6 ms·

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/delhi-rape-one-conviction-706-cases-2012_n_4419374.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/delhi-rape-one-conv...

by awinder 12y ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/delhi-rape-one-conviction-706-cases-2012_n_4419374.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/delhi-rape-one-conv... Of 706 reported rape cases, 1 lead to an actual conviction. So you have an under-reported category of crime which is irregularly prosecuted. There's obvious ethical issues with denying jobs to people based on accusation rather than conviction, but in a society with a broken justice system surrounding that, there's ethical dilemmas no matter how you slice it. There's also a serious question about how you rate the ethical utility of someone not being able to get a job in a specific area, versus possible endangerment of someone's life.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- baxter001 12y ago
  Great idea, you could operate on a sliding scale that reduces the fare based on freakiness of the driver. Make real killing by hiring a driver that torutured small animals and chronically wet the bed as a child, because although it has no real correlation with adult psychopathy you still save 8Rs/Km
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- hashx 12y ago
  > Heck, they even elected quite a few convicted criminals to lead the Government Can you give an example of a "convicted" (not accused) elected member from India? >For example, a small search on Amit Shah and his fake encounters Amit Shah has not been convicted. The case is ongoing. >To me all this showdown to ban Uber seems more like an attempt to squeeze a little extra dollars from an American company. By banning Uber they are trying to squeeze more dollars from it?
lettergram 12y ago
I would just like to point out, that the crimes aren't necessarily under-reported (i.e. 706 reported), rather, there was not enough evidence to convict. I would still argue that there is a high amount of under-reporting because people are embarrassed, just want to put it behind them, etc. However, I also feel a large number of the reported cases are skewed due to angry ex-girlfriends, intoxication, etc. Specifically, in this case if he was not convicted it's not the responsibility of Uber to disclose that information (instead it's the driver). Uber (in the U.S.) cannot even disclose if someone was accused of rape (unless there was a felony conviction), conversely it is the drivers responsibility to share any convictions upfront (though a background check should still be done). Overall, I believe this has more to do with Uber's business practices. The rape wouldn't have even been an issue if Uber was capable of helping the police or explaining some basic questions. In other words, if Uber was able to say, "We did a background check, and he wasn't convicted" then there wouldn't have been an issue. However, Uber couldn't even be contacted, and was breaking transportation laws.
- dethstar 12y ago
  >I would just like to point out, that the crimes aren't necessarily under-reported (i.e. 706 reported) They were saying it is a generally under-reported crime. Saying that there was 706 reported cases doesn't change anything. https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-r... Overall, your "feel" about a large number of reported cases being skewed are nothing but a feel. Proves nothing.
  - ajkjk 12y ago
    It's insane to discredit a valid point for being 'nothing but a feel'. You don't know if it's nothing or not. OP doesn't claim to prove anything and anyone reading can see that.
    - dethstar 12y ago
      Well, false reports can not be considered false unless withdrew by the accuser. Otherwise is just a shot in the dark. It is completely valid to discredit a point with no source. And there's sources that say it is 2% false accusations (like most other crimes) and there's sources that says is 40%. Why are numbers so separate from each other? Because it's a shot in the dark.
pc86 12y ago
> there's ethical dilemmas no matter how you slice it You're exactly right. So the question becomes, "Is it better to disqualify applicants based on accusation alone, knowing that you'll disqualify some number of innocent people, or is it better to screen on convictions alone, knowing that you could possibly not screen out some guilty folks you otherwise would?"
- rmc 12y ago
  You can go better than "accusation". Anyone could accuse anyone of anything. But you could set the bar in the middle with "arrested", which is half way between "accusation" and "conviction".
  - Retra 12y ago
    No it's not. Arrests can happen for only an accusation, or even less in some cases.
  - fragsworth 12y ago
    That's not really in the middle. The only difference between "accused" and "arrested" is that the accuser told the police.
    - danudey 12y ago
      In the experience of my friends with regards to sexual assaults in North America, there's a substantial gap between 'accuser told the police' and 'arrested'. I can't imagine it would be any closer of a gap in India.
    - rmc 12y ago
      Yes the accuser told the police, and the police thought there was suffecient reason to arrest the accused. That's the important difference. Sometimes the police are told, and they interview the accused and don't arrest them. Sometimes they do. The police are (in theory) supposed to have standards for who they arrest.
  - pc86 12y ago

by awinder 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

baxter001 12y ago
Great idea, you could operate on a sliding scale that reduces the fare based on freakiness of the driver. Make real killing by hiring a driver that torutured small animals and chronically wet the bed as a child, because although it has no real correlation with adult psychopathy you still save 8Rs/Km

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

hashx 12y ago
> Heck, they even elected quite a few convicted criminals to lead the Government Can you give an example of a "convicted" (not accused) elected member from India? >For example, a small search on Amit Shah and his fake encounters Amit Shah has not been convicted. The case is ongoing. >To me all this showdown to ban Uber seems more like an attempt to squeeze a little extra dollars from an American company. By banning Uber they are trying to squeeze more dollars from it?

lettergram 12y ago

I would just like to point out, that the crimes aren't necessarily under-reported (i.e. 706 reported), rather, there was not enough evidence to convict. I would still argue that there is a high amount of under-reporting because people are embarrassed, just want to put it behind them, etc. However, I also feel a large number of the reported cases are skewed due to angry ex-girlfriends, intoxication, etc. Specifically, in this case if he was not convicted it's not the responsibility of Uber to disclose that information (instead it's the driver). Uber (in the U.S.) cannot even disclose if someone was accused of rape (unless there was a felony conviction), conversely it is the drivers responsibility to share any convictions upfront (though a background check should still be done). Overall, I believe this has more to do with Uber's business practices. The rape wouldn't have even been an issue if Uber was capable of helping the police or explaining some basic questions. In other words, if Uber was able to say, "We did a background check, and he wasn't convicted" then there wouldn't have been an issue. However, Uber couldn't even be contacted, and was breaking transportation laws.

dethstar 12y ago
>I would just like to point out, that the crimes aren't necessarily under-reported (i.e. 706 reported) They were saying it is a generally under-reported crime. Saying that there was 706 reported cases doesn't change anything. https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-r... Overall, your "feel" about a large number of reported cases being skewed are nothing but a feel. Proves nothing.
- ajkjk 12y ago
  It's insane to discredit a valid point for being 'nothing but a feel'. You don't know if it's nothing or not. OP doesn't claim to prove anything and anyone reading can see that.
  - dethstar 12y ago
    Well, false reports can not be considered false unless withdrew by the accuser. Otherwise is just a shot in the dark. It is completely valid to discredit a point with no source. And there's sources that say it is 2% false accusations (like most other crimes) and there's sources that says is 40%. Why are numbers so separate from each other? Because it's a shot in the dark.

pc86 12y ago

> there's ethical dilemmas no matter how you slice it You're exactly right. So the question becomes, "Is it better to disqualify applicants based on accusation alone, knowing that you'll disqualify some number of innocent people, or is it better to screen on convictions alone, knowing that you could possibly not screen out some guilty folks you otherwise would?"

rmc 12y ago
You can go better than "accusation". Anyone could accuse anyone of anything. But you could set the bar in the middle with "arrested", which is half way between "accusation" and "conviction".
- Retra 12y ago
  No it's not. Arrests can happen for only an accusation, or even less in some cases.
- fragsworth 12y ago
  That's not really in the middle. The only difference between "accused" and "arrested" is that the accuser told the police.
  - danudey 12y ago
    In the experience of my friends with regards to sexual assaults in North America, there's a substantial gap between 'accuser told the police' and 'arrested'. I can't imagine it would be any closer of a gap in India.
  - rmc 12y ago
    Yes the accuser told the police, and the police thought there was suffecient reason to arrest the accused. That's the important difference. Sometimes the police are told, and they interview the accused and don't arrest them. Sometimes they do. The police are (in theory) supposed to have standards for who they arrest.
- pc86 12y ago