4 ms·

So we shouldn't prosecute insurance fraud, because it will put off people who file real claims? Nonsense. Corrupting the justice system should be punished to

by adekok 9y ago

So we shouldn't prosecute insurance fraud, because it will put off people who file real claims? Nonsense. Corrupting the justice system should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. How can you have justice when the justice system goes along willingly with abuse? There are cases where claimants are proven beyond any doubt to have lied. Lied knowingly, egregiously, and with malice aforethought. The idea that those people should be let off with a polite smile of "we don't want to put off the real victims" is horrific.

peteretep 9y ago
You lost me at equating bringing an insurance claim with bringing sexual assault charges. I don't believe that axiom holds.
- adekok 9y ago
  Explain why. Be specific. I think the misunderstanding is that you think I'm saying insurance claims are equal in scope to sexual assault. That is (TBH) ridiculous. To the extent of deliberate blindness. What I'm actually doing is making a statement about the fraudsters. Not the victims. FALSE sexual assault charges do not involve sexual assault. False sexual assault charges do not have real victims. So false sexual assault charges are, in fact, entirely equivalent to false insurance claims. Both are false. Both do not involve real victims. Your reaction comes across as an un-thinking knee-jerk "OMFG sexual assault is bad"... to the point where we can't have a rational discussion about anything related to the subject. Look, there are fraudsters. See "Jackie" at the University of Virginia. Or the Duke Lacrosse case. In both situations, "wishful thinking" people came damned close to lynching the accused, facts be damned. And in both cases, every single aspect of the claimants story turned out to be provably false. You have an implicit claim that sexual assault is somehow magical, and deserving of different standards than insurance fraud. All possible evidence shows that this attitude is not just wrong, it is actively dangerous. It denies reality. It denies justice. It hurts innocent people.
  - pyre 9y ago
    The issue that you're missing is that "sexual assault fraud" can be claimed in cases where there is actual sexual assault, but it is a he-said/she-said situation. That is where the "chilling-effect" comes in. Sexual assault cases are many times he-said/she-said situations, so any victim reporting runs the risk of getting accused of (and needing to defend themselves from) "sexual assault fraud" in addition to trying to pursue actual charges (where the defence will spend a lot of time trying to assault the victim's character, basically calling them a "slut" in open court).
    - throw22221221 9y ago
      For the crime of sexual assault to be proven, you need more than a he said/she said. For the crime of perjury to be proven, you also need more. Substantive proof of lying, not just 'the guy did not get convicted'. I don't think there is a chilling effect when you use a standard of proof to admit a claim of fraud.
      - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        Doesn't perjury already apply?
        extra88 9y ago
        Perjury is a crime against the court. Making a fraudulent claim against a person is a crime against that person.
        grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        Appreciate the clarification.
        gnicholas 9y ago
        Perjury would apply to testimony given under oath, which happens at a trial. But most cases don't go to trial, of course. You could also get nailed on "filing a false police report", which is earlier in the process. But for matters adjudicated by universities, it's possible that neither of these apply, since official police reports are not necessarily filed, and testimony is not given in a courtroom, under oath. More generally, you could claim defamation. This is not a crime though — it is a civil matter. If the defamer has no assets, it would be an expensive way to make a point ("I didn't do it!") and could lead to the Streisand Effect.
philh 9y ago
The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of this policy, as hard as we can."
- adekok 9y ago
  > The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. > You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of this policy, as hard as we can." That cannot possibly be concluded from what I said. My claim is that when it's proven that people lie (i.e. fraudster, as I said), ignoring those lies is corrupting the justice system. The thing is, perjury is a criminal offence. I don't think you'd disagree. The mistake you're making is assuming that because I say some people are proven to lie, you think I'm claiming that all people lie. That's a logical fallacy, and basically assumes I'm an asshole or an idiot. Your claim seems to be that we should never prosecute liars, because it will dissuade real victims from coming forward. I think that claim is horrific, for reasons I explained. To counter your next comment.. no, I don't think claimants should be charged when their claims cannot be proven to be true. Again, making an unsubstantiated claim is not legally perjury, and is not a criminal offence. My claim is that provably false claims should be punished. Is that really so difficult to understand?
  - philh 9y ago
    I'm not interested in talking about your claim. I'm talking about how you replied to someone else's claim. > That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. No you didn't. You gave some examples where the proposed policy would not have the side effect. You didn't show that it would never have the side effect. > That cannot possibly be concluded from what I said. "The exact opposite of this policy", in context, would be letting people off for false accusations. Why were you talking about "the idea that those people should be let off" if you agree that peteretep never suggested letting people off?
    - adekok 9y ago

by adekok 9y ago

peteretep 9y ago

You lost me at equating bringing an insurance claim with bringing sexual assault charges. I don't believe that axiom holds.

adekok 9y ago
Explain why. Be specific. I think the misunderstanding is that you think I'm saying insurance claims are equal in scope to sexual assault. That is (TBH) ridiculous. To the extent of deliberate blindness. What I'm actually doing is making a statement about the fraudsters. Not the victims. FALSE sexual assault charges do not involve sexual assault. False sexual assault charges do not have real victims. So false sexual assault charges are, in fact, entirely equivalent to false insurance claims. Both are false. Both do not involve real victims. Your reaction comes across as an un-thinking knee-jerk "OMFG sexual assault is bad"... to the point where we can't have a rational discussion about anything related to the subject. Look, there are fraudsters. See "Jackie" at the University of Virginia. Or the Duke Lacrosse case. In both situations, "wishful thinking" people came damned close to lynching the accused, facts be damned. And in both cases, every single aspect of the claimants story turned out to be provably false. You have an implicit claim that sexual assault is somehow magical, and deserving of different standards than insurance fraud. All possible evidence shows that this attitude is not just wrong, it is actively dangerous. It denies reality. It denies justice. It hurts innocent people.
- pyre 9y ago
  The issue that you're missing is that "sexual assault fraud" can be claimed in cases where there is actual sexual assault, but it is a he-said/she-said situation. That is where the "chilling-effect" comes in. Sexual assault cases are many times he-said/she-said situations, so any victim reporting runs the risk of getting accused of (and needing to defend themselves from) "sexual assault fraud" in addition to trying to pursue actual charges (where the defence will spend a lot of time trying to assault the victim's character, basically calling them a "slut" in open court).
  - throw22221221 9y ago
    For the crime of sexual assault to be proven, you need more than a he said/she said. For the crime of perjury to be proven, you also need more. Substantive proof of lying, not just 'the guy did not get convicted'. I don't think there is a chilling effect when you use a standard of proof to admit a claim of fraud.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      Doesn't perjury already apply?
      - extra88 9y ago
        Perjury is a crime against the court. Making a fraudulent claim against a person is a crime against that person.
        grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        Appreciate the clarification.
      - gnicholas 9y ago
        Perjury would apply to testimony given under oath, which happens at a trial. But most cases don't go to trial, of course. You could also get nailed on "filing a false police report", which is earlier in the process. But for matters adjudicated by universities, it's possible that neither of these apply, since official police reports are not necessarily filed, and testimony is not given in a courtroom, under oath. More generally, you could claim defamation. This is not a crime though — it is a civil matter. If the defamer has no assets, it would be an expensive way to make a point ("I didn't do it!") and could lead to the Streisand Effect.

philh 9y ago

The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of this policy, as hard as we can."

adekok 9y ago
> The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. > You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of this policy, as hard as we can." That cannot possibly be concluded from what I said. My claim is that when it's proven that people lie (i.e. fraudster, as I said), ignoring those lies is corrupting the justice system. The thing is, perjury is a criminal offence. I don't think you'd disagree. The mistake you're making is assuming that because I say some people are proven to lie, you think I'm claiming that all people lie. That's a logical fallacy, and basically assumes I'm an asshole or an idiot. Your claim seems to be that we should never prosecute liars, because it will dissuade real victims from coming forward. I think that claim is horrific, for reasons I explained. To counter your next comment.. no, I don't think claimants should be charged when their claims cannot be proven to be true. Again, making an unsubstantiated claim is not legally perjury, and is not a criminal offence. My claim is that provably false claims should be punished. Is that really so difficult to understand?
- philh 9y ago
  I'm not interested in talking about your claim. I'm talking about how you replied to someone else's claim. > That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. No you didn't. You gave some examples where the proposed policy would not have the side effect. You didn't show that it would never have the side effect. > That cannot possibly be concluded from what I said. "The exact opposite of this policy", in context, would be letting people off for false accusations. Why were you talking about "the idea that those people should be let off" if you agree that peteretep never suggested letting people off?
  - adekok 9y ago