B Kavanough and MeToo

[J.C.MacSwell]

54 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is an important point, to which there are currently no solutions. Partially, because only fairly recent it has been seen to be an issue. To date there are only two larger reports (UK and Australia) who have looked at why reporting rates are low and even in cases of reports, why many women withdraw before the full trial.

One thing that we can do, without changes in the legal system per se, is to remove the social stigma of rape victims or the taboo surrounding sexual violence. A big issue has been the fact that victims are seen as damaged goods, that it is their fault (e.g. for getting drunk or having a promiscuous lifestyle) or that they are just too weak and/or cannot be raped in the first place (mostly men). As long as these stigma persist and/or if certain folks attack the victims for not behaving in a certain way (reporting right away, trying to downplay the situation in an effort to regain control etc.). 

A second aspects that is relevant is that the reports have highlighted that law enforcement may be another gatekeeper. Typically young victims or victims from lower social status or vulnerable groups are not considered trustworthy by default. That makes them ideal victims as rarely there are any follow-ups. 

A general issue here is also that many are assuming that folks need to be protected from accusations as the first response. Which means the bar for investigations are raised as the default assumption is that the accused is innocent and therefore the accuser must be lying. Even if law enforcement tries to neutrally address this situation, the stigmata regarding the situation result in far larger polarization than in other crimes. Much again because of the stigma surrounding sexual vs "regular" violence.

That's essentially what the positive aspects of the #MeToo movement is about. It's unfortunate that some have taken it to extremes, at least in their rhetoric, often for short term political gain.

It might work, but it may also backfire (the extremes, not referring to your well written post, which I agree with). The vast majority are not on the extreme left or extreme right. How will they vote in this upcoming election? The ones not swept up by the rhetoric will have a choice of supporting this extreme rhetoric on the left, a (relatively) more moderate position on the right that is lead by a rude narcissistic egomaniac...or not vote at all.

Tough times.

Hopefully they get it right, and for the right reasons, in 2020 because it is not looking good for anyone right now.

Edited October 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[NicholaiRen]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Hopefully they get it right, and for the right reasons, in 2020 because it is not looking good for anyone right now.

 

I suspect the Republican party gained massive ground during the Kavanaugh trials.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That is an important point, to which there are currently no solutions. Partially, because only fairly recent it has been seen to be an issue. To date there are only two larger reports (UK and Australia) who have looked at why reporting rates are low and even in cases of reports, why many women withdraw before the full trial.

One thing that we can do, without changes in the legal system per se, is to remove the social stigma of rape victims or the taboo surrounding sexual violence. A big issue has been the fact that victims are seen as damaged goods, that it is their fault (e.g. for getting drunk or having a promiscuous lifestyle) or that they are just too weak and/or cannot be raped in the first place (mostly men). As long as these stigma persist and/or if certain folks attack the victims for not behaving in a certain way (reporting right away, trying to downplay the situation in an effort to regain control etc.). 

A second aspects that is relevant is that the reports have highlighted that law enforcement may be another gatekeeper. Typically young victims or victims from lower social status or vulnerable groups are not considered trustworthy by default. That makes them ideal victims as rarely there are any follow-ups. 

This is something that not only do I agree with, but I'd openly advocate doing.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Which means the bar for investigations are raised as the default assumption is that the accused is innocent and therefore the accuser must be lying.

This is where I'd disagree with you, however, only slightly.

I think the default assumption should still be innocent until proven guilty, and I think I and others have made the argument already why we believe this.

If the assumption is leaning towards innocent at any given time, then that's biased in my opinion. It should be neutral, however, unless evidence is provided, presumed innocent.

[Ten oz]

52 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

the assumption is leaning towards innocent at any given time, then that's biased in my opinion. It should be neutral, however, unless evidence is provided, presumed innocent.

People are being sanctimonious about the innocent till proven guilty standard. Here in the U.S. people have the right to a defense but are still arrested in advance of being able to launch that defense during trial. Those without enough financial means for bail or whom are considered flight risks stand trial from custody. In the U.S. people who are merely suspected of a crime can be tasered, peppered sprayed, and even killed by police if they don't cooperate as ordered. Being innocent till proven guilty doesn't mean one is treated "neutral". People are perp walked out of their homes in handcuffs in front of all their neighbors and often threated into plea deals. The U.S. has the highest prison population in the world. Millions of people are in prison. Most were treated in an inequitable manner at some stage in the process but that isn't who we are all talking about with all the innocent till proven guilty stuff. Rather we are talking about theoretical situations where an innocent man might be falsely accused of of sexual misconduct by a woman.  

Edited October 8, 2018 by Ten oz

[mistermack]

What proportion of murderers  who get executed are actually innocent? Probably about 2 percent or less. So should we allow the present situation to continue, where the 98 percent guilty ones are allowed to live? That's the same argument.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a ludicrous argument. You don't countenance false convictions based on probabilities. I can't believe Ten Oz is actually writing that stuff.

We all know and accept that some guilty people get away with crimes. It's a sad fact of life. If there was a simple way to stop it, it would have been done by now. The phrase "reasonable doubt" is the best we can come up with, to try to define where to draw the line. It means that some innocent people get convicted, and a lot of guilty people get off.

Anybody who can actually do better than that will be doing the world a great service. Maybe in the future, there will be a truth drug, or lie detector, that actually works. Till then, we're stuck with what we've got.

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

If the assumption is leaning towards innocent at any given time, then that's biased in my opinion. It should be neutral, however, unless evidence is provided, presumed innocent.

I think here there is a difference between judicial procedure (i.e. when the case gets to court) and the procedures up to that point. Obviously, prosecution has to make a case that the person is in fact not innocent. I.e. the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. However, even in trials, this concept is fuzzy in execution. Studies with mock trials have found that the presumption of innocence is, at best, rather tenuous. 

 

Outside of trials, the rules are even less clear. Police, for example, do act on suspicion that they have, even though (or perhaps specifically because) it is not their role to determeine guilt or innocence. In fact, in the US at least, they are trained to make quick assessments of guilt for interrogations. At best, law enforcement is an arbitrator evaluating the weight of accuser and accused and from there determine whether and how they proceed. The big issue here is the criteria folks apply (consciously and unconsciously) to assess the reliability of victims. Psychological work has helped to explain why, for example, not reporting immediately is a rather common occurrence, or why rape victims do not necessarily have to have defensive wounds. But much has not penetrated the mindset thoroughly enough.

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What proportion of murderers  who get executed are actually innocent? Probably about 2 percent or less. So should we allow the present situation to continue, where the 98 percent guilty ones are allowed to live? That's the same argument.

I am against capital punishment. Not out of fear of innocent people being executed but out of a basic belief that it is amoral to kill people who are in custody and pose no threat. 

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

As far as I'm concerned, it's a ludicrous argument. You don't countenance false convictions based on probabilities. I can't believe Ten Oz is actually writing that stuff.

Probabilities aren't used to convict people but they are used to investigate people all the time. When a woman goes missing the initial suspect is always the spouse or boyfriend. You are conflating investigating someone with convicting someone. 

28 minutes ago, mistermack said:

We all know and accept that some guilty people get away with crimes. It's a sad fact of life.

I would refer to the majority of rapists as "some guilty people". It is a whole lot of guilty people. Too many to just shrug off part of making an omelette.

30 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Anybody who can actually do better than that will be doing the world a great service. Maybe in the future, there will be a truth drug, or lie detector, that actually works. Till then, we're stuck with what we've got.

If law enforcement relayed on people confessing prisons would have a whole lot less people in them. Most criminals are also liars. 

[NicholaiRen]

41 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If law enforcement relayed on people confessing prisons would have a whole lot less people in them. Most criminals are also liars. 

I'm pretty sure that's why he mentioned truth serum and lie detectors. Maybe I'm wrong though. Otherwise, this makes no sense.

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Probabilities aren't used to convict people but they are used to investigate people all the time. When a woman goes missing the initial suspect is always the spouse or boyfriend. You are conflating investigating someone with convicting someone. 

Huh. That's odd. I could have sworn you said we should believe women because that's the statistical likely hood on who is telling the truth.

You know, when you kept repeating that part about us being scared of innocent men being convicted when @J.C.MacSwell and I kept saying we can't abandon "Innocent until proven guilty".

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

People are being sanctimonious about the innocent till proven guilty standard.

For the final time:

What do you want us to do about the innocent until proven guilty part?

Yes. You've repeatedly said the same thing over and over and over and over again. But what do you specifically want to do in regards to "innocent until proven guilty"? You haven't given a straight answer yet and I'm starting to think you just want to complain that life isn't perfect when it comes to these things. If you can't give any better idea of what to do, then you really have no reason to complain about those who support this idea.

 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

I'm pretty sure that's why he mentioned truth serum and lie detectors. Maybe I'm wrong though. Otherwise, this makes no sense.

Huh. That's odd. I could have sworn you said we should believe women because that's the statistical likely hood on who is telling the truth.

You know, when you kept repeating that part about us being scared of innocent men being convicted when @J.C.MacSwell and I kept saying we can't abandon "Innocent until proven guilty".

For the final time:

What do you want us to do about the innocent until proven guilty part?

Yes. You've repeatedly said the same thing over and over and over and over again. But what do you specifically want to do in regards to "innocent until proven guilty"? You haven't given a straight answer yet and I'm starting to think you just want to complain that life isn't perfect when it comes to these things. If you can't give any better idea of what to do, then you really have no reason to complain about those who support this idea.

 

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

People are being sanctimonious about the innocent till proven guilty standard. Here in the U.S. people have the right to a defense but are still arrested in advance of being able to launch that defense during trial. Those without enough financial means for bail or whom are considered flight risks stand trial from custody. In the U.S. people who are merely suspected of a crime can be tasered, peppered sprayed, and even killed by police if they don't cooperate as ordered. Being innocent till proven guilty doesn't mean one is treated "neutral". People are perp walked out of their homes in handcuffs in front of all their neighbors and often threated into plea deals. The U.S. has the highest prison population in the world. Millions of people are in prison. Most were treated in an inequitable manner at some stage in the process but that isn't who we are all talking about with all the innocent till proven guilty stuff. Rather we are talking about theoretical situations where an innocent man might be falsely accused of of sexual misconduct by a woman.  

Innocent till proven guilty isn't an exemption from inconvenience.

[NicholaiRen]

I can do this all day. And night. And week. I will get an answer from you.

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Innocent till proven guilty isn't an exemption from inconvenience.

11 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

What do you want us to do about the innocent until proven guilty part?

 

 

[mistermack]

The thing about guilt by accusation is that everybody knows that a simple accusation can't backfire. If they were ever alone at any time with the target, nobody but them can actually know what happened. And even if they did by some miracle have witness evidence to clear the accused, decades after the event, that testimony would look as suspect and shaky as the accusation itself.

Kavanaugh is lucky that he's not a mega-rich celebrity. If he was, you would have had far more accusations by now. The chance of a huge payout, for just saying "me too" would be too good to miss. 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

The thing about guilt by accusation is that everybody knows that a simple accusation can't backfire.

This is a really good point, until we take a look at the actual scenario that triggered this whole discussion. Kavenaugh just got promoted to Justice of the Supreme Court after crying and lying and displaying serious questions of character and temperament, all while Ford is still unable to even return to her home due to continued persistent death threats.

I mean, you’re clearly and unquestionably right. Speaking up about sexual assault simply CANT backfire. I’m so glad someone is finally brave enough to say so. Kudos!

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410340-christine-blasey-ford-still-unable-to-live-at-home-due-to-death-threats

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is a really good point, until we take a look at the actual scenario that triggered this whole discussion. Kavenaugh just got promoted to Justice of the Supreme Court after crying and lying and displaying serious questions of character and temperament, all while Ford is still unable to even return to her home due to continued persistent death threats.

I mean, you’re clearly and unquestionably right. Speaking up about sexual assault simply CANT backfire. I’m so glad someone is finally brave enough to say so. Kudos!

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410340-christine-blasey-ford-still-unable-to-live-at-home-due-to-death-threats

Solid point, but why do you feel the need to include your opinion with respect to the bold? It has nothing to do with the point you are making.

There are significant risks to speaking out that can make it very difficult to do so, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. This is true regardless of how you view Kavanaugh.

Edited October 9, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[DirtyChai]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

15 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

So what are you advocating we do?

That is an important point, to which there are currently no solutions.

When looking for solutions, I've always found the CDC to be very helpful.  In 2016 they published one of the most comprehensive packages on the subject that I've ever seen, citing nearly 100 sources from 1973-2016.

Furthermore, their conclusion states that, "several innovative studies are currently in progress to uncover promising future directions for SV prevention work. As new programs, policies or practices are identified, evaluated, and shown to be effective, they will be added to this technical package."

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/SV-Prevention-Technical-Package.pdf

There is also an abundance of additional info on their website:

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/index.html

Relevant Quotes:
"Victims who work with advocates had more positive experiences with both the medical and legal systems, including increased reporting and receipt of medical care, and decreased feelings of distress"

"Other types of services include Sexual Assault Response Teams and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner programs."

 

Another study from 2013 explains Sexual Assault Response Teams in more detail:

https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/articles-reports/sexual-assault-response-team-sart-implementation-and-collaborative

Direct PDF Link: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243829.pdf

"Coordinated care models may also affect legal outcomes by altering the professional relationships among system personnel. In uncoordinated communities, system personnel lack “a fundamental understanding of ‘who does what’ and ‘who could do what’” (Campbell & Ahrens, 1998, pp. 562), which means that system personnel are largely unable to benefit from each other’s’ expertise. By contrast, coordinated trainings among forensic nurses, police, and prosecutors have been found to increase law enforcement investigational effort and efficacy, which in turn have contributed to increased prosecution rates."

While the CDC states that SARTs are "valuable and widely-used practices," they also note that they currently have not been rigorously evaluated and the need for more research is essential.

 

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

One thing that we can do, without changes in the legal system per se, is to remove the social stigma of rape victims or the taboo surrounding sexual violence

The CDC link above also recommends the promotion of social norms.  Programs like Bringing in the Bystander and Green Dot have shown a "19% lower rate of sexual harassment and stalking perpetration when compared to two non-intervention campuses."

Most of the CDC recommendations regarding the promotion of social norms are directed at peer groups within a more physical setting, but we have to start addressing the problem of promoting social norms through social media that are more often than not perpetuated by way of verbally barbed and polarizing appeals to emotion.  When are we going to realize that such tactics are counterproductive and just don't work?  Take Trump and Kavanaugh as a case in point. . .

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by DirtyChai
eliminated unnecessay redundacy

[mistermack]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Speaking up about sexual assault simply CANT backfire. I’m so glad someone is finally brave enough to say so. Kudos!

Rubbish point. Firstly, you're assuming she's unable to return to her home. Taking her word for it again. And secondly, the publicity is not as a result of her allegations. It's as a result of her choosing to go public with it. In the Washington Post. If you want your moment of fame, you have to deal with the consequences.

When I said it can't backfire, the context made it clear that I was talking about the legal consequences of the allegations being proved untrue. Nobody can disprove your story, if you are the only two people in the room. (but I'm sure you got that first time around, and were just strawing it up)

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Rubbish point. Firstly, you're assuming she's unable to return to her home. Taking her word for it again. And secondly, the publicity is not as a result of her allegations. It's as a result of her choosing to go public with it. In the Washington Post. If you want your moment of fame, you have to deal with the consequences.

When I said it can't backfire, the context made it clear that I was talking about the legal consequences of the allegations being proved untrue. Nobody can disprove your story, if you are the only two people in the room. (but I'm sure you got that first time around, and were just strawing it up)

Seeing this came from her Lawyers, who have been intentionally deceptive, she could be on vacation. She might have flown to a nice resort.

...or she might be scared. How would we know?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

the publicity is not as a result of her allegations. It's as a result of her choosing to go public with it.

Which is a central part of the actual problem being discussed throughout this thread.

Too often, when women come forward they are ignored, disbelieved, and their situation only becomes worse (lost opportunities at work, being seen as a troublemaker, outright threats of violence, even additional rape threats... the list goes on). 

Do you acknowledge any of this or are you content to remain willfully obtuse about it since one person may have lied once?

[NicholaiRen]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Justice of the Supreme Court after crying and lying and displaying serious questions of character and temperament,

 

You try sitting in front of the nation, on TV, as someone accuses you of being a monster with no evidence presented, while you also realize that because of this half the nation hates your guts, you'll never be looked at the same and that potentially, what you've worked your entire life to achieve could be about to disappear.

Men shouldn't cry, agreed. It shows a lack of strength as most news companies are pointing out, and a lot are comparing him to a blubbering baby girl for it. 

But under that? Look at it two ways. Either he is innocent or he is guilty. If he was innocent, can you blame him?

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

Either he is innocent or he is guilty. If he was innocent, can you blame him?

My instincts are that he is guilty, and yes. If he were innocent, I can blame him and wonder why he didn’t equally advocate for an investigation to support said innocence. 

I have no problem with men crying. I have a problem with someone seeking the highest judgeship in the land acting like a conspiratorial partisan hack during their PREPARED remarks. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

My instincts are that he is guilty, and yes. If he were innocent, I can blame him and wonder why he didn’t equally advocate for an investigation to support said innocence. 

Sure why wouldn't he run out and press charges against himself as well?

What exactly did she say that could be questioned to "support said innocence?

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[NicholaiRen]

 

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

My instincts are that he is guilty, and yes. If he were innocent, I can blame him and wonder why he didn’t equally advocate for an investigation to support said innocence. 

Damned if I do ya, damned if I don't.

 

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

If he were innocent, I can blame him and wonder why he didn’t equally advocate for an investigation to support said innocence. 

I don't pretend to know the reason he didn't want an investigation, however, I suspect it has something to do with his experience as a lawyer and knowing that just because you're not hiding what everyone thinks you are, there could easily be other things you don't want to them to see.

 

Edit: Or, as @J.C.MacSwell just made me think, there is another possible reason. Ford didn't provide any real evidence for what happened. No idea where no idea when not even an idea of who. She doesn't remember where it took place, or when. She remembers who was there, except first it was 4 guys, all named, then it was 3 guys and 1 girl, all named, and then it was 4 guys again, all named, but different from her original story. So they don't know.

     If he tried to launch an investigation, he as a lawyer himself would know it'd probably turn up inconclusive. What he also knew, is that the Democratic Party would try to use that investigation as an opportunity to scourge for any other possible dirt on him they could find to delay the process longer.

Edited October 9, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[iNow]

Fascinating then how many people spoke up saying they COULD corroborate her story, but whom the FBI ignored under direction from the WH. 

Either way, here we are. Yet again, rehashing what’s already been covered in excruciating detail over 17 pages. Mr. Ed is well and truly dead. 

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Solid point, but why do you feel the need to include your opinion with respect to the bold?

I’m grateful for your feedback, and felt it made the point stronger by reminding of the other issues at play that were also overcome. We’re under no obligation to agree, though. Cheers

23 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

No idea where no idea when not even an idea of who. She doesn't remember where it took place, or when. 

I won’t go so far as to say you’re lying, but each of these is untrue. 

[DrP]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

..... many people spoke up saying they COULD corroborate her story, but whom the FBI ignored under direction from the WH. 

How is that even legal?

[iNow]

Here’s an idea! Let’s do 17 MORE pages of thread making zero progress and confirming we have different opinions in the matter, sound good?

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fascinating then how many people spoke up saying they COULD corroborate her story, but whom the FBI ignored under direction from the WH. 

Either way, here we are. Yet again, rehashing what’s already been covered in excruciating detail over 17 pages. Mr. Ed is well and truly dead. 

I’m grateful for your feedback, and felt it made the point stronger by reminding of the other issues at play that were also overcome. We’re under no obligation to agree, though. Cheers

That often works. One of the reasons you have to look at evidence and not simply resort to listening to an emotional debate...

[iNow]

Just now, DrP said:

How is that even legal?

The President is the chief executive. The executive branch controls the justice department. The FBI is part of the justice dept.