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.
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.
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.
That’s pretty bad but I don’t think it has much to do with the subject? How the actual court system treats rapists (way too leniently) and how the entire rest of society does (the subject of this argument) are two different topics. That said the US court system (and probably most others) is famously skewed towards the rich; it’s just that with what we might call a miss rate of 90% there’s not much room for class divisions to be decisive on a population level.
The conviction rate is relevant when it is being argued that being convicted of rape destroys the rapists life and only the Epstein class gets away with rape.
It is not just the Epstein class that gets away with rape.
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.
Justice requires more than recognizing harm. It requires systems prepared to move cases forward and support survivors through what comes next.
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?
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.
What the fuck, I never defended the fucking rapists. What you’re doing is defamation.
CW: SA and FA
Hell, I’ve even been raped two fucking times in my life, one of them when I was a fucking child. I know what I’m talking about because I suffered that and also I have suffered of one false claim. Neither of the two are placid stuff.
I’ve only been trying to nuance things a bit, because most of people jump directly to “trust the (supposed) victims even when there’s no single evidence”, and I can’t deffend that. But apparently that’s defending sexual abusers.
But I’m not, I’m just defending the presumption of innocence: someone has to be considered innocent unless proven otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not just the rich that don’t get prosecuted.
That’s pretty bad but I don’t think it has much to do with the subject? How the actual court system treats rapists (way too leniently) and how the entire rest of society does (the subject of this argument) are two different topics. That said the US court system (and probably most others) is famously skewed towards the rich; it’s just that with what we might call a miss rate of 90% there’s not much room for class divisions to be decisive on a population level.
You brought up how being convicted of rape will make the rapists unemployable.
So I brought statistics about how low the conviction rates are for rapists.
It is NOT just rich people that don’t get prosecuted for rape and sexual assault.
The conviction rate isn’t relevant to the conversation of how the conviction impacts ones life after their sentence is up.
The reason for the low conviction rate is because there’s usually very little evidence, and to convict it should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The conviction rate is relevant when it is being argued that being convicted of rape destroys the rapists life and only the Epstein class gets away with rape.
It is not just the Epstein class that gets away with rape.
Source
The Epstein class are the exception to the rules. The working class is held to different standards.
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:
Since then, the 31-year-old registered sex offender has been quietly climbing the ranks at the Ohio factory that hired him after his conviction, and has purchased his own home in the same leafy suburb where he grew up, the Daily Mail can reveal.
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.
What the fuck, I never defended the fucking rapists. What you’re doing is defamation.
CW: SA and FA
Hell, I’ve even been raped two fucking times in my life, one of them when I was a fucking child. I know what I’m talking about because I suffered that and also I have suffered of one false claim. Neither of the two are placid stuff.
I’ve only been trying to nuance things a bit, because most of people jump directly to “trust the (supposed) victims even when there’s no single evidence”, and I can’t deffend that. But apparently that’s defending sexual abusers. But I’m not, I’m just defending the presumption of innocence: someone has to be considered innocent unless proven otherwise.
Your moderation history and past comments are open for everyone to see.
Yeah, and precisely because of that is that I say what I’m saying, because anything I have said supports rapists.
Is by any case saying that rapists should live the same as their victims, but with added torture, something that a rapist supporter would say?
No he’s not.