4 ms·

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 situatio

by 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?

by pyre 9y ago

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?