5 ms·

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) ridi

by 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.
      - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        Thanks for breaking that down. Do you think the safeguards (filing a false police report or perjury if in court) are enough? And, if not, do you see any way to implement a law that would not harm sexual abuse victims as a byproduct?
peteretep 9y ago
I think it's probably easiest to ignore the inchoate name calling and focus on where we can agree, specifically: > You have an implicit claim > that sexual assault is > somehow magical, and > deserving of different > standards than insurance > fraud Yes I do. Specifically I believe sexual assaults are under-reported, and that more assaults happen because they're under-reported. Taking those back-to-front, an insurance claim that's unreported doesn't endanger wider society, where a serial rapist abusing his position of power does. As to under-reporting of sexual crimes, evidence is easily Googleable. But even if it wasn't, one looks at cases like Jimmy Saville where alleged victims didn't come out until others did; largely due to their feeling they wouldn't be believed.
- adekok 9y ago
  > I think it's probably easiest to ignore the inchoate name calling Because it didn't happen. But you're free to feel superior to me based on lies about what I said. > Specifically I believe sexual assaults are under-reported, Yes... look at the numbers from Statistics Canada for one. In interviews, people claim sexual assault rates that are about 10x the rate of police reports. Why are those crimes not reported? Statistics Canada asked... the #1 answer is "because the assault was too minor to bother with". i.e. grabbing an ass in a bar is legally sexual assault. But few people are going to file a police report about it. > and that more assaults happen because they're under-reported. No such evidence exists. There is evidence that there are massive programs to encourage people to report sexual assault. All such programs have not increased the reporting rate to police. Which makes it look like the rate of police reports of serious crimes is pretty close to the real rate of serious crimes.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

by adekok 9y ago

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.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      Thanks for breaking that down. Do you think the safeguards (filing a false police report or perjury if in court) are enough? And, if not, do you see any way to implement a law that would not harm sexual abuse victims as a byproduct?

peteretep 9y ago

I think it's probably easiest to ignore the inchoate name calling and focus on where we can agree, specifically: > You have an implicit claim > that sexual assault is > somehow magical, and > deserving of different > standards than insurance > fraud Yes I do. Specifically I believe sexual assaults are under-reported, and that more assaults happen because they're under-reported. Taking those back-to-front, an insurance claim that's unreported doesn't endanger wider society, where a serial rapist abusing his position of power does. As to under-reporting of sexual crimes, evidence is easily Googleable. But even if it wasn't, one looks at cases like Jimmy Saville where alleged victims didn't come out until others did; largely due to their feeling they wouldn't be believed.

adekok 9y ago
> I think it's probably easiest to ignore the inchoate name calling Because it didn't happen. But you're free to feel superior to me based on lies about what I said. > Specifically I believe sexual assaults are under-reported, Yes... look at the numbers from Statistics Canada for one. In interviews, people claim sexual assault rates that are about 10x the rate of police reports. Why are those crimes not reported? Statistics Canada asked... the #1 answer is "because the assault was too minor to bother with". i.e. grabbing an ass in a bar is legally sexual assault. But few people are going to file a police report about it. > and that more assaults happen because they're under-reported. No such evidence exists. There is evidence that there are massive programs to encourage people to report sexual assault. All such programs have not increased the reporting rate to police. Which makes it look like the rate of police reports of serious crimes is pretty close to the real rate of serious crimes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]