Rape kit system unnecessary since most accusations false, Idaho sheriff says

[Anonymous1038853]

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition. It doesn't designated which party is the victim in the definition. Unless there is some grammatical rule I have forgotten, who the victim is is ambiguous.

Forced envelopment is not considered rape under this definition.

*Edit: I stand corrected by my own research. It is considered rape in an official capacity, as confirmed by an FBI correspondent. However, the surrounding technical documentation does not outline this fact with an example. Additionally, organizations like the CDC and National Research Council do make distinctions between forced envelopment and rape. As such my point is mitigated, but still stands.

[Mehrunes]

The part where people push the "Not guilty doesn't mean innocent" garbage.

It's the legal reality. The courts don't hand out "innocent" verdicts for a reason. Not guilty verdict means that the presumption of innocence continues.

Unless, you want to explain why there is nothing wrong for treating a woman like a lying skank if she fails to convict?

I haven't made a statement like that so I'm not sure why I should explain it now But we shouldn't treat women that fail to convict like lying skanks because failure to convict is not proof of lying on her part.

[Dextroden]

It's the legal reality. The courts don't hand out "innocent" verdicts for a reason. Not guilty verdict means that the presumption of innocence continues.




I haven't made a statement like that so I'm not sure why I should explain it now But we shouldn't treat women that fail to convict like lying skanks because failure to convict is not proof of lying on her part.

And being on trial doesn't mean your guilty of shit, either. But, if it's fine to treat the accused as guilty no matter the verdict, then it should be fine to treat the accuser like a lying whore.

Equality.

[gamingmuscle]

Forced envelopment is not considered rape under this definition.

Why, it is still penetration against the will of the victim. The definition does not tie the one being penetrated as being the victim.

[Independent voter]

One of the most controversial disputes affecting the discourse related to violence against
women is the dispute about the frequency of false allegations of sexual assault. In an effort
to add clarity to the discourse, published research on false allegations is critiqued, and the
results of a new study described. All cases (N= 136) of sexual assault reported to a major
Northeastern university over a 10-year period are analyzed to determine the percentage of
false allegations. Of the 136 cases of sexual assault reported over the 10-year period, 8 (5.9%)
are coded as false allegations. These results, taken in the context of an examination of
previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%.

136 cases studied over 10 years, 8 were found to be false allegations. False rape accusations are no where near the epidemic some of you are saying.

[Mehrunes]

I don't think this entire thread knows what LEGALLY INNOCENT, but okay. You may have commited the crime which happens occasionally*** but the criminal record in our society is really all that matters***

-when acquitted do you get a criminal record? no

-morality does not matter in law

-@ the guy who saw i dont know how our legal system works if you don't under that then he does not understand the most important part

Considering that you entered this thread with:

it is false, the person has been proven innocent by the court system right?

Which already contains two factually incorrect statements and that you insisted that you enter the trial as innocent, when in reality you're presumed to be innocent, which you somehow can't comprehend, I'll maintain that you do not understand law. Sorry.

And being on trial doesn't mean your guilty of shit, either.

Where the hell have I said so?

But, if it's fine to treat the accused as guilty no matter the verdict, then it should be fine to treat the accuser like a lying whore.

Or this? The whole idea of presumption of innocence means that you're to be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. You're projecting things I haven't said on me because you evidently don't understand what I'm talking about.

[Eats Compost]

And thus they are still assumed innocent. You have to prove guilt. You don't just get to assume it because a case was acquitted or never even reached a court.

In this context, I think the point is that a not guilty verdict wouldn't really mean that the there was a "false" rape allegation.

Example; there's a he-said, she-said rape trial. For the sake of argument, let's just assume that the rape did happen and the circumstances reflect this, but there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and they are found not guilty. Sounds like something that can happen commonly enough, right?

Now, let's also assume that making a false rape allegation is a crime as well, and that the girl goes to court for this. It's fairly reasonable to assume that there would be insufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the circumstances reflected what actually happened, and so the court would find that she was not guilty of making a false rape allegation. So, we'd be in a situation where the guy was accused of rape but found to be not guilty in the eyes of the law, and yet simultaneously the girl is not guilty of making a false rape allegation. The two aren't contradictory, there just happened to be insufficient evidence for both. This is where the whole "not guilty doesn't automatically make it a false allegation" thing comes from.

This may not have been the point you were contesting, but it was the point that redtower and fartman contested, which is why Mooneye was bringing it up.

[Mehrunes]

Well, when the definition of rape largely precludes the consideration of female perpetrators...

The best part is how the definition was changed to be more inclusive :3

[Anonymous1038853]

Why, it is still penetration against the will of the victim. The definition does not tie the one being penetrated as being the victim.

You're correct. I've updated my post above. However, there are still prominent organizations (eg: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) which do not classify forced envelopment as rape. Additionally, the technical documentation outlining how local authorities should document instances under this new definition do not present forced envelopment as a functional example. As such, my point stands: The overarching semantics surrounding rape largely precludes the consideration of female perpetrators. As such, it should be no surprise when people find that the majority of documented perpetrators are male. I mean, the previous definition of rape explicitly impeded the consideration of male victims. Ultimately, "Men = Rapists & Women = Victims" is not an accurate reflection of reality. It is a harmful oversimplification..

[Mehrunes]

And thus they are still assumed innocent. You have to prove guilt. You don't just get to assume it because a case was acquitted or never even reached a court.

She didn't actually argue otherwise in that post.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Honest question here but do they keep a record of false reports? I always see a bunch of different numbers that I suspect they are pulled out of peoples asses at this point.

I would consider any rape case that does not end in a guilty verdict or a conviction to be false.

You don't seem to know what an acquittal is.

[A dot Ham]

Even in the "he said, she said" cases? Where there is not enough evidence? I would consider those a draw at least.

What?

We don't have "draws" in our legal system. Its guilty, or not guilty. If there isn't/sufficient evidence its not a draw... its not guilty.

This ladies and gentleman is why jury selection is so important... because some people don't grasp simple concepts.

[Bodakane]

so you consider a case where there is NOT enough evidence, to be a draw? that's not remotely retarded... right there you lost ALL credibility.

if there isn't enough evidence to raise charges, in 2016, with all the technical shit we have in criminal forensics? then I call bullshit.

no hair/skin on the bed/clothing? no dna inside, no skin under the nails... etc etc.

I would wager the amount of cases that are simply dropped due to false claims is higher then gathered in any report. I mean, I assume these numbers are based on where charges are bought against the accuser after they find out it's false?

either way, this is going to go nowhere, some people are stupid enough to think every female deserves instant trust when they make these claims, not realizing that even a claim against a guy can ruin his life.. even if he did nothing wrong. people who expect the justice system countries and civilisations are founded on to break their 'innocent until proven guilty' status just for them!

idiocy.


~It's as stupid as that south african story about the woman who claims she was raped in the shower, but the dna evidence was 'washed away'... that's not how DNA works..

WTF?

You know a victim may not report the rape right away right? You know the victim can be restrained and the rapist use precautions?

Seriously what fucking planet is this?

- - - Updated - - -

What?

We don't have "draws" in our legal system. Its guilty, or not guilty. If there isn't/sufficient evidence its not a draw... its not guilty.

This ladies and gentleman is why jury selection is so important... because some people don't grasp simple concepts.

Learn to read.

Hubcap isn't talking calling it a draw in a court of law, he/she's talking about in classifying for stats purposes.

Seriously, the Trumpheads are getting to absurd levels.

[Eats Compost]

What?

We don't have "draws" in our legal system. Its guilty, or not guilty. If there isn't/sufficient evidence its not a draw... its not guilty.

This ladies and gentleman is why jury selection is so important... because some people don't grasp simple concepts.

The courts do not make a binary "they did it/they didn't do it" decision. They make a "it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they did it/it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they did it" decision. Note that the latter never ends up affirming that the defendant never did it.

[meian]

Now that I am done with Gohmertian clown fiesta, on the original topic I would like to say this. Rape kits absolutely should be done in every instance of accused rape. Done AND processed. It's almost impossible to actually get a rape conviction without a kit done unless there is video evidence or multiple eye witnesses that cannot be called into question. The earlier study is absolutely correct. The idea that there are all these false reports getting filed is utter bullshit and is the same tier of argument as the "pro-lifers" arguing against abortion because they heard somewhere at some point that someone was using it as a form of birth control.

Here's how that goes down. "I was raped." "Ok, do you have evidence of this taking place?" "No." "Ok, submit to a rape kit being done so that we can gather evidence." "I don't want to." "Ok, we aren't going to investigate because we have nothing to go on. If you change your mind try to do it within the time frame that we can get valid samples." If anything the victim is pushed away by the overall coldness of the questions.

I heard someone mention a thing where there are reports of some women saying they were raped as an excuse for being late to work. Their boss is a moron if they just let that slide as is. Make sure they are getting a clinical appointment to get checked up even if they don't want it to be investigated for their own reasons. Getting raped is a big deal. You don't know if that person had some type disease that could've been transferred over. It could change whether or not your employee is able to fulfill their duties depending on what field it is. Make them go get their blood work done and not come back to work until they have a doctor's note. If something really did happen then it is the right thing to do for your employee because their health comes first. If they are trying to get out of being late, that is a LOT of trouble and incurred cost just to try to get away with being irresponsible. More than likely these cases are as legit as the source of this quote.

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

Edit: The reason I emphasized processed is because in the case of the Cleveland Strangler, if rape kits had been processed and there wasn't a colossal backlog he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people as he did. That whole case was a train wreck. Here's an interesting documentary for those of you with some time and an interest in either serial killers or what lack of funding does to our justice system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WymiIAVczso

[Dextroden]

Considering that you entered this thread with:


Which already contains two factually incorrect statements and that you insisted that you enter the trial as innocent, when in reality you're presumed to be innocent, which you somehow can't comprehend, I'll maintain that you do not understand law. Sorry.




Where the hell have I said so?




Or this? The whole idea of presumption of innocence means that you're to be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. You're projecting things I haven't said on me because you evidently don't understand what I'm talking about.

You personally haven't. I'm just asking you to justify treating people as guilty despite no proof or a not guilty verdict.

Eventually, a woman will end up on trial for falsely accusing someone of rape. And, with a pretty good chance, they're going to be ripped apart before the trial and painted as a liar if they get not guilty verdict. And then, people will fucking magically give a shit about how treating defendants go.

And I won't give a shit about it occuring because I'll be busy wondering "What happened to all of this being fine, guys?"

[Simulacrum]

Considering how many people buy into definitions of rape that produce stats that say that 1 in 5 or even 1 in 4 women in the US get raped, I wouldn't be surprised if what he said, that "the majority of our rapes that are called in are actually consensual sex", is actually true.

[Speaknoevil]

I would consider any rape case that does not end in a guilty verdict or a conviction to be false.

And people wonder why so many rape victims don't bother to go to the police. Only about 7% of accused rapists spend a day in jail.

Nothing like scrutiny, judgment and suspicion right after being raped from the people that are supposed to be there to help you amirite?

[Mehrunes]

Learn to read.

Hubcap isn't talking calling it a draw in a court of law, he/she's talking about in classifying for stats purposes.

Seriously, the Trumpheads are getting to absurd levels.

Except there's much higher probability that Hubcap was referring to "I would consider any rape case that does not end in a guilty verdict or a conviction to be false." part of that post and not "Honest question here but do they keep a record of false reports? I always see a bunch of different numbers that I suspect they are pulled out of peoples asses at this point." Which not only isn't about classification for any purposes, but about court verdicts. The last two sentences of his post make little sense in the context of the latter.

[A dot Ham]

The courts do not make a binary "they did it/they didn't do it" decision. They make a "it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they did it/it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they did it" decision. Note that the latter never ends up affirming that the defendant never did it.

Thank you for defining guilty and not guilty...