So since it might be harder to prove rape we should make that crime have a lower burden of proof?
I don't think that's what he was getting at. It was more that people need to seriously re-calibrate their standards of reasonable if they think being friends with a person makes it reasonable for you to consent to have sex with them. This becomes all the more face-palm inducing when you realize women are often in the habit of pretending to be friends with men who desperately want to have sex with them just so they don't have to deal with said men's incessant whining about the matter when the answer is no. It also reinforces the harmful stereotype that men and women can't have platonic friendships, that there's always something sexual going on when you're friendly with anyone of your preferred gender.
That's not what I was suggesting at all... I am not at all saying that being friends is automatic consent. But as an outsider I am more inclined to believe that people who know each other would have consensual sex than two people that do not know each other. The thing is I dont even have to believe that is was consensual, as a jury member as long as I don't KNOW that it was rape, in the eyes of the law it was not rape.
This thread is not about feminism; that has been hashed out endlessly, and is stalled. Move on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
But as an outsider I am more inclined to believe that people who know each other would have consensual sex than two people that do not know each other. The thing is I dont even have to believe that is was consensual, as a jury member as long as I don't KNOW that it was rape, in the eyes of the law it was not rape.
And my point is, the involved parties being friends with each other, taken alone, should not constitute grounds for "reasonable doubt". More compelling evidence should be needed on top of that. If being friends with a person is enough to cast reasonable doubt on my claims that I didn't consent to sex with them, that basically means befriending someone will let them get away with raping me. Sure doesn't give me much incentive to be friends with anyone of my preferred gender (men), does it? It's precisely that sort of thing that causes women to perceive all men as potential threats, and just isn't healthy, for men nor for women.
But as an outsider I am more inclined to believe that people who know each other would have consensual sex than two people that do not know each other. The thing is I dont even have to believe that is was consensual, as a jury member as long as I don't KNOW that it was rape, in the eyes of the law it was not rape.
And my point is, the involved parties being friends with each other, taken alone, should not constitute grounds for "reasonable doubt". More compelling evidence should be needed on top of that. If being friends with a person is enough to cast reasonable doubt on my claims that I didn't consent to sex with them, that basically means befriending someone will let them get away with raping me. Sure doesn't give me much incentive to be friends with anyone of my preferred gender (men), does it? It's precisely that sort of thing that causes women to perceive all men as potential threats, and just isn't healthy, for men nor for women.
It's one factor in what should be a sea of evidence. If literally the only evidence you have it that intercourse happened and you say it was not consensual... I dont care who the other person is, you dont have a case, even if rape happened.
If however you're covered in bruises or there were traces of a date rape drug in your system then that friend better have a good explanation or he's going to jail.
So NO I am not saying that it's impossible for a friend to rape their friend.
It's one factor in what should be a sea of evidence. If literally the only evidence you have it that intercourse happened and you say it was not consensual... I dont care who the other person is, you dont have a case, even if rape happened.
So you're fine with date rape being effectively decriminalized?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
It's one factor in what should be a sea of evidence. If literally the only evidence you have it that intercourse happened and you say it was not consensual... I dont care who the other person is, you dont have a case, even if rape happened.
So you're fine with date rape being effectively decriminalized?
When did I say that?
I said I expect someone to have more proof of rape than that they said so and proof of exchange of bodily fluids.
Prove that there was a drug involved, or a struggle or audio recording of saying no.
Prove that there was a drug involved, or a struggle
You should read up on the normal reactions to rape. A woman can feel too ashamed to admit it to anyone until it's too late. They may not even realize they've been assaulted until they hear about it after the fact (see: Steubenville, but at least in that case there was ample witnesses and evidence).
Also, a struggle? Really? Do people getting robbed have to prove they put up a struggle instead of just gifting the robber their money?
For serious? I don't even know what to say about this.
The problem is, even with all of those things you mention, it's hard to prove a rape case. A guy can claim it was consensual, unprotected rough sex while roleplaying after a night of partying. They do, in fact. And get off.
Prove that there was a drug involved, or a struggle
You should read up on the normal reactions to rape. A woman can feel too ashamed to admit it to anyone until it's too late. They may not even realize they've been assaulted until they hear about it after the fact (see: Steubenville, but at least in that case there was ample witnesses and evidence).
Also, a struggle? Really? Do people getting robbed have to prove they put up a struggle instead of just gifting the robber their money?
The problem is, even with all of those things you mention, it's hard to prove a rape case. A guy can claim it was consensual, unprotected rough sex while roleplaying after a night of partying. They do, in fact. And get off.
So? That's the way it's supposed to be. I'd much rather let rapists go free than put innocent people in jail especially with a label of being a rapist.
And in some cases, yes! You do have to prove that a theft was a theft and not a gift. If my best friend suddenly has one of my Tropical Islands and he said I gave them to him as a gift, do you KNOW that it isnt true? Do you know for a fact that I didnt give it away and then have remorse about it later? Would it be reasonable for someone with a decent job to possibly give a friend a $100+ gift? OF course! Would it be reasonable for someone with a lower income to say... gift his friend an entire Legacy deck? doubtful. The friend would have to give a very good reason for why he was getting that big of a gift.
So? That's the way it's supposed to be. I'd much rather let rapists go free than put innocent people in jail especially with a label of being a rapist.
So you're happy to let effectively every rapist get off scot-free if it protects a handful of falsely accused?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
So? That's the way it's supposed to be. I'd much rather let rapists go free than put innocent people in jail especially with a label of being a rapist.
So you're happy to let effectively every rapist get off scot-free if it protects a handful of falsely accused?
YES.
I'm ok with letting EVERY SINGLE rapist not go to jail if that means ONE guy wont end up in jail for a crime he didnt commit.
Keep in mind here that what Tuss is describing sounds like something that probably shouldnt work. If he admits that she was struggling and saying no there better be reason to believe that she was into something like that and that he knew it. Otherwise simply saying "I thought she was kidding". Is ridiculous.
I'm ok with letting EVERY SINGLE rapist not go to jail if that means ONE guy wont end up in jail for a crime he didnt commit.
Have fun with that then. I'm going to go and live in the real world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I'm ok with letting EVERY SINGLE rapist not go to jail if that means ONE guy wont end up in jail for a crime he didnt commit.
Have fun with that then. I'm going to go and live in the real world.
That is the real world. That is the court system that we have in the US. It's the same court system that lets gang members and mobsters stay free even though we are pretty darn sure that they did XYZ. As bad as it may sound to let known criminals walk free it's far worse to throw innocent people in jail for crimes they didnt commit. For something like rape you are talking about ending someone's life. Is that really the best solution?
So lets see, it's okay if a few innocent people go to prison for rape, and must register as sex offenders their whole life - as long as we get most of the actual rapists too?
Is that how it works now?
Where's all this "reality is a *****" pragmatism in the death penalty threads?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm ok with letting EVERY SINGLE rapist not go to jail if that means ONE guy wont end up in jail for a crime he didnt commit.
That's actually the only way to fulfill that desire.
That's not 100% true. There are cases where people are caught "red handed", so it is possible to still have criminals without convicted an innocent man. But yes, even with our current setup the court system does occasionally punish innocent people.
Since it's no longer about feminism I'll wade back in.
The overall attack on FLuffbunnys argument is one hell of a false equivication...Because some engines fail it's ethical to install faulty engines. hmm no. Sure the system isn't perfect but the alternative of a system where the accused is guilty solely on the basis of an accusation is tyranny.
I'm curious among all these people who feel Blackstone got it wrong what burden of proof do you believe is appropriate? The claim of the accuser and proof that sex took place seems to be generous since as one poster commented condoms.
It's precisely that sort of thing that causes women to perceive all men as potential threats, and just isn't healthy, for men nor for women.
But a system where any women could have any man imprisoned on a whim is supposed to build a healthy relationship between the sexes, umm no.
That is the real world. That is the court system that we have in the US. It's the same court system that lets gang members and mobsters stay free even though we are pretty darn sure that they did XYZ. As bad as it may sound to let known criminals walk free it's far worse to throw innocent people in jail for crimes they didnt commit. For something like rape you are talking about ending someone's life. Is that really the best solution?
Let's imagine that this were true too for murder--that for practical purposes, those cases were so difficult to prove that there would be a decent chance any convicted murderer was innocent. Would you feel exactly the same way? What if it were every single crime?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
That is the real world. That is the court system that we have in the US. It's the same court system that lets gang members and mobsters stay free even though we are pretty darn sure that they did XYZ. As bad as it may sound to let known criminals walk free it's far worse to throw innocent people in jail for crimes they didnt commit. For something like rape you are talking about ending someone's life. Is that really the best solution?
Let's imagine that this were true too for murder--that for practical purposes, those cases were so difficult to prove that there would be a decent chance any convicted murderer was innocent. Would you feel exactly the same way? What if it were every single crime?
I don't know about the guy you were quoting, but I know that I would feel the same way if it were another crime.
The burden is on the state, and if there is a reasonable doubt, the accused walks.
Here's the problem with rape.
The accused is almost always guilty in the court of public opinion long before they show up in court.
Teachers for instance can have their lives and careers RUINED by a false allegation almost as much as a legitimate allegation.
Pretty much anyone arrested on rape charges is going to lose their jobs, friends, maybe marriages, etc.
Any social capital they had prior to it is gone in a poof.
Now, the guilty, I want them to do serious time, punished even harder than they are now. I can't believe some cases - a child molester here in Oregon guilty of molesting nine kids at a special needs school from ages 9-13 got 5 years. FIVE. (sure, lifetime registry and all that pfft)
That's not nearly enough in my book. I would have given him life without parole.
What I wish is that ANY allegations of rape be kept absolutely sealed until after court. Because of the damage a false accusation can do to an innocent persons life. The way things are now, even if they are found innocent, they basically get punished for the crime anyways.
So all rape cases are kept silent until after trial. If they are guilty, they can be shamed and destroyed all you want after trial.
So lets see, it's okay if a few innocent people go to prison for rape, and must register as sex offenders their whole life - as long as we get most of the actual rapists too?
Is that how it works now?
Where's all this "reality is a *****" pragmatism in the death penalty threads?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I don't know about the guy you were quoting, but I know that I would feel the same way if it were another crime.
So you would rather have no successful criminal prosecution at all than have one single person wrongly convicted?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I'm ok with letting EVERY SINGLE rapist not go to jail if that means ONE guy wont end up in jail for a crime he didnt commit.
That's actually the only way to fulfill that desire.
That's not 100% true. There are cases where people are caught "red handed", so it is possible to still have criminals without convicted an innocent man. But yes, even with our current setup the court system does occasionally punish innocent people.
You aren't accounting for corruption or error. Any system will have some rate of false positives.
The only way to get "no false imprisonments" is to not imprison anyone and the only way to get "no traffic fatalities" is to not have vehicles.
I get the love of hyperbolic rehtoric but it's ultimately a waste of time.
Quagmires aren't impassable.
That's not what I was suggesting at all... I am not at all saying that being friends is automatic consent. But as an outsider I am more inclined to believe that people who know each other would have consensual sex than two people that do not know each other. The thing is I dont even have to believe that is was consensual, as a jury member as long as I don't KNOW that it was rape, in the eyes of the law it was not rape.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
And my point is, the involved parties being friends with each other, taken alone, should not constitute grounds for "reasonable doubt". More compelling evidence should be needed on top of that. If being friends with a person is enough to cast reasonable doubt on my claims that I didn't consent to sex with them, that basically means befriending someone will let them get away with raping me. Sure doesn't give me much incentive to be friends with anyone of my preferred gender (men), does it? It's precisely that sort of thing that causes women to perceive all men as potential threats, and just isn't healthy, for men nor for women.
It's one factor in what should be a sea of evidence. If literally the only evidence you have it that intercourse happened and you say it was not consensual... I dont care who the other person is, you dont have a case, even if rape happened.
If however you're covered in bruises or there were traces of a date rape drug in your system then that friend better have a good explanation or he's going to jail.
So NO I am not saying that it's impossible for a friend to rape their friend.
So you're fine with date rape being effectively decriminalized?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
When did I say that?
I said I expect someone to have more proof of rape than that they said so and proof of exchange of bodily fluids.
Prove that there was a drug involved, or a struggle or audio recording of saying no.
Condoms make this pretty hard these days.
You should read up on the normal reactions to rape. A woman can feel too ashamed to admit it to anyone until it's too late. They may not even realize they've been assaulted until they hear about it after the fact (see: Steubenville, but at least in that case there was ample witnesses and evidence).
Also, a struggle? Really? Do people getting robbed have to prove they put up a struggle instead of just gifting the robber their money?
For serious? I don't even know what to say about this.
The problem is, even with all of those things you mention, it's hard to prove a rape case. A guy can claim it was consensual, unprotected rough sex while roleplaying after a night of partying. They do, in fact. And get off.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
So? That's the way it's supposed to be. I'd much rather let rapists go free than put innocent people in jail especially with a label of being a rapist.
And in some cases, yes! You do have to prove that a theft was a theft and not a gift. If my best friend suddenly has one of my Tropical Islands and he said I gave them to him as a gift, do you KNOW that it isnt true? Do you know for a fact that I didnt give it away and then have remorse about it later? Would it be reasonable for someone with a decent job to possibly give a friend a $100+ gift? OF course! Would it be reasonable for someone with a lower income to say... gift his friend an entire Legacy deck? doubtful. The friend would have to give a very good reason for why he was getting that big of a gift.
So you're happy to let effectively every rapist get off scot-free if it protects a handful of falsely accused?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
YES.
I'm ok with letting EVERY SINGLE rapist not go to jail if that means ONE guy wont end up in jail for a crime he didnt commit.
Keep in mind here that what Tuss is describing sounds like something that probably shouldnt work. If he admits that she was struggling and saying no there better be reason to believe that she was into something like that and that he knew it. Otherwise simply saying "I thought she was kidding". Is ridiculous.
Have fun with that then. I'm going to go and live in the real world.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
That is the real world. That is the court system that we have in the US. It's the same court system that lets gang members and mobsters stay free even though we are pretty darn sure that they did XYZ. As bad as it may sound to let known criminals walk free it's far worse to throw innocent people in jail for crimes they didnt commit. For something like rape you are talking about ending someone's life. Is that really the best solution?
Is that how it works now?
Where's all this "reality is a *****" pragmatism in the death penalty threads?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
That's actually the only way to fulfill that desire.
That's not 100% true. There are cases where people are caught "red handed", so it is possible to still have criminals without convicted an innocent man. But yes, even with our current setup the court system does occasionally punish innocent people.
The overall attack on FLuffbunnys argument is one hell of a false equivication...Because some engines fail it's ethical to install faulty engines. hmm no. Sure the system isn't perfect but the alternative of a system where the accused is guilty solely on the basis of an accusation is tyranny.
I'm curious among all these people who feel Blackstone got it wrong what burden of proof do you believe is appropriate? The claim of the accuser and proof that sex took place seems to be generous since as one poster commented condoms.
But a system where any women could have any man imprisoned on a whim is supposed to build a healthy relationship between the sexes, umm no.
Let's imagine that this were true too for murder--that for practical purposes, those cases were so difficult to prove that there would be a decent chance any convicted murderer was innocent. Would you feel exactly the same way? What if it were every single crime?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I don't know about the guy you were quoting, but I know that I would feel the same way if it were another crime.
The burden is on the state, and if there is a reasonable doubt, the accused walks.
Here's the problem with rape.
The accused is almost always guilty in the court of public opinion long before they show up in court.
Teachers for instance can have their lives and careers RUINED by a false allegation almost as much as a legitimate allegation.
Pretty much anyone arrested on rape charges is going to lose their jobs, friends, maybe marriages, etc.
Any social capital they had prior to it is gone in a poof.
Now, the guilty, I want them to do serious time, punished even harder than they are now. I can't believe some cases - a child molester here in Oregon guilty of molesting nine kids at a special needs school from ages 9-13 got 5 years. FIVE. (sure, lifetime registry and all that pfft)
That's not nearly enough in my book. I would have given him life without parole.
What I wish is that ANY allegations of rape be kept absolutely sealed until after court. Because of the damage a false accusation can do to an innocent persons life. The way things are now, even if they are found innocent, they basically get punished for the crime anyways.
So all rape cases are kept silent until after trial. If they are guilty, they can be shamed and destroyed all you want after trial.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
So you would rather have no successful criminal prosecution at all than have one single person wrongly convicted?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
You aren't accounting for corruption or error. Any system will have some rate of false positives.
The only way to get "no false imprisonments" is to not imprison anyone and the only way to get "no traffic fatalities" is to not have vehicles.
I get the love of hyperbolic rehtoric but it's ultimately a waste of time.
Yes that is my preferred choice.
What's your preferred choice? Throwing anyone in jail that is suspected of committing a crime?
Yes.
In my opinion, Protecting the rights of the innocent is an a completely different tier than getting revenge on the guilty.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here.