Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all due respect, my comments were not off topic a bit. They addressed the heart of the controversy. I sympathize with your position, as, I think, most people commenting here do. I do NOT agree that juries can be trusted in the slightest to make intelligent, rational, well studied and informed decisions. Ever. When juries are right it is generally coincidental with speculative opinion. Not rational.
This is the problem with this law. Not any perspectives on right or wrong behaviors.
Agreed. This law is also like saying that gunfighting must take place on agreed, coherent, undoubtedly-accepted-by-all-parties terms. If someone breaks in to your house and want to shoot at you, they're freakin' going to; you decide, if you don't get shot, whether you want to shoot back if you have a gun, call 911, or run like hell.
Rapists are gonna rape. Terrible, but that problem will never entirely be curbed; and men (the vast majority of perpetrators) and women can instigate it. Why not ban bandanas and nylon rope so rapists can't tie their victims up? Another one: People will have sex, whether with consent or without consent (which can be rape, yes), when drunk. Why not ban alcohol? This can lead to another one: Whether or not alcohol has been involved, women who want to cry the "rape" and "abuse" game to drum attention are going to do so; we can't stop them either. In light of that twit from UCSB, why don't we ban Craigslist so other women can't meet up with some random guy whom they will let "beat her up"?
Depends on the total story. Under the new law, they have to interview witnesses. What do the witnesses say?
Do her friends say she regularly has sex with black guys? Or that she wants to?
How was she acting with this guy that night? What do the witnesses say?
And why would this girl, who wanted to have sex with the "scary" but sexy black guy, wake up and decide to file a report of RAPE?
How many people wake up and say, whoa, not sure I should have had sex with that person? But, would never even consider actually filing a report that they were raped by that person.
99.999% of people don't just file reports of rape when there was no rape.
Saying there is an exception to that by some obviously insane individual, doesn't negate the truth of the norm: That people don't go through the hassle, embarrassment, etc., to file a report for rape, when no rape actually occurred.
No matter the color of the alleged rapist.
Remember, we're talking about a preponderance of the evidence standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
You're presuming that everyone's going to be honest in the courtroom, and that people will always be on their best behavior.
You're also completely unfamiliar with the history of race relations in America especially when it comes to sexual relations. Ever heard of the Scottsboro Boys? Emmett Till?
But then again progressives have shoved nonwhites to the back of the bus in the name of feminism before. Segregation, Jim Crow, apartheid, eugenics, internment - all of them progressive ideas. And many of them instituted in the name of "protecting" white women. There's a long history of this sort of thing.
FBI says 8% other studies say much more than that. That is more than 4 times the false accusation rate of other crimes.
Let's not be dishonest here.
Quote:
FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. In contrast, the average rate of unfounded reports for "Index crimes" tracked by the FBI is 2%.[15]
However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation. Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner says that:
This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.
And,
Quote:
The "conventional scholarly wisdom," according to American law professor Michelle J. Anderson, is that two percent of rape complaints made to the police are false. The United States Justice Department agrees, saying false accusations "are estimated to occur at the low rate of two percent -- similar to the rate of false accusations for other violent crimes."
You are assuming that judges and/or a majority decision by a jury of 12 people are stupid.
Look up what happens when a decision is based on the "preponderance of the evidence." This is required by this law.
It would take a real giant conspiracy to get somebody convicted simply because they were of a certain color.
The judge and jury, as instructed by the judge, will take into account all witness testimony, physical evidence, etc., which is pretty hard to fake.
If everybody at a party, for instance, says the girl was really into the guy, was smiling, and told all her friends she couldn't wait to have sex with the guy, that's one story.
If everybody interviewed said the girl was wasted and seemed to be held up by a guy she wasn't really into, and he led her upstairs to a room, and then the physical evidence showed tears in her vagina and rectum, and her blood level the next morning when she reported the crime showed that there were roofies in her system, that's another situation altogether.
They will take ALL information, and the judge/jury will make a decision based on all the evidence and figure what most likely was the truth.
This is very fair. And, like I said, to fool this system would take a real, concerted effort by more than one person.
If your point is that a conspiracy MIGHT happen, and because a conspiracy MIGHT happen, that therefore the entire law should be thrown out, well, to put it very nicely, I disagree.
Judge and jury? I think you went off the deep end. This senate bill is not a change to the criminal code. It does not change the legal definition of rape. Rather, it is part of the Educational Code. The discipline is up to the university or college which can be a number of things up to and including expulsion from the school. If a student was found to have violated this code and expelled, it would not be considered a crime. If a student committed rape, as defined by the criminal code, criminal charges can be filed. This senate bill does nothing to change that.
This change to the education code is nothing new. The UCs and CSUs have all pretty much created a similar policy a few years ago. This bill is an attempt to have private California schools adopt it and, right now anyway, the only teeth California has to force this is to say the state will stop funding unless they do.
This whole thing is not new or unique to California. Antioch College in Ohio revised its sexual offense policy way back in 1993 to have similar wording. Many other states are looking at this now. It likely won't be long before every university and college just to keep within federal guidelines.
"For 16 years, I was a kickass prosecutor who made most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. I am unaware of any Colorado prosecutor who put as many rapists away for as much prison time as I did during my prosecutorial career. Several dozen rapists are serving thousands of years as a result of my efforts.
However, during my time as a prosecutor who made case filing decisions, I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. It was remarkable and surprising to me. You would have to see it to believe it.
Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is. A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45 percent. Objective studies have confirmed this. See Purdue Professor Kanin’s nine-year study published in 1994 concluding that over 40 percent of rape allegations were demonstrably false.
The above statements are heresy to say publicly for many politically correct prosecutors. That is especially true if they want to maintain good relations with the victim advocacy community."
-Craig Silverman
"A review of 556 rape accusations filed against Air Force personnel found that 27% of women later recanted. Then 25 criteria were developed based on the profile of those women, and then submitted to three independent reviewers to review the remaining cases. If all three reviewers deemed the allegation was false, it was categorized as false.
As a result, 60% of all allegations were found to be false. Of those women who later recanted, many didn’t admit the allegation was false until just before taking a polygraph test. Others admitted it was false only after having failed a polygraph test."
-Dr. Charles McDowell
Neither do men, but apparently you've been silent about them even though women can rape a man as well. Regardless, while victim-shaming is never a good thing, and it's probably foolish to say that anybody asks for something bad to happen to them, it is true that our volitional decisions can affect the likelihood of something happening to us. And therefore we should encourage women--in fact, all people--to make prudent decisions that will not put them in the extra danger of being raped (like not accepting a drink from someone for example). If the feminists would pull their heads out of their behinds and see this instead of crying "rape culture!/victim shaming!" they would see this. It's about being adults and making responsible decisions. While nothing will ever excuse the offender and he/she ought to be punished to the harshest extent of the law, people should still make prudent decisions so that they do not become helpless victims.
Quote:
Men do so because they can, and know they can pretty easily get away with it, especially if they have power and money to back them up.
So do women. I don't know why you keep portraying this as a Male-against-Female topic when in reality it's much more complex. It's Male-against-Female and Male-against-Other-Males as well as Female-against-Male and Female-against-Other-Female. Neither sex has a monopoly on rape.
I also know that women can get away with physically abusing a man--but I'm sure you'll ignore that too because I'm "a kid." I suppose you'll dismiss my very real experience of when my mother used to relentlessly slap me across the face and kick me in the groin (which is sexual assault by law) and when the police would come, they'd arrest ME and take ME--the victim--to the loony bin/liberal counseling center where their only goal was to offer me meds that would "make all your problems go away." And my mother never got in the slightest bit of trouble. Sexist--in fact, racist too--laws are a huge problem in this nation (especially CA) and that sexism goes against both sexes--not just women. I know because the sexist abuse laws enabled and do still enable women to physically harm men without any repercussions, whereas if a man even raises his voice at a woman, he is arrested and forever stigmatized an abuser.
Quote:
We know you're a kid
Me thinks it's the people behind this law who are the real kids. They want to falsely place the burden of evidence upon the defendant when it really falls on the plaintiff, and they want to be able to try another person for rape simply because they regret their decisions; they want to have Uncle Sam tell them that their decisions they make while under the influence of alcohol don't really count. In other words, they want to poop on years of hard work that 1st and 2nd Wave feminists fought for in order to prove that women are in fact volitional adults and not inferior or children incapable of making their own decisions; these lazy 3rd Wave ones and people behind this law want to reduce people--especially women--into children who cannot make their own choices or be held responsible for them just because they happened to be stupid enough to get drunk.
Quote:
but you must eventually learn that it is not for women to not "provoke" drunk or dangerous alpha-males into violence
You need to eventually learn that as adults you make your own decisions. To rely on the goodness of others while shunning any sense of personal responsibility and prudence is a form of victimization. You want to create a society of victims.
Quote:
it is for men to not rape women. Period.
Of course it's not; any decent person knows this. But that still doesn't change the fact that drunk sex is not rape, that the burden of evidence does not fall on the defendant but the plaintiff, and perhaps most importantly that many men--and women for that matter--are in fact INDECENT and DON'T CARE. They will rape women; they will rape men. This is why we can't create a society that relies solely on the goodness of others--since many people unfortunately are not good (like rapists)--because that victimizes our society and transforms volitional adults into children and victims. We need to teach people to be responsible and make prudent choices to reduce the likelihood of something bad happening to them, and accepting that as adults and citizens, they understand that their stupidity like alcohol consumption does not excuse them of their decisions, even while under the influence. This isn't childhood anymore where your decisions don't fully count; they are adults whose decisions are real and will no longer be second-guesses or superseded by your parents or superiors. It is not Uncle Sam's job to be your parent.
Yep, not quite as high. THAT'S why society views it differently.
Notice the chart said "known." There is still the possibility of male rape victims simply not reporting their case, or their cases being thrown out (which unfortunately happens a lot due to sexism). Regardless, that ignores the fact that regardless of numbers, rape is still rape and an abhorrent crime where every victim regardless of sex deserves aid and to have the full might of the law investigating their case.
Quote:
Rape is a violent power thing. A very male thing.
Gender stereotypes? Women can be violent too, and often are. I thought you people were against gender stereotyping, but apparently only when it serves your agenda. Not all men are violent nor is violence necessarily a male thing. Women inflict it on men too and can be violent. I find it almost laughably stupid that you'd demonize men this juvenile way--the utmost hypocrisy--while rightfully opposing those who do the same about women.
Predictably, and unfortunately, we're getting a few keyboard warriors in here espousing why it's ok for men to have their way with women, as they see fit. Glad to see we've come so far!
What we have here are more liberal ad-hominems when you are uncertain how to respond to real logic. This happens all the time. When your opposition is not a bunch of closet-misogynists who support the rape culture they're rich White heterosexual men or any other stereotype that you fellows like to use as insults. It doesn't serve any logical purpose--in fact, it's a fallacy--and it's bad rhetoric. It's also hypocritical when liberals consider themselves the champions and upholders of civil rights and equality, when in reality they resort to stereotypes and prejudice toward certain demographics that they demonize. But what can you expect when these are the same people who think that they are doing minorities a favor by supporting Planned Parenthood and abortion even though the founder Margaret Sanger was an openly racist eugenist who hated minorities and really the entire thing was rooted in & associated with eugenics? If they even took any time to get to know us, they'd know that us Mexicans--as much as they like to exploit us as a statistic--are very opposed to abortion due to our Catholic heritage (even though I'm personally Eastern Orthodox).
And, sorry to triple or quadruple post, but I've consistently raised one point on here that the opposition has failed to respond to. That said, I would like to restate it again: doesn't placing the burden of evidence upon the defendant--in the case of this bill, that the defendant sought consent--violate the constitutional principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty? A defendant is not required to prove anything; that burden falls upon the plaintiff making the charge. The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Placing the burden upon the defendant to prove his or her evidence essentially means that you are Guilty Until Proven Innocent, and that is the beginning of an unconstitutional police state. I'd be cautious of anything that even remotely places a burden upon the defendant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
