progress of "yes means yes" laws and policies
04 Sep 2014, 11:07 pm
starvingartist wrote:
The_Postmaster wrote:
He is an alleged rapist, not a convicted one. And frankly, even if he did rape her, without evidence, I don't want him to be expelled from the college-- unless, of course, some evidence is produced. That would create a terrible precedent. A precedent that would make it acceptable to eject people from schools based only on someone's word.
I am also skeptical of the "yes means yes" law. What good does this law do? It's still his word against hers, only now instead of "she never said no" it's "she said yes". It assumes guilt until the accused proves their innocence, which is patently abhorrent. The author of the bill has responded, when asked what evidence could be used to prove one's innocence, "your guess is as good as mine". The definition of rape this bill uses is so broad that it's practically meaningless. This law is going to be a train wreck.
I am also skeptical of the "yes means yes" law. What good does this law do? It's still his word against hers, only now instead of "she never said no" it's "she said yes". It assumes guilt until the accused proves their innocence, which is patently abhorrent. The author of the bill has responded, when asked what evidence could be used to prove one's innocence, "your guess is as good as mine". The definition of rape this bill uses is so broad that it's practically meaningless. This law is going to be a train wreck.
yes, allegedly he raped three women. so if he were to be expelled it would be on the word of three women. how many would have to come forward before you might consider it possible that he actually did what he's being accused of doing by three different women?
I never said it wasn't possible. I said I wouldn't want him to be condemned on the basis of accusations with no evidence even if he did do it because of the precedent it creates. Admittedly, I am wary of the notion of ignoring three accusations, but this seems preferable to allowing someone to be convicted (in the campus investigative sense, not the legal sense, obviously) of rape without sufficient evidence. Where do you draw the line? At what point does accusation without evidence become enough to convict? Would two women be enough? Would one?
04 Sep 2014, 11:21 pm
auntblabby wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
my guess is that somebody like the perp with his history of rape, should have been DNA tested to match the rape kit.
If that's going to be the standard, there'll have to be provisions for actually making sure the rape kits get analyzed timely. There are cases all over the country of rape kits just being warehoused for years, never sent to a lab or anything, and usually the excuse is that it's not a funding priority. Similar to the police depts that've stopped going out on domestic violence calls.
then it it is no wonder that police/pols are not trusted.
at least here people keep voting to defund them or not fund them then complain that there isn't enough of them etc.
just like we fund new schools but then vote no to fund the money to hire teachers. In fact we just build a huge prison that sits mostly empty cause we can't afford to lock people in it. so we waste money.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas
04 Sep 2014, 11:35 pm
The_Postmaster wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
The_Postmaster wrote:
He is an alleged rapist, not a convicted one. And frankly, even if he did rape her, without evidence, I don't want him to be expelled from the college-- unless, of course, some evidence is produced. That would create a terrible precedent. A precedent that would make it acceptable to eject people from schools based only on someone's word.
I am also skeptical of the "yes means yes" law. What good does this law do? It's still his word against hers, only now instead of "she never said no" it's "she said yes". It assumes guilt until the accused proves their innocence, which is patently abhorrent. The author of the bill has responded, when asked what evidence could be used to prove one's innocence, "your guess is as good as mine". The definition of rape this bill uses is so broad that it's practically meaningless. This law is going to be a train wreck.
I am also skeptical of the "yes means yes" law. What good does this law do? It's still his word against hers, only now instead of "she never said no" it's "she said yes". It assumes guilt until the accused proves their innocence, which is patently abhorrent. The author of the bill has responded, when asked what evidence could be used to prove one's innocence, "your guess is as good as mine". The definition of rape this bill uses is so broad that it's practically meaningless. This law is going to be a train wreck.
yes, allegedly he raped three women. so if he were to be expelled it would be on the word of three women. how many would have to come forward before you might consider it possible that he actually did what he's being accused of doing by three different women?
I never said it wasn't possible. I said I wouldn't want him to be condemned on the basis of accusations with no evidence even if he did do it because of the precedent it creates. Admittedly, I am wary of the notion of ignoring three accusations, but this seems preferable to allowing someone to be convicted (in the campus investigative sense, not the legal sense, obviously) of rape without sufficient evidence. Where do you draw the line? At what point does accusation without evidence become enough to convict? Would two women be enough? Would one?
if you had any idea how hard it is to talk about being raped you would not be so willing to believe that women accuse men of rape on a whim because they have nothing better to do or they want "revenge" or whatever weird reasons you guys think women go around making up rape claims. if you're willing to talk to police and college officials about it, go over what happened to you in minute revolting detail (really awful, disgusting details that make you want to shower just remembering let alone speaking aloud to another person, trust me) over and over again--well, let's just say it's not something one does on a whim, and it's not a kind of story that's easily made up, and the resulting trauma is not easily faked.
04 Sep 2014, 11:42 pm
starvingartist wrote:
The_Postmaster wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
The_Postmaster wrote:
He is an alleged rapist, not a convicted one. And frankly, even if he did rape her, without evidence, I don't want him to be expelled from the college-- unless, of course, some evidence is produced. That would create a terrible precedent. A precedent that would make it acceptable to eject people from schools based only on someone's word.
I am also skeptical of the "yes means yes" law. What good does this law do? It's still his word against hers, only now instead of "she never said no" it's "she said yes". It assumes guilt until the accused proves their innocence, which is patently abhorrent. The author of the bill has responded, when asked what evidence could be used to prove one's innocence, "your guess is as good as mine". The definition of rape this bill uses is so broad that it's practically meaningless. This law is going to be a train wreck.
I am also skeptical of the "yes means yes" law. What good does this law do? It's still his word against hers, only now instead of "she never said no" it's "she said yes". It assumes guilt until the accused proves their innocence, which is patently abhorrent. The author of the bill has responded, when asked what evidence could be used to prove one's innocence, "your guess is as good as mine". The definition of rape this bill uses is so broad that it's practically meaningless. This law is going to be a train wreck.
yes, allegedly he raped three women. so if he were to be expelled it would be on the word of three women. how many would have to come forward before you might consider it possible that he actually did what he's being accused of doing by three different women?
I never said it wasn't possible. I said I wouldn't want him to be condemned on the basis of accusations with no evidence even if he did do it because of the precedent it creates. Admittedly, I am wary of the notion of ignoring three accusations, but this seems preferable to allowing someone to be convicted (in the campus investigative sense, not the legal sense, obviously) of rape without sufficient evidence. Where do you draw the line? At what point does accusation without evidence become enough to convict? Would two women be enough? Would one?
if you had any idea how hard it is to talk about being raped you would not be so willing to believe that women accuse men of rape on a whim because they have nothing better to do or they want "revenge" or whatever weird reasons you guys think women go around making up rape claims. if you're willing to talk to police and college officials about it, go over what happened to you in minute revolting detail (really awful, disgusting details that make you want to shower just remembering let alone speaking aloud to another person, trust me) over and over again--well, let's just say it's not something one does on a whim, and it's not a kind of story that's easily made up, and the resulting trauma is not easily faked.
Much as I empathize, this simply is not how the justice system works. An accusation is not even evidence, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you have accused rapists be guilty until proven innocent since women don't (or rarely) lie about this?
04 Sep 2014, 11:47 pm
starvingartist wrote:
The_Postmaster wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
The_Postmaster wrote:
He is an alleged rapist, not a convicted one. And frankly, even if he did rape her, without evidence, I don't want him to be expelled from the college-- unless, of course, some evidence is produced. That would create a terrible precedent. A precedent that would make it acceptable to eject people from schools based only on someone's word.
I am also skeptical of the "yes means yes" law. What good does this law do? It's still his word against hers, only now instead of "she never said no" it's "she said yes". It assumes guilt until the accused proves their innocence, which is patently abhorrent. The author of the bill has responded, when asked what evidence could be used to prove one's innocence, "your guess is as good as mine". The definition of rape this bill uses is so broad that it's practically meaningless. This law is going to be a train wreck.
I am also skeptical of the "yes means yes" law. What good does this law do? It's still his word against hers, only now instead of "she never said no" it's "she said yes". It assumes guilt until the accused proves their innocence, which is patently abhorrent. The author of the bill has responded, when asked what evidence could be used to prove one's innocence, "your guess is as good as mine". The definition of rape this bill uses is so broad that it's practically meaningless. This law is going to be a train wreck.
yes, allegedly he raped three women. so if he were to be expelled it would be on the word of three women. how many would have to come forward before you might consider it possible that he actually did what he's being accused of doing by three different women?
I never said it wasn't possible. I said I wouldn't want him to be condemned on the basis of accusations with no evidence even if he did do it because of the precedent it creates. Admittedly, I am wary of the notion of ignoring three accusations, but this seems preferable to allowing someone to be convicted (in the campus investigative sense, not the legal sense, obviously) of rape without sufficient evidence. Where do you draw the line? At what point does accusation without evidence become enough to convict? Would two women be enough? Would one?
if you had any idea how hard it is to talk about being raped you would not be so willing to believe that women accuse men of rape on a whim because they have nothing better to do or they want "revenge" or whatever weird reasons you guys think women go around making up rape claims. if you're willing to talk to police and college officials about it, go over what happened to you in minute revolting detail (really awful, disgusting details that make you want to shower just remembering let alone speaking aloud to another person, trust me) over and over again--well, let's just say it's not something one does on a whim, and it's not a kind of story that's easily made up, and the resulting trauma is not easily faked.
um if I may point out I can understand how it is hard to talk about trauma. but if the person is lying then they didn't suffer rape/abuse. then it would not be hard for them to do so. my brothers abusive wife claims he raped her and such. cause he didn't(has ms can hardly walk some days, and can't have sex). Its easy for her to say it. you seem to take the stance that no woman would lie about rape. but that simply isn't true. there are women who have never been raped/abused who do and will lie about it.
It doesn't seem to be the case here, and in fact I often do side with the woman. in the case of my brother, people who did not know him, believed her and started saying how bad he must be. the cops took one look at my brother and her, and arrested her. she'd beat him and stolen his drugs and then told others he beats her and rapes her. so yeah women will lie about this stuff, they are humans and humans do bad stuff. there isn't a united woman kind that says its not right to make fake rape accusations and self prevents those who do. I can't stand you guys ideals that women are some how just more morally and ethicly bond then men.
and yeah I try not to remember my abuse. in fact it had been locked away in my mind til a year ago when my mom said she was sorry that all her kids were abused, and I was like what, I wasn't......oh s**t. now I can't seem to forget it no matter how i try.
04 Sep 2014, 11:49 pm
Just out of curiosity, how many times do we have to do the "in fact nearly all rape charges are substantiated, no, it's not about vengeful women just trying to f**k men over" show?
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match". And yep, a lot of it's just going to be words. If three women of good character and with bright futures show up describing, in bleeding detail, their rapes at the hands of a guy, and others come forward and corroborate details of where/when they were, etc.? you know what? That's pretty believable stuff. Is there a chance that they're actually horrible evil women conspiring against some innocent guy, risking their futures? Yeah, but it's pretty darn unlikely.
Last edited by tarantella64 on 04 Sep 2014, 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
04 Sep 2014, 11:52 pm
tarantella64 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many times do we have to do the "in fact nearly all rape charges are substantiated, no, it's not about vengeful women just trying to f**k men over" show?
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match".
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match".
If you're referring to me-- and I guess you are (and apologize if you're not), since there aren't many other people on this thread you could be disagreeing with-- I have said nothing of the sort with regard to false rape claims. At all. I just value a legal system that presumes innocence until guilt is proven.
I understand that the legal standard is reasonable doubt. I made note of that in my previous post. An accusation alone is not even close to that standard. It's not even evidence.
Last edited by The_Postmaster on 04 Sep 2014, 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
04 Sep 2014, 11:54 pm
The_Postmaster wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many times do we have to do the "in fact nearly all rape charges are substantiated, no, it's not about vengeful women just trying to f**k men over" show?
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match".
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match".
If you're referring to me-- and I guess you are, since there aren't many other people on this thread you could be disagreeing with-- I have said nothing of the sort with regard to false rape claims. At all. I just value a legal system that presumes innocence until guilt is proven.
I understand that the legal standard is reasonable doubt. I made note of that in my previous post. An accusation alone is not even close to that standard.
See post above, last paragraph, just edited.
04 Sep 2014, 11:58 pm
The other thing is this.
If you're that worried about being falsely accused, then perhaps you'd better start working to educate people on consent, how not to rape, and how to intervene when a situation looks bad. One of the biggest problems in rape/DV education is that guys shrug and think it's not their problem. Well, it is their problem. If there's so much rape, assault, harassment, misogyny that you're looking possibly suspect just by being male, you've got a problem. Meaning it's something you have to fight, too.
05 Sep 2014, 12:04 am
From the Wikipedia page on reasonable doubt: "More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty. A jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit."
If the only evidence against an alleged rapist is an accusation-- even three of them-- that person is only probably guilty.
I'm sorry that rapists may go free because of this, but I'm also happy that innocent men may be acquitted because of it.
Edit: my apologies, that was the Canada section of the article. I'll see if I can find something on the definition SCOTUS gives.
Edit 2: here's something on the way the U.S. handles the concept of reasonable doubt. "The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty."
First of all, reasonable doubt, under this definition, assumes there are some facts to be doubted. If there are only accusations, then it would seem there are no facts to be doubted in the first place. Secondly, there are plenty of logical explanations to be derived. An accusation alone in no way satisfies reasonable doubt...in Canada or the U.S.
05 Sep 2014, 1:06 am
tarantella64 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many times do we have to do the "in fact nearly all rape charges are substantiated, no, it's not about vengeful women just trying to f**k men over" show?
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match". And yep, a lot of it's just going to be words. If three women of good character and with bright futures show up describing, in bleeding detail, their rapes at the hands of a guy, and others come forward and corroborate details of where/when they were, etc.? you know what? That's pretty believable stuff. Is there a chance that they're actually horrible evil women conspiring against some innocent guy, risking their futures? Yeah, but it's pretty darn unlikely.
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match". And yep, a lot of it's just going to be words. If three women of good character and with bright futures show up describing, in bleeding detail, their rapes at the hands of a guy, and others come forward and corroborate details of where/when they were, etc.? you know what? That's pretty believable stuff. Is there a chance that they're actually horrible evil women conspiring against some innocent guy, risking their futures? Yeah, but it's pretty darn unlikely.
if you'd read my post you'd seen I said i almost always side with the woman/man accusing. I simple will not stand by and hear no one would ever lie and say they were raped when they were. I have seen first hand thru my brother they can and will. notice you said nearly all rape cases are, so even you admit that there are in fact women who do make it up. even if its 1/100. thats all my problem is. I think going at it as well no one ever makes this stuff up so anyone who says they were raped is instantly with nor trial needed telling the truth.
tarantella64 wrote:
The other thing is this.
If you're that worried about being falsely accused, then perhaps you'd better start working to educate people on consent, how not to rape, and how to intervene when a situation looks bad. One of the biggest problems in rape/DV education is that guys shrug and think it's not their problem. Well, it is their problem. If there's so much rape, assault, harassment, misogyny that you're looking possibly suspect just by being male, you've got a problem. Meaning it's something you have to fight, too.
If you're that worried about being falsely accused, then perhaps you'd better start working to educate people on consent, how not to rape, and how to intervene when a situation looks bad. One of the biggest problems in rape/DV education is that guys shrug and think it's not their problem. Well, it is their problem. If there's so much rape, assault, harassment, misogyny that you're looking possibly suspect just by being male, you've got a problem. Meaning it's something you have to fight, too.
so me saying that there are women that will make it up must mean I coward in a corner afraid of getting accused of rape and that I will just walk up and touch women. no it means that I am admititng that humans lie about anything and everything. there is not part of human life safe from people who lie. they don't have a liar's code that says this far and no farther this woman has lied about having cancer, being the best caretaker, having bad pain that she need tons of morphane so she can feed her addict. she will lie about anything if she thinks it gets her attention. she hits my brother cause him actually having MS gets attention to him and there by takes it from her. now knowing that she is not one of kind. there are others.
Am i afraid of being accused of rape, yep. I have anxiety. I'm also afraid of walking outside alone, germs, being hit by cars, etc. the fact that theres a chance does make me afraid. I ask before touching women to avoid hurting them and being accused of it.
my problem wasn't even with you this time
Edit before you say that by me admitting there are a few women who would lie about it I am supporting rapist, victim shaming or being sexist
05 Sep 2014, 1:14 am
sly279 wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many times do we have to do the "in fact nearly all rape charges are substantiated, no, it's not about vengeful women just trying to f**k men over" show?
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match". And yep, a lot of it's just going to be words. If three women of good character and with bright futures show up describing, in bleeding detail, their rapes at the hands of a guy, and others come forward and corroborate details of where/when they were, etc.? you know what? That's pretty believable stuff. Is there a chance that they're actually horrible evil women conspiring against some innocent guy, risking their futures? Yeah, but it's pretty darn unlikely.
I always wonder what other tinfoil-hat conspiracies the people who bring this stuff up get exercised about, and why they're so petrified that they'll be accused OUT OF NOWHERE of rape. Like in what dank corners of the internet they're being told that this is a likelihood for them.
Anyway, postmaster, the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "I have video of you raping this woman and here's the DNA match". And yep, a lot of it's just going to be words. If three women of good character and with bright futures show up describing, in bleeding detail, their rapes at the hands of a guy, and others come forward and corroborate details of where/when they were, etc.? you know what? That's pretty believable stuff. Is there a chance that they're actually horrible evil women conspiring against some innocent guy, risking their futures? Yeah, but it's pretty darn unlikely.
if you'd read my post you'd seen I said i almost always side with the woman/man accusing. I simple will not stand by and hear no one would ever lie and say they were raped when they were. I have seen first hand thru my brother they can and will. notice you said nearly all rape cases are, so even you admit that there are in fact women who do make it up. even if its 1/100. thats all my problem is. I think going at it as well no one ever makes this stuff up so anyone who says they were raped is instantly with nor trial needed telling the truth.
tarantella64 wrote:
The other thing is this.
If you're that worried about being falsely accused, then perhaps you'd better start working to educate people on consent, how not to rape, and how to intervene when a situation looks bad. One of the biggest problems in rape/DV education is that guys shrug and think it's not their problem. Well, it is their problem. If there's so much rape, assault, harassment, misogyny that you're looking possibly suspect just by being male, you've got a problem. Meaning it's something you have to fight, too.
If you're that worried about being falsely accused, then perhaps you'd better start working to educate people on consent, how not to rape, and how to intervene when a situation looks bad. One of the biggest problems in rape/DV education is that guys shrug and think it's not their problem. Well, it is their problem. If there's so much rape, assault, harassment, misogyny that you're looking possibly suspect just by being male, you've got a problem. Meaning it's something you have to fight, too.
so me saying that there are women that will make it up must mean I coward in a corner afraid of getting accused of rape and that I will just walk up and touch women. no it means that I am admititng that humans lie about anything and everything. there is not part of human life safe from people who lie. they don't have a liar's code that says this far and no farther this woman has lied about having cancer, being the best caretaker, having bad pain that she need tons of morphane so she can feed her addict. she will lie about anything if she thinks it gets her attention. she hits my brother cause him actually having MS gets attention to him and there by takes it from her. now knowing that she is not one of kind. there are others.
Am i afraid of being accused of rape, yep. I have anxiety. I'm also afraid of walking outside alone, germs, being hit by cars, etc. the fact that theres a chance does make me afraid. I ask before touching women to avoid hurting them and being accused of it.
my problem wasn't even with you this time
Edit before you say that by me admitting there are a few women who would lie about it I am supporting rapist, victim shaming or being sexist
sly, i never said that no one ever makes a false rape claim--i said it doesn't happen as often as some of the guys here seem to think it does because it's a very difficult thing to lie about to the police and not a lot (not NONE, just not a LOT) of women would put themselves through that on a whim. please stop putting words in my mouth.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,044
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
