5 ms·

This ignores the myriad ways that rape victims are further traumatized by the very due process you're demanding they subject themselves to (note: "subject thems

by rosser 9y ago

This ignores the myriad ways that rape victims are further traumatized by the very due process you're demanding they subject themselves to (note: "subject themselves to", not "avail themselves of"): police, prosecutors, and defense counsel all casting various kinds of doubt on her version of events; having to bare a profoundly vulnerable experience to the world; being accused by looky-lous, her own acquaintances, "friends", and family, and people with all kinds of agendas of having made it up in the first place. Pressing charges and seeing the process through is often reported as being a significant re-traumatization — sometimes even worse than the assault, itself. It also ignores the fact that "hiring decisions" aren't subject to due process — and that "unemployed for life" is specious hyperbole. EDIT: Down-voters, assume an actual rape occurred. Please convince me of how it's incumbent upon the person that was raped to subject herself to all of that, just to be "fair" to the job prospects of her rapist. If the statistics are anything to go by, he's overwhelmingly likely to be acquitted, anyway.

aperrien 9y ago
Playing devils advocate: Why should I hire anyone who is accused of rape when I do my background check? Why should anyone else hire such people?
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  Because anybody can accuse anyone of anything. Look: aperrien raped my sister today. Why should anybody hire you or work for you now?
  - rosser 9y ago
    False rape accusations are a crime. Specious examples of false accusations are a cheap debating tactic. Literally, that is a textbook straw-man.
    - bufferoverflow 9y ago
      Yeah, but that's what we're discussing. How do you tell if the allegation is true? I propose due process, evidence, trials. What do you propose?
      - rosser 9y ago
        > What do you propose? For starters, a justice system and ideological climate that isn't predisposed to discount women's lived experience of harassment and assault.
        bufferoverflow 9y ago
        What does that mean specifically? Women can already press charges when they accuse someone. The problem is, many women don't. I see no evidence of women not being allowed to press charges on a mass scale. I understand it's a traumatic experience, but so is all of violent crimes.
        rosser 9y ago
        > What does that mean specifically? I'm talking about a climate where when a woman claims she's being harassed, the response is to credit the (stated) intent of the person allegedly harassing her ("I was just flirting" or "Can't you take a joke?") over her experience. I don't think it matters what your intent was. If you're making someone — anyone — uncomfortable, that's on you; it's your behavior that caused the discomfort. Or, when a woman actually does press charges for a rape, the way it generally works out, there's substantial burden-of-proof placed upon her to substantiate her own experience. Yes, even — especially — from the police and prosecution, whose jobs it literally is to do that for her. > The problem is, many women don't. Given the above, and the underlying attitudes that give rise to it, can you blame them? We have a profoundly shitty attitude, as a culture, regarding women and their sexual agency, and the way we treat rape is only a sliver of that.
        rectang 9y ago
        > I see no evidence of women not being allowed to press charges on a mass scale. Just scratching the surface, consider the massive, systemic backlog of untested rape kits in the US. Women aren't legally prevented from pressing charges by this maddening lack of cooperation, but in practice many rape cases go unprosecuted because of police indifference or hostility.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    I can accuse someone of being an asshole, and that we shouldn't hire him because of that. How come nobody freaks out over THAT? Saying "this person is unpleasant to work with, ND we shouldn't hire them" wouldn't make anyone bat an eye...
    - bufferoverflow 9y ago
      Nobody is freaking out about anything. We're talking about due process. Being an asshole isn't a crime, rape is a pretty bad one. Assholes get hired all the time, even when it's known. Ever read Linus's emails? Yet I'd work with him in a heartbeat.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        But my point is that I can already take away someone's due process. I say "this person is awful to work with. Don't hire them". And they won't get hired, 99% percent of the time. And I can do all of this in my word alone, without and judge jury or trial. Society already says that this is ok in hiring. Nobody is going to go around saying "you can't accuse someone of that and prevent them from being hired! That is he said she said!".
  - dang 9y ago
    > Look: aperrien raped my sister today. Ugh. This was a nasty flamewar already—the kind of thing this site is not for. Please don't take things even closer to the bottom of the barrel.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bufferoverflow 9y ago
Ok, the system isn't perfect, for sure, but who cares about someone's doubt, when you have the evidence? From what I can see, in this particular case the girl didn't press charges, even though she had a strong case (his DNA, her being very drunk, done the med evaluation quickly). What do you propose exactly? Always believe the accuser? No more innocent till proven guilty? Make the accused unemployable? For how long? Cause it would be trivial to create dozens of FB profiles and accuse you of rape once a week.
- rosser 9y ago
  As often as not — more often than not — her state of intoxication is somehow construed as a mitigating factor. "How do we know she didn't consent, but couldn't remember, because she was so drunk?" And that happens in places where it's prima facie rape to have sex with someone who's too intoxicated to meaningfully consent. How is that not an impossible double standard?
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    That's not how it works. If there's evidence of intercourse, and the girl claims she didn't consent, in the overall majority of cases the guy is screwed, even if she is lying. You're 10 times more likely to be exonerated for murder, than for a false rape allegation. There's no double standard - the burden of proof is on the prosecution, as it should be. And you still keep dodging the question - what exactly do you propose?
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      This is a relatively incredible set of claims. Care to back them up? Specifically the 10x more likely to be exonerated of murder than rape, and the more surprising claim that a majority of false rape claims end in the guy being screwed, by which I assume you mean jailtime. All of the evidence I've seen directly contradicts both of those assertions, so I'd like to know how you concluded that.
    - rosser 9y ago

by rosser 9y ago

aperrien 9y ago

Playing devils advocate: Why should I hire anyone who is accused of rape when I do my background check? Why should anyone else hire such people?

bufferoverflow 9y ago
Because anybody can accuse anyone of anything. Look: aperrien raped my sister today. Why should anybody hire you or work for you now?
- rosser 9y ago
  False rape accusations are a crime. Specious examples of false accusations are a cheap debating tactic. Literally, that is a textbook straw-man.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    Yeah, but that's what we're discussing. How do you tell if the allegation is true? I propose due process, evidence, trials. What do you propose?
    - rosser 9y ago
      > What do you propose? For starters, a justice system and ideological climate that isn't predisposed to discount women's lived experience of harassment and assault.
      - bufferoverflow 9y ago
        What does that mean specifically? Women can already press charges when they accuse someone. The problem is, many women don't. I see no evidence of women not being allowed to press charges on a mass scale. I understand it's a traumatic experience, but so is all of violent crimes.
        rosser 9y ago
        > What does that mean specifically? I'm talking about a climate where when a woman claims she's being harassed, the response is to credit the (stated) intent of the person allegedly harassing her ("I was just flirting" or "Can't you take a joke?") over her experience. I don't think it matters what your intent was. If you're making someone — anyone — uncomfortable, that's on you; it's your behavior that caused the discomfort. Or, when a woman actually does press charges for a rape, the way it generally works out, there's substantial burden-of-proof placed upon her to substantiate her own experience. Yes, even — especially — from the police and prosecution, whose jobs it literally is to do that for her. > The problem is, many women don't. Given the above, and the underlying attitudes that give rise to it, can you blame them? We have a profoundly shitty attitude, as a culture, regarding women and their sexual agency, and the way we treat rape is only a sliver of that.
        rectang 9y ago
        > I see no evidence of women not being allowed to press charges on a mass scale. Just scratching the surface, consider the massive, systemic backlog of untested rape kits in the US. Women aren't legally prevented from pressing charges by this maddening lack of cooperation, but in practice many rape cases go unprosecuted because of police indifference or hostility.
- stale2002 9y ago
  I can accuse someone of being an asshole, and that we shouldn't hire him because of that. How come nobody freaks out over THAT? Saying "this person is unpleasant to work with, ND we shouldn't hire them" wouldn't make anyone bat an eye...
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    Nobody is freaking out about anything. We're talking about due process. Being an asshole isn't a crime, rape is a pretty bad one. Assholes get hired all the time, even when it's known. Ever read Linus's emails? Yet I'd work with him in a heartbeat.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      But my point is that I can already take away someone's due process. I say "this person is awful to work with. Don't hire them". And they won't get hired, 99% percent of the time. And I can do all of this in my word alone, without and judge jury or trial. Society already says that this is ok in hiring. Nobody is going to go around saying "you can't accuse someone of that and prevent them from being hired! That is he said she said!".
- dang 9y ago
  > Look: aperrien raped my sister today. Ugh. This was a nasty flamewar already—the kind of thing this site is not for. Please don't take things even closer to the bottom of the barrel.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bufferoverflow 9y ago

Ok, the system isn't perfect, for sure, but who cares about someone's doubt, when you have the evidence? From what I can see, in this particular case the girl didn't press charges, even though she had a strong case (his DNA, her being very drunk, done the med evaluation quickly). What do you propose exactly? Always believe the accuser? No more innocent till proven guilty? Make the accused unemployable? For how long? Cause it would be trivial to create dozens of FB profiles and accuse you of rape once a week.

rosser 9y ago
As often as not — more often than not — her state of intoxication is somehow construed as a mitigating factor. "How do we know she didn't consent, but couldn't remember, because she was so drunk?" And that happens in places where it's prima facie rape to have sex with someone who's too intoxicated to meaningfully consent. How is that not an impossible double standard?
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  That's not how it works. If there's evidence of intercourse, and the girl claims she didn't consent, in the overall majority of cases the guy is screwed, even if she is lying. You're 10 times more likely to be exonerated for murder, than for a false rape allegation. There's no double standard - the burden of proof is on the prosecution, as it should be. And you still keep dodging the question - what exactly do you propose?
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    This is a relatively incredible set of claims. Care to back them up? Specifically the 10x more likely to be exonerated of murder than rape, and the more surprising claim that a majority of false rape claims end in the guy being screwed, by which I assume you mean jailtime. All of the evidence I've seen directly contradicts both of those assertions, so I'd like to know how you concluded that.
  - rosser 9y ago