Trekkie said:
You are incoherent, rambling, and loaded with false statements and deep exaggerations. Seriously, one of the benefits of the position you are arguing is that it doesn't require that kind of exaggeration. A quick proofread never hurts either, some of what you wrote gave me a headache trying to figure it out. Also, FRS doesn't receive the majority of the posts these days -- they've largely moved to http://cotwa.info , the Community of the Wrongly Accused; there's a huge image link to it at the top of the FRS page.
Kahunaburger said:
People who are impaired by drugs or alcohol can't consent in the first place.
Yet, somehow, women are not responsible for sexual encounters had while drunk, while men remain responsible for sexual encounters had while drunk. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Just ask yourself this: Two people get drunk at a party, go somewhere more private and have sex. Was it rape/sexual assault? If so, who was the victim and who was the perpetrator?
I honestly expect that eventually given the Dear Colleague letter that in one of those mutually drunken cases that the accused man will argue that he, being intoxicated himself and unable to consent, was victimized by the woman, and otherwise agree with the order of events as claimed, and lodge his own complaint. Then follow it up with a threat to sue under Title IX if his case isn't treated fairly, which since both cases would be presenting more or less identical evidence aside from which of them is perpetrator and which is victim should mean identical treatment (realistically they'd give her the minimum sanction for sexual assault and the man the maximum sanction for rape then argue that is not discriminatory because "sexual intercourse performed through force, the threat of force, or while the victim is unconscious, intoxicated, or otherwise incapable of consent" is typically "not rape" unless the perpetrator is male). The fallout from that would be spectacular, and the man in question would have basically nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so.
Kahunaburger said:
Trekkie said:
Kahunaburger said:
Trekkie said:
and that's the thing, you don't need to be drunk you just have to say you regret it and point a finger. the system is set up in a way that makes it almost impossible for a man to prove he didn't do anything.
I can't think of any jurisdiction where the problem is rape being
over-prosecuted.
duke lacrosse. enough said.
Did they get convicted? No? Sounds like the system worked (for them.)
Really? Had their case not got the massive degree of national attention that it did (and the equally massive amount of attention on the fact it was a false accusation), these guys' lives would have been effectively permanently ruined. Why? Because they would be plastered all over the media as rapists, and no one ever gives the "actually innocent" part the same kind of attention in the media unless it's proof of corruption or some other problem with a bigger, flashier villain. So guess what happens when someone tries to look them up (say, as a potential applicant)?
If you'd like a better and more recent example, how about Brian Banks? 5 years in prison, 5 years on probation with an ankle monitor and registered on the sex offender registry. Oh, and his false accuser made a ton of money off the school system. She'll probably never see any kind of punishment for that, it was only a decade of a man's life taken from him and a lot of money fraudulently taken from the school system. Even if she were to be prosecuted for it, the punishment for a false accusation is a fine in the same general range as a speeding ticket, plus whatever might arise from the fraud.
Trekkie said:
and you want evidence, VAWA, title 9 and its dear colleague letter are federal legislations that hold laws to reverse the burden of proof onto the accused, deny him his right to face and question his accuser and even the right to a trial by his peers among others.
They don't do all that. They certainly have their share of "let's shit on civil rights" text in them, but none of them reverse the burden of proof (though they do drastically lessen it for college internal policies). Title IX says nothing about how rape charges should be processed in and of itself. The Dear Colleague letter however *does* state that colleges must use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard (which means even slightly more proof that it happened than not is sufficient to demonstrate guilt, and in which questioning victim testimony is generally disallowed [with a trend to give it extra weight, as well], it's also often not permitted to involve a lawyer) when doing internal evaluation of accusations of sexual assault or rape, or else they are engaging in sex discrimination and are subject to being sued via Title IX. This is not a criminal trial, and remedies are limited to those the school has the capacity to enforce (such as effectively ending your education in a permanent sense, since data is shared between institutions). College internal proceeding have never come with a right to a jury trial.
Trekkie said:
if you think false rape accusations are rare, then why did Orlando PD put out a press release asking women to stop making false allegations.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/orlando-false-rape-epidemic.html
This was a poor thing to use as an example, because the reply will be something like "Yes, that was a great example of rape culture!"
