Can't we all just get along?

[gumboot]

I do not think this is true. In the "court of public opinion" proof and facts don't really count much at all. It mostly stereotype and myth. I do realise men believe that the woman will be believed, and that is why I keep coming back to the attrition rates: their relevance is that they are one indication of the state of public opinion, because they both reflect it and inform it: the courts and the police are part of our culture, and their attitudes have been subject to research while those of the wider population have not so much.

I don't buy this line of reasoning for even one iota of a second. The entire point of the legal system is to prevent mob rule. The police and courts absolutely should not reflect the "court of public opinion". You've provided no evidence whatsoever that they do, and the number of times media coverage of court cases clashes with the eventual verdict suggests pretty strongly that they don't. The only thing you can point to is attrition rates, however that entire premise is built on the exceedingly shaky belief that absent the interference of "public opinion" these cases would result in conviction. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest this, and without it your entire argument comes crashing down.

A far more logical explanation for high attrition rates is that A) most rape cases have insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution and B) most rape prosecutions have insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. None of these have anything to do with public opinion and both have everything to do with due process. In other words, the high attrition rates are evidence that the courts and police do not reflect public opinion. Which is how it should be.

There's really two options here:

1) Western courts and law enforcement are utterly failing to adhere to the most basic tenants of their duty on a woeful and shocking level, yet no one seems concerned with this.

or

2) Conviction in most rape cases presented to police is unjustified based on the available information.

I'm sure I don't need to point out to most people which of the above is logical and obvious, and which is patently absurd.

 

[Francesca R]

I didn't think Fiona said that "courts reflect public opinion" or that they should. Although juries composed of peers presumably do.

A more accurate statement is that the legal system has been excessively patriarchal, and that the emergence from this situation has been partial and recent and is not finished.

But you are correct that a higher rate of attrition should be expected for sex crimes than for many others.

 

[gumboot]

I just watched Sixteen Candles tonight and it's really quite an eye opener to see how attitudes have changed so markedly. Bear in mind this was a film aimed at young people.

In the film, a male's efforts to make unwanted advances (of a sexual nature) on a girl were repeatedly made in a completely normal and even comedic fashion. One character, asked if he was just after "ass", pointed out that his girlfriend was comatose upstairs so if he just wanted ass he could have her.

This sort of thing, portrayed in the film, was clearly entirely normal and acceptable. Now, of course, such material would be totally inappropriate. There would be hell to pay for it. I honestly cannot think of a recent film in which forced sexual advances by a man on a woman was made light of.

In contrast, to this day male-male rape is still a centre piece of comedies that include prison scenes (from memory, I believe Howard and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay involves such comedy, and that's a very recent film).

 

[gumboot]

I didn't think Fiona said that "courts reflect public opinion" or that they should. Although juries composed of peers presumably do.

I beg to differ:

their relevance is that they are one indication of the state of public opinion, because they both reflect it and inform it: the courts and the police are part of our culture

How would you interpret that, other than a claim that the courts and police reflect public opinion and are informed by it?

A more accurate statement is that the legal system has been excessively patriarchal, and that the emergence from this situation has been partial and recent and is not finished.

And yet numerous legal jurisdictions include crimes that are specifically orientated at women as victims and men as perpetrators. If anything many legal systems are gender-biased in favour of females. Males are consistently treated more harshly by western courts than females. That fact is undeniable.

But you are correct that a higher rate of attrition should be expected for sex crimes than for many others.

Given that the overwhelming majority of rapes involve two people already in some form of emotional relationship, and given that the overwhelming majority of rapes do not have collaborating witnesses or forensic evidence, I would think it would go without saying that attrition rates are exceedingly high. But some people seem determined to argue those high attrition rates are because of a failed justice system rather than one that is doing what it is designed to do.

 

[Francesca R]

How would you interpret that, other than a claim that the courts and police reflect public opinion and are informed by it?

I'll let her explain.

And yet numerous legal jurisdictions include crimes that are specifically orientated at women as victims and men as perpetrators. If anything many legal systems are gender-biased in favour of females. Males are consistently treated more harshly by western courts than females. That fact is undeniable.

I deny it wholeheartedly. But this is not going anywhere is it? You will not be convinced.

Given that the overwhelming majority of rapes involve two people already in some form of emotional relationship, and given that the overwhelming majority of rapes do not have collaborating witnesses or forensic evidence, I would think it would go without saying that attrition rates are exceedingly high. But some people seem determined to argue those high attrition rates are because of a failed justice system rather than one that is doing what it is designed to do.

The two are not exclusive of each other. High attrition rates should be expected, yet the very high attrition rates are also the product of a patriarchal legal system.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If you believe (as I do) that false reporting is rare but that failure to convict genuine reports is common, then most of the acquitted accused people facing this (very bad) situation of hostile public reaction are actually guilty in fact, but not in the eyes of the law. What that means is that an innocent person should still not have a high level of expectation that they will be falsely accused, acquitted, and then ostracised by the public.

See here's the issue. Beacuse as you pointed out, many people believe that even if the court finds them not guilty they still were and just got lucky, the fear is that if you get accused in a system where the police are more likely to send it to trial where they can't decide, or where they favour the woman's side, then even if during the trial you are proven innocent and found not guilty. Most people are still going to think you did it anyway.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Given that the overwhelming majority of rapes involve two people already in some form of emotional relationship, and given that the overwhelming majority of rapes do not have collaborating witnesses or forensic evidence, I would think it would go without saying that attrition rates are exceedingly high. But some people seem determined to argue those high attrition rates are because of a failed justice system rather than one that is doing what it is designed to do.

I agree. When I read Fiona's or Francesca's posts, I feel they want to add an extra sentence onto paragraphs in which they state their belief in the very rare false reporting of rape by women along the lines of:

"Therefore the judicial process should be changed so more men are convicted of rape because I know/believe most/all of the men are guilty anyway."

In Fiona's case it appears to me she believes the way to progress is to convince the public that a man charged with rape is almost certainly guilty, so any jury expects the man to prove his innocence.

 

[Francesca R]

See here's the issue. Beacuse as you pointed out, many people believe that even if the court finds them not guilty they still were and just got lucky, the fear is that if you get accused in a system where the police are more likely to send it to trial where they can't decide, or where they favour the woman's side, then even if during the trial you are proven innocent and found not guilty. Most people are still going to think you did it anyway.

That is an issue. but if the belief is true then the accused/acquitted probably did do it anyway. Which means that someone who is innocent can have a low expectation that they will be accused, tried, acquitted and then viewed as guilty by the public.

 

[Francesca R]

"Therefore the judicial process should be changed so more men are convicted of rape because I know/believe most/all of the men are guilty anyway."

Well if more guilty people are convicted of rape than is the case now, that would represent an improvement of justice.

In Fiona's case it appears to me she believes the way to progress is to convince the public that a man charged with rape is almost certainly guilty, so any jury expects the man to prove his innocence.

That is for her to answer but this is not the way to "progress" as I see it. The way to progress is reform of legal processes, statutes, evidence admissability rules, conduct of investigations and of trials. I do not have a ready laundry list of reforms, but one of my posts back along the way (ETA--67) mentioned some of the reforms that have already happened in recent decades.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Well if more guilty people are convicted of rape than is the case now, that would represent an improvement of justice.

True , but tautologous. Same goes for littering.

 

[Francesca R]

True , but tautologous. Same goes for littering.

Indeed. Justice in general has costs and benefits A debate about that was not getting very far of late.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well if more guilty people are convicted of rape than is the case now, that would represent an improvement of justice.

Only if more innocent people are not convicted.

That is for her to answer but this is not the way to "progress" as I see it. The way to progress is reform of legal processes, statutes, evidence admissability rules, conduct of investigations and of trials. I do not have a ready laundry list of reforms, but one of my posts back along the way mentioned some of the reforms that have already happened in recent decades.

I would probably agree with much of what you have in mind.

 

[gumboot]

That is an issue. but if the belief is true then the accused/acquitted probably did do it anyway. Which means that someone who is innocent can have a low expectation that they will be accused, tried, acquitted and then viewed as guilty by the public.

And if it's not?

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
In my society, as a young male, the spectre of being falsely accused of a sexual crime looms heavy over my head. I am distinctly aware that any woman has enormous power over me because, almost without exception, she will be believed.
[..]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 11 removed.

Anyway, I find this link relevant to what Gunboot says, even if it is not about rape, but about sexual harassment in metro

When you hear that country X has a 99.99% conviction rate for criminal trials what country comes to your mind? China? Iran? North Korea? Well, that staggering number actually belongs to Japan and its the cornerstone behind the compelling legal drama “I Just Didn’t Do it.” [..]
In “I Just Didn’t Do It,” 26 year old Teppei Kaneko is late for an all important job interview. The morning rush hour subway train is about to leave the station. [..]
When the train stops again, Teppei walks off the train, but a young 15 year old girl grabs his hand and accuses him of groping her from behind. [..]

http://lunapark6.com/i-just-didnt-do-it-soredemo-boku-wa-yattenai.html

 

[Matteo Martini]

Sorry, Fiona, but you were not raped in the incident you describe. You were not coerced, threatened, forced or in any way made to have the intercourse that you did, by your own account.

It is hard to draw any lesson from your non-rape.

Could not agree more..

 

[Francesca R]

Only if more innocent people are not convicted.

That's for the "Blackstone's Ratio" thread again. And there are other costs as well such as the intrustion on civil liberties (imagine government surveillance of all bedrooms).

 

[Francesca R]

And if it's not?

Then you and I would both, I think, see the same implication--probability of <what I said> would be higher.

 

[Matteo Martini]

She did not consent. It was rape.

IMO it would be virtually impossible to prove it was, though.

Wrong.

Yes OK. The episode described is one of rape. Now do you get it?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4235175&postcount=35

From Wikipedia:

In any allegation of rape, the absence of consent to sexual intercourse on the part of the victim is critical. Consent need not be express, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.

Duress, in which the victim may be subject to or threatened by overwhelming force or violence, and which may result in absence of objection to intercourse, leads to the presumption of lack of consent.

and

In order for duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:[1]

1.Threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
2.Harm threatened must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
3.Threat must be immediate and inescapable
4.The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own

 

[Francesca R]

Anyway, I find this link relevant to what Gunboot says, even if it is not about rape, but about sexual harassment in metro

When you hear that country X has a 99.99% conviction rate for criminal trials what country comes to your mind? China? Iran? North Korea? Well, that staggering number actually belongs to Japan

I agree with the point you are alluding to regarding criminal justice in Japan and the "dubious" high conviction rate for prosecuted crime in general. However this applies to trials, not reports of crime. I can't find any data on the percentage of rape reports in Japan that go to trial--but I expect that it is highly correlated with confessions. Nor do I know much about the attitude of the Japanese legal system to rape.

Anecdotally, but exceedingly high profile, there was a furore when Shinzo Abe (two prime ministers back, but less than two years ago) scandalously doubted in public that the "comfort women" raped in the hundreds of thousands in WW2 were actually coerced. There are still calls for a public apology.

Regarding Japan's conviction rate in general:

The notion of being innocent until proven guilty is not strong in Japan. Mr Hatoyama calls it “an idea which I want to constrain”. But confessions are important and the courts rely heavily upon them.
article

Article 34 of the Japanese Constitution guarantees the right to counsel and habeas corpus, but is systematically ignored. Police and prosecutors can detain suspects for 23 days. Interrogations are relentless and sometimes abusive. Prosecutors are reluctant to bring cases to trial without a confession. Indeed, it is considered a first step in a criminal's rehabilitation. When asked about the country's 99% conviction rate, Japan's justice minister, Kunio Hatoyama, corrected your correspondent to state that it was actually 99.9%, because prosecutors only present cases that are watertight.
article

Another one about "I Just Didn't Do It"

 

[Lonewulf]

Honestly, the thing about confessions in Japanese courts has been around since Feudal Japan. That was pretty much how they worked back then, as well -- evidence meant very little, confession was everything.