“You will ruin that rapist’s life!”
No, he ruined his own life.
I’m all in to ruin convicted rapist that already proven with all required evidence in court regardless of age,race or gender.
It is different from ruining innocent fate of promising youth on baseless accuse.
Oh no you’ll ruin that person’s life if you report his murders!
I think the point being missed here is that someone’s whole life can get ruined even if they’re innocent.
That is not the point of the post.
Unfortunately here in Britain we had a big run of trials that collapsed when it was revealed the accusations were false, nevertheless irrevocably ruining the defendants’ reputations. This sort of prosecutorial incompetence serves to muddy the waters and lead genuine victims to doubt themselves, and well-meaning confidants ro err on the side of what they consider to be caution.
Ideally, a performant justice system and use of blanket media reporting restrictions to protect defendants until conviction would allow such determinations as “ruining someone’s life” to the prosecutors and the jury and save personal anguish on the part of the complainant.
You know, the comments on this thread are a real eye opener.
It’s a simple statement - it’s ok to ruin the life of a rapist.
A lot of questions about false accusations are coming up - they’re good questions, but the folks you’re trying to get to engage are… not the most capable of engaging judging by the evidence this thread suggests.
jokes on you, he could still do it after conviction. does anyone honestly think maga would care? its all but proven at this point for not only the president and they eat it up.
Strong Brock Allen Turner vibes in the first half.
“Won’t someone PLEASE think of the rapists?” is the weirdest and most repulsive defense I’ve ever heard, even if it’s always couched as an innocent little manchild who made a teensy little mistake that totally wasn’t his fault anyway.
It’s more like, won’t someone please think of the innocent people whose lives are permanently ruined because of slander? That’s why we have a legal system, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You can’t have a certain category of crime for which all accusations are be taken at face value and truthful by default.
So weird that people want to use this logic for SA, but not for stuff like non-violent drug offenses.
Did I misunderstand your comment, or are you trying to argue that recreational drug use is as bad as being a rapist? I dunno about you, but I much rather have a drug user in office than a sex offender.
I think they meant the top part–“not wanting to ruin someone’s life” should apply to non-harmful acts, but in some people’s minds rape isn’t “as” harmful as having your life ruined or something…
Yeah that’s what I meant.
they don’t bring that up for people accused of drug dealing, assault, murder etc nearly as much. almost as if they don’t think rape is a serious crime
I’ve known people who believed their partner was consenting, but were told much later that they committed rape. I knew the ppl well enough to believe they wouldn’t intentionally hurt someone and the accuser didn’t file charges. Maybe one or both, or neither partners in the two couples were lying? But in both cases the accuser + accused remained friends afterward. Should that really be in the same category as violent sexual assault?
Rape is certainly serious but it’s much easier to quantify murder – victim is dead or alive-- than how much of a rape was this rape.
It’d be more accurate to say he ruined his life and the life of the person who had to report him for it.
Since when has a rape conviction stopped either of those things?
“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.
The last paragraph makes no sense in the context of, well, the Bible minus Paulian nonsense (“it rains on the just and unjust alike”, “the race doesn’t always go to the fast, time and chance happens to us all”), and what do God and Satan have to do with us?.. but I’m sure it makes entire sense to a good chunk of intellectually lazy and immature chuds who simply want to give themselves moral allowances, be murderous maniacs, settlers and rapists and feel alright about it.
On the other hand, I do think the Roman/Paulian/Trinitarian “Jesus died so our sins are forgiven as long as we believe that man is God” line of thinking is soul poison and evidently completely against every belief held by any God-fearing monotheist, Jesus included. Taking that lie to heart can only lead to immorality, and taking it to heart as a community can only make it worse, genocidally worse.
'Consider if you go the New Testament for instruction on how to live, you are told to give away all your possessions, make no plans for the future, reject your family if they disagree with you, and stay celibate if you can (see respectively Matthew 19.21, Matthew 6.25, Matthew 12.48, and 1 Corinthians 7). This is the outlook of people who sincerely believed that the Messiah was going to return next week or next month, anyway very soon. It is an unlivable ethic, and when after several centuries the Second Coming had still not materialised and hope of it had been deferred sine die, more was needed in the way of ethics. Where did it come from? From Greek philosophy – not least from the Stoics – and from the Roman Republican virtues of probity, honour, duty, restraint, respect, friendship and generosity that Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Horace, and countless others wrote about and enjoined ceaselessly. ‘Christian values’ are largely Greek and Roman secular values. So Christianity is not even Christianity.
An associated point reinforces this. The early Christians, such as St Paul, were Jews. They believed that when you die, your body sleeps in the grave until the Last Trump, at which points the graves open and all the dead rise to be judged. St Paul said that the faithful will ‘see no corruption’ – that is, their bodies will not rot in the grave. But anyway, at the Last Trump when all rise, the faithful will be clothed in ‘new bodies,’ resplendent and fine. But “When Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire (which it very quickly did; it was legalised by Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313, and made the empire’s official religion by Theodosius IX in 381; within the next few decades all other religions were proscribed) and churches were being built apace, all requiring relics of the martyrs and saints, these latter were found to have rotted (‘seen corruption’) in their graves. This embarrassing problem was quickly got over by importing another useful idea from Greek philosophy: Plato’s doctrine of the immortal soul, which entered Christianity via the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus and his followers. That is why, starting from several centuries after the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth, Christians believe in such a tianity is not Christianity but borrowed Greek philosophy. It would in fact it would be right to say that ‘we are Greeks and Romans’ and meant that we are defined by the following words – and therefore concepts – of classical Greek and Latin origin: democracy, liberalism, values, history, morality, comedy, tragedy, literature, music, academy, alphabet, memory, politics, ethics, populace, geography, energy, exploration, hegemony, theory, mathematics, science, theatre, medicine, gymnasium, climate, clone, bureaucracy, dialect, analogy, psychology, method, nostalgia, organ, encyclopaedia, education, paradox, empiricism, polemic, rhetoric, dinosaur, telescope, system, school, trophy, type, fantasy, photography…take almost any word denoting political and social institutions, ideas, learning, science and technology, medicine, and culture, and it derives from the language – and therefore the ideas and the history – of ancient Greece and Rome.’
Anthony Clifford Grayling
Pretty interesting read! I do disagree with the notion that “Christianity is not Christianity”, because it is exactly what it is. If they wanted to believe in earnest, like Jesus, they’d be Abrahamic/Mosaic/Solomonic/etc monotheists, not Western manworshipping polytheists (with all due respect).
This is true. I remember trying to argue the hypocrisy of them passing supreme court seats after RBG died. They basically did the, “we won we get to decide. Who cares?”
Very well said
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.
When we talk about sexual violence, the focus too often falls on what survivors did, where they were, or whether they reported. But rape happens because someone chooses to violate another person’s consent.
Prevention efforts must focus on the people who cause harm, not on blaming survivors for the violence committed against them.
Removed by mod
It is overwhelmingly men that rape other men, women, and children.
The more important stat that only 8% of rape and sexual assault cases see a courtroom I have stated elsewhere in this thread.
False rates of sexual assault happen at the same rate of false reporting of any other crime, between 2-5%.
I can pull sources for each and every one of these statistics.
Actually, the most reliable source goes from 2-8%
It’s still small, but it should be zero just as any other crime. That’s at least my Utopia.
Yes but that “grayscale and nuance” is also what stops people from reporting stuff that actually was SA. A fair judicial process is what solves this. Raise the claims if the are true, that is what justice is for, but know that if you raise false claims you are also entering yourself into that justice system. Malicious acts against people and groups should be punished, and victims should be able to seek help.
Yeah, I’m not saying is not like that. The problem is that forgetting that actually the world is that grayscale, is a double-edged sword, as it will polarize and/or cause extremism or maximalism from one side, or another, or both.
I totally agree that sexual abusers are scum and should be tortured until die, but what I don’t see as fair is that the (even if really few) victims of FA have to pay for the crimes of other people they don’t represent.
I often feel depressed thinking about this and the fact that there’s not easy way out of this septic pit, and that things seem to be worse every fucking second. I hate this world.
I think the problem here is that you’re addressing an entirely different question.
The question of if someone should report someone who raped them is entirely separate from the potential chance for false allegations.
If someone is raped, they should report it. If someone isn’t raped but wants to make a false allegation, real cases of rape being reported won’t change that person’s decision to file a fake claim.
The entire point here is just “if you are raped, you should report it, even if that could ruin the rapist’s life in some way, because they raped you, so they deserve consequences”. It doesn’t make a judgement call on how we can combat false allegations.
Then the courts will sort it out
I hope courts were efficient. They’re not, unfortunately. Both victims of SA and the (even if few) victims of FA live hell in earth there. It’s depressing.
Ok but name a better alternative.
That’s why I say it’s depressing. I don’t see a clear exit to this mess.
In any case, just because I (for now) can’t name a better alternative doesn’t mean that the current option is good or desirable, nor that a better alternative doesn’t exist. Your making a TINA and a false dilemma fallacy.
Right but I mean there really isn’t a huge issue with false accusations of any other crime, sonindont see why anyone cares so desperately about these false accusations.
If you did the crime then fuck you, if you didn’t then I feel for you and I’m sure it’s going to be a hellish time, but going somewhere you are innocent until proven guilty is your best possible place to be as an innocent person accused of a crime
I have such an issue because I lived a false allegation, and not, is not the same as being falsely accused of theft or name any other minor crime. That shit hits different, as if you were falsely accused of killing someone.
CW: SA
I’ve suffered SA two times, too, one of them being a children, so I’m not speaking from the ignorance, and that’s why I’m so vindictive towards actual rapists, as others of my comments in this thread reveal.
I mean there really isn’t a huge issue with false accusations of any other crime, sonindont see why anyone cares so desperately about these false accusations.
It’s literally just a way to discredit rape victims and defend rapists.
If you trust the Americans justice system to keep incarcerating those judges guilty, then why don’t you trust their system to judge appropriately for those that SA people? I get the feeling from this comment that a very large part of it is just plain misogyny. It is a fact that women already suffer harsher prison terms for comparable crimes to men. Even with the inappropriate harsh terms minorites serve. It’s clear from studies on this subject and all your comments do it discourage all genders from reporting. The American justice system seems fine with their jailing of other innocent’s, just to “make sure ppl feel safe”. It’s broken all over the place, people are suffering, I don’t have a solution. I do encourage speaking up! The Constitution and Bill of Rights ensure the option of speaking publicly about problems to attempt to solve them. Be a part of the solution, stop preventing discussion of the issues!
False reports of rape and sexual assault fall in line with false reporting of other crimes. Between 2-5%.
Well, your own sources say the opposite, so you are contradicting yourself, or perhaps you didn’t actually read your own sources, but instead sent whatever you thought supported your biases.
Methodologically rigorous research finds 2-8%
In contrast, when more methodologically rigorous research has been conducted, estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%.
• For example, in a multi-site study of 8 U.S. communities involved in the “Making a Difference” (or “MAD”) Project, data were collected by law enforcement agencies for all sexual assault reports received in an 18-24 month period. Of the 2,059 cases that were included in the study, 140 (7%) were classified as false.
This is particularly noteworthy because a number of measures were taken to protect the reliability and validity of the research. First, all participating law enforcement agencies were provided training and technical assistance in an ongoing way to ensure that they were applying consistent definitions for a false report. In addition, a random sample of cases was checked for data entry errors.
More information on the MAD Project is available at http://www.evawintl.org/.
Removed by mod
They are inextricably entwined. When people only consider a certain type of rape “real rape”, it impacts which cases are investigated and prosecuted and what is considered a false claim.
Yes they are intertwined, but still there’s an important difference and I think it’s useful to be clear. But apparently we can’t talk about it here or messages get deleted. Oh well, enforce the hive mind at all costs, I guess.
You’re mixing two concepts here. 1) The inaccuracy of stereotypical rape definition, and 2) The existence of false accusations.
Then why didn’t you admit they were intertwined with your initial comment? You didn’t because you falsely asserted that they are two different concepts.
Some false accusations are labeled as such because of people’s perception of what entails rape.
They are distinct things that are interrelated. Like the pressure and temperature of a gas. Distinct things to measure and understand, yet one tends to affect the other unless you’re very careful. In the topic of this thread, it’s very important to make the distinction: an accusation is not a false just because it doesn’t follow the stereotypical definition. So we need to be clear when we’re talking about false accusations, ie if we’re not talking about incorrect definitions - but real malicious or erroneous false accusations. And that’s an important facet of this discussion because although it’s quite small and similar to other crime accusations; this particular type of false accusation is very hard to defend oneself against and it can ruin lives. And even more importantly, can make it harder for real victims, especially when you add on the problem where different people have different definitions of the crime.
Then… don’t report him…
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.
They’ll most likely taste Hell regardless, but at least in confinement with other men 1) they won’t be raping women whilst inside; 2) they’ll have the time to reflect on their actions and maybe repent, make a complete change and never do it again. Like, it’s possible, and solitude in particular is great for this kind of mental and spiritual growth.
Solitude is being by yourself by **choice **for peace and restoration, whereas loneliness is an unfulfilled biological need for connection. Solitary confinement is a form of imprisonment where an incarcerated person is isolated in a single cell for 22 to 24 hours a day with little or no meaningful human contact. In confinement is not a choice.
I never said it was a choice, evidently they lost their freedom for being very real dangers to society (and because ostracizing these folks is no longer in fashion, I guess). I said they can use that moment to reflect, make the best of it and all. And whilst you’re right, solitude in jail is rare, they’d still have fewer distractions whilst incarcerated which would in turn allow for moments of reflection, right? I assume being bored/underestimulated is just the default in prison, and that tells me there’s a lot of time they could spend in deep thought… but do correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t have any experience and very little knowledge regarding prison.
A lot of people can’t read.
This isn’t about false accusations.
It’s not that they can’t read, they’re bringing it up specifically to cast doubt on victims and give plausible deniability for rapists.
To add to that: it’d be really neat if being reported for SA didn’t ruin the abuser’s life but instead fixed whatever is wrong with them so that they don’t come out of prison 10 years later and do it again. Some of these people are pathologically dangerous. They go to prison criminals and come out criminals. Some.
They have them in there for years and do barely anything to change them. They just “store them” there and then let them back out for society to deal with them.
That “abolish prisons” policy, I believe by the US dem-socs, doesn’t sound all that bad when you think about all the different ways prison fails us. Some countries have near 50% overall rates of reoffending.
I remember once seeing a news story where someone who had just gotten out of prison murdered someone. People in the comments were saying he shouldn’t have been let out. How after years in prison, of course he’s going to be dangerous. Gotta love when the tough on crime people accidentally realize the futility of the prison system.
The goal SHOULD be to make criminals into productive members of society. Unfortunately, the actual goal in many places is to make criminals keep reoffending to make more money for the business of incarcerating people. Or sometimes the goal is just to punish, with no thought about the long-term utility. Some people just think some people deserve to suffer and don’t care about the utility for society. It’s the same reason they oppose social safety nets.
The whole Defund The Police and Ending Prisons isn’t about doing away with them altogether. The most radical leftist knows that would be stupid. But warehousing criminals, as they get more and more sociopathic/psychopathic, isn’t a healthy system for a healthy society.
People want the visceral satisfaction of a just punishment, but that’s a wasted opportunity. We have a person that has gone down a bad road, and we have the choice of helping them get back on track, or not. Society is improved with the latter, so shouldn’t we adopt that strategy, rather than just punishing?
There are going to be people who are irredeemable, that’s just reality. Serial killers, out-of-control psychopaths, child molesters, etc, can’t be helped, and those people have to be warehoused. But most people can respond to rehabilitation, as prisons in Europe prove. Their recidivism rate is far, far lower than ours.
We have been doing the wrong things for many years, just because they look good in the media, or make ignorant voters feel good. In ALL things, we should be looking at what other nations are doing right, and start adopting those strategies. I’m sick of our country doing stupid shit, just because we’ve always done it that way, and it makes the worst people in America happy.
Some people are just born evil. Or they’re born with something broken in their brains that can never be fixed.
Go talk to some teachers. Ask them about the worst of the worst. You’ll hear some stories.
You hear a lot about “the school to prison pipeline,” but there are some kids that you can just look at them and say, “that kid is going to die in prison.” I’m talking about kids that assault their teachers and other students. I’m talking kids that steal, lie, and manipulate people in cruel and vindictive ways. In some cases they make a game out of deliberately creating false allegations of inappropriate behavior on the part of their teachers. They actively seek to destroy lives. I’m talking about kids that go through every program and intervention, that receive every form of support and counseling imaginable. Kids that receive nothing but compassion, caring and understanding…and respond by treating other human beings as disposable garbage fit only for their amusement. It’s a rare kid that is truly this evil, but there are some real monsters out there. Some people are just born evil. There are some people that will simply never see the humanity in other human beings. There is no amount of counseling or coaching that can fix such profoundly broken souls. The best we can do is to warehouse them, to lock them in a place with their own kind, where they’ll never be able to hurt an innocent person ever again.
You cannot teach someone to have empathy. You cannot teach someone to care for other people. You either do, or you don’t.
Empathy is the ability to recognize, understand, and share the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of another person while keeping them distinct from your own.
You cannot teach someone to have empathy. You cannot teach someone to care for other people. You either do, or you don’t.
If they can’t help it, the proper response to them is definitely NOT to treat them like bad little boys who need to be locked away and punished forever while we joke about them getting SA’d in prison.
Evidence for your assertion? Research including meta-analyses of multiple studies shows that empathy is a trainable capacity that can measurably improve through structured education, practice, and social-emotional learning. Schools, workplaces, and medical institutions use specific programs (such as role-playing, active listening exercises, reading literature, and film-based discussions) to boost emotional literacy and perspective-taking. Schools in Denmark set aside one mandatory hour per week for a dedicated class called Klassens Tid (Class Time) for students aged 6 to 16. Problem-Solving & Listening: Rather than focusing on grades or traditional academic subjects during this hour, students sit together to discuss personal or group problems, practice active listening, and find collective solutions to issues like bullying or social exclusion. Around 60% of schoolwork in Denmark is group-based, emphasizing teamwork and supporting peers rather than individual competition. Finland treats empathy as a core competency woven into daily school life rather than a stand alone subject. Students analyze characters’ emotions during reading, mediate their own peer conflicts, and practice emotional resilience through hands-on projects and peer mentoring.
I think you replied to the wrong person. I was quoting them.
