~ archived since 2018 ~

The Campus False Accuser Support Act: "it reduces the standard of evidence, and allows for double jeopardy" (SaVE Act)

actanonverba8

September 27, 2013

48 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-campus-false-accuser-support-act/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	The Campus False Accuser Support Act: "it reduces the standard of evidence, and allows for double jeopardy" (SaVE Act)
Author	actanonverba8
Upvotes	48
Comments	51
Date	September 27, 2013 3:19 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1n93k6/the_campus_false_accuser_support_act_it_reduces/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-campus-false-accuser-support-act-it-reduces.1162741 https://theredarchive.com/post/1162741

Comments

[–]knowless 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nomenimion 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nutz76 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fukuaneveryoneuknow 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]actanonverba8[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nickb64 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]regular_guy_ 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I have been meaning to make this connection for some time, but couldn't find the link. Whenever I read of the 'Dear Colleague' letter, or in this case the University kangaroo courts as established in VAWA - I think of this.

This is a False Accusation model - used in a case from the 1970s. I learned of the case itself today and was riveted reading about it.

The model is here. The fourth point is the one that always strikes me

False accusers usually do not make their allegations initially to authorities. Typically they make them to friends or relatives who in turn inform the authorities.

I call this a "soft allegation". That is, an allegation that isn't intended to be vigorously defended. It is meant to do harm, from the protected position of being a victim.

If a victim of a crime does not go straight-away to the proper authorities, that is - the police - then their story loses credibility. It doesn't disprove the story exactly. It just makes it more of an uphill struggle to regain the credibility lost.

The university discipline system is a form of this type of "soft allegation". For that reason alone, in addition to the many others so well documented in the ACFM article, this is a terrible system that should be brought to an immediate end.

[–]actanonverba8[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]unclefisty 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Apellosine 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nutz76 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nomenimion 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]shikima81 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]shikima81 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

This is a strawman.

Actually no, it's not, and you've gone on to prove that with your most recent comment. You're arguing to sacrifice the falsely accused, as long as you get to feel like doing so helps rape victims.

This is not true; a victim can seek both Title IX and criminal prosecutions for the accused, and the article I linked that you obviously didn't read address your other concerns specifically.

It's absolutely true - because an accuser (you keep using the term "victim" as if everyone who accuses is one) can avoid risking being caught in her lies by using the university system instead of the legal system. This allows her to falsely accuse, but avoid the chance of being charged with anything like filing false charges, perjury, or any other criminal charge related to lying in a criminal case. It keeps the accused from having his day in court. While the accuser gets a choice, the accused does not. He can't demand a trial-by-jury from the university. He'll get a disciplinary panel, instead.
Accusers who actually are victims may also wimp out of prosecution if they're satisfied with the result of a school trial, leaving sex criminals free to commit the same crime elsewhere. This is lose-lose.

Only about 37% of reported rapes are prosecuted, and only about 18% result in a conviction (source), owing in large part to the fact that law enforcement doesn't like to prosecute cases that are notoriously difficult to prove, like rape.

You keep assuming that every accusation comes from a victim. Part of the reason these cases are so hard to prove is that among them are cases in which there was no rape, and it's not just the percent described as false in justice department statistics, which only count cases that went to trial.

And no, it doesn't make accusers honest, but I've not seen good evidence that accusers are dishonest such that relaxing the standard of evidence would pose too great a danger.

Then you haven't looked.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

http://www.cotwa.info/2013/02/woman-jailed-after-11-false-rape-claims.html

http://www.cotwa.info/2012/11/male-college-student-expelled-for-sex.html

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/03/false-conviction-rate-for-rape-historically-higher-than-claimed-false-accusation-rate/

http://falserapearchives.blogspot.com/2011/09/writings-demonstrating-error-and.html

http://www.mediaradar.org/mcdowell_kanin_credible.php

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/jbs/maysession/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c7Tw6KS7rk

http://williamlanderson.blogspot.de/2012/06/america-as-south-park-nation-where-life.html

http://williamlanderson.blogspot.de/2012/07/america-as-south-park-nation-where-life.html

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/search?q=taxi&restrict_sr=on

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Want-To-Hear-Your-Story-About-False-Rape-Reports/2307032

Regardless, with your statement that there's not "too great a danger," you're back to saying that sacrificing the falsely accused is acceptable to you, as long as you get what you want from the sacrifice. You're paying to alleviate your conscience with a check that'll be cashed out of someone else's account, so it doesn't bother you.

You're talking about literally (not figuratively, as in this person will feel bad for a long time, but literally, as in prison) depriving a person of liberty without just cause.

First, the Constitution guarantees a right to due process, but doesn't define what constitutes due process; that's for us to decide. You're not gonna be able to successfully appeal to the Constitution to get your way (nor should you since that's a fallacious appeal to law).

Well, there's even less reason for rape laws than there is for adhering to the constitutional guarantee of due process, the nature of which has been established and upheld in the court system for over a century. By your argument, we could completely do away with rape law, and it wouldn't be a problem. Or, since you're arguing that we can arbitrarily define what due process is, it could be defined such as to need only determine that an accusation has been made, and that would be enough to convict.

Perhaps the accuser should face exactly the same process as the accused. Since the defense of the accused is usually that the accuser is lying, perhaps the outcome of the case should be a conviction of one side or the other; if the 51% surety falls on the side of the accuser, the accused faces discipline, but if the 51% surety falls on the side of the accused, then the accuser faces the punishment she sought against him. If, as you say, the process presents no danger, than the accuser has nothing to fear.

Second, I've already linked a scholarly inquiry into the likely effects of this law which supports my view, so I'm not sure why you're pressing me for more evidence, especially given that you've provided none yourself.

No, you've linked to an article designed to sell the bill, and it sounds good to you because the claims in it are what you want to hear.
Reality has already demonstrated that the standards laid out in the Campus SaVE act cause false conviction in the educational institution setting, as universities attempted to follow those same standards when they were handed down in the Department of Education's Dear Colleague letter.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/no-due-process-for-college-rape-trials/#dXsrpj0VpgKPMQyH.01

And other experts writing about those standards see a completely different picture than your link presents.

Over 200 editorials and articles criticizing the Department of Education (DED) Sexual Assault Directive and sexual harassment speech code, and calling for the restoration of due process and free speech on campus

http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/accusing-u/complaints/

http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/Final-Law-Review-Article.pdf

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Even under the current guidelines a victim could avoid the risk of lying in a criminal case by only pursuing Title IX actions. Also, someone who is accused, whether or not they're found guilty by a d-panel, can always sue for defamation. I'm not seeing how this change cashes out as less risk for victims.

This is only because you're okay with sacrificing victims of false accusers - that's the only way you can get your opinion past the fact that when the accuser is lying, the accused is the victim.

So what if no criminal charges are pursued? Why is that a bad thing for the accused? On it's face that sounds like a good thing to me (for the accused, that is).

Actually, no, it's not a good thing to be slandered and kicked out of school on the word of a liar. Even if you get some recourse years down the line after your lawsuit - if you can afford a lawyer, if you can get someone to sue a rape accuser, and if a judge doesn't throw out the suit because of the nature of the accusation - doesn't undo the victimization. Again, you're treating the falsely accused as disposable.

And if the accused is a rapist, it's a bad thing for society if the victim uses the university system because she thinks rape has a lower conviction rate than other crimes - which by the way, is also not true. Rape actually has about the same conviction rate as other criminal allegations. Feminists just think the conviction rate should be super high for that one criminal allegation.

Key word being "may." On the flip side, a disciplinary panel finding the accused guilty may be offered as evidence in a criminal trial, increasing the likelihood of conviction. This change may actually increase criminal prosecutions. Yes, I'm using the word "may" as well; point is, it's far from clear that this is a lose-lose.

This argument actually supports my point, not yours. If a false accuser gets a conviction at her university, from what you've just said, that can be offered as evidence in criminal trial, increasing the likelihood of a false conviction. That directly contradicts your claim that this law doesn't present any danger to the accused.

Also, this:

First, the main reason rape is so hard to prove under the reasonable doubt standard is because you have to prove a) the accused had sex with the victim and b) the sex was non-consensual. a) is hard enough to prove without DNA evidence (and even that is sketchy), and b) is nearly impossible, even with extremely strong circumstantial evidence

is not a counter to this:

You keep assuming that every accusation comes from a victim. Part of the reason these cases are so hard to prove is that among them are cases in which there was no rape, and it's not just the percent described as false in justice department statistics, which only count cases that went to trial.

You haven't offered evidence to support your claim of victim status. You've merely made an irrational excuse for your choice to presume guilt.

So what you've given me here is:
attacking the source, ignoring the content, appeal to authority

You haven't made an argument here. If you don't address the material, it stands that you can't defend your point. I've already debunked the article you provided - it's in the articles you refused to read. You haven't made a point here - you've just shown that you can't back up your assertion.

On a side note, per your dismissal of "anecdotal" evidence (which is the label you seem to be applying to the news articles about false rape allegations), I'll point out that without exception, all evidence backing the stats used to for the law you're supporting is anecdotal. If you dismiss that evidence, you just debunked the 1 in 3 stat used to claim that this law was needed.

I can use this point to argue against there being rape laws at all: "Even the reasonable doubt standard is too low because some people will be falsely convicted, and indeed any law carries with it a risk of false conviction. You're paying to alleviate your conscience with a check that'll be cashed out of someone else's account, so it doesn't bother you."

My argument is against your "appeal to law" claim. Your argument supports my argument by further illustrating it. Further, you're arguing that it's acceptable to increase the number of people you're allowed to sacrifice for your peace of mind simply because people are already being sacrificed. That's not a good argument to negate what you think you're negating with it. It's a good argument for rolling back laws feminists have fought for and won already. Since you acknowledge that victims of false accusers are being legally sacrificed, it shouldn't be a problem for you to also acknowledge that whittling down what our court system treats as due process does increase the chance of false imprisonment and other falsely imposed penalties against innocent victims of false accusers.

Any law presents this risk. The only meaningful conversation to have is whether or not the risks of a particular law outweigh its benefits, so when your criticism amounts to nothing more than "you think the benefits outweigh the risks," you're not making any meaningful criticism at all.

Reducing "men will be subject to significant loss" to "risks" and "thor_molecules gets to feel like he did something good" to "benefits" is dishonest - but that's the argument you're reducing. You're weighing potential destruction of an innocent individual's career path against your own feelings, and nothing more. And I say nothing more, because you have provided no evidence that this law will benefit actual victims.

Also, I'm a man, so if this change is adopted then it'll be precisely my account from where the check is drawn.

You being a man doesn't make it your account - unless you're currently a university student at risk for being falsely accused, you're not even risking that it'll be your account. Further, you just admitted that you think rape is gendered. Not all rapists are men, and not all people who are falsely accused are men.

Also, I'm not sure why you're trying to minimize the suffering of sexual assault victims who are denied justice by portraying it as "figurative," but it's pretty gross.

Don't demean rape victims with a childish argument like that. We deserve better than to be the proxy for your petulant whining. There is a huge, gaping difference between being imprisoned or even having one's academic career (and potential career path) destroyed by someone's lie, and having to recover from an assault. And even if rape victims were in some way made permanently helpless by our experiences (we aren't, unless we get told by someone like you that we have to be and are stupid enough to buy it) imprisoning or otherwise wrecking the lives of the falsely accused does nothing to help alleviate that.

Your advocacy is an insult to rape victims. You're advocating a non-solution that makes you feel better and exploiting rape victims as a group by using us as part of your argument, which is flat-out disgusting and creepy.

No, by my argument we could not completely do away with rape law, how in the world are you getting that conclusion from the text you quoted?

Feigning ignorance of what led to the conclusion doesn't eliminate the part you left out. It again shows that you can't honestly make your point. It's contained in your quote. You're the one who refers to citing law as a fallacious appeal. Your argument to do away with the current standard for due process leave room to argue for doing away with rape laws. You've argued that we as a society can simply decide what we do or do not to recognize as a right, and what rights we do or do not want to protect. You're arguing to not protect an individual's right to freedom from false imprisonment from being infringed by government, yet you expect to be taken seriously arguing that an individual's right to be free from assault by another individual should be protected. You've offered no evidence why your argument applies only to rights you are okay with infringing, and not to those you want to protect.

Also, any definition of due process is going to be arbitrary, the relevant conversation is about which definition is the best/most acceptable/most effective/etc.

That does not excuse whittling it down without purpose. As I pointed out, that standard wasn't arbitrarily chosen out of thin air. The idea to reduce the standard to "preponderance of evidence" was arbitrarily chosen. You're arguing to replace a tested and effective standard with one shown to lead to more false convictions.

(continued)

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I've made this point before, and this is the last time I'll make it; simply saying "you're OK with people being falsely convicted!" is literally meaningless. ANY law carries the risk of false conviction, and the only meaningful question is what's an acceptable risk for the projected benefits.

Again, you're attempting to obscure the seriousness of what you're advocating by using language that does not cover the facts. This is not just a risk-reward choice. It's not your risk. You're choosing the risk to others, for something that benefits you emotionally. You don't have that right. Your attempts to dodge don't change what you're doing. They only show that you don't have the integrity to be honest about the consequences of your choices.

You misunderstood the text you quoted. I was replying to something you said which went along the lines of "this is bad because the accused won't get his day in court." The point I made was that it's not obvious what good having a day in court would do the accused...

No, you stated not facing a criminal charge would be a good thing. You're glossing over the fact that not facing a criminal charge doesn't eliminate the criminal allegation. You're also ignoring the consequences of the accusation itself. When an accusation is false, and the accused doesn't get his day in court, he doesn't get the opportunity to obtain an acquittal.

You're also ignoring the consequences of the college hearing on the accused. That's not a court trial, and the accused is denied the opportunity to face his accuser in court if she chooses to substitute a university trial for a justice system trial. The accused faces a higher risk of being found guilty in the university trial because there's a lower standard of evidence, meaning that all the accuser has to have is witnesses willing to lie because they don't face potential perjury charges if they do. This means that the accused may be slandered and kicked out of school with no recourse to clear his name. Even if he files a civil case and wins, his name is still sullied.

... and you haven't yet made yourself clear.

That was elementary, and should not have needed to be explained to you. The only reason it was is that you're so intrenched in your ideology as to not give the consequences to the falsely accused any meaningful consideration. I'd say you're as much as treating them as disposable.

First, this is pure speculation.

No, it's the same argument made by people who advocate for lower standards of evidence - that a rapist who is not convicted and jailed will be free to rape again. The argument was that when actual victims choose to substitute the university system for the justice system a result is that the rapist does not go to jail. A rapist who is not in jail is free to rape again. This study found two things which are important to the discussion on rape: First, that commission of the crime accounted for a minority among the men sampled(6.4%), and second, that a significant portion of those who admitted to acts of rape were repeat offenders (63.3%). This means that 90.9% of admitted rape offenses were committed by 4% of the men surveyed, but that 4% each repeat-offended. Further, the study found that just under 10% committed a number between 9 and 50. Looking at the numbers on the chart, you can subtract out that the 9-50 group of 11 respondents was responsible for 219 rapes, meaning that 45.3% of the admitted rape offenses were committed by 0.58% of the men surveyed. This divides down to an average of 19.9 each, if you don't assume that the high end is capped at 50 because someone admitted to 50. The repeat rapists were also responsible for 1,045 of the 1,225 85.3% total acts of interpersonal violence perpetrated by the 120 admitted rapists, showing that not only is the majority of rape committed by serial rapists, there's a tendency toward violence involved.

What this means is that yes, when an actual victim chooses to substitute the university system for the justice system, that creates a significant chance that a serial rapist is getting off easy (as in, no jail time) and will be free to continue that pattern of behavior.

Second, a victim doesn't have to think rape has a lower conviction rate than other crimes, just that it has a low conviction rate at all (which is true, the victim's odds of getting a conviction are quite low)

The thing is, the conviction rate for rape is not lower than the conviction rate for other accusations. The problem is that feminists using that argument ignore the fact that not all accusations are true, so they make the conviction rate sound lower by claiming that only a tiny percentage of actual rapists get convicted, even though they do not have evidence to back that up. In using that argument, feminists make the court system sound more intimidating to actual victims than it really is - especially with all of the concessions the accuser now has due to feminist advocacy. The reality is that it is not known for sure how much false accusation contributes to the conviction rate (as in, the case doesn't go to court because evidence shows the accusation to not be credible) so telling victims there is proof their chance of seeing their rapist convicted is low is dishonest and manipulative.

First, my claim was never that the law presents no danger, only that it may not present an unacceptable danger.

You're going to have to get your story straight - either you're arguing that sacrificing the falsely accused is acceptable, or you're arguing that the law presents no danger.

Second, that's only a danger if you assume that a lowered standard of evidence will mean more false "convictions," which isn't obviously the case (see that article I linked which you keep hand-waving in quite the lazy fashion)

The article which predicts that there will not be more false convictions (a conviction is a conviction, whether it's within the justice system or at your university - stop trying to obfuscate) has been debunked by the news-reported false convictions I linked you to. Continuing to tout a source which turned out to be easily debunked by actual events, and doesn't support your case.

You again misunderstood the point of the text you quoted. I was shooting down your claim as to why rape is so hard to prosecute, which you seemed to have derived from your extremely sloppy empirical evidence.

Bullshit, on both points. Tracing back...

You: ..."'beyond a reasonable' doubt seems to leave the vast majority of sexual assault victims without legal recourse..."

Me: "Actually, you don't know that "beyond a reasonable doubt" leaves the vast majority of victims without recourse." (In your reply, you quoted this without formatting, removing the emphasis on the word victims - this may have led to some of your confusion in this discussion.)

You: "Only about 37% of reported rapes are prosecuted, and only about 18% result in a conviction..."
Here, you replied to my statement indicating that not all accusers are victims by making another statement which relies on the assumption that all rape accusations are true. You compounded that by blaming law enforcement for not wanting to prosecute cases without enough evidence to prove a crime.

Me: "You keep assuming that every accusation comes from the victim. Part of the reason these cases are so hard to prove is that among them are cases in which there was no rape, and it's not just the percent described as false in justice department statistics, which only count cases that went to trial."

So this is consistent so far, and it shows that my argument isn't a strawman, because my counter in this part of the discussion was to your own expressed opinion as you stated it, not the preponderance standard. You've clearly based your argument on assuming that all allegations of rape are true, and I've pointed out that one of your attempted counters to my argument that not all accusers are victims (that law enforcement won't prosecute without evidence) doesn't counter the argument to which you used it in reply. In fact, it supports my argument that not all accusers are victims, because what you're saying there is that 62% of accusations brought to police lack sufficient evidence to go to court, and 82% of cases brought to the police (nearly half of cases brought to court) lack sufficient evidence to lead to a conviction. It's not a misreading of anything on my part - if anything, it's a failure on your part, as you've apparently forgotten what you said that started that line of discussion.

Back to this

which you seemed to have derived from your extremely sloppy empirical evidence.

You haven't provided evidence for that statement. It is merely your own opinion. It also supports my earlier point that you're arguing under the assumption that all rape accusations are true, because you're countering the claim "some rape accusations are false" with "that is derived from extremely sloppy evidence."

(continued)

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I did address it. The claim that false rape accusations are very common is an extraordinary one, and requires extraordinary evidence to substantiate it.

Your standard for evidence changes based on what you want to believe. When it's someone accusing rape, you're willing to go with a low standard of evidence - even reasonable doubt isn't enough to remove your presumption of guilt. As long as the accuser has a preponderance of evidence, you consider the case proved.

On the other hand, when presented with evidence that the incidence of false rape allegations is higher than the number discovered during the trial process, but in fact includes cases discovered during the investigation process, you balk, not because you have a source that disproves the research, but because you don't like being confronted with the fact that women are as capable of dishonesty and criminal intent as men are.

Links to the MRA blogroll and a handful of mostly non-peer reviewed studies, most of which are roundly criticized in academia, is not that. You seem to think this is an appeal to authority, and you're right; thing is, there's a difference between an appeal to authority and a fallacious appeal to authority.

Actually, this proves that you didn't read the links, which included news items.

It's a lazy attempt at getting out of addressing evidence you don't like - as fallacious an appeal to authority as any. Your claim of a difference doesn't make the evidence go away, or make it invalid. It only proves that you're so invested in what you believe that you're willing to ignore evidence in order to continue believing it. So if you can't address the evidence, that's not a counter to my point. It's a failure to counter - one that clearly shows that you are unable to counter. Your own behavior destroys your entire argument.

This is the first time I've heard this 1 in 3 stat, where does that come from, and what leads you to believe it's anecdotal?

Sorry, I'm not buying that. People I work with who have no clue about gender issues have heard that stat, along with 1 in 4, and 1 in 2. So don't claim you're arguing in favor of a legal change without knowing anything at all, even the most basic, bottom-rung piece of "evidence" that was used to promote it. If that were the case, you have no business even engaging in this discussion. You don't even know what your beliefs are based on. That is beyond ridiculous.

Uh, what? Quick recap:

You: "This law is bad because some people may be falsely convicted of a crime."

You shouldn't cry strawman if you're going to use strawman arguments.

I said the law is bad for a host of reasons, including a potential for facilitating false convictions - not that it never happens now, but that this will cause an increase, something you have not countered. And again, I'll just point out here that this:

Me: "This is an argument that can be deployed against having any laws at all: 'All laws are bad because some people may be falsely convicted of a crime.' The only meaningful question is what is an acceptable risk for the proposed benefit."

is an admission that you consider increased false conviction acceptable. You are willing to force sacrifice on the innocent in order to get what you want, which is to feel like you've done something about rape.

On to your claim that it's unrelated to your "appeal to law" argument: You based that argument on the idea that what constitutes due process is anything we decide. Therefore, there is no constitutional guarantee that what is and has been consdered due process must continue to be the standard for due process. In other words, you argued that due process is social taffy. Your argument that accepting a reason for having a standard of evidence as part of one's right to due process justifies outlawing rape laws altogether supports my argument that the removing the existing standard is a removal of due process rights - you basically just showed that abandoning the standard has the consequence of making legal standards meaningless.

My actual argument is that the change will make the law more effective and won't have a substantive negative impact. Yet another strawman.

I've already shown from your own comment history that this is not true.

Sure; but as I've pointed out dozens of times already, that's a nearly-meaningless point to make. As with any law, there are going to be trade-offs. If you don't think the trade-offs are worth it, you'll need to say why.

Actually, no. If you're going to violate someone's constitutional right to not be deprived of liberty and the right to pursue happiness, you need to justify your intent. No matter what way you argue it, people are not disposable. Since you finally admit you're willing to sacrifice people, you need to prove three things: Why those people should be expected to tolerate the sacrifice, why society should be expected to tolerate that sacrifice, and what concrete, measurable benefit you can prove that they and society are getting from it.

So far in this discussion, you've completely failed to justify your position. You've merely argued that to you, they are acceptable losses.

What's actually dishonest is this sentence right here. This change isn't just about the feels-good, it's about attempting to give victims a better chance of getting justice.

That's actually not true - you've never offered any evidence that it will give victims a better chance at getting justice. You've merely stated that it will result in more convictions. You have not offered evidence showing that any of those convictions will stem from accusations that are not false. Your argument is based, again, on presuming guilt. You're not offering a real, tangible benefit. You're offering a projection.

The only way this law will not benefit actual victims is if all accusations that don't end in conviction under the current evidence standards are false.

This is a basic principle of the United States justice system: The accused is innocent until proven guilty. It is not my responsibility to prove that anyone accused of anything is innocent. It is your responsibility to prove that any of them are guilty.

I'll say that I am subject to Title IX and leave it at that.

Yet unless you are actually accused, you're still not paying that check. Just being a man doesn't make you anything. You're still writing checks that you know will be paid from someone else's account. Being willing to take the risk yourself (and I'm assuming you think that because you're one of the "good" men that won't happen to you, only to other men) does not give you the right to drag anyone else along with you, no matter how you feel about it.

Also, fuck your dishonest bullshit, you've been super careful to use "accused" (which in MRA-land is a dogwhistle for "men" in rape discussions) rather than "men" this whole time, but you slipped up here:

Reducing "men will be subject to significant loss" to "risks"

Two things - thanks for admitting that the law is sexist, and thanks for admitting that you are, too. I've been using "accused" rather than "rapist" this whole time, because the two are not the same thing. Yes, those most impacted by false accusations are men, and they mostly face false accusations made by women. That does not change the fact that it's not universal, nor does it make you being a man an excuse for advocating for more discrimination against men in federal law.

And no, it doesn't make accusers honest, but I've not seen good evidence that accusers are dishonest such that relaxing the standard of evidence would pose too great a danger.

You're talking about literally (not figuratively, as in this person will feel bad for a long time, but literally, as in prison) depriving a person of liberty without just cause.

Also, I'm not sure why you're trying to minimize the suffering of sexual assault victims who are denied justice by portraying it as "figurative," but it's pretty gross.

Don't demean rape victims with a childish argument like that. We deserve better than to be the proxy for your petulant whining. There is a huge, gaping difference between being imprisoned or even having one's academic career (and potential career path) destroyed by someone's lie, and having to recover from an assault. And even if rape victims were in some way made permanently helpless by our experiences (we aren't, unless we get told by someone like you that we have to be and are stupid enough to buy it) imprisoning or otherwise wrecking the lives of the falsely accused does nothing to help alleviate that.

I said nothing about the suffering of the falsely convicted, only that to say the suffering of victims denied justice is "figurative" is gross.

I'm seeing a steady pattern here. When you can't argue, you obfuscate.

My answer was based on your implicit comparison. You arguing that sacrificing victims of false accusation so you can believe that more actual rapists are getting punished shows that you think the sacrifice of one's actual life path or even freedom (if, as you claim, these university cases can be used in court to obtain criminal conviction) and the plethora of consequences that tag along with those hardships are no worse than emotional duress.

(continued)

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I see, you don't know what a fallacious appeal to law is. A fallacious appeal to law is to claim that we ought to do x because x is the law

Oh, I see that you are unable to read back through a comment thread and find the origin of your argument.

The argument has nothing to do with whether the appeal to law was fallacious. It has to do with whether deciding that law is as arbitrary as you claim is an invalidation of all legal standards, including the rape laws. Again, you're showing that when you can't argue, you obfuscate. From now on, when you have trouble addressing a point, just admit you don't want to prove your side of the argument any more, and leave it at that.

My claim is that we ought to do x because x will yield huge net gains in good y, which is an appeal to utility, an a-ok argument to make.

You just reduced all human beings to objects.

Why your "appeal to utility" is not an "a-ok argument to make"

Human beings are not your property to do with as you please. You do not have the right to sacrifice humans for your own purposes.

You haven't demonstrated utility; you've simply made a claim based on a projected outcome which has not been proved.

Even if you demonstrate utility, you haven't proved that, as you put it, the benefits outweigh the risks, because you haven't proved a lack of risk.

Your "appeal to utility" rests on more than one logical fallacy;
an appeal to emotion - your labeling of conviction "benefit" is based on sympathy for the accusers.

begging the question - your sympathy for accusers is based on your presumption of the accused's guilt.

begging the question part 2 - your willingness to sacrifice the accused when they are innocent is based on the assumption that this sacrifice will impact accused who are guilty, thereby providing "benefit" to actual victims.

begging the question part 3 - your willingness to sacrifice the accused when they are innocent is also based on assumptions about justice;
that there is a fundamental right to receive justice.
that justice is obtaining a favorable result in one's case, rather than having one's case heard.
and that said right to receive justice extends to those who have been raped, but not to those who have been falsely accused.

begging the question part 4 - your willingness to sacrifice the accused when they are innocent is also based on the assumption that the accused are disposable.

begging the question part 5 - you are assuming that the "utility" you propose is needed.

begging the question part 6 - your assumption that the "utility" you propose is needed rests on two more unproved assumptions;
that there is a problem (not enough sex crime convictions) for it to remedy, and
that it will work as a remedy to that problem

It was chosen after deliberation, but that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. Reasonable doubt was chosen (by the courts, after a decades-long process of trying different standards) because they felt it offered the best balance between respect for the rights of the individual and the state's responsibility to protect its citizens from each other

There is a rational process behind that, and a reason why that decision was made: The state doesn't just say, "We find you guilty" and leave it at that. The reasonable doubt standard is used in cases involving the potential for serious legal penalty; years of imprisonment, huge fines, and in the worst cases, the death penalty. That standard exists to minimize the chance that the state will hand down such a punishment against an innocent person. What you're arguing here is to increase the risk faced by the accused that innocent people will be subjected to serious penalty (in this case, loss of one's academic career and one's professional career path, permanent stigma with no opportunity to clear one's name) without offering proof of a reason why it's even needed. Even if you consider the standard arbitrary, there was a reason for adopting it. You need to prove there is a reason to change it, and that the reason is valid. You haven't done that.

Close enough for horseshoes and handgrenades

Not really. If that's how you're looking at it, that indicates a guilty conscience on your part.

Also this:

What I've pointed out is that your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, leads directly to that.

Is literally rebutted in the text you quote. No d-panel could "convict" based on accusation alone, the victim would have to at least prove the event occurred.

Again, you're not following the argument very well.
Here:

First, the Constitution guarantees a right to due process, but doesn't define what constitutes due process; that's for us to decide. You're not gonna be able to successfully appeal to the Constitution to get your way (nor should you since that's a fallacious appeal to law.

Well, there's even less reason for rape laws than there is for adhering to the constitutional guarantee of due process, the nature of which has been established and upheld in the court system for over a century. By your argument, we could completely do away with rape law, and it wouldn't be a problem. Or, since you're arguing that we can arbitrarily define what due process is, it could be defined such as to need only determine that an accusation has been made, and that would be enough to convict.

No, by my argument we could not completely do away with rape law, how in the world are you getting that conclusion from the text you quoted? Also, any definition of due process is going to be arbitrary, the relevant conversation is about which definition is the best/most acceptable/most effective/etc. It of course could be defined such that only an accusation is necessary to convict, but that isn't contained within the preponderance standard, and I've certainly not argued for that.

Your argument to do away with the current standard for due process leave room to argue for doing away with rape laws. You've argued that we as a society can simply decide what we do or do not to recognize as a right, and what rights we do or do not want to protect. You're arguing to not protect an individual's right to freedom from false imprisonment from being infringed by government, yet you expect to be taken seriously arguing that an individual's right to be free from assault by another individual should be protected. You've offered no evidence why your argument applies only to rights you are okay with infringing, and not to those you want to protect.
(You ignored that part to address the next part)
A strawman would be if I claimed you advocated that. What I've pointed out is that your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, leads directly to that.

So here, you're feigning ignorance of the argument that is just a couple of paragraphs up from the one you're trying to claim is debunked in the text I quote. Since you're ignoring the previous part of the answer, that indicates that you're referring to the text I quoted with that answer, which was just your own statement "It of course could be defined such that only an accusation is necessary to convict, but that isn't contained within the preponderance standard, and I've certainly not argued for that." That statement of yours doesn't actually relate to that thread of discussion, much less "debunk" the point that your argument leads to the conclusion I showed. In fact, it appears to be another attempt at obfuscation.

No d-panel could "convict" based on accusation alone, the victim would have to at least prove the event occurred.

This is a strawman. The discussion was about standards, not about practice. What the panels would do under the preponderance standard is not relevant to whether declaring law malleable to suit your sensibilities because it's all arbitrary could lead to the eventual decision that accusation is proof of guilt. That obfuscation technique of yours must work for you fairly often. I've noticed that it's just about the only tool in your kit.

(continued)

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not uncomfortable at all, it's just that a) it's irrelevant to the discussion we're having

It's really not, and it shouldn't be that difficult for you to see that the comparison makes a point. And you're still dodging.

And this:

and b) I'm keenly aware that the sprawling nature of this "discussion" is starting to confuse you

is hilarious considering the fact that each of the times you've accused me of being confused, the parts of the conversation you've referenced were exactly as I've stated. Adding an attempt at talking down when you're on the lower tier of logic doesn't help your argument. It only makes you look childish.

Again, you're misusing the fallacy; it's not fallacious to appeal to a party's authority if they have sufficient expertise relevant to the matter at hand

Actually, yes, it is when you attempt to substitute citation of credentials for actual proof of their claims, especially when you're simply saying "My source trumps your source because my source has credentials." Facts are facts no matter who spouts them. Even the highest authorities on law make errors. Ever hear of the Dred Scott case? Highest authority; huge fucking error.
So when you're faced with evidence that contradicts what your source claims, your source's credentials don't outweigh that evidence.

Second, begging the question is assuming in your premises the conclusion you're arguing for

No, begging the question is basing your argument on presuming true something you haven't proved. However, to bite on your bait, you are assuming in your premises the conclusion you're arguing for - you're assuming that the source determines the value of the material, and then you're arguing that the material isn't of value becasue it comes from sources you disapprove.

but that's not my argument; I'm arguing that they have no sufficient expertise in the matter which we are discussing.

That is also based on an unfounded assumption; that the only place where one can gain the expertise needed to discuss this matter is through academic study. Some of those sources have gained expertise through practice in the field, and through following the specific area of law under discussion; false accusation, and the results. Also, some of the sources I offered you were news items demonstrating that the problem you claimed wouldn't exist does. That makes it irrelevant how much your source supports your claim, or what the credentials of the source are; existing evidence contradicts it. Academia doesn't trump reality.

Seriously, learn how fallacies work before you accuse people of committing them!

You should be sure you get your information straight before you try correcting people. Using incorrect statements instead does not work the way you intended. Get off of your high horse before that saddle chaps your ass.

Finally (and wearily), your evidence doesn't even constitute good reason for believing your claims, so it does no work toward debunking the claims of the author of the paper.

You don't have evidence for this claim. If repeating it wears you out, maybe you should try making a rational argument, instead.

So like I said, up your level of discourse or we're done here.

You know, after the arguments you just made, I'm pretty certain that if I do that you'll be lost entirely. Maybe you should give up.

Also try to get more focused

This translates as "I can't keep up with the discussion, so I'm begging off of handling anything to which I don't want to have to respond."

you could spend over 10k characters simply trying to answer the question I asked in my first post

The question you asked in your first post was answered long ago. You've wasted several comments trying to avoid dealing with the answer. You might try taking a bit of your own advice. Then again, that wouldn't jive very well with your argument style.

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It of course could be defined such that only an accusation is necessary to convict, but that isn't contained within the preponderance standard, and I've certainly not argued for that. Let's leave the strawmen aside.

A strawman would be if I claimed you advocated that. What I've pointed out is that your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, leads directly to that. What you have argued is that due process can't be defined, that people's feelings can determine how it will be defined, and that the definition can be changed to suit your preference. The logical conclusion is that the standard can be completely eliminated, leaving only its name, because according to you it's arbitrary and malleable.

Perhaps the accuser should face exactly the same process as the accused. Since the defense of the accused is usually that the accuser is lying, perhaps the outcome of the case should be a conviction of one side or the other; if the 51% surety falls on the side of the accuser, the accused faces discipline, but if the 51% surety falls on the side of the accused, then the accuser faces the punishment she sought against him. If, as you say, the process presents no danger, than the accuser has nothing to fear.

Perhaps, but let's have one conversation at a time here.

Dodging the point doesn't eliminate it. This tells me that you're uncomfortable discussing the idea, and it has nothing to do with it being a separate conversation, but your inability to address the suggestion without tearing down the rest of your argument. As I said, if (as you say) the process presents no danger, then the accuser has nothing to fear. Unless, of course, the accusation turns out to be false.

Pot, kettle. The difference is that while my source is a legal scholar being published in one of the most prestigious law journals in the US, your source is a collection of advocacy blogs peddling histrionics and substandard social science articles.

Again, appeal to authority, along with begging the question (as you are making assumptions to the quality and veracity of my sources based on a false standard) - and again, your itself has already been debunked by the problems I've referred to occurring in real life, as shown by the news stories you called anecdotal evidence.

[–]nickb64 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The preponderance of the evidence standard (roughly 50.01% certainty) is our judiciary’s lowest standard of proof, and does not sufficiently protect an accused person’s right to due process. While this standard is acceptable for lawsuits over money, allegations of sexual violence or sexual harassment are far more serious than disputes that can be resolved by transferring money from one individual to another. It is difficult to overstate the harm caused to a student who is falsely convicted of sexual violence. And since claims of sexual violence often involve alcohol and drug use, few or no witnesses, and other complicating factors, the risk of error caused by using the lowest possible standard is quite severe.

Further, using the lower standard of evidence for such serious accusations is at odds with our national principles of justice, which hold that those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty. Instead, OCR seems to believe that due process is an impediment to the pursuit of justice in a free society, rather than a crucial component of it. Teaching students that due process stands in the way of justice sets a frightening precedent for us all.

FIRE FAQ regarding OCR's "Dear Colleague" Guidance Letter

FIRE letter to OCR

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Number357 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Number357 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tacodeljefe 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link