP wouldn't have spent the last 5 years in jail

 

[Big-E]

"Cry rape" is like "cry wolf."

It is exactly what this turd did and its usage is appropriate in this specific context.

This. "False Accusation of Rape" makes it sound like a misunderstanding. This is a systematic lie that ended up making her a profit most people in life will never see and fucked up a guys life.

 

[cdyhybrid]

So she's left to be victimized then?



Language is very important my friend and how we use it loads conversations before they even start. You may not be consciously aware of it, but yes cry rape is loaded. Denying it doesn't make it not true.

Who's saying that it's loaded? What authority? That's his point.

 

[marrec]

no supported by studies and reports based on opinions, who oppointed the authors of said reports judge and jury for each of the cases they analysed? were the accused in each case properly defended?

Frankie, we're not going to have an argument on what knowledge is with you. You're refusing to accept reports and statistics as fact, so in your world there is no truth. There is no point in arguing with you anymore if there is no truth.

 

[frankie_baby]

Frankie, we're not going to have an argument on what knowledge is with you. You're refusing to accept reports and statistics as fact, so in your world there is no truth. There is no point in arguing with you anymore if there is no truth.

statistics such as those are guesses/estimates, not facts, there is a difference

 

[Hydranockz]

Language is very important my friend and how we use it loads conversations before they even start. You may not be consciously aware of it, but yes cry rape is loaded. Denying it doesn't make it not true.

But this women wasn't raped...

Aesop's story of the boy who cried wolf is about a kid who proclaimed he saw a wolf chasing the village's sheep when there was no wolf. 'Crying wolf' came about as a result of this. Are you trying to tell me that when someone uses the term 'crying rape' to describe what a woman did when she was not raped that the two are not connected in any way?

This woman cried rape. She told people she was raped. Much like in Aesop's tale, people believed the liar. Just because the term also means something else, doesn't mean that it cannot be used in another context.

 

[Kaizer]

Moral of the story, potential pro-athletes, keep it in your pants, don't screw with potentially slutty/sneaky chicks and wait to do all the screwing you want AFTER you get your money.

 

[ZAK]

I'll do my best to clarify. No one is suggesting we ignore what was done. I am pointing out that there is a difference between saying, "she falsely accused him of rape" and "she cried rape". The former is a matter of fact statement. The latter is an incendiary and loaded comment. It's something that can be used against women regardless of whether or not they are telling the truth. It also creates the impression that false rape reports are common, when in reality rapes are underreported.

As someone's already pointed out, that last sentence contains a non sequitur. Nonetheless, I do sort of see what you're saying. Not because it can be used against women regardless of their honesty (this is just as true for "false accusation" or any synonym), but because it could imply commonality, because in the story of the boy who cried wolf (where the term presumably comes from), the problem is that the boy cries wolf too frequently. Your complaint makes sense if we view the crier as women in general. I (and some others I suspect) were only looking at the "false call for help" aspect. I think this is an honest mistake, maybe not even worth noting, but more on that later.

Where? Also, is it bad for someone to make combating rape the issue that is most important to them? Also, who is taking the cause of reducing rape less seriously as a result?

Don't do the "who really thinks that" thing. I'm just following your lead here. Who really is led to feel that rape is acceptable purely from the use of the term "cry rape?" The whole rape culture argument is based on these subtle connotations and mental effects that you can't possibly prove with hard data. I'm willing to accept the argument to a point, and I'll try to explain my own point better. Hopefully we can see eye to eye.

Wouldn't that individual be the one with the serious problem and not the person passionately trying to challenge rape culture?

Okay, here is what I mean. You're trying to attack rape culture. To do that, you have to accurate identify instances of rape culture. I (for example), your potential ally, am with you so far. Then I hear some claims along the lines that we can stigmatize instances of rape culture such as dirty jokes or the use of the term "cry rape." Now, what do I think of this "rape culture?" I think it's some oversensitive BS. The next time you try to inform me of rape culture, even if you're talking about frat boys discussing how best to get a woman drunk, I'm more likely to ignore you before even hearing you out. You've done damage to your cause by focusing on silly little things with little or no real impact.

That's what I mean. This stuff you're talking about, does it really matter? I doubt it. If you spend effort on the wrong thing, then you've lost effort you could have spent better, and you've made your cause look ridiculous. This is not constructive.

You know what I think might be good? Education. That "teach men not to rape" thing. Sounds like it's worth a shot. Maybe that is worth focusing on, not subtle details of how people phrase things.

It doesn't.

"Cry rape" is a loaded in a way that "She made a false accusation of rape" is not. I know you think that because they mean the same thing, there's no difference, but that is not accurate.

Sometimes because of the way language is used in popular discourse, it takes on social connotations that are not actually present in the strict meaning of the words. Another example might be the phrase "you people"; someone who wasn't aware of American culture and how the phrase is often used might use the phrase "you people" towards a group of black people, meaning it quite innocently, without realizing how their comment that follows might be viewed as being applied to all black people, rather than just that specific group.

"Cry rape" isn't quite the same (and someone can probably think of a far better example than that), but because of the long-term association with accusing actual rape victims of "crying rape," it is a more loaded term than "making a false accusation of rape." There is a conception that some people have about rape where they conceive of rape accusations like this: "Girl decides to go party. Girl drinks too much and sleeps with a guy. Girl regrets it in the morning. Girl cries rape." You can see examples of this sort of rape culture in the OP article here, where rather than admitting that their school has a problem with sexual assault, they instead choose to place all responsibility on the girls making the accusation, accuse them of actually being sluts who are crying rape, and place more emphasis on protecting the accused than getting justice for the victim. It's an almost textbook example of rape culture in action and the way that rape culture facilitates rape, if you're having trouble conceptualizing this.

I am thoroughly unconvinced. This IS an accurate use of that term so I don't understand the problem you're trying to describe. Kame-sennin did a much better job here.

In what world are you living that decreasing rape isn't one of the most important things, and in what world are you living that you consider that position "extreme," "polarizing," and "unhelpful." Would it be more helpful if we considered it "sort of important, but not really a priority"?

I'm not really sure you thought this through when you said it.

First of all, see above for an explanation of what I mean about what exactly you deem important. Put forth the solutions that can actually work, not tiny things that might have some marginal impact. This gets the cause taken more seriously, I think. Furthermore, reacting to people basically just discussing facts is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Rape is not so important that you get to do fundamentally wrong things in order to stop it. Censoring true information is not acceptable. Thought police is bullshit. Killing a tiny, recently-conceived person is just plain wrong, if you believe it is possible to be a "person" while being recently-conceived. Rape changes none of this. You can still only fight it within the realm of acceptable actions. I say again, education. Great. Go. Do. Awesome. That is a thing you can do and maybe it could work, so great.

 

[Big-E]

But this women wasn't raped...

Aesop's story of the boy who cried wolf is about a kid who proclaimed he saw a wolf chasing the village's sheep when there was no wolf. 'Crying wolf' came about as a result of this. Are you trying to tell me that when someone uses the term 'crying rape' to describe what a woman did when she was not raped that the two are not connected in any way?

This woman cried rape. She told people she was raped. Much like in Aesop's tale, people believed the liar. Just because the term also means something else, doesn't mean that it cannot be used in another context.

The fact this is being discussed is mind boggling.

 

[marrec]

But this women wasn't raped...

Aesop's story of the boy who cried wolf is about a kid who proclaimed he saw a wolf chasing the village's sheep when there was no wolf. 'Crying wolf' came about as a result of this. Are you trying to tell me that when someone uses the term 'crying rape' to describe what a woman did when she was not raped that the two are not connected in any way?

This woman cried rape. She told people she was raped. Much like in Aesop's tale, people believed the liar. Just because the term also means something else, doesn't mean that it cannot be used in another context.

You understand that I'm not saying this woman was raped right? I'm talking about broader implications than this one act? This woman falsely accusing a man who was then convicted is such an extremely rare case that while we can punish her for what she did, we cannot use it to base any future treatment of any rape case.

 

[Angry Fork]

This story is mortifying, one of the scariest things that can happen to a guy because once someone accuses you of rape you're done. Even if you're found not guilty your reputation will never be cleaned unless the accuser admits she lied.

You understand that I'm not saying this woman was raped right? I'm talking about broader implications than this one act? This woman falsely accusing a man who was then convicted is such an extremely rare case that while we can punish her for what she did, we cannot use it to base any future treatment of any rape case.

Are there any statistics or proof that it's rare? Most people wouldn't admit they lied so it's not like there's a way of knowing if it's common or not. There could be (and likely are) lots of men in prison falsely convicted of rape because people are likely more sympathetic to women when it comes to rape (and child custody). I know I usually am for rape although child custody I look at things equally.

 

[frankie_baby]

You understand that I'm not saying this woman was raped right? I'm talking about broader implications than this one act? This woman falsely accusing a man who was then convicted is such an extremely rare case that while we can punish her for what she did, we cannot use it to base any future treatment of any rape case.

someone being cleared is extremely rare, we have no way of knowing how rare or otherwise it actually is though

 

[rvy]

Lock the bitch up for six years. Give the dude the 1.5 mil. Eye for an eye. One of the few cases where it actually works.

Not unless she's accused of rape as well. You can give the guy all the money in the world, it won't change the fact he was locked up for 6 years for something he didn't do. That shit will ruin your mind. I would've probably killed myself after the first year.
Ball of steel on that man.

 

[akira28]

It only presents a problem if it's assumed that 'cry rape' implies a lie. If you take it literally, that she did in fact claim rape, then "in a perfect world" it would be down to the authorities to investigate, and the court to determine guilt. This young man never even made it that far because his lawyer convinced him to plea. And it's unfortunate that it may have been a wise decision, considering the chances of a young black male, convicted in a rape case, in the court of law. He might have ended up doing a quarter, easily, if defense wasn't adequate enough and the prosecution already decided guilt. So there are a bunch of problems with this case, as already mentioned.

'Rape culture' doesn't even begin to approach that.

 

[Angry Fork]

Not unless she's accused of rape as well. You can give the guy all the money in the world, it won't change the fact he was locked up for 6 years for something he didn't do. That shit will ruin your mind. I would've probably killed myself after the first year.
Ball of steel on that man.

 

[timetokill]

No it isn't because false accusations of rape of extremely rare.

Even one false accusation turned into a punishment is one too many.

 

[rvy]

I don't get it.

 

[Angry Fork]

I don't get it.

I was just noting the guy who did the time has Max Payne steel balls/mindset.

 

[marrec]

Even one false accusation turned into a punishment is one too many.

But one rapists that's free to rape someone else is bad, but acceptable?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It only presents a problem if it's assumed that 'cry rape' implies a lie. If you take it literally, that she did in fact claim rape, then "in a perfect world" it would be down to the authorities to investigate, and the court to determine guilt. This young man never even made it that far because his lawyer convinced him to plea. And it's unfortunate that it may have been a wise decision, considering the chances of a young black male, convicted in a rape case, in the court of law. He might have ended up doing a quarter, easily, if defense wasn't adequate enough and the prosecution already decided guilt. So there are a bunch of problems with this case, as already mentioned.

'Rape culture' doesn't even begin to approach that.

Precisely, the existence of a plea bargain with a reduced sentence is actively hurting innocents even if it is at the same time reducing the chance of a criminal getting off free.
If the punishment for the crime was the same as the plea bargain, this fellah could have gone on ahead and argued his case - and maybe even gotten off declared innocent.
Now on the other hand, he had to make a gamble just because he is black.

 

[rvy]

I was just noting the guy who did the time has Max Payne steel balls/mindset.

Oh, definitely. Dude has a lot of guts.

 

[marrec]

Are there any statistics or proof that it's rare? Most people wouldn't admit they lied so it's not like there's a way of knowing if it's common or not. There could be (and likely are) lots of men in prison falsely convicted of rape because people are likely more sympathetic to women when it comes to rape (and child custody). I know I usually am for rape although child custody I look at things equally.

There are statistics based on reports in various jurisdictions. The problem is those statistics include cases in which a woman may have been raped, but since she did not resist hard enough or she was too drunk, there was no conviction so it's listed as a 'false accusation'. It is 8% of the reported rapes and 2% of reported crimes.

Of course, there is no way to know for sure how many innocent men are behind bars.

 

[akira28]

But one rapists that's free to rape someone else is bad, but acceptable?

We're not going to go there are we? Facts not concepts. Should an innocent man go to jail to ensure another guilty man gets punished? No? 2 guilty men? 10? Is there a fair ratio, and is innocence worth anything at all at that point?

 

[frankie_baby]

But one rapists that's free to rape someone else is bad, but acceptable?

unless you agree with that you might as well just lock everyone in the whole world up

 

[Angry Fork]

But one rapists that's free to rape someone else is bad, but acceptable?

Would you rather be raped or sent to prison for 6 years? Which is the lesser evil?

 

[Ponn]

But one rapists that's free to rape someone else is bad, but acceptable?

Ok enough. That poster was responding to your response to me that maybe starting to sign contracts before having sex would help alleviate alot of these cases. None of that would be letting rapists go free. It's at least an attempt to find an answer to help both sides, which is more then arguing about the semantics of a phrase "cry rape" You're being extremely obtuse and advocating innocent people going to jail for a person lying as an acceptable casualty.

IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Period. Find a better way to deal with this for EVERYONE, not just one side.

 

[marrec]

We're not going to go there are we? Facts not concepts. Should an innocent man go to jail to ensure another guilty man gets punished? No? 2 guilty men? 10? Is there a fair ratio, and is innocence worth anything at all at that point?

I'd love to not go there, but this idea that we can save the innocence of one man by sacrificing justice for other women is absurd. How about we not play the zero sum game and say that we can save innocent men AND convict rapists. I like that world.

Would you rather be raped or sent to prison for 6 years? Which is the lesser evil?

Not comparable, so I won't try thanks.

 

[mavs]

We're not going to go there are we? Facts not concepts. Should an innocent man go to jail to ensure another guilty man gets punished? No? 2 guilty men? 10? Is there a fair ratio, and is innocence worth anything at all at that point?

We accept both though. People are wrongly convicted, and criminals walk free. Seems like punishing innocent people should destroy the legitimacy of the justice system, but it hasn't.

 

[frankie_baby]

I'd love to not go there, but this idea that we can save the innocence of one man by sacrificing justice for other women is absurd. How about we not play the zero sum game and say that we can save innocent men AND convict rapists. I like that world.

.

everyone would like that world, unfortunately we cant live in it

 

[frankie_baby]

We accept both though. People are wrongly convicted, and criminals walk free. Seems like punishing innocent people should destroy the legitimacy of the justice system, but it hasn't.

for one reason or another i dont think there's many people in this world that believe in the legitimacy of the justice system

 

[Onemic]

The point is that we don't want to create an environment that could convince a woman (or man) that coming forward would not be worth the embarrassment or potential shaming or if such a law were enacted potential counter-suit. Let me paint a scenario for you to help me explain:

A woman is raped by a man while she is drunk, she had told him multiple times that she was not wanting to have sex that night, but once she passed out he had his way with her. She wakes and realizes this, and decides to accuse him of rape. It turns out that this guy happens to be the star quarterback for whatever team. Immediately school officials (coach, principle, ect) move to defend the boy and law enforcement is loath to act on a case with such little evidence. Eventually she gets a trial but it doesn't go very far because it is a case of her word against his and everyone knows she's kind of slutty right?

So the case doesn't work in her favor, but now star quarterback kid can't get into Miami U because they don't want someone who's been accused of rape. Well star quarterback kids father will not let that go unpunished so he sues the woman for falsely accusing his son of rape.

Whether or not she is convicted is not the point, she's still been dragged through the mud and shamed and accused simply for trying to get justice done.

Do you seen now?
.

I don't know much about law, but wouldn't that be hard to do? I mean aren't counter suits usually limited to civil court? With something like conspiring to frame someone for rape,(Or conspiring to frame someone period) wouldn't there have to be some type of evidence to show that the person may have been trying to do this, before any legal action can be taken? I don't hear of many counter suits in regards to framing a person.

 

[Attackthebase]

But one rapists that's free to rape someone else is bad, but acceptable?

America's legal system is built on being innocent until proven guilty.

It is better to let a guilty person go free than to send an innocent person to prison.

 

[mickcenary]

Sorry. Thread be big so I'm just gonna ask this: was the rape accusation a pure fabrication out of nowhere with no pretext/motivation other than to grab some cash? As in, all that happened was some consensual sex; or was there a messy break-up or something to provoke her (not that she'd be justified)?

Either way, fuck this lady.

 

[mavs]

for one reason or another i dont think there's many people in this world that believe in the legitimacy of the justice system

If you were right then why would any jury vote to convict anyone ever?

 

[marrec]

I don't know much about law, but wouldn't that be hard to do? I mean aren't counter suits usually limited to civil court? With something like conspiring to frame someone for rape,(Or conspiring to frame someone period) wouldn't there have to be some type of evidence to show that the person may have been trying to do this, before any legal action can be taken? I don't hear of many counter suits in regards to framing a person.

Currently yes, I'm speaking hypothetically if we were to put into place a law against falsely accusing rape, which is what I've been arguing against this entire thread. I'm not arguing for putting innocent men in jail, or defending this woman. I'm saying we don't need a law specifically targeting false rape accusations.

 

[frankie_baby]

America's legal system is built on being innocent until proven guilty.

and when it boils down to one persons word against another i really cant imagine how that constitutes proof

 

[Skilotonn]

That girl has some balls to admit that in text - and have it aired out that she's a lying, heartless gold-digger that ruined a young guy's life.

 

[Jacob]

and thats why cases with no evidence (he said/she said) should never be prosecuted, conviction is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt but that just should not be possible when its one persons word against another

So she's left to be victimized then?

Marrec, do you believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? I understand the desire to have violent criminals taken off the streets, but not at the expense of the rule of law. Yes, it's horrible that rapists, murderers, and the like are sometimes able to walk free. However, I don't understand how someone can be willing to dispense with one of the most fundamental principles of modern legal systems and convict people based on an accusation alone (i.e., he said/she said). My sincerest apologies if that's not what you were trying to say.

 

[frankie_baby]

If you were right then why would any jury vote to convict anyone ever?

give people power for 5 minutes and they'll take it, doesnt stop them breaking the speed limit on their drive home and sparking up a spliff when they get there and if they get caught for either of those they'll be screaming how unfair it is

 

[Angry Fork]

Not comparable, so I won't try thanks.

They are, innocent people being convicted is worse than the guilty going free. It's always been that way, or at least how it should be. Being robbed of your time on this earth is worse than losing your dignity imo (not counting HIV potential).

I'm 100% okay with treating both equal obviously, try to prevent innocent people from going to prison and also encourage women to not be afraid of stepping forward if they are raped. But if a woman has been raped and comes forward but nobody believes her, she can try again, she can move to another state, plead with the government, restart her life etc. Someone who's innocent and put in prison cannot do that. Their only hope is that people on the outside care enough about them to fight for them.

 

[marrec]

Marrec, do you believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? I understand the desire to have violent criminals taken off the streets, but not at the expense of the rule of law. Yes, it's horrible that rapists, murderers, and the like are sometimes able to walk free. However, I don't understand how someone can be willing to dispense with one of the most fundamental principles of modern legal systems and convict people based on an accusation alone (i.e., he said/she said). My sincerest apologies if that's not what you were trying to say.

I am, of course, not trying to say that. I'm trying to build an argument that in some rape cases the rapist will walk free because there is no evidence besides what the accuser says. If we were to enact a law targeting false rape accusations that would cause less victims to come forward because now not only is it hard to get a conviction, but you could also be accused of a crime.

 

[akira28]

I'd love to not go there, but this idea that we can save the innocence of one man by sacrificing justice for other women is absurd. How about we not play the zero sum game and say that we can save innocent men AND convict rapists. I like that world.

I say attack that at the front then. Support all rape victims and alleged rape victims, but warn them that false accusations have consequences. It shouldn't cause them to abandon their claims, if they're truthful. But I think you posted earlier that you think it would. Justice was not blind in that instance. There should be fairness to both parties. Making concessions to combat false accusations would at least admit that they do occur, and could protect the innocence of others, while still allowing for a woman to get Justice if she continues with making her truthful claim.

We accept both though. People are wrongly convicted, and criminals walk free. Seems like punishing innocent people should destroy the legitimacy of the justice system, but it hasn't.

I'd say that it seriously damages the legitimacy. Maybe not with the status quo, but there are a lot of people who don't trust in the justice of the courts.

 

[timetokill]

But one rapists that's free to rape someone else is bad, but acceptable?

"Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man"

I'm guessing you disagree with this? Because it's pretty much what the American justice system is founded upon.

 

[frankie_baby]

I am, of course, not trying to say that. I'm trying to build an argument that in some rape cases the rapist will walk free because there is no evidence besides what the accuser says. If we were to enact a law targeting false rape accusations that would cause less victims to come forward because now not only is it hard to get a conviction, but you could also be accused of a crime.

but perhaps if such a law existed, yes less rape victims (especially he said/she said ones) may come forward but the police may have more time resources to work with the ones that do thus possibly getting more evidence and perhaps a higher conviction rate?

 

[mavs]

give people power for 5 minutes and they'll take it, doesnt stop them breaking the speed limit on their drive home and sparking up a spliff when they get there and if they get caught for either of those they'll be screaming how unfair it is

They have the power, but high conviction rates show that people wish to wield it against other individuals rather than against the system. In your formation, it's the prosecution's word against the accused. And people seem to believe in the prosecution overwhelmingly.

 

[JGS]

Geez, crazy story.

All other things aside, I can't imagine taking a plea for that when I'm innocent.

Of course, I've never come close to spending decades in prison either, but still...

 

[Jacob]

I am, of course, not trying to say that. I'm trying to build an argument that in some rape cases the rapist will walk free because there is no evidence besides what the accuser says. If we were to enact a law targeting false rape accusations that would cause less victims to come forward because now not only is it hard to get a conviction, but you could also be accused of a crime.

I'll admit to having skimmed some of the posts in this thread, but I think it's been explained in pretty basic terms that the people who want to criminalize false accusations of rape would require legal proof that there was some sort of willful lie or fabrication from the accuser. If there was literally no evidence and just he said/she said then there would be no evidence of rape but - obviously - there would be no evidence of which party was lying. The hypothetical law wouldn't require a guilty party in every case; as has been said repeatedly, there would undoubtedly be cases where nothing could be proven and everyone would go free. It feels really disingenuous for you to keep harping on this point.

That said, I actually agree with you that such a law does not sound like a good idea and that we should focus on taking perjury more seriously since there are already laws for that. I just don't think you're being accurate in your representation of the argument from the people who want a new law.