We need to stop awarding money to rape victims

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by kazenatsu, Feb 28, 2020.

  1. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Five bucks says kazenatsu is currently out on bail because of ‘some women who wanted to take his money’. How do we know? Why stop at sexual assault? Why not stop financial compensation for all crimes committed?
     
    Mrs. SEAL likes this.
  2. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude, really? Only about 20. - 25% of rapes are ever even reported, mainly because of the invasive crap women have to go through to report it. Advantage goes to the rapist.

    Of that 25%, less than 10% end up being convicted for their crime. Again, advantage rapist.

    So please just stop with wailing and rending of clothes - it’s pathetic.
     
    UprightBiped, Mrs. SEAL and Kranes56 like this.
  3. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,381
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to pay attention. Look at the title of the thread and the posts that you are quoting. Look at words like 'civil court' or 'tort' or 'fines'. the decision on who goes to jail and for how long are separate issues regardless of whether or not the same sentencing magistrate issues them or a separate judge in a separate court at a separate time, issues them.
     
  4. kreo

    kreo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,791
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once you get your chance to be found guilty by accusation, you will probably speak differently.
    Your statistics is taken from the magazine for women, where rape is defined as bad feelings after consensual coitus.
    That definition has nothing to do with reality.
     
    CCitizen and kazenatsu like this.
  5. willburroughs

    willburroughs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Translation: kazenatsu does not like paying money for his past rapes. And, in his defense, it is literally the only way he ever gets any p_ssy.
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know the other side doesn't have an argument when they resort to ad hominem attacks.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
    CCitizen likes this.
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, not only do they want men to be found guilty by accusation, they also want men to have to pay up money by accusation.
    Lots of money. Millions of dollars if it's a rich person. All based on little to nothing other than the woman's words.

    A single woman's words. The same woman who stands to get lots of money by doing so.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
  8. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Definitely rape is a severe trauma.

    Unfortunately, Presumption of Guilt is a problem for any man who had sexual relationships in the past.

    Both problems must be acknowledged by Society.

    How is it possible to be fair to victims, while preserving the rights of the accused? This is a difficult issue for Society -- I can not make any recommendations.
     
  9. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sadly anyone who defends Presumption of Innocence on Social Media is subject to false accusations him/herself. On Twitter it is an order of magnitude worse -- those who defend Presumption of Innocence are subject to mob harassment.

    It is claimed that false accusations are rare. We can never know that. All we can see is that for some people, false accusation is the first resort when they are offended by a stranger's opinion online. How would they respond to a much greater stress of a failed relationship?
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
  10. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Indeed, Presumption of Guilt is a multitude of Damocles Swords hanging over the head of every man who had relationships.

    How rare are false accusations? I present evidence Here.

     
  11. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    1.Source?
    2. Why is that 70-94% the "case"?
     
  12. kreo

    kreo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,791
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem is that too many men support this injustice. I do not understand it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
    CCitizen likes this.
  13. kreo

    kreo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,791
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is done intentionally, to divide people for the benefits of political elite.
     
    CCitizen likes this.
  14. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Any such incentive could be greatly diminished by heavy legal penalties for false accusation.
    Guilty in the eyes of the law, sure. You'd have us believe the law has 20/20 vision in every case?
     
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree completely. That would be like leaving a bag open stuffed full of money in a bad neighborhood, and thinking that nothing bad will happen to it because there is a death penalty in place for anyone who steals it.
    That bag will be gone in just a couple of hours.

    In addition to the possibility of punishment, we need to lessen the incentives to do this.

    In one of those stories, there was that case of a drug addict who gave false testimony. You think she's worried about punishment? She just wants quick easy money. Likely to feed her drug addiction.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
  16. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do. I think it's all part of the "give me" mentality. I keep noticing that many of those on the Left seem to be looking for any excuse to be able to get a payout of free money. That explains those lawsuits against big businesses with huge ridiculous payouts. In this example, it's a way for a woman to get money out of a rich & powerful man. Why don't you think they'd be for that?
    Plus these progressive men are so self-deprecating these days ('oppressor', 'victim' group mentality).
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
  17. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not if enforcement is generally known to be swift, sure and pitiless, it won't.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe we need to remove the incentive.

    The woman shouldn't get any money, unless there's clear evidence that doesn't involve her personal testimony.

    The jury should be instructed to disregard the woman's testimony for the purposes of deciding whether she gets compensation. (In other words, look at it as if the woman were dead, in that case would there be enough evidence to convict the suspect of rape?)
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2020
  19. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're trying to decouple that from the question of guilt, which only makes sense if there's such a thing as an actual rape where the victim deserves no compensation.
     
  20. willburroughs

    willburroughs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Sadly, some people are so fired up stupid as not to understand that being convicted of a crime, removes the presumption of innocence.
     
  21. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You keep falling into this logical fallacy.

    I think part of the problem is that you are confusing the meaning of the word 'guilt'. When a jury votes 'guilty', that does not truly mean they have determined the accused is guilty, exactly. It means they have decided that the accused should get punishment.
    Are you able to understand that distinction?

    When the court can decide the accused is 'guilty' based on the testimony of the woman and nothing else, we have a big problem.
    Are you unable to understand how some punishment may be warranted in such a situation, but not a monetary award to the victim?

    The court hasn't really "determined" anything; they are imposing punishment on the accused based pretty much all on the testimony of the accuser.
    To say the court has determined guilt is really obfuscating the logic of the issue.

    Maybe the [alleged] victim does deserve compensation. But we don't really know. They will punish the man. But awarding money to the accuser is taking it to another level, and creating a big potential perverse incentive. Statistically that will result in innocent men getting punished who would not otherwise have been punished.

    It's also very common for judges to impose lighter sentences when the only evidence is the testimony of an alleged victim. That right there sort of proves that the decision of 'guilt' or 'innocence' is not so simple as you imagine it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2020
  22. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know if this view will help you understand it.
    Imagine we hypothetically passed a law that said no person can be found "guilty" of rape based only on [or almost entirely on] the testimony of the woman who claims she was raped. However, there would be another option, "should get punished". So the court could come to a decision to impose punishment on a man without officially designating that he is "guilty".
    That way they could send him to prison without the accuser getting any money out of the deal.

    It would also be a simple way to let everyone else know that a woman accused him of rape, and they couldn't find anything to disprove the accusations, but there was not really any other evidence. That might create less of a stigma for the man after he gets out of prison.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2020
  23. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And which logical fallacy is that, precisely?
    I'm not doing any such thing, trust me.
    I understand that the distinction is illusory, as they can hardly decide the defendant deserves punishment without first finding him guilty.
     
  24. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That the man has been found 'guilty' by a court, and therefore we should assume that he committed a rape, for all purposes.
    That's your logical fallacy.

    Are you able to comprehend that just because a court finds the man 'guilty' does not mean they really determined that he was guilty?

    It's like you want to apply simple lazy-minded logic and view this as all black & white.

    What it comes down to is you're making an error of semantic equivalence, assigning a meaning to a word it did not necessarily have in the context of which it was used.

    Here, let me give you an example. Suppose if A is true then there's a 70% chance B is true. So it's fair to say that B follows A. Now suppose if B exists, then there's a 70% chance C is true. So it's fair to say that C follows B.
    Since A --> B , and B --> C , many people might think that then means that A --> C.
    But that is not necessarily the case.
    For one thing, assuming random distribution, we can see that C would only follow A with 49% probability. That means more than half the time, when A is true, it will not mean that C is true.
    Furthermore, it is very well possible that there could be some additional correlation that negates this correlation. For example, maybe B is true most of the time when A is true, and C is true most of the time when B is true, except when both A and B are true, and then C is always not true. That could very well be possible.

    Hopefully I don't have to explain how logic works to you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  25. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm saying that they can decide that the defendant should get punishment without deciding that he is absolutely guilty, in a total black & white sort of way.

    Do you understand that?

    Just because they decided that the man should get some punishment does not mean that they have decided that the man absolutely did it with 100% certainty and therefore the woman should get money.

    When the jury found the man "guilty" it was because punishment was on the table.
    When, instead, compensation to the victim is on the table, it is a different story.

    (And yes, it is a different story even if we assumed for the sake of argument that a woman should get money if she was raped and we knew that the man did it)

    You seem to be very much confusing and conflating the two.
    The court is not necessarily deciding that they know that the man did it when the decide the verdict of "guilty".

    There can easily be situations where the most optimal decision is to punish the man, but not to give the alleged victim compensation.
    Even if we would give her compensation if the crime was captured on video and there were 10 witnesses.

    I don't know how much more clear I can make this for you.

    The main thrust of my argument has nothing to do with whether a victim should be awarded compensation if we know that she was raped.
    I'm saying don't assume we know just because we have decided the man should be punished. Do you get it?

    Unlike what you seem to be assuming, a court can never determine with 100% accuracy whether someone is guilty or innocent.

    A woman claiming a man raped her is far from 100% certain proof that the man is guilty. But under the current system, the man can be found "guilty" and punished for that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020

Share This Page