![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
polimicksBullshit.
According to the FBI, only 8% of all rapes reported in the US are "unfounded" but not necessarily false. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf) 1997 was the last report in which they calculated that.
Figures in the UK bear this out as well. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf)
Here's some statistics from http://www.rainn.org
Only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults get reported.
Of that 40% only 50% of those will even be arrested.
Only an estimated 6% of rapists will spend a DAY in jail. Not prison, jail.
On this page of the RAINN site: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
It shows a tree of the disposition of reported rapes.
If you want you can go see it. I did the math, it works out.
So, as a means of vengeance, false rape reporting has a really piss poor chance of coming to any fruition. I mean, there's only a 50/50 chance the victim of a false report will even be arrested. Seriously, there are way more effective and sure ways to get revenge.
Ok, now apart from the fact that it's highly unlikely to come to fruition, add into the equation that when a woman accuses a man of rape, her entire life is turned upside down and put under a microscope. Her entire sexual history will go on trial. She'll have to justify every sexual act she has ever performed with anyone ever. She'll be accused of being a promiscuous whore who wanted it. Her clothing will be scrutinized. Her comings and goings. Does she drink? Does she wear a thong? Was she wearing lacey underwear?
And if you thinks it's only adult women with suspect motives who are on the receiving end of these questions, just read the transcripts from a few child rape trials as well. Seriously, it will turn your stomach to hear defense lawyers and defendants telling a jury in all honesty that a ten year old girl wanted sex.
The US and UK legal systems are not friendly even to women who come to them with a mountain of evidence, how much less friendly do you think they are to someone with only a story? Even when the story is true, it's almost impossible to get a charge of rape taken seriously, even if you are a grandmother, nun or child, particularly without evidence.
Ok, so all that aside, of the 40% of all rapes, the ones that actually get reported, only 8% of that 40% are unfounded, not necessarily false, just lacking evidence. Some of those are victims who are bullied in recanting by their families and friends, or out of fear of the rapist or his family and friends.
Given how I've seen actual rape victims treated, pretty much with all the tact and sensitivity of raw liver, very, very few women would ever willingly put themselves through that to "get back at" anyone. Seriously.
Think about it.
According to the FBI, only 8% of all rapes reported in the US are "unfounded" but not necessarily false. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf) 1997 was the last report in which they calculated that.
Figures in the UK bear this out as well. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf)
Here's some statistics from http://www.rainn.org
Only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults get reported.
Of that 40% only 50% of those will even be arrested.
Only an estimated 6% of rapists will spend a DAY in jail. Not prison, jail.
On this page of the RAINN site: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
It shows a tree of the disposition of reported rapes.
If you want you can go see it. I did the math, it works out.
So, as a means of vengeance, false rape reporting has a really piss poor chance of coming to any fruition. I mean, there's only a 50/50 chance the victim of a false report will even be arrested. Seriously, there are way more effective and sure ways to get revenge.
Ok, now apart from the fact that it's highly unlikely to come to fruition, add into the equation that when a woman accuses a man of rape, her entire life is turned upside down and put under a microscope. Her entire sexual history will go on trial. She'll have to justify every sexual act she has ever performed with anyone ever. She'll be accused of being a promiscuous whore who wanted it. Her clothing will be scrutinized. Her comings and goings. Does she drink? Does she wear a thong? Was she wearing lacey underwear?
And if you thinks it's only adult women with suspect motives who are on the receiving end of these questions, just read the transcripts from a few child rape trials as well. Seriously, it will turn your stomach to hear defense lawyers and defendants telling a jury in all honesty that a ten year old girl wanted sex.
The US and UK legal systems are not friendly even to women who come to them with a mountain of evidence, how much less friendly do you think they are to someone with only a story? Even when the story is true, it's almost impossible to get a charge of rape taken seriously, even if you are a grandmother, nun or child, particularly without evidence.
Ok, so all that aside, of the 40% of all rapes, the ones that actually get reported, only 8% of that 40% are unfounded, not necessarily false, just lacking evidence. Some of those are victims who are bullied in recanting by their families and friends, or out of fear of the rapist or his family and friends.
Given how I've seen actual rape victims treated, pretty much with all the tact and sensitivity of raw liver, very, very few women would ever willingly put themselves through that to "get back at" anyone. Seriously.
Think about it.
You are trying to eliminate presumption of innocence
Date: 2009-01-21 04:18 pm (UTC)You need to get into your head that "unfounded" is another term for "false" for all practical judicial purposes. If you cannot prove something in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, you are lying. Accuser bears the burden of proof, otherwise charges are frivolous.
It's only natural if the accuser should be scrutinized. Because it's all about consent, which women are known to rarely ever exhibit explicitly. How many women state out loud and clear to a guy they just met at a party "I want to have sex with you right now"? Not a sober one, that's for sure, because it will make her look like a slut in everyone's eyes. If the accuser acts like she wanted it, was dressed to sexually attract, and has a history of such behavior there is much doubt she "didn't want it". It's the only venue left to determine existence of consent, because she'll never admit she wanted it, for then she becomes not just a whore, but a lying whore.
Contrary to common sense, rape shield laws have been passed that prevent accuser's sexual history from being used by defense in court. That is not the case for the defendant. Why? How about equal treatment?
And what is all this BS about 40% "getting reported"? If something is not reported, it cannot be considered a statistic. If so-called "victims" themselves did not bother to act who are we to say they should have? Oh, maybe by rampaging feminist standards where every sexual act must be accompanied by a written contract with a notary present? These "not reported" statistics are bogus and scientifically invalid. They are nothing but an attempt to play with actual rape statistics to make the issue bigger than it actually is, with a goal of relaxing burden of proof on the accuser. If we go that route, all that will be required to prove someone is guilty of something will be pointing a finger.
Can't allow that. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Don't try to turn that fundamental principle of justice upside down.
Re: You are trying to eliminate presumption of innocence
Date: 2009-01-21 04:33 pm (UTC)When a rape accusation is demonstrably false, the prosecuter should file whatever charge covers that in their state.
Now either develop the testicular fortitude to sign/own your responses or fuck off.
Coward.
Re: You are trying to eliminate presumption of innocence
Date: 2009-01-27 09:38 pm (UTC)The words "troll", "fuck off", and "coward" are not helping either. You are trying to compensate for your lack of valid arguments. Give it another shot and finally get that high school diploma, please.
"Polimicks" is just as meaningless as "Anonymous", it does not make you any better and has nothing to do with this discussion. I will sign the way I choose and there is nothing you can do about it.
Re: You are trying to eliminate presumption of innocence
Date: 2009-01-27 09:42 pm (UTC)No, not trying to eliminate presumption of innocence. By assuming that an "Unfounded" accusation means the woman is automatically lying, you are the one trying to eliminate the presumption of innocence.
No one is saying put the guys with the "unfounded" charges on a watch list, or sex offenders registry.
But neither should the woman be automatically labeled a liar either. If the police think it was a purposeful false charge and have evidence to back it up (and frequently when they don't) the woman will be charged.
And this lj links to my regular lj and also to an online column I write under my own name. Not going to do your homework for you, coward.
And I'm sorry if being foul-mouthed offends you. Wait, no I'm not. You're an anonymous troll. Don't like being called a troll? Don't act like one.
Idiot.
Re: You are trying to eliminate presumption of innocence
Date: 2010-03-31 10:11 pm (UTC)Re: You are trying to eliminate presumption of innocence
Date: 2010-03-31 10:22 pm (UTC)Thank you for speaking up here.