[Returns fistbump, but points to the edit]
Meanwhile the rape victim gets a life sentence.
What on earth are you talking about?
Did I miss something?
|
Er...not really. It might show she had sex. It might show who she had sex with if there's DNA and that SNA can be matched to someone else. Having physical proof of rape would have to almost be some sort of recording to show the presence or lack thereof of consent, and a full blood panel sufficiently close to the time of the assault to prove the ability or lack thereof to give consent.
She should get a rape kit done. Then she has loads of medical evidence that she was raped and performed an action that showed she felt raped.Are you actually suggesting rape victims shouldn't get rape kits?
Whether there is indeed "tons of medical evidence" set aside for the moment, that a victim promptly reported a crime and had a rape kit performed goes a long way to securing a conviction.
do you see me saying that victims shouldn't get rape kits? I posted what I posted. You can infer whatever you like, I suppose. ::shrug::
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they did we wouldn't be charging kids for the creation of child pornography for texting pictures of their junk to their BF or GF.
This happens. But don't call people dumb. It doesn't help your case.
I appreciate the constant favoriting from Comrade Meatrace, but he always gets too animated in these types of threads for me to return the favor. Not that people haven't been getting animated with him, but I'm a fan of having a thick skin.
I favorite posts a LOT.
Often because I hate typing on my phone, though I often read the forumz while at work (shhh, it's a seecret) and want to throw my 2cp in in some way.
do you see me saying that victims shouldn't get rape kits? I posted what I posted. You can infer whatever you like, I suppose. ::shrug::
Someone said "she should get a rape kit" because it would go a long way towards proving her case, just the fact that she got one.
You said "err...not really" and went on to point out all the problems with rape kits and how they probably won't help. It seemed like you were pretty down on the idea. I wasn't sure if that's what you meant by it, hence why I asked for confirmation. I don't think my reading of your post was crazy.
Can we both agree that, if someone is raped, they should report it immediately and have a rape kit performed?
Meanwhile the rape victim gets a life sentence.
What are you smoking? Life sentence of what? Being a rape victim. Or do you think we are suggesting that rape victims should go to prison?
Dumb.
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?I think his proposed solution is that felony charges without any physical evidence to back it up oughtn't go to trial.Even if there is a confession?
Even if the crime is of a type that won't leave physical evidence?
Even if the victim is a child (who often delays reporting)?
Those are not questions for me, I was merely proffering what I believed the other gentleman was suggesting.
However, out of curiosity, do confessed crimes typically go to trial? Or isn't that an instance of pleading.
I can't think of a crime that doesn't leave physical evidence. Digital files and records are considered physical evidence, or at least in the vernacular we're using. If the accused took a picture of the alleged victim naked and unconscious the night of the incident, that photo would be physical evidence.
The question about children is too vague. I'm just trying to discern blanket rules for all criminal/felony charges.
Yep. I screwed up the "quote" procedure. Sorry!
In answer to your question though... Yep. Occasionally confession cases go to trial with either unreasonable defendants or unreasonable prosecutors. It's rare though.
Forced oral sex may not lead to physical evidence as just one example.
This happens. But don't call people dumb. It doesn't help your case.
If they did we wouldn't be charging kids for the creation of child pornography for texting pictures of their junk to their BF or GF.
It does express my opinion though. Since we are on the internet instead of in a court room, I know for a fact that I will not be able to change anyone's opinion here. This thread exist as an echo chamber where people can get progressively less rational and more angry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.Meanwhile the rape victim gets a life sentence.Life sentence of what? Being a rape victim.
Dumb.
We are talking about the judicial system where being a felon is a life sentence and you are advocating innocent people should go to prison in favor of catching all of the rapist because rape victims remain rape victims for their entire lives.
I'm sure that is exactly what a rape victim wants to hear.
In answer to your question though... Yep. Occasionally confession cases go to trial with either unreasonable defendants or unreasonable prosecutors. It's rare though.
If you mean, like, someone who signs or records a confession and then recants, that record or statement would be physical evidence. Would it not? So I'm still thinking that a confessed crime would, almost by definition, have physical evidence.
I'm so close to flapjacking this thread...
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?I think his proposed solution is that felony charges without any physical evidence to back it up oughtn't go to trial.Even if there is a confession?
Even if the crime is of a type that won't leave physical evidence?
Even if the victim is a child (who often delays reporting)?
I have already stated that I do not value confessions. Some people will take guilty pleas not because they are guilty, but because they don't feel they could win the court case with a public defender.
What crimes do not leave any physical evidence?
The last one is tricky. We should keep in mind that children can lie and do so often. An investigation should be done. If no evidence but the child's testimony is found then we should drop the case, but keep the accusation on record should another victim step forward. Regardless, I still wouldn't convict a person if there was no proof of their actions.
I'm not talking about guilty pleas. I'm talking about confessions. If a woman says a guy reaped her, but he used a condom and she took a shower afterwards (no physical evidence). He is then questioned by the police and admits he did it.
Example the second. A 10 year old comes forward after her mom breaks up with the moms long term boyfriend. 10 year old says that the boyfriend has been molesting her for the last five years, but she never told because she was scared. Because enough time has elapsed there is no way there will be physical evidence. When questioned by police the boyfriend admits it.
So you're saying that if every case went to trial vs a plea there wouldn't be a jump in court costs? I understand that the courts are pretty crowded already I'd think that if everyone went to trial that it would put the demand up. Just to be clear I'm talking about the costs to the state not to the individual.Nobody would plea out then, even if they were guilty, everything would go to trial and court costs would be through the roof.Not really. The court costs are only assessed against the defendant if they plead guilty or are found guilty. The state already bears the vast majority of costs in criminal defense through the 6th Amendment right to counsel. States handle that in various ways; from judicial appointment of counsel to professional public defender systems.
Pleas of guilty vs. trials are usually more about mitigation of risk.
I can see how you read that that way. Nope that's not what I meant though. What I meant is that the public process in the U.S. for free counsel (however it works in that state) handle the a disproportionate amount of criminal cases versus privately retained counsel. People plead guilty mostly because having a trial is risky regarding outcome.
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?I think his proposed solution is that felony charges without any physical evidence to back it up oughtn't go to trial.Even if there is a confession?
Even if the crime is of a type that won't leave physical evidence?
Even if the victim is a child (who often delays reporting)?
I have already stated that I do not value confessions. Some people will take guilty pleas not because they are guilty, but because they don't feel they could win the court case with a public defender.
What crimes do not leave any physical evidence?
The last one is tricky. We should keep in mind that children can lie and do so often. An investigation should be done. If no evidence but the child's testimony is found then we should drop the case, but keep the accusation on record should another victim step forward. Regardless, I still wouldn't convict a person if there was no proof of their actions.
I'm not talking about guilty pleas. I'm talking about confessions. If a woman says a guy reaped her, but he used a condom and she took a shower afterwards (no physical evidence). He is then questioned by the police and admits he did it.
Example the second. A 10 year old comes forward after her mom breaks up with the moms long term boyfriend. 10 year old says that the boyfriend has been molesting her for the last five years, but she never told because she was scared. Because enough time has elapsed there is no way there will be physical evidence. When questioned by police the boyfriend admits it.
So you are talking about an incidental confession where someone admits to charges without legal consultation. Yeah I see how that goes to trail.
Without the confessions both of those situations require more investigation before they are trial worthy.
That's why we have the flagging system. Hint, hint.If they did we wouldn't be charging kids for the creation of child pornography for texting pictures of their junk to their BF or GF.This happens. But don't call people dumb. It doesn't help your case.
I know. I just don't think it's worth getting him in trouble for, plus he had some legitimate points in there too. It's just not nice.
I can see how you read that that way. Nope that's not what I meant though. What I meant is that the public process in the U.S. for free counsel (however it works in that state) handle the a disproportionate amount of criminal cases versus privately retained counsel. People plead guilty mostly because having a trial is risky regarding outcome.So you're saying that if every case went to trial vs a plea there wouldn't be a jump in court costs? I understand that the courts are pretty crowded already I'd think that if everyone went to trial that it would put the demand up. Just to be clear I'm talking about the costs to the state not to the individual.Nobody would plea out then, even if they were guilty, everything would go to trial and court costs would be through the roof.Not really. The court costs are only assessed against the defendant if they plead guilty or are found guilty. The state already bears the vast majority of costs in criminal defense through the 6th Amendment right to counsel. States handle that in various ways; from judicial appointment of counsel to professional public defender systems.
Pleas of guilty vs. trials are usually more about mitigation of risk.
My father works parole. He has a lot of people on his case list because of overworked busy public defender or people who plead guilty because they couldn't afford anything better than a public defender.
The bolded part concerns me the most and why I want guilty pleas to either be removed or not offer reduced sentences.
I know. I just don't think it's worth getting him in trouble for, plus he had some legitimate points in there too. It's just not nice.That's why we have the flagging system. Hint, hint.If they did we wouldn't be charging kids for the creation of child pornography for texting pictures of their junk to their BF or GF.This happens. But don't call people dumb. It doesn't help your case.
Flagging gets the attention of a mod to look at that post. It either leads to the post being removed or/and the thread being locked should the post violate forum rules.
If you mean, like, someone who signs or records a confession and then recants, that record or statement would be physical evidence. Would it not? So I'm still thinking that a confessed crime would, almost by definition, have physical evidence.
In answer to your question though... Yep. Occasionally confession cases go to trial with either unreasonable defendants or unreasonable prosecutors. It's rare though.
Sometimes you have a defendant that admits he did it but doesn't like the offer and is antisocial enough that he's going to insist on being proven guilty. Occasionally you have a prosecutor who has no real conception of what the punishment should be and you try the case to receive a lesser punishment or a conviction for a lesser included crime.
Right, but if, as suggested, pleas got the maximum sentence automatically why wouldn't you go to court and try your luck? Without a reduced sentence with a plea deal I'd think most people would want to go to trial. Unless of course they were scared about details getting out or something.I can see how you read that that way. Nope that's not what I meant though. What I meant is that the public process in the U.S. for free counsel (however it works in that state) handle the a disproportionate amount of criminal cases versus privately retained counsel. People plead guilty mostly because having a trial is risky regarding outcome.So you're saying that if every case went to trial vs a plea there wouldn't be a jump in court costs? I understand that the courts are pretty crowded already I'd think that if everyone went to trial that it would put the demand up. Just to be clear I'm talking about the costs to the state not to the individual.Nobody would plea out then, even if they were guilty, everything would go to trial and court costs would be through the roof.Not really. The court costs are only assessed against the defendant if they plead guilty or are found guilty. The state already bears the vast majority of costs in criminal defense through the 6th Amendment right to counsel. States handle that in various ways; from judicial appointment of counsel to professional public defender systems.
Pleas of guilty vs. trials are usually more about mitigation of risk.
Ah! I misunderstood you again. Yes, automatic maximums would be a horrible idea. It would remove a ton of the discretion for evaluating the severity of an individual action.
I can see how you read that that way. Nope that's not what I meant though. What I meant is that the public process in the U.S. for free counsel (however it works in that state) handle the a disproportionate amount of criminal cases versus privately retained counsel. People plead guilty mostly because having a trial is risky regarding outcome.So you're saying that if every case went to trial vs a plea there wouldn't be a jump in court costs? I understand that the courts are pretty crowded already I'd think that if everyone went to trial that it would put the demand up. Just to be clear I'm talking about the costs to the state not to the individual.Nobody would plea out then, even if they were guilty, everything would go to trial and court costs would be through the roof.Not really. The court costs are only assessed against the defendant if they plead guilty or are found guilty. The state already bears the vast majority of costs in criminal defense through the 6th Amendment right to counsel. States handle that in various ways; from judicial appointment of counsel to professional public defender systems.
Pleas of guilty vs. trials are usually more about mitigation of risk.
My father works parole. He has a lot of people on his case list because of overworked busy public defender or people who plead guilty because they couldn't afford anything better than a public defender.
The bolded part concerns me the most and why I want guilty pleas to either be removed or not offer reduced sentences.
Because they told him so? Removing plea bargains will hurt defendants far more than it will the state.
Ah! I misunderstood you again. Yes, automatic maximums would be a horrible idea. It would remove a ton of the discretion for evaluating the severity of an individual action.
I don't like it when innocent people feel that taking a guilty plea would be better than going to trail and defending themselves.
I don't care if the lack of a guilty plea would freeze the courts. That should expose problems with our legal system, not be justification for plea deals.
I know. I just don't think it's worth getting him in trouble for, plus he had some legitimate points in there too. It's just not nice.That's why we have the flagging system. Hint, hint.If they did we wouldn't be charging kids for the creation of child pornography for texting pictures of their junk to their BF or GF.This happens. But don't call people dumb. It doesn't help your case.Flagging gets the attention of a mod to look at that post. It either leads to the post being removed or/and the thread being locked should the post violate forum rules.
Right. I also understand that if you get flagged too much there may be suspensions involved. But I also didn't want to risk your post being removed because but for those three words you were making cogent points. Even if I disagreed with some of them. :-)
Ah! I misunderstood you again. Yes, automatic maximums would be a horrible idea. It would remove a ton of the discretion for evaluating the severity of an individual action.I don't like it when innocent people feel that taking a guilty plea would be better than going to trail and defending themselves.
I don't care if the lack of a guilty plea would freeze the courts. That should expose problems with our legal system, not be justification for plea deals.
They MOST often plead guilty because they are, in fact, guilty. We have trials that we win despite the fact they are guilty. *shrug*
]She should get a rape kit done. Then she has loads of medical evidence that she was raped and performed an action that showed she felt raped.Devil's advocate says: Or they had consensual rough sex, and then she decided to f#+@ him one more time, albeit in a more metaphorical sense.
True, but the effort barrier to falsely accuse someone of rape goes WAY up. That would mitigate the damages.
They MOST often plead guilty because they are, in fact, guilty. We have trials that we win despite the fact they are guilty. *shrug*Ah! I misunderstood you again. Yes, automatic maximums would be a horrible idea. It would remove a ton of the discretion for evaluating the severity of an individual action.I don't like it when innocent people feel that taking a guilty plea would be better than going to trail and defending themselves.
I don't care if the lack of a guilty plea would freeze the courts. That should expose problems with our legal system, not be justification for plea deals.
Key word is MOST. I don't like the fact that you didn't use the word ALL. I value preserving the peace of innocent people over punishing guilty people in a timely manner.
EDIT: Somehow our legal system is created such that innocent people can go to prison and guilty people can go free. Doctors would rarely administer a test that had both false positives and negatives. That test would be useless.
Markthus,
How many false rape accusations are there? As you're quite prepared to rubbish officials stats and insult the people using them, which ones are you using to determine the scale of this problem?
Do tell, how do you record false-rape charges that are never proven to be false?
Stats about false-rape charges are inherently useless.
The scale of the problem is unimportant. People should be innocent until proven guilty. For most crimes in the US this holds true, but for some odd reason we like to assume that rapist are guilty until proven innocent. To catch more rapist we have been willing to throw innocent people in prison.
I do not approve of even 1 innocent person being falsely convicted and I would vote that way on a jury. I require actual proof before I find someone guilty of a crime.
It doesn't have to be a large problem for it to be an important one. If our legal system is throwing innocent men in prison for a rape they did not commit, that is wrong and completely undermines the integrity of our legal system.
Markthus,
How many false rape accusations are there? As you're quite prepared to rubbish officials stats and insult the people using them, which ones are you using to determine the scale of this problem?
Sorry to butt in-here are the stats you're looking for. Even the British Home Office seems to think roughly 8% of rape claims are illegitimate.
It's by far not a majority case, but it's hardly statistically insignificant. It's one in 12, roughly.
I'd also like to point out from personal experience that false rape claims are often not brought to the police, because the accuser knows he/she will be found out and they just want revenge. I've had two past exes tell me they were going to tell their family I raped them so that male family members would assault me.
They MOST often plead guilty because they are, in fact, guilty. We have trials that we win despite the fact they are guilty. *shrug*Ah! I misunderstood you again. Yes, automatic maximums would be a horrible idea. It would remove a ton of the discretion for evaluating the severity of an individual action.I don't like it when innocent people feel that taking a guilty plea would be better than going to trail and defending themselves.
I don't care if the lack of a guilty plea would freeze the courts. That should expose problems with our legal system, not be justification for plea deals.
Key word is MOST. I don't like the fact that you didn't use the word ALL. I value preserving the peace of innocent people over punishing guilty people in a timely manner.
EDIT: Somehow our legal system is created such that innocent people can go to prison and guilty people can go free. Doctors would rarely administer a test that had both false positives and negatives. That test would be useless.
I said most because I don't want to be disingenuous. Name a human endeavor which is 100% full proof. I'm pretty ok that more guilty people go free than innocent people go to jail. I'm pretty firmly convinced that's the case. (I mean this in the broad sense, not in the particular case of rape, although, and I'm sorry folks, but inclusive thereof despite finding the crime particularly unconscionable.)
|
Marthkus,
Every single medical test ever produced ever is less than 100% effective and produces false positives and false negatives. Every single one. The fact that you don't know that is worrying. I wonder how you'd convict on probablistic evidence like DNA which also produces false postivie matches, albeit at a very low rate.
Meatrace,
Thanks. I'm familiar with the statistics. However, those are the ones Marthkus says are wrong and anyone using them is dumb. Of course he doesn't have any of his own to back up, so we'll make do with what we've got.
On those statistics, a third of a percent of rape accusations lead to an innocent person being convicted, while 88% lead to a guilty person going free, perhaps we could do a bit more to tackle the latter problem than the former? Even if we assume the figures are out by as much again, i.e. they only capture half of false accusations reported to the police, which seems a little on the depressing side, that's 0.7% vs 80%. Again, which one seems the bigger problem to you? I'm open to suggestions as the problem is fairly intractable at the moment.
Sorry to butt in-here are the stats you're looking for. Even the British Home Office seems to think roughly 8% of rape claims are illegitimate.Markthus,
How many false rape accusations are there? As you're quite prepared to rubbish officials stats and insult the people using them, which ones are you using to determine the scale of this problem?
Did you read further where after closer analysis it moved the percentage down to 3% & it specifically stated that a notable proportion of the difference was due to bias on the part of the investigating officers?
I can't believe this thread is still going strong. Well I guess I can.
It should be pointed out that in rape cases, the history, especially the sexual history, of the defendant gets brought up. I think there have been changes in some places to try to deter this, but in the past its often been the intent of the defense to prove the alleged rapee was a slut so she wouldn't have been raped and it was consensual.
The defendant would be the person accused of rape. Most states have rape shield laws which prevent talking about the sexual history of the victim.
|
|
Depends on the circumstances. If you're trying to tell family members apart, the rate of false postives rsies depending on the exact test and how closely related they are. Obviously identical twins are a nightmare for DNA testing.
I'd also point out that 99.97% means that, in the world of 7 billion people, there are 2, 100, 000 people who would yield a positive match (assuming all DNA sequences are equally likely for simplicity). So it's hardly proof positive of guilt on its own, although it is pretty powerful evidence when combined with others as it is normally.
On those statistics, a third of a percent of rape accusations lead to an innocent person being convicted, while 88% lead to a guilty person going free, perhaps we could do a bit more to tackle the latter problem than the former? Even if we assume the figures are out by as much again, i.e. they only capture half of false accusations reported to the police, which seems a little on the depressing side, that's 0.7% vs 80%. Again, which one seems the bigger problem to you? I'm open to suggestions as the problem is fairly intractable at the moment.
I have no idea what statistics you're quoting. They certainly can't be found on the page I linked. Care to share?
If we're talking about Britain, this article from the guardian seems to indicate that 63% of rape cases result in a conviction. I don't know where your 12% is coming from.
|
|
I was taking the oft-quoted in this thread 4% of rape allegations lead to a conviction. Then using the 1/12 are false to work out the percentages that are false positive and false negative.
So, 4% allegations convicted*1/12 are false =0.33% of all allegations mean an innocent person is convicted. (False positive)
The other is by applying the 11/12 to the 96% and seeing that means 88% of the total are rapes that happened that aren't prosecuted (false negative).
The difference between 4% and 63% is likely that only cases with a s@~# ton of evidence go from allegation to case as the Crown Prosecution Service only brings cases it thinks have a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.
Did you read further where after closer analysis it moved the percentage down to 3% & it specifically stated that a notable proportion of the difference was due to bias on the part of the investigating officers?Sorry to butt in-here are the stats you're looking for. Even the British Home Office seems to think roughly 8% of rape claims are illegitimate.Markthus,
How many false rape accusations are there? As you're quite prepared to rubbish officials stats and insult the people using them, which ones are you using to determine the scale of this problem?
Did you notice that there are over a dozen studies on record, of which the 3% is basically the extreme low end of the scale.
Given that some studies estimate 25%, 38% or even 45%, I think sticking with 8% is a fair compromise for the sake of debate, don't you?
Back on the original topic (I know! Crazy, right?) I read through this TofuTofu guys whole reddit guide. There's some screwed up stuff in there, but it isn't all bad. Unlike the earlier kind of crap like this espoused by people like that Mystery guy that was on VH1 he seems to see the end goal of this as getting a girlfriend. He definitely encourages pushing some boundaries that are inappropriate. Some of his early homework assignments though are things like telling 10 random women in a week that they're beautiful. Or make yourself look at women and wonder what they are about, not if they'll sleep with you. Not earth shattering negatives. Another is to go to a busy bar and start a conversation with 5 women or groups of women.
It's just hard to get past some of the advice on physical escalation. Yuck.
I was taking the oft-quoted in this thread 4% of rape allegations lead to a conviction. Then using the 1/12 are false to work out the percentages that are false positive and false negative.
So, 4% allegations convicted*1/12 are false =0.33% of all allegations mean an innocent person is convicted. (False positive)
The other is by applying the 11/12 to the 96% and seeing that means 88% of the total are rapes that happened that aren't prosecuted (false negative).The difference between 4% and 63% is likely that only cases with a s$!@ ton of evidence go from allegation to case as the Crown Prosecution Service only brings cases it thinks have a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.
I still have no clue what statistics you're quoting. Link?
Your math seems funny, since the 4% of whatever is in dispute (unsourced).The thing is, at this point you're looking at absence of evidence AS evidence, and that's a dangerous road to go down. If you say "well, who knows how many rapes actually go to trial, and how many of those are even reported" you can't conclude that it's some arbitrarily huge number because it fits your narrative. And the problem is that we DON'T know those things.
|
|
Meatrace,
The 4% figure is the one given multiple times in this thread of 4% of allegations made to the police end in a conviction. The 8% figure you found is 8% of allegations made to the police are known to be false, if I've read it correctly. I went from there to give incerdibly crude estimates of expected false positive and negative rates.
I could well be completely wrong or have misread something. I have not followed this topic in detail and so the 4% figure could be referring to something else or it could be false.
Meatrace,
The 4% figure is the one given multiple times in this thread of 4% of allegations made to the police end in a conviction. The 8% figure you found is 8% of allegations made to the police are known to be false, if I've read it correctly. I went from there to give incerdibly crude estimates of expected false positive and negative rates.I could well be completely wrong or have misread something. I have not followed this topic in detail and so the 4% figure could be referring to something else or it could be false.
There was a 4% figure, but I thought that was referring to rapes that were actually reported. And I don't believe it was sourced.
Alls I'm saying. No fault on you, I get what you were trying to do, but before we start deriving new statistics from manipulating old ones we should confirm what the 4% was in reference to and what study it was from.
Marthkus,
Every single medical test ever produced ever is less than 100% effective and produces false positives and false negatives. Every single one. The fact that you don't know that is worrying. I wonder how you'd convict on probablistic evidence like DNA which also produces false postivie matches, albeit at a very low rate.
That's not entirely true. Medical test are designed to lean on the side of no false positives or no false negatives. In extreme cases a test designed to give no false positives may give a false positive (less than .1%). Any test that equally produces false positives and negatives is a bad test. The fact that you don't know this is worrying.
What concerns me is that our legal system seems to equally distribute the false positives and negatives. Innocent people people go to prison and guilty people go free pretty regularly. Our system was suppose to lean on the side of no false positives. Yet whenever the crime is something like rape we seem to care more about catching the guilty than making sure innocent people are not wrongly convicted.