Whats the worst form of criminality you ever been victim of?

Post Reply New Topic

That's disgusting. Disgusting is still an understatement.

Didn't she get imprisoned? She should have.

Now that was a sociopath.

Is it me, or is it starting to become a trend for a certain type of young females to press charges against a guy for sexual abuse or stalking if the guy didn't turn out to be the way they wanted him to be?

actually, no. not a trend. there are believed to be far more cases of rape that do not get reported, as compared to cases of false accusations. and statistics that report false allegations are both unreliable and inconsistent:

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

our justice system isn't perfect, and it could definitely be improved. but i don't think that blowing the incidence of false reports out of proportion with the incidence of true reports is going to help. by doing so, it has the effect of shaming true victims out of reporting, when they rightfully should. after all... any perpetrator can claim that the allegations are false, and can make the drag the victim's reputation through the mud in order to try to avoid a conviction or redeem themselves after the fact.

yes, false allegations are horrifying. so is rape. one of those two is way more common than the other, so it is best to keep things in perspective.

actually, yes, a trend.

Something else being more common does not mean the first thing isn't happening. False reporting is a serious problem, and it's commonality is one of the reasons people mistakenly shame and blame real victims. People who have their lives destroyed by someone making a false report are victims too, and it's not any more acceptable to marginalize them than rape, assault, or any other victim.

uhhhhh no. it's not a trend without a valid statistic to back it up.

how are they being marginalised? if they are actually wrongfully convicted, the sentence will be overturned and reparations will be made. that is totally fair. therefore they are not marginalised.

speculations of false accusations are another matter entirely. that's putting the victim on trial when the perpetrator has already been convicted. every single perpetrator could say the same thing about their case.

I'm going to try to ignore all the little inaccurate statements that distract from the point. It's easy to get sidetracked by nit picking in these kind of disagreements. I understand why you are so passionate about this subject, but I think a reliance on emotion instead of logic is why both kinds of victims are so often treated as though they are at fault.

Trend: A general direction in which something is developing or changing.

As you've accurately stated..."statistics that report false allegations are both unreliable and inconsistent" as are any other statistics. That's in the first chapter of every Freshman statistics book I've ever seen. Being unable to quantifiably chart the existence of something does not make it cease to exist. It is a trend when it is happening to people and becoming more common than it was previously.

As more people in our society overcompensate for past victim blaming by automatically assuming guilt unless innocence can be conclusively proved we see 2 trends. One is a positive. Victims are becoming less fearful and are becoming more likely to report crimes. One is negative. Vindictive aggressors see it as an easy way to lash out at the innocent and have started making false reports.

Your every statement in this thread marginalizes the victims of the second trend. You wish it weren't true, and you think convincing others it isn't will make you right. Even if we all start assuming people are guilty until proven innocent, it will not stop the trend. In fact, if we let this trend grow, the result will be that no one trusts victims anyway. Pretending false reporting isn't a problem only helps rapists to avoid consequences, in the end. A more rational approach is to stop overcompensating and take an evidence based approach to such claims. When such an approach is applied, yes, wrongful sentencing is eventually overturned. The fact that innocent people are being wrongfully convicted is evidence that our society marginalizes their innocence. I absolutely disagree that it is fair for an innocent person to go to jail, regardless of whether the error is eventually fixed. It is not fair for a good man to lose his job, or education, or family. It is not fair for him to be forever labeled and treated as though he committed a crime he did not socially, even if the courts take back their decision on paper.

Further evidence of marginalization is that even when it is conclusively proven that the accuser is lying, they are rarely subject to any legal action. If they get caught, it simply didn't work. As a society, we don't care about false reporting. We would rather persecute the innocent than risk leaving a victim unprotected. That in itself marginalizes the victims of false reporting.

but... you have no evidence to show that it is increasing. hence you do not know if there is a trend.

people are not assuming guilt more often in cases of rape. what i see far more often is people assuming innocence and blaming the victim.

what i am concerned about are actual victims - and there are victims in cases of false accusations, yes. the only way we can hash out who they are is through our court system. if someone is convicted in our courts, and there is no reason to overturn that conviction, then as far as i am aware no false accusation has occurred. if you do not think the criminal justice system is sufficient to come to the correct conclusions, then you can work at changing that. but shaming victims by questioning actual convictions without any basis whatsoever will inhibit future victims from reporting their rapes.

Nor do I have any responsibility to show you evidence or convince you of my opinion for it to be valid. If "what I see" is enough for you to form an opinion, it's reasonable for you to respect my opinion based simply on "what I see". You may not see a trend, but other posters did and so do I. There may not be such a trend in your town. There isn't in mine. My town is very into victim blaming. I am well traveled, though, and what I have seen elsewhere leads me to believe that towns like mine are just behind the times. The larger trend has been toward overcompensation, but seems to be leaning toward assuming victims are lying because it has become so common for people to make false accusations. So, by assuming all accusations are true, without regard to evidence, we are creating a culture where victims aren't just blamed...but seen as the once victimizing their attackers. When I see someone supporting the ideas that lead to this end, I feel something of an obligation to speak up.

All victims are actual victims. What you meant was "What I am concerned about is SPECIFIC victims". This is not an uncommon view, but I don't agree with it. I don't agree that protecting some is worth sacrificing others. I think that assault prevention work should focus on actually preventing assault through education and support, not by blindly punishing people without concern for evidence because some (or even most) of them are guilty. This may temporarily reduce assault, but I think the benefits will be short lived. I agree that it is important for victims to feel safe speaking up. I don't think making any assumptions will help, though. In some communities, victims of particularly violating crimes (such as rape) are directed to specially trained advocates or social workers. They take the reports, and function as intermediaries for victims so they are not dealing directly with someone who is expected to base their opinions on evidence...as doing so feels like victim blaming to the victim, and makes them less likely to report crimes or follow through with the whole criminal process. Such programs are a fine example of effective support, and I feel they are a far better use of our energy than procedures that often result in further victimization.

There is a huge glaring fault in your premise that anyone who's verdict wasn't overturned is actually guilty. By that logic, everyone ever convicted is always guilty, and those overturned were done so in error. You see, until a verdict is overturned, that verdict has never been overturned. Therefore, that person is actually guilty. If the verdict is later overturned, it must have been done in error - for by your logic that person was actually guilty the whole time. I know that's not what you mean, but can you see how empty an argument it is? The fact that cases are ever overturned proves that we can never be sure if any conviction is actually indicative of guilt. Until recently, I was a civil rights advocate. (I'd be happy to PM you more detailed personal info, but am not comfortable discussing more publicly.) "What I saw" is that almost all judges make their judgements based on their own preconceived notions instead of fact or evidence. They trust their guts about people, and usually that means guilty people are convicted. My purpose was to pressure officials and judges to make evidence based decisions...or failing that, to help my clients let go of ideas about truth and evidence and justice and just play the game the way the authorities wanted it played, in order to protect themselves. Guilty people walk free, and innocent people go to jail far too often because that evidence and truth aren't standard procedure for police, judges, or other officials.

^^^i was simply counteracting your anecdotal evidence with my own. i already showed that the statistical evidence can't even be compiled due differences in the definition in each jurisdiction (among other issues), and your answer was to basically say, "it's true because that's what i observe." well then... i observe the opposite, so is it equally true?

you should note that when i said actual victims, i was also speaking of people who are falsely accused of rape or other crimes. you just seem to have a different idea of who that includes.

how do you suppose that false accusations should be determined, if not through legal means (obviously that would include appeals and pardons)? should we just ask the perpetrators? or even better - maybe we should try the rape victims in the court of public opinion, based only on the statements of the accused or convicted felons?

EDIT: i should add that i am alllllll for improvements in evidence gathering and interviewing techniques. but the reason why i support this is because i think it would increase the conviction rate of actual rapists. although you are assuming that an improved legal system would uncover more false accusations, i believe it would there would actually be more successful convictions, and it would decrease the likelihood that the victim's veracity would be called into question in any case.

That's about as reasonable as convicting rapists based on only the word of their accusers. I don't think the courts should be directly dealing with the victim, to be honest. That's where the problem comes in. If the police officer or judge or anyone is fair and impartial, they will require evidence to believe a crime has been committed. That is traumatizing for the victim, but it is not unfair, and it is not the same as blaming the victim or even not believing them. We should have widespread protections in place for the victim. Even if the accused is not found guilty of a crime based on evidence, that is not evidence that the accuser was lying or is somehow at fault. The officials dealing with these cases need to be educated, and not just one chapter in one class in college. Some basic sensitivity training should be required regularly for anyone who is dealing with such cases regularly. The assumption of the officials should not be the guilt of anyone. It should be impartial. An advocate who assumes the victim is telling the truth should be an intermediary between the victim and the judicial system. That is just the kind of thing I did (for different types of cases), and it is downright hard to come by. Frankly, even in CPS cases (a little closer to my area of expertise), it is becoming uncommon to even assign CHILD advocates. It's almost unheard of for adult victims to have them unless they hire someone like me.

I never said guilt shouldn't be determined by legal means. I just said that the determination should be based on evidence, not accusations. If someone is accused and claims the accusation is false, though, that should be pursued as it's own case. Obviously, if they are found guilty that case would not be pursued. It should not be dismissed as a lie just because the officials heard a different account first, though. No one should be assumed guilty unless proven so. That goes for the people accused of rape, and those accused of making false accusations. I would theorize that most cases of actual false accusations would be difficult to prove and go unpunished anyway, but I think if there were actually repercussions for such actions there would be less false accusation and in turn less reason for officials to doubt the word of honest victims. That isn't an attempt to avoid the judicial system. That is saying the judicial system should be what it was designed to be, and we should use it to protect ALL victims. If false accusations aren't actually an issue, than this would work smashingly. Realistically, they are a problem. I think prosecuting people that knowingly make false accusations would do more to reduce their frequency than just ignoring the accusations we think might be false, though.

For this to work, it would have to be a criminal charge, though, not a civil one. If a rapist couldn't be prosecuted due to lack of evidence is able to drag victims to court of their own accord, that's a world class fiasco in the making. This would have to be handled like dealing drugs and such. The rapist could make a report, and the police would be obligated to investigate. There would have to be compelling evidence that the victim knowingly lied or provided falsified evidence of some kind that resulted in said rapist being accused of a crime he was proven not guilty of for it to even be reviewed by a prosecutor. The punishment if found guilty should be significant too, though. Forced psychiatric treatment, for instance. Not just a fine like you parked your car in the wrong place. Wrongfully accusing someone of this kind of thing is no small matter.

This is me acknowledging the edit.

But, our last W2 came in today and I have to finish filing my taxes and make dinner still and I have no idea how to edit my response accordingly without taking more time than I can spare! lol

I was the target of an attempted mugging... and I came close to a home invasion (and whatever else might have happened) but I'm not 100% sure. I managed to get in the house and lock the door just in the nick of the time-- a very scary guy was following me.

I shudder to think about it .

Just a word to ANYONE being followed....

If you know your neighborhood/neighbors, do NOT go to your own home, go to a neighbor's house!

If a creep IS following you, he now knows where you live if you go home, unlock the door, and enter!

You knock on the neighbor's door, loudly call out "I forgot my key", when they open the door, whisper there is a guy following you.

Please be safe!

Sylkat

A) I received no restitution, only a bill for several thousand dollars.
B) Your own quoted article states:

That polygraph just ruined those liars' day... and this report was over 15 years ago. That's a lotta' liars. Take your agenda to them because they're the ones destroying your own cause from within.

I'm offended you would nullify my experience this way.

incorrigible, how would you prove rape has occurred? in most cases there isn't a witness or physical evidence. i don't see any way around the fact that a statement has to be taken from the victim in many cases. your restriction would make it almost impossible to prosecute, and thus rapists would have an easy time getting away with their crimes.

your default assumption is that a great deal of the accusations are false, so it makes sense that you would want to force more stringent measures of proof on the legal system. but i do not see any reason to believe that your assumption is true, so i don't think that the measures are required. i think i have to just agree to disagree with you on it.

BlueMax, i was responding to a specific comment that Uprising made, and i was having a further discussion with incorrigible. this discussion was not centred around you or your case, and i did not any make any reference to you (either generally or specifically).