The whole reporting sexual assault decades later debate (parties, Nevada, abuse)

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by ThisTown123

...or...is there a debate at all? (Figured I'd post it in "Great debates)

I only write this because recently had a handful of female friends on social media post about how ashamed they are of their OWN friends on Facebook are calling the "reporting sexual assault 30 years later to be hogwash". That their friends are dismissing that if they came out with it this late, it was probably consensual and it was just regret sex or something.

(This happens when the guy has sex, and doesn't call her back and SHE calls it rape).

They are upset that their OWN friends find fault with women waiting so long to report it.

It's like "Shame on you for doubting them!"

Be honest, would you seriously block or unfriend, even in real life, your friends that you know on Facebook that have lacked empathy towards the victims coming forward decades later? Does it shock you that many are in opposition against those who come forward with their experiences?

When a sexual assault charge is made that took place over thirty years ago, and you have no proof, no facts, no witnesses, and you yourself admit you and everyone involved had been engaging in underage drinking.... you should not come forward to slander the person.

There is a reason why we have a statute of limitations. Memories get blurred to the point of being fragmented, corrupted over time, and becoming completely unreliable. Add to this, that Dr. Ford was drunk at the time, and we have the worst of all worlds, a thirty year old memory of a drunken 15 year old girl.


Teenage drinking as I remember it, was not responsible at all, it came down to drink in large gulps, and drink it quickly.

[Taluffen]

Personally, I strongly believe there should be no statute of limitations for sexual assault crimes since many times a victim will not report the crime due to a power imbalance, especially in a workplace or educational institution. Occasionally when a victim wants to go forward he/she may encounter family pressure to NOT report the crime, especially if it occurs within the family or perhaps for reputation purposes. In some cultures the victim's reputation may be so damaged that are essentially outcasted. Also those in positions of power may be protected in a way that the victim feels they would lose their case or be blacklisted from a career.

Given a few years, even decades, the victim may feel empowered to finally report the assault. Maybe the stigma they faced wore off as they grew older and attitudes changed. Perhaps they are in a financial position to go after their old boss and not worry about losing their job. Realizing bad advice given by family members was wrong, they decide to seek justice. It is why I believe it is important to encourage people to come forward even after decades because the person who assaulted someone should not be given a pass.

[KCZ]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

BTW, are you saying that only high level men get false claims made about them or that only high level men have this kind of behavior? Anyway, women are so irrational they just pick guys at random ya know, executive or not.

No, I'm not saying that at all. However, men being considering for high level positions have to go through a more intensive and publicized vetting process than men with less noticeable jobs, which makes the stakes a lot higher if they're falsely accused. The whole country knows about Kavanaugh/Ford, but the Joe Schmoes in East Podunk are never identified outside the Podunk area.

[silibran]

Originally Posted by kayanne

I can't presume to know why any specific woman would tell her story years later. In the case of Dr. Ford, my guess would be that it has been very hard for her to see Kavanaugh being praised as a great man, deserving of sitting on the highest court of the land, knowing what he (allegedly) did to her in the past. I'm sure you're aware, if you've been following the news, that Dr Ford started discussing the incident with her therapist back in 2012. So it's not like she just made it up to prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed.

In general, my guess would be that women are starting to tell their stories because they know how their silence affected their lives. I think they want something better for the women of today and tomorrow. I think they must surely recognize that conviction of their attacker is unlikely, but perhaps they hope to change the climate, the stigma against the victim, and what they assumed would be a traumatic and likely ineffective experience of reporting.

Yes. This what I believe too.

It isn't as if BK has expressed remorse or even self awareness about what was a scary experience for Dr. Ford, who was afraid she would be inadvertently choked to death.

And he seems to have lied under oath previously.

Remember, a Supreme Court Justice has a lifetime appointment, and will influence the law for decades. We need to have a person of high moral caliber in those positions.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by ThisTown123

Be honest, would you seriously block or unfriend, even in real life, your friends that you know on Facebook that have lacked empathy towards the victims coming forward decades later? Does it shock you that many are in opposition against those who come forward with their experiences?

I'm lacking both empathy and sympathy for the supposed "victims" and even more so when they exaggerate their claims.

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

Sexual assault is a terrible crime.

No one would deny that, but in re Kavannaugh, there is no sexual battery/assault.

Rape has very specific elements of proof. In a nutshell, rape is the unwanted sexual penetration of any orifice. The act of intercourse need not be completed. The victim needs only to say "No!" once.

When the victim is impaired or unresponsive due to impairment, there is a presumption that all sexual conduct is unwanted. Note that the victim is considered impaired while sleeping, absent alcohol or drugs.

The cause of the victim's impairment is totally irrelevant, except for sentencing.

When the victim's impairment is their own doing, meaning they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs to the point of impairment, the perpetrator usually gets a number of years in prison with or without the possibility of parole.

However, in many States, when the perpetrator induces the victim to consume alcohol or drugs to the point of impairment for the express purpose of sexual conduct, or where the victim involuntarily consumes drugs, such as those the perpetrator would put into a beverage for the purpose of impairing the victim, it is considered particularly heinous, and the sentence is justifiably life in prison, with or without the possibility of parole.

And, yes, intent can be known through witness testimony, where the perpetrator told others prior to, or at the party or event, that they intended to get the victim intoxicated in order to engage in sex.

Sexual battery/assault is effectively consensual rape.

In sexual battery/assault, the victim consents to sexual conduct, but only under coercion or duress.

There is always a relationship at play here.

A minor and their biological, step-, foster-parent or guardian. A minor and their teacher, coach, school administrator or member of the clergy. Any person of any age and a law enforcement agent, and yes, police have been convicted of using their badge and authority to coerce victims into sexual acts.

It extends to the student-professor relationship at university as well as the relationship between a professor and their teaching assistants and research assistants, and the employee-employer relationship, where the victim is under the managerial or supervisory power of a co-worker.

It extends to all professional relationships, such as doctor-patient, therapist-patient, clergy-church member, lawyer-client and many others.

In short, any relationship where the perpetrator has or can exert power, control or authority over the victim.

Concerning Kavannaugh, there was no rape or sexual assault.

At the very least, it was poor judgment exercised by a very young adult at a party, at most it was minor sexual imposition, which is defined by most States as the touching of the victim's erogenous zones for sexual gratification.

Sexual imposition is a low level misdemeanor, and note that nearly all States bar a conviction of sexual imposition solely on the basis of the victim's testimony.

In other words, you need witnesses to corroborate the victim's testimony, or video evidence, or physical evidence of some sort, and without it you can't even bring charges.

Some might suggest sexual harassment, but even that fails, because sexual harassment requires a pattern of behavior, but you need only 2 incidents to establish a pattern.

[quote=MinivanDriver;53172638]I don't believe in a 'boys will be boys' mentality. [quote]

Why not?

People are curious. Boys are people, and they are curious. So are girls, but boys tend to be more aggressive, and that's due in part to the fact that many adult girls not only expect that, but demand it.

However, adults, regardless of their age, should exercise a little more restraint than boys and girls.

Parents could do a much better job teaching their children, but I doubt that will happen since many parents are poor teachers. That pretty much leaves it up to the schools to teach children the proper conduct.

Even so, your Society is largely the problem.

It has devalued and debased sex into meaningless nothingness, while simultaneously glorifying it.

It's very difficult for many people to operate in a Society when receiving so many mixed messages from commercial advertising, television shows, films, music, the internet, and other people around them.

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

Those who commit sexual assault should face severe punishment.

They often (but not always) do.

A one-off incident isn't pause of concern. It's when there's an established pattern of incidents that people should be very concerned.

[Nov3]

So you wish for an innocent person to show remorse? Wow...just wow.

[reneeh63]

Originally Posted by KCZ

No, I'm not saying that at all. However, men being considering for high level positions have to go through a more intensive and publicized vetting process than men with less noticeable jobs, which makes the stakes a lot higher if they're falsely accused. The whole country knows about Kavanaugh/Ford, but the Joe Schmoes in East Podunk are never identified outside the Podunk area.

And there aren't many positions at THAT high level. Men seem to think that they'll automatically get fired and go to jail if any woman looks sideways at them. That turns men into the victim role that they complain so much about women taking - oh woe is me, my reputation is tarnished. The worst that happens is they don't get a glowing recommendation - which no one gets any more anyway. Men stick up for other men - I can hear them saying now "we don't want to do this but we have to - we'll go as light as we can on you".

[Jo48]

Ok, so what would you say about the Pedophile Catholic Priests, the majority of which involved little boys? MALES. Statute of limitations for them as well? Many of these cases also go back DECADES. Fine for that involving now 30 or 40 year old MEN, but not for WOMEN?

Fine for a male but not for a woman? You are a sexist if you say that.

[historyfan]

Originally Posted by Jo48

Ok, so what would you say about the Pedophile Catholic Priests, the majority of which involved little boys? MALES. Statute of limitations for them as well? Many of these cases also go back DECADES. Fine for that involving now 30 or 40 year old MEN, but not for WOMEN?

Fine for a male but not for a woman? You are a sexist if you say that.

Thank you.

[Spottednikes]

Originally Posted by Tiffer E38

So you're saying that Ford started discussing this in 2012 knowing that Trump would be elected Pres and Kavanaugh would be being appointed to the SCOTUS? That's what common sense tells you?

I dont believe she has ever mentioned it was BK to anyone until the letter to df. Even the psychiatrist said it was 4 guys.The she changed it to 4 guys and a girl. I believe she is such an anti trumper, that she decided to use the prior 2012 psychiatrist meeting to claim it was bk to delay his confirmation.
Its also possible that there was no 2012 psychiatrist meeting where this was discussed, and her liberal anti trump psychiatrist friend and she made up the note, using her marriage counselling appt, to write a fake note of the session, as cover for her "revelation". Her psychiatrist is also a liberal anti trump woman. The kind that is ok with resisting by any means necessary.