Support NeoGAF

[Goodstyle]

I often think that the media over-reports about false rape accusations, yes.

Someone should write something about this.

False rape accusations happen like 5-10% of the time, but half the articles I see on rape cases are instances where it didn't happen. Either they're articles that get a lot of hits, or there's a lot of writers who are more concerned about false accusations than actual rapes.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Someone should write something about this.

False rape accusations happen like 5-10% of the time, but half the articles I see on rape cases are instances where it didn't happen. Either they're articles that get a lot of hits, or there's a lot of writers who are more concerned about false accusations than actual rapes.

Are those articles about times where an accusation is proven false, or someone is declared not guilty in court? Because rape cases that don't go anywhere or end in not guilty verdicts absolutely make up more than 5-10% of cases.

At any rate, this was news when she made the accusations. Are you suggesting we should publicly report accusations but not follow up on the verdict if they go a certain way?

 

[Windam]

Seems pretty definitive if this is the case. Many of these seem easy to verify.

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

Glad about the verdict, though the woman herself does seem to need a psych evaluation.

Every false accusation that happens publicly should to be reported publicly. A wrongly and publicly accused person they deserve to be redeemed if the accusation turns out to be false. Every single such case should be reported, in my opinion.

This would be horrible. Can you imagine the number of lives that could be ruined by kneejerk reactions and vigilantism?

Not to mention, there are plenty of instances of people who are unable to recover and find work even after being found innocent in court. Why would anyone take a chance hiring them when they could pick someone with a clean slate?

 

[snap0212]

Someone should write something about this.

False rape accusations happen like 5-10% of the time, but half the articles I see on rape cases are instances where it didn't happen. Either they're articles that get a lot of hits, or there's a lot of writers who are more concerned about false accusations than actual rapes.

Perception. Crawl through Twitter, news sites and whatnot and you'll see that this is not the case at all.

 

[KHarvey16]

Are punitive damages calculated based on income? I'm assuming her wages will be garnished.

Punitive damages are intended to be punishment. A jury member was quoted as saying their intention was to send a message that this isn't ok to do. The state will limit it to $350k however. Compensatory damages were awarded separately and based on lost income and damage to his reputation. The article suggested this would be lowered from $3.4 million to $2 million (might be a difference in calculations). So instead of $8.4 million it will likely be $3.35 million total.

 

[snap0212]

Glad about the verdict, though the woman herself does seem to need a psych evaluation.



This would be horrible. Can you imagine the number of lives that could be ruined by kneejerk reactions and vigilantism?

Not to mention, there are plenty of instances of people who are unable to recover and find work even after being found innocent in court. Why would anyone take a chance hiring them when they could pick someone with a clean slate?

No no, I mean people who get accused publicly like in this case. Someone wants to accuse them publicly and it turns out the accuser is a liar? Report that.

 

[benicillin]

Are those articles about times where an accusation is proven false, or someone is declared not guilty in court?

Because rape cases that don't go anywhere or end in not guilty verdicts absolutely make up more than 5-10% of cases.

Are you saying that more than 5-10% (which is already on the high end of estimates) of rape cases that don't result in conviction are false?

 

[Khaos Kontrol]

I'm curious why it's so common for threads to be made about false rape accusations on GAF. I've noticed it a lot lately.

Er, I only noticed like two this entire year.

 

[Robdraggoo]

She actually isn't a West Point grad. She dropped out her junior year.

Thanks, I didn't see that part.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Are you saying that more than 5-10% (which is already on the high end of estimates) of rape cases that don't result in conviction are false?

I'm saying that more than 5-10% of rape cases either don't go anywhere or end in not guilty verdicts.

Was I not clear? Why are you suggesting that I said something different?

 

[benicillin]

I'm saying that more than 5-10% of rape cases either don't go anywhere or end in not guilty verdicts.

Was I not clear? Why are you suggesting that I said something different?

No I was just asking to clarify.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm saying that more than 5-10% of rape cases either don't go anywhere or end in not guilty verdicts.

Was I not clear? Why are you suggesting that I said something different?

You're both addressing different things.

 

[elrechazado]

The dollar amounts are likely meaningless, as she's probably judgement proof via bankruptcy.

 

[Cat Party]

That is a disgustingly huge jury award that is clearly meant to make women fear bringing allegations against powerful men. The juror even said so.

She is a shit person but that doesn't mean we should be happy at the result. Like the wedding photographer case from last week, defamation awards are getting out of hand and this is not good for society at large. The burden in civil trials is too low.

 

[Mysterious]

Did they even have sex?

 

[KHarvey16]

That is a disgustingly huge jury award that is clearly meant to make women fear bringing allegations against powerful men. The juror even said so.

No they didn't.

 

[elrechazado]

That is a disgustingly huge jury award that is clearly meant to make women fear bringing allegations against powerful men. The juror even said so.

She is a shit person but that doesn't mean we should be happy at the result. Like the wedding photographer case from last week, defamation awards are getting out of hand and this is not good for society at large. The burden in civil trials is too low.

No, it's meant to deter anyone from making false claims that have real consequences for Peoples' lives, careers, and businesses.

 

[Imperfected]

As batshit crazy as it makes her, I don't really like the fringe conspiracy theories like that being used to discredit her rape allegation. It should be taken on its own merits.

That said, if the statements she made are demonstrably untrue—like having a car and being able to drive it on campus—then that's enough to sink her credibility, Adam Lanza payoff or no.

If she had reasonable evidence (and they were making the argument that her lawyer did have evidence they were not really allowed to present), she should still be able to make a case. I would be interested to see what they weren't able to present.

If it purely comes down to "he said/she said", though, the fact that she also said some batshit crazy things certainly factors into her credibility.

 

[Surface of Me]

That is a disgustingly huge jury award that is clearly meant to make women fear bringing allegations against powerful men. The juror even said so.

She is a shit person but that doesn't mean we should be happy at the result. Like the wedding photographer case from last week, defamation awards are getting out of hand and this is not good for society at large. The burden in civil trials is too low.

Try to ruin someone's life and fail? Having your life ruined seems apt to me.

 

[Cat Party]

No they didn't.

Last sentence of the second paragraph in the quote in the OP. The message is clear to me, even if the juror didn't intend it.

No, it's meant to deter anyone from making false claims that have real consequences for Peoples' lives, careers, and businesses.

You're assuming the jury made the correct decision. I don't assume juries are going to make the right call. Note that the army didn't find either story to be corroborated.

To be clear, I don't believe or disbelieve the accuser. It's the obscene jury award that concerns me.

 

[Ascenion]

That is a disgustingly huge jury award that is clearly meant to make women fear bringing allegations against powerful men. The juror even said so.

She is a shit person but that doesn't mean we should be happy at the result. Like the wedding photographer case from last week, defamation awards are getting out of hand and this is not good for society at large. The burden in civil trials is too low.

It really isn't. Rapists are fucking vilified and rightfully so for being pieces of shit. You can't just walk back a rape accusation. A rape accusation is something we need society at large to generally take women at their word and make them feel more comfortable to tell so we can get these prices of shit behind bars. Things like what this lady did don't help anything. It just creates more doubt now which we really don't need. This is a lesson to anyone who'd dare lie about something like this as rare as that is.

 

[KHarvey16]

Last sentence of the second paragraph in the quote in the OP. The message is clear to me, even if the juror didn't intend it.

But that isn't what they said at all. You're being disingenuous.

It's a civil trial and they overwhelmingly believed he showed she acted maliciously, with intent, to harm his reputation and career with false accusations. His side completely blew up her story in several key ways.

The punitive damages were intended to punish her for doing what they marked on the sheet, which is what I just described.

 

[TS-08]

That is a disgustingly huge jury award that is clearly meant to make women fear bringing allegations against powerful men. The juror even said so.

She is a shit person but that doesn't mean we should be happy at the result. Like the wedding photographer case from last week, defamation awards are getting out of hand and this is not good for society at large. The burden in civil trials is too low.

You are making two different arguments. Do you believe that the verdicts are excessive and it should have been harder for the plaintiffs to get a verdict in their favor?

 

[benicillin]

It really isn't. Rapists are fucking vilified and rightfully so for being pieces of shit. You can't just walk back a rape accusation. A rape accusation is something we need society at large to generally take women at their word and make them feel more comfortable to tell so we can get these prices of shit behind bars. Things like what this lady did don't help anything. It just creates more doubt now which we really don't need. This is a lesson to anyone who'd dare lie about something like this as rare as that is.

False crime accusations exist at a similar percentage across all criminal acts and yet false rape accusations seems to be the one that makes people "take accusations less seriously" and "create more doubt."

I'm pretty sure people who feel that way are just looking for an excuse to continue to ignore the problem.

 

[elrechazado]

Last sentence of the second paragraph in the quote in the OP. The message is clear to me, even if the juror didn't intend it.


You're assuming the jury made the correct decision. I don't assume juries are going to make the right call. Note that the army didn't find either story to be corroborated.

To be clear, I don't believe or disbelieve the accuser. It's the obscene jury award that concerns me.

So, if like you, I presuppose that the finder of fact who heard all of the evidence is wrong because it doesn't fit into my personal belief about what that result should be, I can always win every argument? Wonderful.

 

[Sheiter]

Wow, both of her witnesses contradicted major parts of her testimony. First contradicting that she knew about the promotion before making her blog post and then, the second witness said that they were the one that drove her home the night that she claimed the general gave her a ride and committed the assault. I don't know if these trials ever really get more clear cut than having one parties entire list of witnesses only serve to weaken their own case.

 

[legend166]

I tell you what, as a Christian, there's nothing more disappointing than reading a story in which the paragraph about a person becoming a Christian is immediately followed by one saying they're a Sandy Hook truther.

 

[King Tubby]

She sounds deranged, but 8.4 million still seems somewhat excessive.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I'm curious why it's so common for threads to be made about false rape accusations on GAF. I've noticed it a lot lately.

I see just as many threads about high profile rape cases

 

[Aurean_Mentat]

I think this highlights the problem for me with rape accusations in general. There have been multiple cases where the name of the man accused is released immediately, but the information of the accuser if proven false is held back to not 'ruin her life'.

I call 'bullshit'. You want to accuse someone and have their name be released to the public, then if the case doesn't have merit, it should be refuted in public.

Ideally, all rape accusations would come with physical safety for both sides, an investigation, and then you don't release ANY names. Then, when the case is investigated and resolved, you can decide what to do then.

I have no sympathy for this blogger. She released a blog post to the public when she did to derail this guy's career. Being accused of rape in that public of a forum deserves to be taken seriously, and attempts to rehabilitate this dude are important. Because its like being sprayed with a skunk. The guy was proven innocent, and yet a lot of companies would rather not deal with the aftermath of hiring this dude.

The financial damages are excessive, but the only reasonable punishment is a registry of some kind which states what exactly she did, and is easily searchable by anyone.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I understand what she did was vile but $8.4m is not just a little excessive. It's such an absurd amount you have to think this is far beyond just being punitive. Like jesus. She brought it on herself though.

 

[KHarvey16]

I understand what she did was vile but $8.4m is not just a little excessive. It's such an absurd amount you have to think this is far beyond just being punitive. Like jesus. She brought it on herself though.

It ends up just being symbolic since punitive damages are capped at $350k. Other damages though are high because they at least have salary figures they can work with and other estimates.

 

[KingV]

I don't know that it's a GAF thing per say, but it definitely seems like the media really latches on to it. It's kind of stupid really, because it only helps perpetuates MRA type nonsense.

Should they suppress them?

If it's newsworthy, it's newsworthy, for better or worse

 

[Cat Party]

But that isn't what they said at all. You're being disingenuous.

It's a civil trial and they overwhelmingly believed he showed she acted maliciously, with intent, to harm his reputation and career with false accusations. His side completely blew up her story in several key ways.

The punitive damages were intended to punish her for doing what they marked on the sheet, which is what I just described.

You have far more confidence in an average jury than I do. Juries get it wrong sometimes, and can be biased in all sorts of ways. Again, I don't know how the case actually went, but I don't just assume that the jury was right to find against her. And even if they were 100% right, the amount of damages was intended to be ruinous.

This case says, to me, if you're going accuse a high profile man of sexual assault, you better have an airtight case or you will be destroyed. Not a message I am comfortable with. The Bill O'Reilly's of the world benefit the most from a case like this. That's where I'm coming from.

 

[KHarvey16]

You have far more confidence in an average jury than I do. Juries get it wrong sometimes, and can be biased in all sorts of ways. Again, I don't know how the case actually went, but I don't just assume that the jury was right to find against her. And even if they were 100% right, the amount of damages was intended to be ruinous.

This case says, to me, if you're going accuse a high profile man of sexual assault, you better have an airtight case or you will be destroyed. Not a message I am comfortable with. The Bill O'Reilly's of the world benefit the most from a case like this. That's where I'm coming from.

You're not understanding anything.

First of all, no one is relying on the jury alone here. We can also see the evidence and the narratives and why one is pretty clearly wrong given undisputed facts presented at trial.

Second, the issue wasn't that she merely couldn't substantiate her claims. It's that he could substantiate that she acted maliciously. You understand the difference, right? She isn't being punished for failing to prove her case. She's the defendant being sued by him.

 

[GeordieMark]

She sounds mentally ill.

 

[Cat Party]

You're not understanding anything.

First of all, no one is relying on the jury alone here. We can also see the evidence and the narratives and why one is pretty clearly wrong given undisputed facts presented at trial.

Second, the issue wasn't that she merely couldn't substantiate her claims. It's that he could substantiate that she acted maliciously. You understand the difference, right? She isn't being punished for failing to prove her case. She's the defendant being sued by him.

I'm sorry, you're right. You're relying on the jury and the incredibly sympathetic article that introduces him as a decorated war veteran who had an obvious promotion railroaded by a crazy woman. I'll remain skeptical that we're getting a full picture here. But it doesn't really matter to my point.

I think I've been pretty clear as to my concern. Whether she acted maliciously or not (legally speaking, defamation is already an intentional tort and so proving malice on top of that is not difficult in practice), the jury award is outrageous and will only serve to chill accusations against powerful people.

 

[Piecake]

I'm sorry, you're right. You're relying on the jury and the incredibly sympathetic article that introduces him as a decorated war veteran who had an obvious promotion railroaded by a crazy woman. I'll remain skeptical that we're getting a full picture here. But it doesn't really matter to my point.

I think I've been pretty clear as to my concern. Whether she acted maliciously or not (legally speaking, defamation is already an intentional tort and so proving malice on top of that is not difficult in practice), the jury award is outrageous and will only serve to chill accusations against powerful people.

A former Colonel who is now a pilot for the Federal Aviation Administration is a powerful person?

 

[Rktk]

I don't know how what ad program she uses but it's going to take a good few blog posts to pay this off.

 

[Machina]

Public shaming on the internet debate part 2?

 

[Unbounded]

False crime accusations exist at a similar percentage across all criminal acts and yet false rape accusations seems to be the one that makes people "take accusations less seriously" and "create more doubt."

It's because rape cases are largely hard to prove, tend to boil down to he said/she said, and can potentially have massive consequences in more way than one for the accused.

As far as I know nothing else really hits all of those notes. I expect if something else did then it would be treated similarly.

 

[ronaldthump]

She sounds deranged, but 8.4 million still seems somewhat excessive.

they did say they made it punitive so it deters people from making baseless accusations like this.

 

[elrechazado]

I'm sorry, you're right. You're relying on the jury and the incredibly sympathetic article that introduces him as a decorated war veteran who had an obvious promotion railroaded by a crazy woman. I'll remain skeptical that we're getting a full picture here. But it doesn't really matter to my point.

I think I've been pretty clear as to my concern. Whether she acted maliciously or not (legally speaking, defamation is already an intentional tort and so proving malice on top of that is not difficult in practice), the jury award is outrageous and will only serve to chill accusations against powerful people.

"I don't like the result, so despite all of the facts to the contrary, my pre-fact opinion remains correct".

Ok

 

[SDBurton]

Try to ruin someone's life and fail? Having your life ruined seems apt to me.

Basically how I feel.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm sorry, you're right. You're relying on the jury and the incredibly sympathetic article that introduces him as a decorated war veteran who had an obvious promotion railroaded by a crazy woman. I'll remain skeptical that we're getting a full picture here. But it doesn't really matter to my point.

But I'm not relying on those things.

I think I've been pretty clear as to my concern. Whether she acted maliciously or not (legally speaking, defamation is already an intentional tort and so proving malice on top of that is not difficult in practice), the jury award is outrageous and will only serve to chill accusations against powerful people.

How does that make any sense if she was only punished for the willful and successful effort to damage his career and reputation? They didn't just find that his reputation was damaged, but that her accusation was false and that she only made it to cause that damage. This won't chill anything legitimate.

 

[karobit]

I often think that the media over-reports about false rape accusations, yes.

Man Bites Dog is always going to get more attention from the media and the public than Man Rapes Woman.

I guess this more Dog Wins Defamation Suit Against Man For False Bite Allegation, Awarded 8.4 Million Tummy Rubs.

(I agree that this creates a perception of an equivalence in frequency, which is dangerous.)

 

[bonesmccoy]

Man, after reading the whole article... What an awful situation. I wonder what will come of the appeal.

 

[Cat Party]

But I'm not relying on those things.



How does that make any sense if she was only punished for the willful and successful effort to damage his career and reputation? They didn't just find that his reputation was damaged, but that her accusation was false and that she only made it to cause that damage. This won't chill anything legitimate.

This is like the Gawker thread. People like the to see ruinous jury awards against people and companies they don't like, with no care to the effects of the verdicts down the road.

 

[BennyBlanco]

8.4 million? I need to start blogging I guess.