Support NeoGAF

[Reeks]

Don't get me wrong, rapists getting away with it happens far too often, but the opposite is worse.

Worse, eh?

 

[Zoe]

Worse, eh?

The opposite here is an innocent person being convicted for a crime they never committed.

There's a reason people say they'd rather let a criminal walk than make an innocent person suffer.

 

[Night Angel]

Worse, eh?

Echoes the whole "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" thing.

Of course both are bad. I'd argue that the prevalence of real rapists going free vs false accusations makes me more concerned about the former.

However, that doesn't mean I'm also not concerned about how the court releases the accused's name in these kinds of cases that never even go to trial. I also don't feel that it's reasonable to think this was likely a rape when a court didn't even attempt to try the case. Innocent until proven guilty on my book.

 

[Reeks]

The opposite here is an innocent person being convicted for a crime they never committed.

If false accusations are 2% of all accusations, then convictions due to false accusations are extremely rare. So we're talking zebras not horses here. And convictions generally lead to only a couple years in jail. So in this context, that's worse than being raped, not seeing justice and knowing you could come face to face with your rapist at any given time since they are, in fact, free.

 

[Night Angel]

I don't think we need to belittle the impact of imprisonment due to false accusations on someone's life to make the point we're trying to make, here.

 

[Reeks]

I don't think we need to belittle the impact of imprisonment due to false accusations on someone's life to make the point we're trying to make, here.

Who did that?

 

[Zoe]

If false accusations are 2% of all accusations, then convictions due to false accusations are extremely rare. So we're talking zebras not horses here. And convictions generally lead to only a couple years in jail. So in this context, that's worse than being raped, not seeing justice and knowing you could come face to face with your rapist at any given time since they are, in fact, free.

You're still misreading what he said. Rape isn't a part of the comparison.

 

[blakep267]

The fee's and shit in our legal system never made sense to me. If you're never convicted everything should be reimbursed? I get the legal fee's because you decide to pay for a good lawyer instead of a public defender but holy shit.

You can sue for lawyer fees and other financial damages etc

 

[Reeks]

You're still misreading what he said. Rape isn't a part of the comparison.

Getting away with rape is the other half of his comparison.

 

[Psychoward]

Getting away with rape is the other half of his comparison.

Getting raped is worse than being falsely accused of rape.

Serving significant jail time when you didn't commit a crime is worse than a rapist going free.

that's all there is to it

 

[Reeks]

Getting raped is worse than being falsely accused of rape.

Serving significant jail time when you didn't commit a crime is worse than a rapist going free.

that's all there is to it

You realize that most rapist do it many times, right? That's why the stats are so high. And a rapist going free means a.) someone was raped b.) they did not get justice. These things are obligate outcomes of that scenario.

Edit: and if you make that comparison, how can you negate that one of those things happens a majority of the time and one happens a fraction of a percent of the time?

 

[Night Angel]

^I'd be down with that, yes.

Who did that?

You did? You said they'd "only" serve a few years, as if that'd be the end of it. Their lives and reputations are forever tainted.

 

[Reeks]

So just to be clear, you're stating that because 2% to 7% of sexual assault cases are falsely reported, you believe that the names should be sealed. 2% to 7% of the, let's be generous, 40% of rapes that do occur?

Do you also believe that this reasoning should hold with anyone accused of a crime? That names should always be sealed until the verdict is determined?

I think it's an issue of also protecting witnesses. (since it's the state vs. the alleged rapist, the accuser is a witness). I could be wrong.
But another issue is that most victims don't come forward and releasing the identities would further reduce that already low number. We want to protect victims, not the small fraction of people who lie.

 

[KingV]

Getting away with rape is the other half of his comparison.

Though I would argue this is not how it works in practice for many crimes and sub populations, typically most Americans consider it unAmerican to lock up people that didn't commit crimes under the guise of being tough on crime.

The idea that we should consciously just push policies that we know will lock up people that are innocent under the guise that we will lock up more criminals than innocent people, and thinking that somehow evens out is really radical.

It's at least as radical as broken window policing, three strikes, or treating crack differently than cocaine. I would argue it's even more radical.

Obviously you aren't proposing anything specific, but just the idea that this is a bargain worth considering is extreme. It's sort of like locking up a bunch of muslims because some of them might turn out to be terrorists.

The US has went down this sort of road a few times, and we (progressives, at least! have pretty much always eventually come to see it as evil.

 

[KingV]

So just to be clear, you're stating that because 2% to 7% of sexual assault cases are falsely reported, you believe that the names should be sealed. 2% to 7% of the, let's be generous, 40% of rapes that do occur?

Do you also believe that this reasoning should hold with anyone accused of a crime? That names should always be sealed until the verdict is determined?

Yes I do think this should always be the case.

7% is a terrible number, that is like 5
Or 6 thousand men a year. 2% is still close to 2,000.

If potentially 1 in 15 rape accusations is false, that's a disturbingly high number. And as I mentioned earlier, that's false as in made up, not false as in "not enough evidence".

 

[Reeks]

Though I would argue this is not how it works in practice for many crimes and sub populations, typically most Americans consider it unAmerican to lock up people that didn't commit crimes under the guise of being tough on crime.

The idea that we should consciously just push policies that we know will lock up people that are innocent under the guise that we will lock up more criminals than innocent people, and thinking that somehow evens out is really radical.

It's at least as radical as broken window policing, three strikes, or treating crack differently than cocaine. I would argue it's even more radical.

Obviously you aren't proposing anything specific, but just the idea that this is a bargain worth considering is extreme. It's sort of like locking up a bunch of muslims because some of them might turn out to be terrorists.

The US has went down this sort of road a few times, and we (progressives, at least! have pretty much always eventually come to see it as evil.

I'm so lost.

 

[KingV]

I'm so lost.

Maybe I'm misreading what you wrote.

I was reading it to say that you think it's an acceptable trade off to send more innocent people to jail, as long as we also catch more not innocent people.

Maybe my reading comprehension is off.

However, if you are saying that, I fundamentally disagree with that idea.

 

[Keri]

The fee's and shit in our legal system never made sense to me. If you're never convicted everything should be reimbursed? I get the legal fee's because you decide to pay for a good lawyer instead of a public defender but holy shit.

The entire amount of bail is refunded by the Court, but most people don't have access to enough cash, to pay bail themselves. Instead, most people go to a bail bondsman, which is a separate, private company, that offers to pay bail to the Court on the defendant's behalf, in exchange for a 10% fee of the total amount. So, the bondsman pays the Court $100,000 and receives the entire $100,000 back when the individual makes their appearance (or the case is dismissed), but they charged $10,000 to the defendant, for the service. So, the Court refunds everything, but the defendant still loses out on the $10,000 fee they paid to a separate company.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

This is why universities should wait for the actual law to investigate in cases like these rather than reacting faster for PR.

If you're the president of a university or the Provost responsible for admissions you are not going to want to entertain questions concerning sexual assault from parents of potential students or trustees.

 

[Tawpgun]

The entire amount of bail is refunded by the Court, but most people don't have access to enough cash, to pay bail themselves. Instead, most people go to a bail bondsman, which is a separate, private company, that offers to pay bail to the Court on the defendant's behalf, in exchange for a 10% fee of the total amount. So, the bondsman pays the Court $100,000 and receives the entire $100,000 back when the individual makes their appearance (or the case is dismissed), but they charged $10,000 to the defendant, for the service. So, the Court refunds everything, but the defendant still loses out on the $10,000 fee they paid to a separate company.

Yeah, and then of course the lawyer fees too. Doesn't feel right that you have a better chance in trial if you have more money. But that's another topic.