Muliaina Arrested

[iINDOMINUSxx]

He hasn't been found guilty so until he has been charged he is innocent.

Fair enough, too quick to judge yet.

 

[goodNumber10]

First of all that's wrong they estimate the figure to be 8%, you don't provide any evidence for you assertion that it's the same whereas I can. feminists usually argue that it's but in reality it isn't a study by Kanin arrived at a figure of 41%. If you can cite literature where they have found it to be 2% cite it, I would be interested to read the methods they used to arrive at those results.

you know the same wiki page you looked that up in says the FBI consider it an unusually high statistic and also that it's a study from 1994 don't you? Here's a nice article pointing out why Kanins report is to be taken with a pinch fo salt: they have citations don't worry: http://amptoons.com/blog/2009/04/15/eugene-kanins-study-of-false-rape-reports/

even if his survey was accurate reporting and awareness has changed in the last 20 years so probably safe to say that % has changed, CPS for example report 73% conviction rate meaning 27% of rape accusations in the UK do not end in a prosecution, that doesn't mean 27% are false accusations.

Here's some actual figures for you: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf

 

[MotherRucker1]

Would also be interesting to see how 'false' is defined. Many women just disengage from the traumatic process, or there may be a lack of evidence and a police officer may deem it to be false when it is not. I could see how women change their minds and admit they've made a mistake when they're confronted with questions like "so, what were you wearing?".

What isn't so easy to measure statistically is the attitude of society towards rape. When a woman gets raped the focus goes on why was she out so late, wearing, etc. Eyebrows get raised when men get raped because apparently that could never happen. For me there's two things at play happening here. The way we handle victims who come forward, and the mollycoddling of sports people.

Putting the rape issue to one side and talking to the latter point; here in New Zealand there was an interesting case. Two young men at a high school were part of a prominent rowing team. I wouldn't say it's a rich school, but they're fairly well off. They were punished by sitting out an important rowing tournament for messing around on a baggage carousel at the airport in a high security area. I guess their parents were financially well off, because they took the issue to the high court, told fibs so their darling sons wouldn't miss out on their tournament, and won the right to avoid that line of punishment. I know that isn't linked to rape, but it speaks to my second point really. And it contributes to that attitude of "my little Johnny, no way could he do any wrong." People like that just live in a cocoon.

 

[YoungScud]

I never thought that Muliaina would do such a thing. Was a big fan off him aswell, but not now.

Very disappointing and disrespectful.

You'd make a terrific juror. No need for all that evidence nonsense with you, eh?

 

[Toby Sweeney]

you know the same wiki page you looked that up in says the FBI consider it an unusually high statistic and also that it's a study from 1994 don't you? Here's a nice article pointing out why Kanins report is to be taken with a pinch fo salt: they have citations don't worry: http://amptoons.com/blog/2009/04/15/eugene-kanins-study-of-false-rape-reports/

even if his survey was accurate reporting and awareness has changed in the last 20 years so probably safe to say that % has changed, CPS for example report 73% conviction rate meaning 27% of rape accusations in the UK do not end in a prosecution, that doesn't mean 27% are false accusations.

Here's some actual figures for you: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf

I have read this but it doesn't change the argument. There may only have been 36 prosecutions for false rape but often people who lie about being raped aren't prosecuted in additions of those cases where the man was not found guilty due to lack of evidence are not counted as false rape even though a proportion of them statistically would be. Overall false rape is hard to prove, unless the women admits to the charge there is no evidence that she hasn't been raped, if there has been consensual sex for example.

 

[goodNumber10]

I have read this but it doesn't change the argument. There may only have been 36 prosecutions for false rape but often people who lie about being raped aren't prosecuted in additions of those cases where the man was not found guilty due to lack of evidence are not counted as false rape even though a proportion of them statistically would be. Overall false rape is hard to prove, unless the women admits to the charge there is no evidence that she hasn't been raped, if there has been consensual sex for example.

 

[Toby Sweeney]

Well clearly you can't produce a fact on the percentage of those cases in which neither was charged. But it's an obvious fact of the judiscial system, which isn't perfect. I'm just saying it's much higher then the 2% that you quoted, so do widely assume someone is guilty is premature.

 

[goodNumber10]

Well clearly you can't produce a fact on the percentage of those cases in which neither was charged. But it's an obvious fact of the judiscial system, which isn't perfect. I'm just saying it's much higher then the 2% that you quoted, so do widely assume someone is guilty is premature.

I've posted a recent CPS analysis paper, with figures and percentages.

You've posted reference to a 22 year old paper you read about on Wikipedia that has been denounced by pretty much everyone with any weight in these matters including the FBI.

I'll go with the CPS this time thanks.

Also I never said it was 2%.

 

[91jmay]

Well clearly you can't produce a fact on the percentage of those cases in which neither was charged. But it's an obvious fact of the judiscial system, which isn't perfect. I'm just saying it's much higher then the 2% that you quoted, so do widely assume someone is guilty is premature.

2-8% is the widely accepted figure from FBI, I got 2-6% wrong originally was doing it from memory (margin of error is important as well). I am afraid you don't know enough about criminal law to be commenting if you think that when someone is found not guilty it means their accuser is lying. No serious person accepts the 41% figure. Also the point of this isn't to say MM is guilty, it is to let the process play out without people immediately assuming the accuser is guilty of lying. It is amazing how only one party in this (him) gets innocent until proven guilty when it works both ways. We take both accused and accuser at face value then let evidence decide.

 

[Toby Sweeney]

2-8% is the widely accepted figure from FBI, I got 2-6% wrong originally was doing it from memory (margin of error is important as well). I am afraid you don't know enough about criminal law to be commenting if you think that when someone is found not guilty it means their accuser is lying. No serious person accepts the 41% figure. Also the point of this isn't to say MM is guilty, it is to let the process play out without people immediately assuming the accuser is guilty of lying. It is amazing how only one party in this (him) gets innocent until proven guilty when it works both ways. We take both accused and accuser at face value then let evidence decide.

At no point did I say that she was guilty of a false accusation and at no point did I say that MM was definetly innocent. I was just replying to those saying that they were disappointed with him and such stuff, pointing out he hasn't been charged. Part of what I said was to highlight the fact that a proportion of rape claims are false I never said that if a person is found not guilty they are guilty of a false accusation, just that a proportion of these will be false accusations.

 

[MotherRucker1]

But I don't think we need reminding of that, Toby.

The assumption in society is that "how can this be!?" or thinking of ways on how this young confused girl either lied or got the facts wrong. And hey, in this case, she may have lied. But I don't think anyone needs reminding that some rape allegations are false. That seems to be society's default reaction anyway, especially when a sportsman is involved.

We don't need to quibble over statistics. Of course it happens, end of discussion. What isn't so easily measured are people's general attitudes towards rape victims which leaves a lot to be desired to be quite honest. It's nothing to do with feminism or that goofy crap. It's just having the ability to step back with a level head and wait for the facts.

 

[nickdnz]

It's just having the ability to step back with a level head and wait for the facts.

This is it at the end of they day. I think the biggest problem is that people people fall into rhetorical traps when talking about rape.

It's not fair to condemn someone in society for a crime they haven't been proven guilty. We can accept this - and it's simply ridiculous to say otherwise (not that anyone here is). As we have seen with imscotty's reaction people can jump to conclusions, and even after someone is proven innocent there is always the discourse of 'there is no smoke without fire'. I do know feminists (by identity - not necessary a sound understanding of the ideology) who have made the claim that 'no man is innocent of rape', and I think it leads a lot of people to respond quite defensively. When people say "just because he wasn't found guilty in court, doesn't mean he is innocent" it adds another layer of frustration. I think everyone can accept that the criminal justice system in every country isn't 100% accurate, and that likely works both ways so that some people who are convicted are innocent, and some guilty people get let off. I think unless we are privy to information which we know a person is either guilty or innocent (eg a witness in the case), then speculating on the outcome of a verdict in which we don't have all the evidence is extremely unfair.

At the same time I think everyone is equally careful not to be disparaging of anyone who is potentially a victim - and while we cannot persecute someone who is found innocent of a crime - it does not mean we can be sure that it was an occasion the criminal justice system didn't fail the victim. The two competing discourses are the rights of a victim, and the rights of someone to be innocent until proven guilty - lead to some very clumsy statements and reasoning. I get equally frustrated by people who blurt out crap like "probably lying" as I do with people who bang on about "rape culture". I think the only thing to do as MotherRucker1 suggests is wait for the facts before commenting, as making generalizations about these cases almost always ends up doing more harm than good.

 

[j'nuh]

This is it at the end of they day. I think the biggest problem is that people people fall into rhetorical traps when talking about rape.

It's not fair to condemn someone in society for a crime they haven't been proven guilty. We can accept this - and it's simply ridiculous to say otherwise (not that anyone here is). As we have seen with imscotty's reaction people can jump to conclusions, and even after someone is proven innocent there is always the discourse of 'there is no smoke without fire'. I do know feminists (by identity - not necessary a sound understanding of the ideology) who have made the claim that 'no man is innocent of rape', and I think it leads a lot of people to respond quite defensively. When people say "just because he wasn't found guilty in court, doesn't mean he is innocent" it adds another layer of frustration. I think everyone can accept that the criminal justice system in every country isn't 100% accurate, and that likely works both ways so that some people who are convicted are innocent, and some guilty people get let off. I think unless we are privy to information which we know a person is either guilty or innocent (eg a witness in the case), then speculating on the outcome of a verdict in which we don't have all the evidence is extremely unfair.

At the same time I think everyone is equally careful not to be disparaging of anyone who is potentially a victim - and while we cannot persecute someone who is found innocent of a crime - it does not mean we can be sure that it was an occasion the criminal justice system didn't fail the victim. The two competing discourses are the rights of a victim, and the rights of someone to be innocent until proven guilty - lead to some very clumsy statements and reasoning. I get equally frustrated by people who blurt out crap like "probably lying" as I do with people who bang on about "rape culture". I think the only thing to do as MotherRucker1 suggests is wait for the facts before commenting, as making generalizations about these cases almost always ends up doing more harm than good.

I disagree in general. Obviously, a not guilty (note: not guilty is not equivalent to innocent; generally cases do not prove that the accused is innocent) verdict means that there should be no legal repercussions for the accused. But a legal interpretation of the facts is not the only interpretation. You can personally interpret that X is likely to have occurred, even if you would have given the opposite verdict as a juror.

Rape is particularly an issue in this regard. The nature of rape means that very few rapes actually result in convictions. It's difficult to prove rape because, well, how do you? It's traumatising, so few people come forward immediately, so often there is no physical evidence. When victims do come forward immediately, it gives us evidence that sex occurred, but then there's the burden of proof that it was non-consensual. Victims often don't physically defend themselves due to the trauma/helplessness of the situation, and even if they do, there's often a power imbalance between the victim and the perpetrator, so defensive marks cannot be expected. Even when they are there, the victim has to link those marks to the person they are accusing, and that they were sustained during being raped. And so on. Beyond multiple people coming forward with the same complaint, or a witness (very unlikely), or video/audio proof (very, very unlikely), there's very little chance of a conviction.

Would you knowingly let an acquaintance who had been accused of rape, and found not guilty, babysit your children, for example? If not, then I think you will understand my position on this. I swing towards believing the accuser in these situations, because it is more likely to be correct. That isn't to say I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, or that I would stigmatise the accused, but I think it's also acceptable to have personal thoughts over the case which are separate from the legal verdict.

 

[nickdnz]

So what you are basically saying is that even if you have not been guilty of the crime, you probably did it anyway and therefore it's okay to ostracize said person.

I'm afraid we will certainly have to agree to disagree. Rarely are all evidence avaliable to the public regardless, so forming seperate opinion tends to lean towards confirmation bias.

 

[j'nuh]

So what you are basically saying is that even if you have not been guilty of the crime, you probably did it anyway and therefore it's okay to ostracize said person.

Not at all. Rightly, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the accused is guilty. As a guilty verdict necessitates proof of guilt, the chances of a wrong verdict in this case is relatively small, as guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, a not guilty verdict occurs when the prosecution has failed to prove guilt. This is not the same as the defendant proving innocence. So, except when the defendant has proven innocence - which is rare - the case is unresolved following a not guilty verdict. It is unknown whether or not they did it, but the absence of proof means that they cannot be legally penalised.

A not guilty verdict causes the case to enter a grey area where guilt is unresolved, and it's fair for others to interpret the facts for themselves, independent of the court. I'm generally more inclined to believe accusers in rape cases. That's not to say I believe with a certainty that the accused committed the act, because false accusations are much rarer than rapes.

In terms of ostracising, I've already said: "That isn't to say... I would stigmatise the accused..."

It's not like I go around shouting at suspected (or proven) criminals. It's more that if someone has been accused of rape, I would err more on the side of caution in my interactions with them than I would have beforehand. I wouldn't let them babysit my children for example.

 

[nickdnz]

But the criminal justice system never rules people 'innocent' - simply not guilty. So someone who is undeniably innocent will be 'not guilty'. Because we are not privileged to all the facts surrounding a court case, we simply have to take the two as the same thing. Whether I would change my behaviour around someone who is proved 'not guilty', does not mean it is morally fair to do so - unless I am in possession of information in which I know the accused was wrongly acquitted.

 

[William18]

j'nuh makes a lot of sense. Innocent until proven guilty is an important part of having a justice system in a civilised society. There are plenty of cases where someone gets off but people still have their suspicions. OJ Simpson is a good example. Most people don't ant to be associated with someone like him even though he wasn't found guilty of murder.

This is why false accusations of rape are so harmful. The stigma doesn't leave people. If Mils is innocent he will have to explain to anyone he wants to date what happened in that situation.

I think j'nuh's question is worth answering: Would you knowingly let an acquaintance who had been accused of rape, and found not guilty, babysit your children, for example?

 

[nickdnz]

j'nuh makes a lot of sense. Innocent until proven guilty is an important part of having a justice system in a civilised society. There are plenty of cases where someone gets off but people still have their suspicions. OJ Simpson is a good example. Most people don't ant to be associated with someone like him even though he wasn't found guilty of murder.

This is why false accusations of rape are so harmful. The stigma doesn't leave people. If Mils is innocent he will have to explain to anyone he wants to date what happened in that situation.

I think j'nuh's question is worth answering: Would you knowingly let an acquaintance who had been accused of rape, and found not guilty, babysit your children, for example?

Well to answer his question - I wouldn't put anyone in charge of my kinds without knowing them (heaven forbid they hurt the hypothetical little tykes). And why not extrapolate this further - would you employ someone who was found not guilty of rape? I mean there's always that chance, right? Would you buy a house near someone who was found not guilty of rape, or knowing send your kids to a school near someone who was found not guilty of rape?

I'm not arguing that it may well be natural to question the verdict - I am arguing that it is not morally fair to make prejudicial decisions on someones trustworthiness, based on circumstances which may well have been totally out of their control. What they are accused of is reprehensible, but accusations are not anything unless they are proven to be correct.

 

[YoungScud]

I think the OJ case is a bad one to use to illustrate what you're trying to say. I have no clue whether he did or did not murder his ex-wife. What I do believe is that, despite the evidence of his guilt which was presented, and there was a reasonable amount of that, the manufactured evidence brought by the prosecution was overwhelmingly bound to lead to a Not Guilty verdict. It had to. A conviction wouldn't have got past the first appeal. This was as good an example as you'll find of investigators selecting their suspect and determining from the start that this was their man. The prosecutors concurred and went after Simpson with no compunction about filling in the gaps in their evidence with whatever they could think of. In other words, they lied through their teeth and at least on of their witnesses did the same, Det. Mark Fuhrmann.

As to the difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent', in law there is no difference, nor should there be. You are innocent until proven guilty, no more, no less (unless 'National Security' is cited, and then all bets are off, when the burden of proof seems to disappear). Accusation should never be a cause for conviction, nor should it be a reason to doubt innocence. If you can't get past an acquittal witjhout simply accepting innocence, then the problem lies with you.

 

[William18]

Well to answer his question - I wouldn't put anyone in charge of my kinds without knowing them (heaven forbid they hurt the hypothetical little tykes). And why not extrapolate this further - would you employ someone who was found not guilty of rape? I mean there's always that chance, right? Would you buy a house near someone who was found not guilty of rape, or knowing send your kids to a school near someone who was found not guilty of rape?

I'm not arguing that it may well be natural to question the verdict - I am arguing that it is not morally fair to make prejudicial decisions on someones trustworthiness, based on circumstances which may well have been totally out of their control. What they are accused of is reprehensible, but accusations are not anything unless they are proven to be correct.

I would employ someone found not guilty of rape but it would depend on other factors.

I think that in the court of public opinion people should be assumed not guilty until the trial happens. If the trial happens and someone gets off but there seems to be a high probability that they might have done it then they deserve to be judged on that.