4 ms·

This article is terrible. There is no "rape", no "rapist", and no "survivor" until a trial has been conducted. Until then, there is only an "accuser" and an "ac

This article is terrible. There is no "rape", no "rapist", and no "survivor" until a trial has been conducted. Until then, there is only an "accuser" and an "accused". The article also links to a report that only 54% of rapes are reported to the police. Until there has been a trial, there is no way to know if there has been a rape. What they mean is that 54% of people who claim rape do not report it to the police. I don't know they know that even.

venus 14y ago
Yeah, that is a shocking article. The site seems to be a hardcore feminist outrage blog with a strong prejudice to what they perceive, wrongly, to be the female interest. Even the use of the word "survivor" at all is highly objectionable, being a subtle attempt to raise the stakes, as if rape and attempted murder are synonymous. The story itself sounds highly questionable. Even in the same blog post, the details are inconsistent (did she walk back to the cab of her own volition, or was she called?) Where was this jacket and why would she think she "might" have left it in the cab? Why would the driver wait until she left and returned to attack her? Why would an uber driver, in full knowledge that they are emphatically on record as having picked up and dropped off a person, basically lock themselves in prison and throw away the key by committing such a crime? Why would they then carry the victim's body onto the property!? Seeing that the police have questioned the driver and not charged him, a more likely explanation might be: Deeply intoxicated underage drinker brought home by uber driver, wrongly believes she left something in cab, falls over and hits her head walking back to it, driver carries her back onto her property, she makes something up the next morning to explain things to her parents. Wouldn't be the first time. Anyway, none of these reasonable objections slow the site down in whipping itself up into a self-righteous fervour as they declare the driver guilty and lament the "survivor" "will not see and has not seen justice in any real sense of the word". Oops, there I go engaging in "wildly misogynistic and rape-apologetic discussion" again!
- johncarrion 14y ago
  It's not even about whether the evidence as we know it is convincing. Even if it is plainly obvious that someone did commit a rape, such as a video of it, a civilised society would treat them as simply an accused, just one side of a legal case, until the trial is complete. If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room - person A (person A could be the state or the Crown) says person B did something, person B says that person A is falsely accusing them of doing something. There's no defendant and victim, just two opposing stories and a trial to establish reasonable fact. Every criminal case should be simultaneously a false accusation case.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room ... But that already exists -- it's called civil law. Contrast with criminal law: In criminal law, the state has an interest and brings charges against a defendant, the sides are called "prosecution" and "defense", the standard for judgment is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the outcomes include incarceration and (in some countries) execution. In civil law, the state has no interest, the offenses aren't called crimes, the two sides have equal standing and are called "petitioner" and "respondent" (the names change in different locales), the standard for judgment is "preponderance of evidence", and the outcome is usually a monetary payment. Incarceration isn't possible. > There's no defendant and victim, just two opposing stories and a trial to establish reasonable fact. This already exists, but it's not suitable for all cases. Any time the state has an interest, the rules change, and the word "crime" begins to be heard.
    - johncarrion 14y ago
      Why isn't it suitable? You say that the 'rules change' when it's criminal, but that's only because those are the rules we've got. There's no reason that we couldn't make all trials use the civil approach. If Sarah wants to accuse Bob of rape, she petitions a court and has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. If Bob denies it then automatically an opposite trial of false accusation runs at the same time. If Sarah has evidence that Bob raped her, perhaps the testimony of police detectives, Bob looses both cases and goes to prison. If there's not enough evidence, both sides loose. If it becomes clear that Bob definitely did not rape her, Sarah looses both cases, including the false accusation case, and goes to prison. At the moment Bob would have to make a separate trial for defamation or whatever. I think it should be rolled into one. In the case of murder, or treason, or grafatti of public property or whatever, it would be the state accusing. If it turns out that it was a malicious false accusation then the police or prosecutors would be liable.
      - venus 14y ago
        While I definitely agree that false accusation should be treated far more seriously and consistently than it seems to be, I think this is going too far in the other direction. Why should a victim of crime be obliged to prove a case against their aggressor? Who pays? What if the victim doesn't have the resources or time to take someone to court? And you need to make an exception for murder, attempted murder, disablement, etc anyway. No, the current concept of criminal justice works reasonably well, or would with consistent and serious enforcement of false accusation (and, for that matter, prosecutorial harassment). I repeat myself over and over again but I maintain that the best thing we can do to fix the justice system is to enforce the bloody law. All the laws. Consistently. If the law is too ridiculous to enforce, revoke it. But enforce the ones we have. Discretion in enforcing the law leads to gaming the system, protected and taboo groups, corruption, and ultimately profound injustice.

venus 14y ago

Yeah, that is a shocking article. The site seems to be a hardcore feminist outrage blog with a strong prejudice to what they perceive, wrongly, to be the female interest. Even the use of the word "survivor" at all is highly objectionable, being a subtle attempt to raise the stakes, as if rape and attempted murder are synonymous. The story itself sounds highly questionable. Even in the same blog post, the details are inconsistent (did she walk back to the cab of her own volition, or was she called?) Where was this jacket and why would she think she "might" have left it in the cab? Why would the driver wait until she left and returned to attack her? Why would an uber driver, in full knowledge that they are emphatically on record as having picked up and dropped off a person, basically lock themselves in prison and throw away the key by committing such a crime? Why would they then carry the victim's body onto the property!? Seeing that the police have questioned the driver and not charged him, a more likely explanation might be: Deeply intoxicated underage drinker brought home by uber driver, wrongly believes she left something in cab, falls over and hits her head walking back to it, driver carries her back onto her property, she makes something up the next morning to explain things to her parents. Wouldn't be the first time. Anyway, none of these reasonable objections slow the site down in whipping itself up into a self-righteous fervour as they declare the driver guilty and lament the "survivor" "will not see and has not seen justice in any real sense of the word". Oops, there I go engaging in "wildly misogynistic and rape-apologetic discussion" again!

johncarrion 14y ago
It's not even about whether the evidence as we know it is convincing. Even if it is plainly obvious that someone did commit a rape, such as a video of it, a civilised society would treat them as simply an accused, just one side of a legal case, until the trial is complete. If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room - person A (person A could be the state or the Crown) says person B did something, person B says that person A is falsely accusing them of doing something. There's no defendant and victim, just two opposing stories and a trial to establish reasonable fact. Every criminal case should be simultaneously a false accusation case.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room ... But that already exists -- it's called civil law. Contrast with criminal law: In criminal law, the state has an interest and brings charges against a defendant, the sides are called "prosecution" and "defense", the standard for judgment is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the outcomes include incarceration and (in some countries) execution. In civil law, the state has no interest, the offenses aren't called crimes, the two sides have equal standing and are called "petitioner" and "respondent" (the names change in different locales), the standard for judgment is "preponderance of evidence", and the outcome is usually a monetary payment. Incarceration isn't possible. > There's no defendant and victim, just two opposing stories and a trial to establish reasonable fact. This already exists, but it's not suitable for all cases. Any time the state has an interest, the rules change, and the word "crime" begins to be heard.
  - johncarrion 14y ago
    Why isn't it suitable? You say that the 'rules change' when it's criminal, but that's only because those are the rules we've got. There's no reason that we couldn't make all trials use the civil approach. If Sarah wants to accuse Bob of rape, she petitions a court and has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. If Bob denies it then automatically an opposite trial of false accusation runs at the same time. If Sarah has evidence that Bob raped her, perhaps the testimony of police detectives, Bob looses both cases and goes to prison. If there's not enough evidence, both sides loose. If it becomes clear that Bob definitely did not rape her, Sarah looses both cases, including the false accusation case, and goes to prison. At the moment Bob would have to make a separate trial for defamation or whatever. I think it should be rolled into one. In the case of murder, or treason, or grafatti of public property or whatever, it would be the state accusing. If it turns out that it was a malicious false accusation then the police or prosecutors would be liable.
    - venus 14y ago
      While I definitely agree that false accusation should be treated far more seriously and consistently than it seems to be, I think this is going too far in the other direction. Why should a victim of crime be obliged to prove a case against their aggressor? Who pays? What if the victim doesn't have the resources or time to take someone to court? And you need to make an exception for murder, attempted murder, disablement, etc anyway. No, the current concept of criminal justice works reasonably well, or would with consistent and serious enforcement of false accusation (and, for that matter, prosecutorial harassment). I repeat myself over and over again but I maintain that the best thing we can do to fix the justice system is to enforce the bloody law. All the laws. Consistently. If the law is too ridiculous to enforce, revoke it. But enforce the ones we have. Discretion in enforcing the law leads to gaming the system, protected and taboo groups, corruption, and ultimately profound injustice.