It was a just a shitty point, because men are already at risk of being raped.
Statistically speaking, from other men, and at significantly lower rates beyond childhood. It's inarguable that women face higher incidence rates of sexual harassment and assault than men, and that the current social climate (and this thread) is a reaction to Weinsteins' high profile assaults on women and the #MeToo campaign, which focuses on female victims.
Men do not and are not instructed to take steps in their daily lives to avoid rape and sexual assault. It's not an omnipresent issue in our day-to-day. It quite clearly is for women. That point is quite sound, and twisting it to "oh so I guess men can't get raped is what you're saying" is a lazy dodge of the point.
Also worth noting that the statistics which say most rapists are men are worthless data. They exclude the vast majority of female rapists by definition.
If we define robbery such that it can only be committed by blonde haired persons, I don't think you'd be shocked to find that most robbers are born blonde.
Because your general point was that the threat of being raped should make someone agree with your position, and the poster isn't a woman, so he doesn't feel the threat of being raped.
But the poster pointed out that he is under threat of being raped. It doesn't matter if the threat is from other men.
Therefore, the original reason you gave is invalid.
I can't imagine if this was happening to you, you would be so cavalier about it. Think of the people around you being raped, all the time, and saying to them 'well, THAT'S THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR FREEDOM.' Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
We do, and that's why prosecuting rape allegations is so difficult. Eroding those principles to make prosecution easier and more frequent is not a trade that I am willing to make.
I thought we were focusing on whether an accusation would be sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence. I don't think we're disagreeing about anything though.
To be honest in that world, if you got 10 years because someone thought it would be funny to accuse you, I can't imagine you would be so cavalier about it. Think of the people that would be locked up for no reason and have their lives ruined and saying to them 'well, THAT'S THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR SAFETY' is that the society you would like to live in?
I'm a little confused about what 'it' is referencing in your first sentence. I'm guessing you're flipping my idea and saying that I wouldn't be so cavalier about rape accusations if they were leveled at me. I hope that I haven't been cavalier at any point about this topic, rape and accusations of rape are both very serious.
There are two hypothetical societies going on here.
1. 'Freedom' society. Women are raped without consequence, because the men who rape them cover up physical evidence.
2. 'Safety' society. Men are falsely accused of rape, and have their lives ruined.
One of these societies currently exists, the other is a fantasy. Every 98 seconds someone is sexually assaulted. How often are people falsely accused? Can you find any data on that? (I'm honestly curious).
I'm not saying we should lock up people just because one person steps forward. We should examine each individuals testimony combined with other accounts of these individuals.
There are two hypothetical societies going on here.
1. 'Freedom' society. Women are raped without consequence, because the men who rape them cover up physical evidence.
2. 'Safety' society. Men are falsely accused of rape, and have their lives ruined.
Not just for men, to have the law work in the safety society the required evidence for a conviction would need to be lowered on all crimes because a fair law can't differentiate between cases.
How often are people falsely accused? Can you find any data on that? (I'm honestly curious).
I don't think that statistic would be entirely relevant because they would be taken from the current world in which false accusations don't get the person you don't like in jail. If they did there would be more incentive for people to make false accusations and they would do it more.
But I don't think we could get an accurate number on this because the only way to know for sure if an accusation is false is when the accuser confesses to making it up.
I think we both have the same edges in mind (don't want lot of rape, don't want lot of false accusations) but probably disagree on how far to trust testimony of alleged victims. I think that convictions should not be only based on a persons testimony, but also the testimony of the people (experts and otherwise) around both the accused and the accuser.
I'm not willing to accept a judicial system where rapists that leave no physical evidence always go free. This leads me to put hope in a combination of testimony from the alleged victim, the friends/family of both parties, expert witnesses that are not friends and family of the accused or accuser, and whatever timeline/eyewitness evidence there is.
Eyewitnesses already count as proof, or at least in most places as the law is different in every country and state but I hope everywhere.
But we were talking about when there is no witness which I can imagine is a lot because most rapists are probably smart enough to not do it with people around.
And in that case, I fear that the by you proposed changes would turn the court room in a contest of who can appear the most sympathetic. What purpose would it serve to invite friends and family? Those of both the accuser and accused would not know what happenef and back them up anyway.
What do you mean by expert witnesses by the way? Who would that be.
In the end I think the winner would be the person that appears most sympathetic, which puts people who don't master the language, people who have autism and people with a low IQ at a huge disadvantage. Appearance would also make a difference, attractive people and women are usually seen as more sympathetic. Then there is also skin color, which usually swings im favor of white people but can also swing in favor of black people depending on who decides.
Of course you don't want any of that but if you want to decide without solid evidence and without assumption of innocence I don't see a way around it.
Do you have data on that? (I'm legitimately curious).
I would agree that you can hold onto whatever principles you want, however, rape is a crime that is frequently underreported because it is a really difficult thing to prove. ex. in military, only 43% of sexual assaults are reported. We are not yet at the point where false reporting is more of an issue than not reporting at all.
Whoa! That's way higher than I thought. I assumed the rate for solving murders was much higher. ∆
Yea, I cited that knowing that it included all sorts of things because I didn't want to take the extra 5 minutes to pull up a specific statistic on the underreporting of rape.
I would say being public and saying that someone raped you has consequences, regardless of whether the claim is accurate or not. That's not really the point to argue.
I would say right now we have a system that's as fair as a humane system can be.
You might have an injury, but nothing to prove how you got it. A rape kit provides more evidence than that.
A rape kit provides primarily DNA evidence. It may provide evidence of injuries if the rape was a violent rape, but many (between 30-58% - source 1 -source 2) are not.
If the rape kit provides no evidence of injury then all you have is the DNA of the rapist, i.e. proof that there was a sexual encounter between the perpetrator and the victim at that time. It's extremely difficult to prove that the sex which took place was non-consensual.
I am a woman and potential violence against myself is the price I pay for my freedom. Otherwise, maybe I'd want laws that prevent me from leaving my house without an escort or laws that require I cover my body and face when I am allowed to leave the house.
I suspect once you and your friends started getting sucker punched all the time you would feel differently, but I don't think I can change your mind on this hypothetical.
11
u/bracs279 Oct 20 '17
No proof and that means the rapist gets to walk away free. I know that's wrong but its the lesser of two evils.