Disclaimer: Fuck victim blaming; rape victims have every right to report rapists and nobody has the right to tell them to do otherwise.
Gonna play devil’s advocate for a second, but there’s an argument that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, by which I mean that since society as a whole doesn’t tend to believe in second chances, someone getting convicted for rape would (edit: have the chance to, I overstated my point here) make them unemployable way beyond the point most people would feel further punishment is reasonable (unless they’re rich of course). Asking rape victims not to report their rapists is of course total bullshit—and it’s even more bullshit that this rhetoric is much more socially accepted for rape and similar crimes than it is for, say, theft despite a conviction being similarly disastrous in both cases—but there’s not nothing to the idea the sum total of consequences resulting from the reporting would exceed the level that’s desirable even for such a heinous crime as rape, doubly so for America where the sex offender registry system has received criticism from organizations such as Human Rights Watch. All of which is to say: Part of it is definitely misogyny, but I do wonder if the “you’ll ruin his life” argument would be less common if getting convicted for rape at 20 wasn’t liable to make one homeless (or stuck in the prison-industrial complex) at 60. It would dovetail with the historical pattern (thinking of early modern England here, though that system was far, far crueler) where excessive punishment by the authorities makes it less likely for people to report crimes. Though even that assumes the punishment is excessive; it could definitely be argued that the rapist being homeless 40 years later is an appropriate punishment for the victim having PTSD 40 years later.
PS: To reiterate, fuck victim blaming; rape victims have every right to report rapists and nobody has the right to tell them to do otherwise.
someone getting convicted for rape would make them unemployable way beyond the point most people would feel further punishment is reasonable
Oh really? Because I haven’t seen proof of that. Even Brock Turner has a job.
The entire Epstein class is proof of that. Hell, the legal system treats rapists better than it treats trans or bipoc people
It feels really silly for them to build up these strawman arguments about how rapists have their lives ruined when we have the current administration in power right now.
That’s why I said “unless they’re rich.” Obviously the ruling class gets special privileges.
Yeah, that only doesn’t happens to the Epstein class. To these people down the pyramid, is a hell. Even worse when it comes to false claims.
Brock Turner is not a part of the Epstein class. You’ve already proven your statement false.
Well, that man wasn’t exactly poor, not even mid class. Even if he wasn’t near-the-top, he’s still just one exception to the rule. One single exception can’t prove anything false, as it’s just anecdothical evidence unless it’s against an universal proposition.
You have had many comments moderated because of your defense of rapists. People can see through you.
he’s still just one exception to the rule.
A 20-year review of reported rape and sexual assault cases found that 89% were “founded” by law enforcement, meaning police determined that the crime more than likely occurred.
But only 8% of reported rape and sexual assault cases ended in conviction.
In other words, police believed most reports, but very few cases led to the perpetrator’s conviction. Survivors can be believed and still not get the legal outcome they seek.
I’m going to have to dig around for evidence for the broader developed world so I can make a decent case (or conclude that there’s no such case and amend/retract what I said), but since your example is from America for now I can refer you to the Human Rights Watch link. But also do you have a source for that?
A source that Brock Turner, the rapist, is currently employed? He’s been working at an Ohio factory:
“But you’ll ruin…”
No the fuck you won’t. They ruined it with their choices and actions. He’ll face consequences for what he did, not for what someone else said.
It’s coming from the same cohort of people who lynched black men for looking the wrong way at a white woman. There’s no unforgivable deed to them, only in groups and out groups.
Conservative morality is built on the principle that there are good people and bad people. Everything the good people do is good; everything the bad people do is bad. And it’s not just rhetoric, they actually see the world this way.
It’s why they can be outraged about a tan suit, but not give a shit about hosting a closed-door meeting with known Russian spies. Wearing a tan suit was done by a bad person, so it’s bad. Meeting with Russian spies was done by a good person, so it’s good.
Their morality is defined not by their actions, not by the consequences of their actions, nor even the intention of their actions – it’s defined by identity. If you’re part of the ‘good people’ group, you can do no wrong, and even if you do terrible things, it was probably for the benefit of the good people group, so you’re forgiven. If you’re part of the ‘bad people’ group, nothing you do is ever good enough, and even the slightest deviation from any norm will be treated as an act of pure evil, and if you ever do anything that seems good, it must be a trick, nothing but false pretenses.
It’s deeply intertwined with religion, where they first learn such morality: everything God does is good because (by definition) God is good. ‘Good’ is defined in relation to godliness. Everything Satan does is bad because (by definition) Satan is evil. If something good happened to you, God did it. If something bad happened to you, Satan did it. When that forms the basis of your morality, it begins to extend into in-groups and out-groups, and that’s where you get mainstream conservative morality from.
I was gonna write a reply to this, but I felt it was more appropriate as a top comment, so I’m gonna paste the link here.
And what if they didn’t actually SA’d and it is a false claim?
Well that’d be a different context entirely. The premise here was that they had, but it would be unfair to make them face the consequences of their actions.
Yeah, but what I’m pointing out is that almost never is clear if they actually SA’d or not. My problem with this kinda posts, thus, is that they’re oversimplifying a really complex problem by creating a manichean vision of reality where man = always abusers and woman = always victims, but false allegations do exist so it’s more like a grayscale full of nuances.
Then… don’t report him…
False reports of rape and sexual assault fall in line with false reporting of other crimes. Between 2-5%.
Never mind that coming forward with allegations against powerful men ALSO ruins the victims life in highly patriarchal societies. Hell, half the time, the victims are ruined and the predators are celebrated for “beating the allegations.”
Like I need people to understand, NO ONE has ever become rich and famous by accusing a rich person of sexually assaulting them.
Ruined lifes are a valid point, but I care more about the lifes he ruined than his own.
That said, I think serving his time and proving he’s no longer a threat to the public, he should be allowed to live a normal life again. Maybe with the exclusion of certain jobs like policeman, judge or I don’t know, President, for example.
If they change, really change, pay their dept so society and become a better person, they can still go on to those offices. But at least their behavior is on record and people can check IF they actually have become a better person.
If you don’t report them, you don’t trigger that mechanism, they don’t change and we don’t check as thoroughly. Report them. If it ruins their life, then it’s because they remained a shitty person.
I don’t think that’s how that works. Potential employers aren’t checking if anyone “became a better person.”
So… not reporting them would be better in your opinion?
Absolutely not lmao, just saying that “people can check” really underestimates the impact.
Yeah, but you know. I personally believe that if someone believably has paid their dept, sought to better themselves and make amends. They should at least have a chance to plead their case.
Forgiveness isn’t something someone is owed, it is earned. But as a society, we should embrace those who do the hard work to earn it. Reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration make for a better society than telling somebody they will never ever, ever be forgiven and there is no way back for them.
Y’know, so their lives aren’t ruined. /s
Potential employers aren’t checking if anyone “became a better person.”
Most employers don’t background check their employees much at all.
Grant Platner would like a word.
He didn’t change.
Needs a disclaimer:
- This concern applies to white boys.
It certainly hasn’t applied to 24 year olds that rape teenagers.
A lot of the positions you’re thinking of the person taking are extremely competitive. So, while that situation is unenviable, you can also think of it as promoting a more worthy candidate.
Still doesn’t pass over the simple idea that there should be more jobs available. (Maybe even more judges/lawyers/doctors)
more of one of those would be great.
I’m generally against snitching, but if I get to ruin a man’s life it does get awfully tempting.
There is a difference between tattling because someone did something illegal and revealing the true nature of a predator. That’s not snitching, that’s accountability.
Ah, so you don’t want to report illegal activities because it’s the right thing to do morally, but because you can be vindictive against an overly generalised group of people?
yeah I don’t think snitching is good, and its definitely not safe or without social cost when the target of it is popular, and the entire concept ofva hierarchal power structure makes me a little uneasy, but I do enjoy hurting men. especially shitty men who do shit like rape.
like, I know rapists rights and all that and I should be more fair to consentually-challenged men, but I guess I’m just a bad person, and im okay with that.
because you can be vindictive against an overly generalised group of people?
Oh boo hoo
Ah, so you see no problem with the attitude of “I just want to hurt men”?
This will be taken the wrong way, as usual, but…
I wish society would both encourage such reporting without subtle victim blaming, which is what discourages so many to say anything for years, if ever. I also wish society wouldn’t assume one side is right and the other wrong before the evidence is out. Some men’s lives have been ruined by false allegations. I’m not going to argue about how few, lots of them are also a problem. But we should be an innocent before proven guilty society. We aren’t, and people will still look at someone who ended up innocent after a false claim as if they did do something wrong.
Ruin the guys who are rapists. But sometimes that claim is used as a weapon without any substance, and that’s terrible for those who need justice done. I wish we could do better than that.
We’ll see how much of all that gets twisted around to mean something else I didn’t say… :/
False reports of rape and sexual assault fall in line with false reporting of other crimes. Between 2-5%.
It says something when you pop up in every one of these discussions to talk about false rape claims.
I said something in one single other discussion. I don’t appreciate the implied remark.
I won’t say anything anymore about it, because clearly that targets me as a problem.
You argued enough that it created a lasting impression to me.
You don’t need to victimize yourself here because I recognized that this is a common perspective from you when we’re talking about holding rapists accountable.
Rhaedas never said otherwise, only that it happens and we shouldn’t condemn anyone until the facts are out. This is not controversial.
Two women filed false reports against me. One because I broke up with her. Shakespeare had something to say about a scorned woman. The other was my ex-wife trying to block me from seeing my kids.
Didn’t fight the first allegation, didn’t care about a restraining order from a woman I never wished to see again. Then her and her boss lied and said I violated that order immediately after it was delivered. Spent a night in jail over that. It got dropped because after being served, I was on video at the courthouse next to our home where I awaited a ride. That order caused me problems for a decade.
Having learned my lesson, I immediately fought my ex in court. She claimed to be in fear of me, from 600 miles away and without a scrap of evidence. Funny enough, this claim came three years after she left, and directly on the heels of my lawyer starting custody proceedings. Ain’t that a thing! Judge threw it out and the next judge handed her her ass for keeping my children from me for so very long.
So you might understand why “believe the woman” rubs me wrong. It should be “don’t ignore allegations”.
EDIT: Forgot to note, neither of these instances made it into your false reporting stat. How could they have?
You have already admitted on this site that you raped a 16 year old girl when you were 24 years old.
…Had sex with a 16-yo around 24.
She wasn’t a dog or 12-yo. 16 is not a child, at least it wasn’t when I was that age. We have this thing, and this may be a new word for you, called “adolescence”. It’s a weird in-between stage, neither adult nor child. At that age I was a naive little fucker, but I had this thing, probably another new word for ya, called “agency”. I could make decisions and be held accountable for them by my peers and adults. That seems to be an alien concept to the young folks around here who didn’t have sex until they were 23, if ever. I was fucking, working a job and driving at 16, typical in the 80s. What was your experience? (I’ll note that not a soul has ever directly answered this question.)
So, as opposed to other ways a false accusation can ruin a person’s life, what - exactly - justifies treating false accusations of rape differently?
In other words, what’s your fucking point?
