Sexual assault: court case or STFU

[Halyon]

I can agree to the sentiment, but it's not a good reaction to have either. Real sexual assaults have a low report rate to begin with, and that's because people feel shamed and just don't feel good about dealing with it so soon after such a horrible experience.

But that can't be claimed 20 years after the fact. Fuck that shite. This #MeToo movement garbage is hurting the cause a lot more than helping it.

[Halyon]

The core problem here is that this isn't something with an easy fix. At the core, many cases of sexual assault involve 2 people, drunk, going into a room then coming out telling different stories. In the absence of physical evidence or other witnesses that's a really hard crime to prove. It's he said/she said.

Many movements recently have been trying to deal with this by lowering the standard of evidence required to find someone guilty, which is concerning because obviously you can't have accusation = guilt in any reasonable society.

No, most sexual assaults don't revolve around 'regret'. That's dumb, and watering it down like that doesn't do anyone any services.

[Halyon]

I think you read a different post. I never said a thing about regret. I was talking about the lack of evidence other than he-said she-said in many of these cases which makes it a fundamentally difficult crime to prosecute.

People going to bars (or a room), get drunk and fuck, then someone gets a stick up their ass is a 'regret' case. Those aren't the most common ones. They're the most drama-whore ones.

And yes, it's difficult to prosecute in the actual assault cases, mostly because handling the traumatic aftermath for the victim is very difficult. They want to shower, get away from the horrible transgression, but it erases the most damning, physical evidence that there is, other than if she scratched the perp and got their dna under her nails, but again, can't wash. They need to go straight to the authorities/hospital and get a rape kit done. Not a lot of people can stand doing that while in such an utterly vulnerable state, they just want to get as far away from the perp as possible, especially if they left anything behind...

[Endus]

They are therefore acting with incomplete information, and yet somehow you think that such decision making can be rational and not biased.

It's more that I see absolutely no reason to harshly restrict people's freedom of speech and the freedoms of the press because some people might make irrational and biased decisions.

Which is explicitly what you are arguing for.

If you somehow think that Bill and Hillary Clinton are not roundly hated for the endless shit that has been said of them via the media for literally years, then I attribute that to your apparently living in Canada. Down here in the United States I can assure you that most people with living brain cells saw Hillary losing the last election on the basis of that hatred alone. Hell, we're still investigating what really went down in terms of all of the false news via facebook, etc.

I don't even need to appeal to some kind of ability to mind-read an entire nation of people, like you just implicitly did.

I just need to point out that Hillary won the popular vote in that election, which pretty firmly quashes this idea that "most people" wouldn't vote for her on those grounds alone.

Especially since she wasn't the one who faced these accusations.

So spare me your supposed psychic knowledge. You're projecting your own biases, nothing more.

Right, because mob mentality isn't a thing psychologists actually talk about. Oh wait...

You haven't demonstrated any such going on, for one.

For two, that it can occur doesn't justify assaulting people's fundamental freedoms. Which is what you're arguing for. That people might be wrong, so we should aggressively restrict the media to only communicate what the government has deemed that the people can be shown.

[Louisa Bannon]

It's more that I see absolutely no reason to harshly restrict people's freedom of speech and the freedoms of the press...

I can see why you think I was calling for censorship, but I actually wasn't - just restraint. STFU isn't censorship, it's a call for someone to refrain from talking bullshit until they have something serious to say.

I just need to point out that Hillary won the popular vote in that election, which pretty firmly quashes this idea that "most people" wouldn't vote for her on those grounds alone.

Fine, maybe that's not most people. What shall we say instead 49% of the populace and the majority of the electoral college?

Dude, she lost. By the only metric that matters the loathing for the Clintons won out that day - they're still smearing the Clintons every chance they get. And it no longer matters! The GOP have a hit squad dedicated to talking shit about the Clintons as a media distraction. Trump uses this tactic himself when called out for wrong-doing. Just 10 hours ago he tweeted: "Crooked Hillary Clinton is the worst (and biggest) loser of all time. She just can’t stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years!"

If I were wrong, Trump would make the statement and...crickets. That shit only plays because almost half of the U.S. electorate despises the Clintons. I mean, fuck, I'm not going to read it but here: http://time.com/4550665/why-people-hate-the-clintons/

This isn't about whether that hatred is justified, just that it exists.

You haven't demonstrated any such going on, for one.

The obvious pile-on effect that is ongoing with every new allegation is not de facto the effect I am describing? "All the cool kids are doing it...so me too!"

I get that you're not unintelligent, but you can be pedantic to a point of absurdity in a lot of these threads.

[Garnier Fructis]

For example, naked opportunism and self interest. Sure, there are lots of other reasons, but that seems like the driver of a lot of the timing in politics.

To play devil's advocate, if someone had actually wronged me in a grievous manner like this, setting their political hopes on fire would pretty much maximize the payback.

Assuming that you were talking about accusations against political figures.

[Phlegethon]

It was a bit tongue in cheek. The point being that people seem more than ok with what's currently being practiced with well known individuals, but would rightly have a big problem with this if the practice moved down to the general population level.

It's clear I don't think that should be the case.
They already have the guilty until proven innocent (and then still getting convicted) in colleges and universities in the states by the way.

[XangXu]

I find it very ironic that women are so afraid to come out to the public after suffering, yet when they do the public treats the acused worse tha murderers.


If you are sexually harassed, say something THEN, not later. Victims have to stop being pathetic victims and start to seeking vengance. Revenge drifts further away the longer you wait.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Kind of reminds me of the Trial in Canada and the CBC Host.

[Runenwächter]

In Germany we had several prominent cases where the mens lives and livelihoods were ruined. Sometimes even prison time was served until it turned out the allegations were false. None of these women has serverd jail time and thats why I am most hesitant to believe the accuser becaues the accusation carries so much power over the accused.

Jörg Kachelmann is a very prominent case and no one wants to admit it but the evidence is out there, that when it comes to accusations about rape, journalistic integritiy and scepticism go right out of the window and everyone is an activist.

[Louisa Bannon]

I find it very ironic that women are so afraid to come out to the public after suffering, yet when they do the public treats the acused worse tha murderers.

I guess the positive takeaway in this terrible situation is at least not to stigmatize people coming forward with their allegations. That's very wrong. I've known a lot of woman that have claimed some level of abuse over the years, it's shocking really.

My point is only that the most correct forum for those grievances is a courtroom.