Mens Rights Thread

Lemming · 09-12-2014 11:05AM

FactCheck wrote: »

But what ancapailldorcha is describing isn't tyranny of the majority?

Tyranny of the majority is when 99 people vote for a policy that will help them but hurt one person.

Ancapailldorcha is describing two conflicting policies, one which helps 99 people but hurts one, and one which hurts 99 people and helps one.

Deciding that it's better to go for the policy that helps far more people is not "tyranny of the majority", it's good social policy.

Now you may disagree that 99 people are actually hurt by the second policy, that's fine, that's grand. But it isn't "tyranny of the majority", and it's misleading and confusing to describe it as so.

"Tyranny of the majority" is a very specific fallacy, it isn't a catch-all to describe any policy that mentions the word "majority".

No, tyranny of the majority is also a minority being ignored and by extension 'injured' (for want of a better term) in supporting the position of the majority.

In this case, victims of malicious rape accusations are being thrown under the bus in case victims of rape might not come forward. Now aside from the issue that rape victims often do find it difficult to come forward, an absolute statement (i.e. one side not being prosecuted by default) is being superceeded by a "what-if" scenario, as well intentioned as it may be.

Lemming · 09-12-2014 11:07AM

PucaMama wrote: »

em, if people were not so violent it wouldnt happen in the first place

Your position is a bit perverse PM. You're effectively arguing for a position that absolves the person committing the initial crime, that results in the victim also beign the victim of a secondary crime that results directly from the first (the false accusation).

FactCheck · 09-12-2014 11:20AM

Lemming wrote: »

No, tyranny of the majority is also a minority being ignored and by extension 'injured' (for want of a better term) in supporting the position of the majority.

In this case, victims of malicious rape accusations are being thrown under the bus in case victims of rape might not come forward. Now aside from the issue that rape victims often do find it difficult to come forward, an absolute statement (i.e. one side not being prosecuted by default) is being superceeded by a "what-if" scenario, as well intentioned as it may be.

What is being described is not tyranny of the majority. It is "choosing the least worst option".

The contention is that there is a straightforward choice between A and B. A will hurt 99 people, B will hurt 1 person.

Choosing A is choosing the least worst option. It benefits more people, but "benefits more people" is not the same as "tyranny of the majority".

Now, you can argue the above is a false equivalence (as indeed you have been!). Or you could argue that the harm to the 99 is so minor that it is not worth inflicting the major harm on the 1. Or you could argue that the figures are skewed.

All I'm saying is, don't argue that it's the tyranny of the majority, because it isn't, and it's confusing to say so.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 11:24AM

Lemming wrote: »

Once again, your lack of empathy for people falsely accused is staggeringly cold. Further, your constant yeahbutnobutyeahbutno on the matter is nauseating in its hypocrasy. Let me spell it out for you as you are being so willfully evasive as to be dishonest about the whole matter

I've made my position clear and we're now just going round in circles.

tritium · 09-12-2014 11:38AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Who said anything about any given crime. Currently, there are very few false claims. Obviously, that isn't ideal but it's hardly as bad as you're making it out to be.

Tyranny? What are you on about?

Very few is an interesting concept here. Given how intertwined the two crimes are we effectively have three scenarios. True rape, false allegation and the grey area ones (where one person may contend a crime happened but in the eyes of the other person it did not -the ones that both sides point to to tell us how terrible the law is)

On that second category there is, unsurprisingly given the agendas at play on both sides, a very wide range of figures for the occurrence of false claims. They range from about 0.2%:to about 90%, both figures being largely untenable. The most accepted figure (somewhat disputed by both sides) is around 8%. Smaller than the number of rapes but not in any way insignificant.

The reality of course is that, much like any sexual crime figure, the number you get is heavily linked to how you define the question. Given the lack of honesty from all sides around sexual crime that's not one that's going to be resolved any time soon.

09-12-2014 11:38AM

FactCheck wrote: »

What is being described is not tyranny of the majority. It is "choosing the least worst option".

The contention is that there is a straightforward choice between A and B. A will hurt 99 people, B will hurt 1 person.

Choosing A is choosing the least worst option. It benefits more people, but "benefits more people" is not the same as "tyranny of the majority".

Now, you can argue the above is a false equivalence (as indeed you have been!). Or you could argue that the harm to the 99 is so minor that it is not worth inflicting the major harm on the 1. Or you could argue that the figures are skewed.

All I'm saying is, don't argue that it's the tyranny of the majority, because it isn't, and it's confusing to say so.

How are we quantifying this? Where do the numbers come from? It's untestable surely?

Let's also consider the very realistic scenario that by not prosecuting false allegations, you increase the number of false allegations, thereby changing the numbers. This clearly changes the dynamics of the above situation and the "value" issue.

(please note, I've kept the response extremely general - so that it could be applied to allegations of almost any crime - on purpose)

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 11:48AM

tritium wrote: »

Very few is an interesting concept here. Given how intertwined the two crimes are we effectively have three scenarios. True rape, false allegation and the grey area ones (where one person may contend a crime happened but in the eyes of the other person it did not -the ones that both sides point to to tell us how terrible the law is)

When I said very few, I was referring to the amount of false rape allegations that have been proven so compared with those which haven't.

Lemming · 09-12-2014 11:51AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When I said very few, I was referring to the amount of false rape allegations that have been proven so compared with those which haven't.

Either we take the subject of rape and everything it entails seriously or we don't. There is no half-way house, and either we acknowledge that the law is meant to be impartial and blind, or we admit that we don't really have rule of law but rule of mob where the mob dictates what is considered the crime de jouer and the loudest voice will get their way regardless of merit.

There was a time when women weren't eligible to vote because they didn't own any property of note and therefore viewed perhaps as being not financially vested in the state ergo "not having an opinion that mattered". The push to change was driven from what would have been viewed a 'minority'. But by your logic, a minority would be ignored as not being worth accommodating in law. When does a minority become important enough to accommodate in society and/or by law? Please tell us.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 11:57AM

Who's suggesting that we don't take it seriously? Where are you getting this from?

Lemming · 09-12-2014 12:05PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Who's suggesting that we don't take it seriously? Where are you getting this from?

Because you view the matter of malicious rape accusations as a one-way street. One side of the equation held to full account, the other willfully not held to account in the eyes of the law, and "So be it" with the resulting fallout of such accusations and the lack of censure for doing so.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 12:08PM

Lemming wrote: »

Because you view the matter of malicious rape accusations as a one-way street. One side of the equation held to full account, the other willfully not held to account in the eyes of the law, and "So be it" with the resulting fallout of such accusations.

I never said false allegations shouldn't be taken seriously. I have never said that nor did I say that they shouldn't be held to account. All I said was that if people who make false claims are imprisoned it would deter victims from coming forward.

py2006 · 09-12-2014 12:12PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said false allegations shouldn't be taken seriously. I have never said that nor did I say that they shouldn't be held to account. All I said was that if people who make false claims are imprisoned it would deter victims from coming forward.

It will also encourage similar minded women to make a false accusation as they know they would also get away with it.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 12:14PM

py2006 wrote: »

It will also encourage similar minded women to make a false accusation as they know they would also get away with it.

Yes but most of them are ignored by the police once they realise they're fake. They can also be prosecuted for slander and defamation of character.

Lemming · 09-12-2014 12:16PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said false allegations shouldn't be taken seriously. I have never said that nor did I say that they shouldn't be held to account. All I said was that if people who make false claims are imprisoned it would deter victims from coming forward.

And again back to "yeahbutnobutyeahbutno". Either someone making a malicious claim is held to account, or they're given a free pass. Again, we are ignoring a tangible for a 'what-if'. So which do you want it to be? You cannot have it both ways.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 12:17PM

Lemming wrote: »

And again back to "yeahbutnobutyeahbutno". Either someone making a malicious claim is held to account, or they're given a free pass. Again, we are ignoring a tangible for a 'what-if'. So which do you want it to be? You cannot have it both ways.

What's with this yeahbutno nonsense. There are ways to hold these false claimants to account as I mentioned.

Zulu · 09-12-2014 12:18PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All I said was that if people who make false claims are imprisoned it would deter victims from coming forward.

Why do you say that?

Is the fear perjury/slander something that concerns a victim of rape or sexual abuse? I wouldn't have thought it was.

It seems to me that certain parties are taking it as a given that the prosecution of the same will hinder victims coming forward. But is this really a given?

Considering that most rapes/sexual assaults are committed by a person the victim knows, I would have thought that the significant reasons for not coming forward are very different.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 12:22PM

Zulu wrote: »

Why do you say that?

Is the fear perjury/slander something that concerns a victim of rape or sexual abuse? I wouldn't have thought it was.

It seems to me that certain parties are taking it as a given that the prosecution of the same will hinder victims coming forward. But is this really a given?

Considering that most rapes/sexual assaults are committed by a person the victim knows, I would have thought that the significant reasons for not coming forward are very different.

I would think that it'd be because they'd fear imprisonment if the police believed they were lying about their allegations. I've no experience dealing with rape victims but the line is something various charities have come out with so I defer to their experience.

Ideally, we'd need evidence to ascertain whether it's a "given" but how such a study could be ethically conducted it beyond me (excluding surveys of course).

tritium · 09-12-2014 12:33PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would think that it'd be because they'd fear imprisonment if the police believed they were lying about their allegations. I've no experience dealing with rape victims but the line is something various charities have come out with so I defer to their experience.

Ideally, we'd need evidence to ascertain whether it's a "given" but how such a study could be ethically conducted it beyond me (excluding surveys of course).

I do wonder sometimes what creates that fear. Is it that some people are prosecuted for this crime or is it that some groups like WAR have made huge headlines around the injustices they claim are in the system, which given the relatively small number of prosecutions, any unjust convictions represent a tiny number of cases.

Interestingly given the claims about victimisation of victims, looking at the number of rape convictions and false allegation convictions, assuming the rate is indeed about 8% (and theres no reason to assume otherwise) would suggest that police are much less likely to prosecute for this. In the UK in 2013/2013 there were 3692 prosecutions and 2333 convictions for rape (a success rate of 63%) versus 109 prosecutions for false allegations in 5 years or about 22 a year according to WAR. It would seem there is a genuine sensitivity employed by CPS and the police given this low incidence, well below even the rate that the CPS would accept based on their own data.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 12:39PM

tritium wrote: »

I do wonder sometimes what creates that fear. Is it that some people are prosecuted for this crime or is it that some groups like WAR have made huge headlines around the injustices they claim are in the system, which given the relatively small number of prosecutions, any unjust convictions represent a tiny number of cases.

Interestingly given the claims about victimisation of victims, looking at the number of raoe convictions and false allegation convictions, assuming the rate is indeed about 8% would suggest that police are much less likely to prosecute for this.

It'a a very complex and multi-faceted issue which I won't pretend to be an expert in. If I were to guess, then I'd say they're afraid that if they lack evidence, then they'll be afraid the police will assume they're lying and they'll face prosecution. These people will have been traumatised so they'll not be thinking straight. This is why lying about it out of sheer malevolence is such an evil thing to do.

py2006 · 09-12-2014 12:47PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yes but most of them are ignored by the police once they realise they're fake.

If that is true, that is major concern.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 12:54PM

py2006 wrote: »

If that is true, that is major concern.

I've a few taxi drivers in Manchester who've had problems with it when some passengers won't pay fares. They'll rip their clothes and run to the nearest police station or scream in the street. Vile, I know but that's what they told me.

Zulu · 09-12-2014 01:29PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've a few taxi drivers in Manchester who've had problems with it when some passengers won't pay fares. They'll rip their clothes and run to the nearest police station or scream in the street. Vile, I know but that's what they told me.

And yet some would choose to protect these action due to an (as yet) unfounded fear.

KomradeBishop · 09-12-2014 01:40PM

False rape accusations are a different crime to rape, so it's a crime that is prosecuted with different standards; false rape accusations should have definitive evidence that a claim was false, before being prosecuted (these are official guidelines, in the UK).

There are big problems with managing false rape accusations, because some victims have in the past been pressured into recanting their statement/accusation, and this has been used by police before, to then prosecute them - even though they really were raped.

It's an issue with a ton of grey areas - but a good dividing line, is when there is definitive evidence that the claim was false.

The idea that false accusations, where there is definitive/evidence proof that the claim was false, should not be prosecuted - there's no justification for not prosecuting that. There might be some extremely specific edge-cases that are an exception to that, but generally, that should always be prosecuted.

Zulu · 09-12-2014 01:46PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

...- but a good dividing line, is when there is definitive evidence that the claim was false..

This. It should ALWAYS be "innocent until proven guilty". In all cases.

Once we as a society start to accept, or consider accepting any thing less we fail.

tritium · 09-12-2014 02:22PM

Zulu wrote: »

This. It should ALWAYS be "innocent until proven guilty". In all cases.

Once we as a society start to accept, or consider accepting any thing less we fail.

Absolutely and in all cases. There's far too much rush to judgement on all sides in cases of sexual crime. Additionally the lack of anonymity in the UK makes both rape and false rape accusation cases into fodder for gutter tabloid sensationalism. And yet there's a large contingent who would retain this status quo. Anyone who is ultimately acquited of any crime should have an intact reputation at the end of a trial, the current situation does not facilitate that

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 02:29PM

tritium wrote: »

Absolutely and in all cases. There's far too much rush to judgement on all sides in cases of sexual crime. Additionally the lack of anonymity in the UK makes both rape and false rape accusation cases into fodder for gutter tabloid sensationalism. And yet there's a large contingent who would retain this status quo. Anyone who is ultimately acquited of any crime should have an intact reputation at the end of a trial, the current situation does not facilitate that

It's something I find perplexing alright. Rape and child molestation seem to elicit a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. Don't even start me on British tabloids.

jackofalltrades · 09-12-2014 03:38PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I am referring to rape victims who do not come forward as they fear they won't be believed. A claim alone is enough to bring a case to court? Source?

This case went to court based on the claim of two women, even though there was an obvious hole in one of their stories.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would think that it'd be because they'd fear imprisonment if the police believed they were lying about their allegations.
I've no experience dealing with rape victims but the line is something various charities have come out with so I defer to their experience.

Ideally, we'd need evidence to ascertain whether it's a "given" but how such a study could be ethically conducted it beyond me (excluding surveys of course).

There's no "ideally" about it. Until such time as the claim can be backed up by something concrete then it should stop being made.
Because it's seems to be taken as fact, and could actually lead to victims not coming forward based on this belief.

tritium wrote: »

I do wonder sometimes what creates that fear. Is it that some people are prosecuted for this crime or is it that some groups like WAR have made huge headlines around the injustices they claim are in the system...

I'd say it's definitely the latter, given the tiny amount of convictions for false accusations.

PucaMama · 09-12-2014 03:42PM

Lemming wrote: »

Your position is a bit perverse PM. You're effectively arguing for a position that absolves the person committing the initial crime, that results in the victim also beign the victim of a secondary crime that results directly from the first (the false accusation).

there is nothng perverse about my position. i believe in no beating up a person that you dont no is guilty or not. so if there is no danger of an attack, the case can be fought fairly in court.

py2006 · 09-12-2014 04:12PM

Any woman who makes a false rape allegation should be named, shamed and given a fairly hefty punishment.

Because the man she has accused (even after being found innocent) will suffer all of the above regardless.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 04:37PM

py2006 wrote: »

Any woman who makes a false rape allegation should be named, shamed and given a fairly hefty punishment.

Because the man she has accused (even after being found innocent) will suffer all of the above regardless.

I find it absurd that the tabloids can legally speculate and contribute to that suffering legally in the UK. Why their identities aren't protected is beyond me.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments