Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[John Jones]

No, they can't. But the reality of ingrained mostly male police officer attitudes is a fact. It doesn't automatically go away just because it has been identified and acknowledged.

Domestic violence prosecutions have suffered a similar fate, a lot of reports were dismissed by the police they were reported to. In some jurisdictions in the US the police have worked to correct the problem by implementing domestic violence task forces and automatically arresting one or both parties policies.

[...].

Indeed. And in some of those jurisdictions where mandatory arrests were implemented, the rate of women being arrested for DV increased more than the arrest rate for men. Ain't that some *****?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed. And in some of those jurisdictions where mandatory arrests were implemented, the rate of women being arrested for DV increased more than the arrest rate for men. Ain't that some *****?

Without a link, I can't evaluate your claim. But are you really trying to say men have been falsely victimized by false claims of domestic violence, all along it's the women who have been beating up the men?

Seriously?

 

[theprestige]

Without a link, I can't evaluate your claim. But are you really trying to say men have been falsely victimized by false claims of domestic violence, all along it's the women who have been beating up the men?

Seriously?

I think he's really trying to say that, absent regulatory oversight in the form of mandatory arrest policies, your "mostly male police officer attitudes" are more likely to give women a pass on domestic violence than men. Probably because, like you, most male police officers don't seem to think women beating up on men is a real problem. After all, they're women, right?

 

[Wildy]

For what it's worth, Shermer's legal team's demand letter seems reasonable to me on its face - they think PZ is lying, and requesting him to issue a correction or face litigation is reasonable. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/12/lawyering-up/

A link to the cached version of that article. Unfortunately you can't look at Shermer's letter.

 

[Lorentz]

I think she intended it as a rhetorical question, not a challenge.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Indeed. And in some of those jurisdictions where mandatory arrests were implemented, the rate of women being arrested for DV increased more than the arrest rate for men. Ain't that some *****?

A link to the figures would be appropriate. "Rate" usually connotes a percentage. Is that an increase in male arrests from 44,000 to 46,200 - 5%, and an increase in female arrests from 2800 to 3200 - 50%? In short, when determining rate-of-increase, the base number is usually important.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Speak, don't silence.

Is this how you feel about BlockBot, too?

A defamation suit is not the proper response to someone who may be honestly mistaken or have a difference of opinion.

It is, however, the correct response to somebody publicly calling you a rapist.

It is only the proper response to someone who is maliciously lying about you and thereby materially damaging your reputation.

...by, say, publicly and falsely accusing you of being a rapist.*

*[edited to add]I should point out here that I'm not saying that these accusations of rape are necessarily false, I'm saying that a defamation suit against being publicly called a rapist is entirely appropriate, and is exactly what you would expect someone who is innocent to do.

 

[squealpiggy]

Do you think that someone who publicly disagrees with a high profile verdict is liable for defamation?

It depends. Don't forget that criminal cases have a much higher burden of proof than civil cases including defamation cases. An example could be publicly stating you believed OJ was guilty of his wife's murder. He was acquitted in the criminal courts based on reasonable doubt, but he was found civilly liable for wrongful death and ordered to pay some $33 million in damages.

Without a link, I can't evaluate your claim. But are you really trying to say men have been falsely victimized by false claims of domestic violence, all along it's the women who have been beating up the men?

Seriously?

No, it's just that once you remove discretion when it comes to arrests a greater proportion of women were arrested than previously. Assaults against men by women are still taken less seriously than vice versa and are correspondingly far less likely to be reported.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Like I said:

Police attitudes toward the victims of rape have often been studied (Coombs, 1986; LeDoux & Hazelwood, 1985; Madigan & Gamble, 1991; LaFree, 1989; Adler, 1987) and too often the results of such investigations show that, in fact, the police are distrustful of women. They believe that women who are not of perfect virtue (whatever that might be) may be lying

It seems to me that the police investigating any crime should be distrustful of everyone involved, regardless of gender, and always believe that the accuser may be lying. That seems like the very definition of a sceptical approach. If it were the case that accusers of crimes should be automatically believed, then I would see little need for investigations or trials.

Of course, perhaps that's just worded badly and what is meant is that the police are disproportionately distrustful of women and are more inclined to believe the accused than the accuser.

 

[Lorentz]

Without a link, I can't evaluate your claim. But are you really trying to say men have been falsely victimized by false claims of domestic violence, all along it's the women who have been beating up the men?

Seriously?

It seems that yes, women have been beating up men almost as often as men have been beating up women. Men are just less likely to a) report it, b) be taken seriously if they do.

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male

There's a fair amount of corroborating research for that conclusion elsewhere.

 

[H'ethetheth]

...

Police attitudes toward the victims of rape have often been studied (Coombs, 1986; LeDoux & Hazelwood, 1985; Madigan & Gamble, 1991; LaFree, 1989; Adler, 1987) and too often the results of such investigations show that, in fact, the police are distrustful of women. They believe that women who are not of perfect virtue (whatever that might be) may be lying

It seems to me that the police investigating any crime should be distrustful of everyone involved, regardless of gender, and always believe that the accuser may be lying.

Which, according to the report, is very common insofar as details are concerned that could make the accuser look bad, making it one of the main causes for cases being dismissed.

So, girls and boys, to quote some wise words: Don't do that.

 

[Diogenes]

...

Of course, perhaps that's just worded badly and what is meant is that the police are disproportionately distrustful of women and are more inclined to believe the accused than the accuser.

Again that bit was part of the intro in that work to frame that question of attitude. SG apparently just skimmed until hitting that bit and didn't read further...there's actually quantitative work that went into researching that particular police attitude.

 

[Leftus]

If my questions were silly I'd think you'd have an easy answer.

How many women have to tell you something happened before you believe it?

I, for one, do not make any choices without checking first with http://onemillionmoms.com/

 

[bedlin88]

If my questions were silly I'd think you'd have an easy answer.

How many women have to tell you something happened before you believe it?

ok fine, 1 if they have evidence to back up their claim.

But since you like gotcha questions so much now you can answer mine and I will only accept a yes or no answer.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And no I don't expect you to actually answer that. We all know there is no good answer. Which is exactly what you get in the court of public opinion and believe someone without evidence. No good answer.

If your conclusion lacks evidence, then I find your conclusion lacking.

 

[luchog]

So no matter how many women agree on something you won't believe them against a man?

How many religious people need to agree on something before you'll believe them against an atheist?

It's about evidence. That's why we're here, remember?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think he's really trying to say that, absent regulatory oversight in the form of mandatory arrest policies, your "mostly male police officer attitudes" are more likely to give women a pass on domestic violence than men. Probably because, like you, most male police officers don't seem to think women beating up on men is a real problem. After all, they're women, right?

Well that's not what the facts show. Some women may indeed never be arrested after they assaulted a man, but by far there is a long well documented history of women's injuries being ignored, perps left in the home, and more seriously injured or dead women as the result of police not taking the domestic violence claims seriously.

But neither one of you look up your facts before you post. The police not arresting violent men in domestic violence cases was identified as having a huge contribution to preventable murder. Like I said, many police departments invested resources in addressing the problem because it was so bad. So now, it's not as bad as it used to be.

The Police Response to Spouse Abuse: An Annotated Bibliography

There have been major changes in the police response to spouse abuse since the 1976 International Association of Chiefs of Police directive stated that “wife abuse should not be considered a victimless crime” (Browne 1987, 168). In fact, many police departments have adopted pro-arrest or mandatory arrest policies for dealing with such incidents. In 1984, a report published by the United States Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence recommended that arrest be the preferred policy in dealing with domestic violence incidents. ...

1) Breedlove, R. K., Sandler, D. M., Kennish, J.W. & Sawtell, R. K. (1977).
Domestic violence and the police: Kansas City. In Domestic violence and the
police: Studies in Detroit and Kansas City (pp. 22-33). Washington, DC: Police
Foundation.

This study was undertaken to determine whether or not there was a relationship between prior domestic disturbances and subsequent homicides or aggravated assaults. Findings indicated that in the two years preceding any reported homicide or assault, police had been at the address at least once in 85% of the cases and at least five times in approximately 50% of the cases. In addition, the violence was preceded by threats in over 50% of the cases. These findings indicated that police do have a significant early warning system in these cases thereby allowing for better and effective intervention techniques.

After mandatory arrest policies were implemented the rates of homicide went down, prior to that police were going on the calls and doing very little about the abuse other than separating the couple at the time.

 

[squealpiggy]

It seems to me that the police investigating any crime should be distrustful of everyone involved, regardless of gender, and always believe that the accuser may be lying. That seems like the very definition of a sceptical approach. If it were the case that accusers of crimes should be automatically believed, then I would see little need for investigations or trials.

Of course, perhaps that's just worded badly and what is meant is that the police are disproportionately distrustful of women and are more inclined to believe the accused than the accuser.

What it boils down to is that people often lie to police about every level of crime and officers are under pressure to act only on reasonable and probable grounds for what should be obvious reasons. We don't want our police ignoring victims of crime but neither do we want them making arrests based on spurious allegations and we especially don't want them bringing flimsy cases to the courts which waste everybody's time and money.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems that yes, women have been beating up men almost as often as men have been beating up women. Men are just less likely to a) report it, b) be taken seriously if they do.

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male

There's a fair amount of corroborating research for that conclusion elsewhere.

A lot of those victims are men beaten up by male partners. And the severity of injuries differs significantly so counting up numbers is very misleading. And I find that article specious given the report is by some group with a male rights agenda. Show me the hospital and murder data.

I'm not going to get into this argument again, it's off topic here and been dealt with in other threads. It's women who are likely to be murdered by their domestic partners and men are only rarely murdered by significant other females. It's ludicrous to try to argue there is some kind of sexual parity when it comes to domestic violence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

See table 3.1 on page 17.

Killed by spouse: 80% were the wife.
Killed by boy/girlfriend: 70% were women.

Table 3.2 data on the murderer shows larger numbers of male perpetrators compared to female when it comes to killing one's spouse or lover. I'm not sure why the discrepancy.

 

[Dissolution]

I'm not sure if I'm reading that right SG, but doesn't it just show that men are more likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance than their spouse?
What were the actual numbers in each case?