4 ms·

That seems consistent with the spirit of the legal system. Added: That is, to skirt this basic mechanism would probably be worse for everyone than the temporar

That seems consistent with the spirit of the legal system. Added: That is, to skirt this basic mechanism would probably be worse for everyone than the temporary escape of a rapist. I say this as somebody who has experienced sexual abuse. Another thing to keep in mind is that most rape and sexual assault is committed by people whom the victim knows personally, which makes the majority of cases much simpler to prosecute than this one. Yet another thing to keep in mind is that although rapists tend to be repeat offenders, only a small percentage are "serial rapists". That is, they're rare like serial killers are. Those guys barely exist. Note: there are replies to my comment which hackerne.ws won't let me reply to, my silence doesn't indicate an agreement or indeed a disagreement with any of the statements herein.

rayiner 12y ago
Yes, and it also makes prosecuting rape very difficult, in a structural way. It's a reminder that there are real trade-offs in criminal justice. That's why people can, in good faith, argue for not reading Constitutional protections in the broadest possible light.
chimeracoder 12y ago
> Another thing to keep in mind is that most rape and sexual assault is committed by people whom the victim knows personally, which makes the majority of cases much simpler to prosecute than this one. That's actually more difficult to prosecute successfully. It's much easier when you have DNA evidence linking two people who otherwise have no connection whatsoever, and demonstrating that forcible sexual contact occurred despite the rapist claiming to be somewhere else at the time. It's much more difficult when the rapist is a relative who has plenty of opportunities to be close to the victim, plenty of alternative alibis or excuses, and (most importantly) plenty of leverage to emotionally blackmail the victim into not filing charges. Rape can occur within marriage or domestic partnerships, and this is probably by far the most difficult to prosecute. The fact that the victim knows the rapist makes it more complicated legally and logistically, not less. In an abusive relationship, it's considered a success just to get the victim out of the relationship at all, and if they're in an emotional state where they can still move on and function in life, that's an added bonus. In situations like these, trying to prosecute the rapist is a distant pipe dream. > Yet another thing to keep in mind is that although rapists tend to be repeat offenders, only a small percentage are "serial rapists". That is, they're rare like serial killers are. Those guys barely exist. I really don't understand where you draw the line between "repeat offender" and "serial rapist". If you look at the link I cited in the original comment, it provides data on the number of repeat offenders, which is already troubling enough to be of concern, regardless of whether it meets your unstated threshold of "serial rapist".
- gizmo686 12y ago
  I don't normally like saying this, but why was this comment downvoted? >I really don't understand where you draw the line between "repeat offender" and "serial rapist". I don't know what microcolonel intended, but I see the distinction in who was raped. A repeat offender may rape only a single person, but multiple times. A serial rapist sound like someone who rapes multiple people.
  - microcolonel 12y ago
    I meant more generally that people don't tend to rape a second or third time, repeat rapists are not the common case. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I was under the impression that serial rapist meant more than once. A series of two is a thing.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
You don't cite a source for your claim that serial rapists are rare, and the available data tends to contradict it: https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/ https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-re... From that link, which discusses psychologist David Lisak's studies of rapists: "The last time I discussed Lisak’s work, I focused on the proportion of the population are the serial predators: a limited group within the population who are recidivist rapists, and who account for the overwhelming majority of rapes, and for a large portion of the child abuse and molestation and the intimate partner violence." Do you have studies to cite that back up the opposite claim? It's perfectly possible the reality is unclear, but everything I've read about the issue supports the idea that the majority of rapes are commited by significantly than 10% of the male population. This suggests a view in which rape is seen as a "predator/citizen" problem rather than a "men/women" problem, given that male rapists are about as rare as false rape reports (FBI data suggests that 8% of all rape reports are false, and Lisak and other's work suggests that about 8% of men are rapists, with as few as 4% accounting for 75-80% of rapes). As well as having the potential to open up new ways of addressing rape (and maybe identifying serial rapists early) this change in perspective would allow a more equal focus on male victims, whose numbers are not well-known (male under-reporting rates are almost completely unstudied and plausibly higher than women's).

rayiner 12y ago

Yes, and it also makes prosecuting rape very difficult, in a structural way. It's a reminder that there are real trade-offs in criminal justice. That's why people can, in good faith, argue for not reading Constitutional protections in the broadest possible light.

chimeracoder 12y ago

> Another thing to keep in mind is that most rape and sexual assault is committed by people whom the victim knows personally, which makes the majority of cases much simpler to prosecute than this one. That's actually more difficult to prosecute successfully. It's much easier when you have DNA evidence linking two people who otherwise have no connection whatsoever, and demonstrating that forcible sexual contact occurred despite the rapist claiming to be somewhere else at the time. It's much more difficult when the rapist is a relative who has plenty of opportunities to be close to the victim, plenty of alternative alibis or excuses, and (most importantly) plenty of leverage to emotionally blackmail the victim into not filing charges. Rape can occur within marriage or domestic partnerships, and this is probably by far the most difficult to prosecute. The fact that the victim knows the rapist makes it more complicated legally and logistically, not less. In an abusive relationship, it's considered a success just to get the victim out of the relationship at all, and if they're in an emotional state where they can still move on and function in life, that's an added bonus. In situations like these, trying to prosecute the rapist is a distant pipe dream. > Yet another thing to keep in mind is that although rapists tend to be repeat offenders, only a small percentage are "serial rapists". That is, they're rare like serial killers are. Those guys barely exist. I really don't understand where you draw the line between "repeat offender" and "serial rapist". If you look at the link I cited in the original comment, it provides data on the number of repeat offenders, which is already troubling enough to be of concern, regardless of whether it meets your unstated threshold of "serial rapist".

gizmo686 12y ago
I don't normally like saying this, but why was this comment downvoted? >I really don't understand where you draw the line between "repeat offender" and "serial rapist". I don't know what microcolonel intended, but I see the distinction in who was raped. A repeat offender may rape only a single person, but multiple times. A serial rapist sound like someone who rapes multiple people.
- microcolonel 12y ago
  I meant more generally that people don't tend to rape a second or third time, repeat rapists are not the common case. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I was under the impression that serial rapist meant more than once. A series of two is a thing.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

You don't cite a source for your claim that serial rapists are rare, and the available data tends to contradict it: https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/ https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-re... From that link, which discusses psychologist David Lisak's studies of rapists: "The last time I discussed Lisak’s work, I focused on the proportion of the population are the serial predators: a limited group within the population who are recidivist rapists, and who account for the overwhelming majority of rapes, and for a large portion of the child abuse and molestation and the intimate partner violence." Do you have studies to cite that back up the opposite claim? It's perfectly possible the reality is unclear, but everything I've read about the issue supports the idea that the majority of rapes are commited by significantly than 10% of the male population. This suggests a view in which rape is seen as a "predator/citizen" problem rather than a "men/women" problem, given that male rapists are about as rare as false rape reports (FBI data suggests that 8% of all rape reports are false, and Lisak and other's work suggests that about 8% of men are rapists, with as few as 4% accounting for 75-80% of rapes). As well as having the potential to open up new ways of addressing rape (and maybe identifying serial rapists early) this change in perspective would allow a more equal focus on male victims, whose numbers are not well-known (male under-reporting rates are almost completely unstudied and plausibly higher than women's).