~ archived since 2018 ~

‘The number of British prisoners aged over 60 years has risen by 130% between 2002 and 2013, a shift attributed to an increase in the convictions for historic sex abuse.’

ernestbelfortbax

October 21, 2014

3 upvotes

http://theantifeminist.com/the-number-of-british-prisoners-aged-over-60-years-has-risen-by-130-between-2002-and-2013-a-shift-attributed-to-an-increase-in-the-convictions-for-historic-sex-abuse/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	‘The number of British prisoners aged over 60 years has risen by 130% between 2002 and 2013, a shift attributed to an increase in the convictions for historic sex abuse.’
Author	ernestbelfortbax
Upvotes	3
Comments	11
Date	October 21, 2014 10:54 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2jvlhr/the_number_of_british_prisoners_aged_over_60/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-number-of-british-prisoners-aged-over-60-years.994443 https://theredarchive.com/post/994443

Comments

[–]ZimbaZumba 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]smackypies 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That link is not the best example for what you are trying to say. Yes, he does mention hysteria in a sense, but also he does just what you asked in debating how they are conducted. But it is ok to lump them into a group because they involve rape shield laws, while no other type of crime does. There is also no other crime for which so many vehemently protect false accusers, to the point where some agencies make it policy to not enforce the law, when any other false accuser would still be fair game.

If one believes that these factors compromise the integrity of investigations/trials etc. then they are correct in lumping them together.

based purely on the abstract possibility for abusing these laws

You are basically giving people a special gun and saying "you will never be punished for using this on others even if it is not self-defense" and then expecting it to not be abused?

[–]FallingSnowAngel -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

But we can observe special guns handed to the defense, as well.

Almost every rape accusation leads to a trial for a false rape accusation - the defense would be insane not to claim it was consensual.

And it's a toxic lie that juries don't ever buy it. One that would be laughed out of an actual court. There's are a lot of good reasons for survivors not to ever press charges...

For some of us, the legalized gaslighting - by a professional trained to prey on our weaknesses, in front of our attacker...that alone is a second rape.

Whether or not this subreddit approves of those emotions.

It's also a common practice, by both defense and the state, to claim that some of the common medical symptoms of post-shock trauma - such as not showing any emotion, making inappropriate jokes, or simultaneously suffering memory gaps and hyper focusing on small, sometimes seemingly random, details - are all signs of lying.

Innocent people are convicted, in all ways but an official verdict, of making false accusations, over and over again....

In far greater numbers, than for any other crime. It's also a human rights crisis...

And that's why we created those shield laws in the first place, and why we're so careful about assigning any jail time for the crime...

[–]smackypies 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Almost every rape accusation leads to a trial for a false rape accusation - the defense would be insane not to claim it was consensual.

I'm not sure what else to say but standards of evidence and burden of proof...

Just because someone is found innocent, it does not mean their accuser is charged with filing a false report. If the defense takes the specific course that you mention, and they create doubt that it was nonconsensual, that does not mean they have proved that the accuser knowingly filed a false report.

They are not going to pursue a false accusation type trial unless they have enough evidence, if they do at all, because many police agencies explicitly announce that they will not charge dishonest accusers of rape, so as to not prevent future victims from coming forward. And if they do charge them, it's probably going to be a lot more evidence than was required to go to the first trial for rape.

Innocent people are convicted of making false accusations, over and over again....In far greater numbers, than for any other crime. It's also a human rights crisis...And that's why we created those shield laws in the first place...

And how would you know that? Are they later exonerated? The only people I see being exonerated are men who lost half their life to a rape conviction.

I will say again that rape is the only crime in which we actively try to protect people, EVEN WHEN THEY ADMIT TO FALSELY ACCUSING (because of concern for making future victims apprehensive), and yet you are still convinced that we wrongly convict these accusers more than any others (I assume you mean in terms of percentage - % of real victims that later are convicted of filing false reports).

Courts have stated that a victim's sexual history has little relevance and the humiliation and fear of being questioned about past sexual conduct will prevent victims of rape to come forward and pursue charges.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-shield-laws.html

There is nothing here about a fear of being wrongly convicted of filing a false report. And even if there were, that is not the way to handle someone's irrational fears.

[–]FallingSnowAngel -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Just because someone is found innocent, it does not mean their accuser is charged with filing a false report. If the defense takes the specific course that you mention, and they create doubt that it was nonconsensual, that does not mean they have proved that the accuser knowingly filed a false report.

No, it doesn't. But there are often heavy social penalties to be paid. In the past, these were local matters only, but the information age, there's nothing preventing the victim's name from getting out to the entire world.

The public sees what it wants to see, and how it calculates good and evil has little to do with the facts of the case. Both accused and accuser have horror stories to share...

Again, it's only paranoid conspiracy ravings that the accuser has all the power in this exchange.

They are not going to pursue a false accusation type trial unless they have enough evidence, and it's probably going to be a lot more evidence than was required to go to the first trial for rape.

You'd be surprised how little evidence the police have needed in recent years to label someone a false accuser.

Etc. It's been an ongoing problem - apparently underreported, since nobody in Reddit seems aware of it.

I know that's only a few links, and my apologies for not responding to your other points, but I'm only half conscious at this point...do you mind if we pick this debate back up later? I'm not sure what the etiquette is, or if you just want to call it an agree to disagree at this point?

[–]smackypies 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Only one of your examples involves a woman actually being charged with falsely accusing (charges which were, of course, dropped), and it is too entangled with the other crime of robbery.

I am also too tired to make my point well, although I don't have a problem with anything I've said up until now.

So I will have to simplify this: you're saying we shouldn't worry about false accusers when you yourself are worried about victims being falsely accused of falsely accusing. Even though none of your examples actually feature people who went to prison for it or anything like that, and none of them seem to feature people who deliberately falsely accused - the person accusing them is not certain that they are innocent and accusing them despite their known innocence.

Implying, based purely on the abstract possibility for abusing these laws, and the minority of outlier cases, that the system necessarily oppresses men?

Implying, based purely on one time that an officer wasn't sure if a woman claiming rape was using it as a cover story or not, entangled with theft, that the system necessarily oppresses women?

Meanwhile, every man knows that any woman could falsely accuse him, and that in many places it is guaranteed that she will get away with it, because police have explicitly and publicly announced that they will not pursue false accusers in the interest of not deterring future real victims.

We have so many examples of men being exonerated from rape charges, or women admitting that they intentionally falsely accused. When you try to find examples of women falsely accused (intentionally or not) of accusing falsely - you find one crappy one.

How difficult a rape trial can be on a real victim almost has nothing to do with this. Because however difficult the trial is, the fake victims still made a choice to go through it, and drag along someone who was accused, except the accused is obviously in a worse spot, and not just because they are the one with no control.

I would think, since rape shield laws are needed to prevent victims from having to discuss their (hopefully irrelevant) sexual history etc. - that the accused would have no such protection, right? I mean, it's not enough to expect the judge to use logic and only allow relevant questions, right? That's why we need the shields, right?

So what if it's supposed to be for the victim? How do you know that the accused isn't a victim of being falsely accused?

And remember, technically, these things could happen to a woman, too, right?

So what you are saying is, it's perfectly ok for a man to falsely accuse a woman, knowing that he won't face repercussions for his actions as he has been assured by some public figure that the law he is violating will never be enforced, and then, since the woman is the accused, we can assume that all kinds of humiliating, irrelevant questions about her sexuality will be asked of her, because there is no shield to protect her.

So what you are saying is, it's ok for a man to put a woman through that, THE EXACT VERY SAME THING THAT ALL THESE SHIELDS AND LACK OF CHARGING FALSE ACCUSERS IS SUPPOSED TO PREVENT, and for him to know that he will get away with it.

You have enabled people to do the very thing that you were trying to prevent.