Stay classy, Mens Rights Edmonton

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I agree with your sentiments completely except for the bolded....that, im sorry to tell you, is not only mind bogglingly ridiculous, its 100% wrong.

A guy I had known most of my life went through this situation about 15 years ago. To the extent of a trial and conviction etc... it was later learned the whole thing was a false claim and nithing but a coverup for some young lady who was hiding something else she didnt want her parents to know.

Not only did it destroy his family in the mean time....he ended up taking his own life because of it.

I wonder how common false accusations are? At about the same time (fall 1998), I had a friend who was dating a women, who happen to be a compulsive liar. They occasionally had arguments, and the first time he tried to break up with her, she told him she was pregnant with his kid a day later.

We convinced him that he should go to a doctor with her, so her story checks out (she had made up many stories previously), and when he did, she broke down and admitted she made it up so he would stay with her. About a month later, he was arrested, and charged with rape by the same girl.

I knew she was full of it, given her history, and my friend I had know for five years, would not have committed an act like that. For the next six months, he had to live with this charge against him. He was suicidal, and ended up at a crisis unit for a couple of days.

Eventually, she recanted, and admitted it was all a lie. She got a slap on the wrist for all the damage she had done. I wonder what percentage of reported rapes are false. My guess would be 15-20%

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I wonder how common false accusations are? At about the same time (fall 1998), I had a friend who was dating a women, who happen to be a compulsive liar. They occasionally had arguments, and the first time he tried to break up with her, she told him she was pregnant with his kid a day later.

We convinced him that he should go to a doctor with her, so her story checks out (she had made up many stories previously), and when he did, she broke down and admitted she made it up so he would stay with her. About a month later, he was arrested, and charged with rape by the same girl.

I knew she was full of it, given her history, and my friend I had know for five years, would not have committed an act like that. For the next six months, he had to live with this charge against him. He was suicidal, and ended up at a crisis unit for a couple of days.

Eventually, she recanted, and admitted it was all a lie. She got a slap on the wrist for all the damage she had done. I wonder what percentage of reported rapes are false. My guess would be 15-20%

The only thing that really scares me about these types of scenarios (and I've heard a couple first hand as well) is how seemingly easily the police arrest guys in these situations.

Is it really as simple as "(crying) He....he....he raped me!!!!!!" "okay, sir, come with us, you're under arrest". Like do they have to investigate at all, or does a girl just have to say that, and your life is ****ed?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I wonder what percentage of reported rapes are false. My guess would be 15-20%

You can always tell who hasn't read the thread.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I wonder how common false accusations are? At about the same time (fall 1998), I had a friend who was dating a women, who happen to be a compulsive liar. They occasionally had arguments, and the first time he tried to break up with her, she told him she was pregnant with his kid a day later.

We convinced him that he should go to a doctor with her, so her story checks out (she had made up many stories previously), and when he did, she broke down and admitted she made it up so he would stay with her. About a month later, he was arrested, and charged with rape by the same girl.

I knew she was full of it, given her history, and my friend I had know for five years, would not have committed an act like that. For the next six months, he had to live with this charge against him. He was suicidal, and ended up at a crisis unit for a couple of days.

Eventually, she recanted, and admitted it was all a lie. She got a slap on the wrist for all the damage she had done. I wonder what percentage of reported rapes are false. My guess would be 15-20%

That's horrible. How can a person only get a slap on the wrist for lying to authorities and taking 6 months away from a person's life? IMO this should be a two way street and the penalty for lying and putting a person through misery should be along the lines of the actual crime.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by flameswin

The only thing that really scares me about these types of scenarios (and I've heard a couple first hand as well) is how seemingly easily the police arrest guys in these situations.

Is it really as simple as "(crying) He....he....he raped me!!!!!!" "okay, sir, come with us, you're under arrest". Like do they have to investigate at all, or does a girl just have to say that, and your life is ****ed?

Thing is the police have to though...it would be stupid if they didn't arrest the person if they were accused. It sucks that a person's life is ruined by false accusations, but the police have to err on the side of caution until their investigation is done. That being said there should be tougher penalties for false accusations.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can always tell who hasn't read the thread.

There are no definitive numbers on this. I once looked into it, and it is as low as 1% (claimed by feminist groups) to as high as 40% (claimed by some men's rights groups).

IMO, the 1% numbers is total bull####.

The most seemingly reliable studies (British Home Office & FBI), estimate the number of false rape accusations is approximately 8% of all reported cases.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Thing is the police have to though...it would be stupid if they didn't arrest the person if they were accused. It sucks that a person's life is ruined by false accusations, but the police have to err on the side of caution until their investigation is done.

I disagree.

It should be innocent, until proven guilty.

[Red Potato Standing By]

I agree, but that is not what I said. If a person is accused then they should be arrested. Just because you are arrested does not automatically mean you are guilty or even assumed to be guilty. It could be just a matter of takin the person of the street till the story can be confirmed or denied. More to protect the accuser from being harmed in case the accusations are true. Or are they not allowed to arrest a person unless they are guilty?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I disagree.

It should be innocent, until proven guilty.

Well if they aren't convicted, then they are innocent.

I'm not really sure you understand how the legal system works. Once accused, guilt has to be proven yes, however they still have to keep you in custody if they deem you a flight risk or at risk to reoffend. That's up to the judge however.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Thing is the police have to though...it would be stupid if they didn't arrest the person if they were accused. It sucks that a person's life is ruined by false accusations, but the police have to err on the side of caution until their investigation is done. That being said there should be tougher penalties for false accusations.

If the penalties for making a false accusations were too harsh, more false accusers would stick to their stories rather than doing the right thing and recanting.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well if they aren't convicted, then they are innocent.

I'm not really sure you understand how the legal system works. Once accused, guilt has to be proven yes, however they still have to keep you in custody if they deem you a flight risk or at risk to reoffend. That's up to the judge however.

What I was trying to say was, without the burden of proof (DNA, physical evidence, witnesses, past history of similar crimes, etc.), a person should not be charged with sexual assault. If there is enough evidence to reasonably believe a person has committed rape, then he should be arrested and charge, otherwise it is just a waste of taxpayer money, and a burden to an already overtaxed legal system.

It is up to the Crown, not the Police to lay official charges. If the Crown does not believe a case can be made, or the victim is not credible, they may decide not to prosecute on those grounds.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

There are no definitive numbers on this. I once looked into it, and it is as low as 1% (claimed by feminist groups) to as high as 40% (claimed by some men's rights groups).

IMO, the 1% numbers is total bull####.

The most seemingly reliable studies (British Home Office & FBI), estimate the number of false rape accusations is approximately 8% of all reported cases.

Okay, so what are you basing your 15-20% on?

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, so what are you basing your 15-20% on?

I haven't "read the thread" like yourself. Therefore, you should have all the answers.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I disagree.

It should be innocent, until proven guilty.

So the trial should be held before the person is charged?

[MelBridgeman]

I had a friend once in a relationship (in Calgary) they lived together and seemed to be preparing for marriage. But things started to go downhill and at the end of it when she left, she took his bank card and emptied out as much money as she could from the ATM.

He reported the theft to the Police - they talked to him and then talked to the girl, she pulled the "he abused me card"

When the Police returned - He was lectured on how he shouldn't give him pin out to anyone.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

What I was trying to say was, without the burden of proof (DNA, physical evidence, witnesses, past history of similar crimes, etc.), a person should not be charged with sexual assault. If there is enough evidence to reasonably believe a person has committed rape, then he should be arrested and charge, otherwise it is just a waste of taxpayer money, and a burden to an already overtaxed legal system.

It is up to the Crown, not the Police to lay official charges. If the Crown does not believe a case can be made, or the victim is not credible, they may decide not to prosecute on those grounds.

A few problems with your post:

(1) DNA evidence can only be obtained when the complaint is very recent. This is often not the case. Many complainants wait years until they disclose that he or she was sexually assaulted. Further, DNA evidence can only corroborate that sexual intercourse took place. It is irrelevant in terms of other types of sexual touching or, more importantly, whether the sexual touching was consensual.

(2) Due to the nature of most sexual assaults, there is often no physical evidence. However, that doesn't mean that the comllaint is not credible. Many persons are found guilty of sexual assault without any corroborating physical evidence.

(3) Sexual activity generally takes place when two people are alone. Therefore witnesses to the actual alleged sexual assault (apart from accused and complainant) are very rare.

(4) Generally, propensity evidence (such as prior convictions) is not admissible to prove the guilt of the accused, so an accused's criminal record is unlikely to substantially increase the likelihood of conviction. In any event, many perskns convicted of sexual assault are first time offenders.

[Makarov]

Dp

[Jets4Life]

Rape is wrong.

Having said that, I will quietly withdraw from this thread...

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm not sure I understand your hypothetical scenarios. For instance, in the first scenario, the intoxicated person commits a crime. In the second scenario, the intoxicated person is (I presume) the victim of a crime. I'm not sure I see the point you are drawing from this.

There wasn't really a point, per se. I was wondering aloud about the equivalency of the two scenarios and whether they would both be treated in the same way - that is, in both scenarios is the victim still the one that is inebriated and taken advantage of by somebody who was sober? More just questioning who in one scenario a drunk person is considered a victim, and in the other case is considered a criminal.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Wormius

There wasn't really a point, per se. I was wondering aloud about the equivalency of the two scenarios and whether they would both be treated in the same way - that is, in both scenarios is the victim still the one that is inebriated and taken advantage of by somebody who was sober? More just questioning who in one scenario a drunk person is considered a victim, and in the other case is considered a criminal.

It's almost as if nothing in life is black and white and context can change perception.