Not too mention the Media has been terrible at reporting rape cases lately. Seems like every high profile victim turns out to be lying. Might just be bad reporting but still it plants the seeds of doubt.
You seem to have a very strange view of what rape is. If someone is choosing to rape someone they aren't thinking in a rational state, including about what evidence they are leaving behind.
What are you basing this on? You believe a rapist can't be calculated? They lose complete control?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
Again you seem to have this vision that rapists can only be some sort of monster that we can easily identify. Some rape victims knew their rapist - and actually still know them after the incident - because the raper has no idea they did something wrong. Do you think a husband raping his wife identifies himself as a rapist? Or what about a lot of date rapes where the guy just thinks it was a perfect way to end the night. And I would even further and say IF Kane did this - I seriously doubt he sees it as rape. And that's the problem.
I guess the main point though is that even if most adults know what consent is - rapists don't. And rapists comes in all shapes and sizes.
Rapists don't know what consent is? Huh? Do rapists care? Are they trying to figure out hey do I have consent or not?
Obviously I was talking about the issue of regular guys and determining what consent is.
Not so...In the town that I live, there are any number of "statutory rape" charges against HS aged guys every year...their crime? Having consensual sex with a slightly younger girlfriend. Also, quite a few embarrassed young ladies (they got caught by parents in the act), cop out and blame the guy, statutory or not, the poor guy has the law fall on him like a ton of bricks.
At the hospital where I work, a female patient was unhappy with a male nurse, because, he was following doctor's orders and limiting the times that the lady could get narcotics...her "get even" solution? Ruin the guy's life with a ludicrous accusation. With just an unsubstantiated claim, the RN had to surrender his license, thereby losing his livelihood. He was bullied by police, and was coerced into a false "confession". And DESPITE a judge having BLASTED the cops and prosecutors, the charges have NOT been formally dropped after TWO YEARS! http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=35238819 The RN was a "charge nurse" on a night shift, when this alleged incident occurred, so, he was with the LPNs (who cannot administer IV push meds in Utah), aides and clerks continuously. It would have been impossible for him to have been away from his station for any extended amount of time, he would have had to have done this deed in a room with a door, open to the hall, near the Nurses station, that could NOT be locked. Moreover, the staff vouched for his whereabouts that night.
My practical experience in observing rape cases, is that there seems to be an assumption of GUILT, in an effort to protect victims.
I just read the article. The decision referred to is only dealing with the voluntariness of the accused' statement to police. It has nothing to do with the credibility of the complainant or the likelihood of conviction at trial.
I would also note that this case is a rather unusual sexual assault case in the sense that identity is the primary (perhaps sole) issue. In the vast majority of sexual assaults, he accused is well known to the complainant and consent is the primary issue (as appears to be the case with the Kane allegations.)
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
What on earth are you talking about? This is simply untrue (and would be completely absurd.) Frankly, I don't understand how anyone could even find such a proposition plausible.
Obviously, people consent to sexual activity while intoxicated. A person only loses the ability to consent to sexual activity when they are so intoxicated that they have essentially lost consciousness due to alcohol or drug use.
Why would anyone believe that the threshold is lower? Perhaps because that's what's taught, or at least implied, in most of the "consent education" messaging these days. Or at least it was at the university I attended.
The message is that intoxicated people cannot consent. That's it. It's a fairly pervasive myth, propagated by people who should really know their stuff. It doesn't have the nuance that the law apparently has - which can lead to the belief that the law is not reasonable.
I disagree...you do not have to essentially lose consciousness to lose capacity to consent due to intoxication. The problem perhaps is that 'intoxication' means different things to people when they use it in their day to day discussions. Here's a summary from the Alberta Court of Appeal in 2012:
"The Criminal Code explicitly provides that there can be no consent if the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity (s. 273.1). Capacity to consent to sexual activity requires something more than the capacity to execute baseline physical functions. The question is the degree to which intoxication negates comprehension or volition. A drunk complainant may retain the capacity to consent: R. v. R.(J) (2006), 2006 CanLII 22658 (ON SC), 40 C.R. (6th) 97 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paras. 17‑19, 43. Mere drunkenness is not the equivalent of incapacity: R. v. Jensen (1996), 1996 CanLII 1237 (ON CA), 106 C.C.C. (3d) 430 (Ont. C.A.). Nor is alcohol-induced imprudent decision making, memory loss, loss of inhibition or self control: R. v. Merritt, [2004] O.J. No. 1295 (Ont. S.C.J.). A drunken consent is still a valid consent. Where the line is crossed into incapacity may be difficult to determine at times. Expert evidence may assist and even be necessary, in some cases (R. v. Faulkner (1997), 1997 CanLII 1193 (ON CA), 120 C.C.C. (3d) 377 (Ont. C.A.)), though it is not required as a matter of law: R. v. Merritt, supra; R. v. Hernandez, [1997] A.J. No. 955 (Alta. C.A.), R. v. Cedeno, 2005 ONCJ 91 (CanLII), 195 C.C.C. (3d) 468 at para. 18."
As I hinted at before...how anyone is supposed to make valid real-life decisions based on this state of the law is beyond me.
I concede that my definition of "lack of capacity to consent to sexual touching due to intoxication" was pretty clumsy. Was just posting quickly before going out for the night. Thanks for posting that summary from the ABCA. The part of that summary that I was trying to emphasize was simply that lack of capacity is not made out from mere intoxication or from alcohol-induced bad decision making.
Also, I would argue that the mistaken belief defence for the most part adequately protects an accused person in those rare circumstances where it legitimately arises on the facts (for example, a wife responding to sexual activity in a passive or ambivalent way with her husband who might not be expected to take many reasonable steps in confirming her consent.)
Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that the law of sexual assault in Canada is perfect. But trying to balance the interests of society, the complainant and the accused when dealing with such a potentially serious crime almost exclusively committed in private with only the complainant and accused present is a delicate and difficult proposition. As you know, sexual assaults nearly invariably come down to R. V. W.D. credibility contests. It is therefore vital, if the justice system is operate effectively, that persons accused of sexual assault are represented by competent, well-prepared counsel who can test the credibility of complainants.
At least Mr. Kane needn't worry about that much.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Anyway, my advice to anyone reading this thread would simply be this: if you're engaging in sexual activity with someone who is responding to that activity in a way that could possibly be described as passive or ambivalent (especially if you have some reason to believe that the person has been drinking or might be intimidated by you or feel that you have some authority over them), stop and take as many extra steps as possible to confirm consent. If you can't confirm consent, stop all sexual touching.
That is the best way to protect yourself IMO.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Why would anyone believe that the threshold is lower? Perhaps because that's what's taught, or at least implied, in most of the "consent education" messaging these days. Or at least it was at the university I attended.
The message is that intoxicated people cannot consent. That's it. It's a fairly pervasive myth, propagated by people who should really know their stuff. It doesn't have the nuance that the law apparently has - which can lead to the belief that the law is not reasonable.
Well, if that is true (I have no idea whether it is or not), I think that's unfortunate and counterproductive.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Not too mention the Media has been terrible at reporting rape cases lately. Seems like every high profile victim turns out to be lying. Might just be bad reporting but still it plants the seeds of doubt.
Steubenville? Prolonged gang rape of 16-year old girl, tons of evidence in the form of videos and pictures. All perpetrators got minimum sentences and the local community reaction was attacking the victim. If you ever think that there's no "rape culture", Steubenville.
(Also, Bill Cosby is not only free but also touring.)
But you're not completely off base. Unless there's a celebrity involved, it's the difficult/questionable cases that typically become high profile, due to the nature of people and media.
If the case is a clear, it doesn't split opinions and instill debates. If it doesn't split opinions, it doesn't grab people's attention. Pundits won't pick up on them because they're not great for driving their agendas. In essence, it doesn't get clicks and shares and won't spread.
Or to put it another way: it's the questionable cases that sell the best.
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
I just read the article. The decision referred to is only dealing with the voluntariness of the accused' statement to police. It has nothing to do with the credibility of the complainant or the likelihood of conviction at trial.
I would also note that this case is a rather unusual sexual assault case in the sense that identity is the primary (perhaps sole) issue. In the vast majority of sexual assaults, he accused is well known to the complainant and consent is the primary issue (as appears to be the case with the Kane allegations.)
Also that the cop was reprimanded for misrepresentations in even obtaining the warrant!
Peterson ruled that Butcher failed to act in good faith when he submitted the affidavit and wrote that his "representations to the magistrate were both dishonest and reckless."
Be that as it may, the assumption of guilt has ruined Josh's life. Even though an dismissal of charges seems inevitable, his character has been assassinated, and the stigma of even being accused remains...for Nurses and other medical professionals, to re-apply for licensure, even for renewals, you have to recount each incident of your license being suspended, surrendered, or revoked. Also, if you look back at all the articles on the incident, the kid was PILLORIED by anonymous commenters who ALL also assumed guilt. His name and picture were plastered in Headlines, the drug addled wench that made the accusation? Identity protected by law, and even if any bother is made for a false accusation complaint, it doesn't seem that the local law enforcement would want to pursue, given the embarrassment over their shoddy investigatory methods.
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
On your point (1) - I suppose no one has said they never happen...I nevertheless thought it rather useful to note actual examples given posts suggesting false allegations are rare. In my experience they are not.
On your point (2) - fair enough...I cannot ever know for sure...but the police and prosecutor came to the same conclusion...I feel comfortable with my post...but concede I cannot be 100% certain...as indeed I was not there.
And your experience is anecdotal and worthless, the closest number people seem to agree on is 2-8% but that also includes wrongly identified (victim didn't know perp and the wrong one was identified).
Btw as a taxi driver I've actually twice been falsely accused of rape/harassment. Nothing in any way believable, just random crap that certain types of customers tell the police when they feel like they shouldn't have to pay the fare. Certain types of a-holes say all kinds of BS. That's one of them.
What's annoying is that the police won't even give those people a talking on how toxic that kind of behavior is. It's horrible both for victims of actual rapes and potentially destroys innocent lives for petty grievances.
Won't show up in any statistic, and probably doesn't really matter much other than making it that much harder for police to believe women who claim to be have been raped.
What on earth are you talking about? This is simply untrue (and would be completely absurd.) Frankly, I don't understand how anyone could even find such a proposition plausible.
Obviously, people consent to sexual activity while intoxicated. A person only loses the ability to consent to sexual activity when they are so intoxicated that they have essentially lost consciousness due to alcohol or drug use.
"I" am not talking about anything. The law says you can't give consent if you're drunk or high. Obviously the levels of intoxication matters but to say you have to be black out drunk, which happens at an alcohol level above .20, is absurd. The law leaves a lot of room for interpretation but the courts really only need to decide if the person could have reasonably gave consent.
Not so...In the town that I live, there are any number of "statutory rape" charges against HS aged guys every year...
This is clearly a different category of accusation than what GreenLantern was getting at. Besides, I suspect that the vast majority of statutory rape charges were not based on false allegations. After all, there is still a law in place that rather inflexibly mandates the age of consent, is there not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefoss1957
At the hospital where I work...
My practical experience in observing rape cases, is that there seems to be an assumption of GUILT, in an effort to protect victims.
As I pointed out from M Bates' post above, this is all anecdotal, and rather meaningless in the absence of actual data. Your story provides virtually no information about the relative pattern of false allegations in rape investigations generally.
I would still expect—based on the information and data that I have seen in this discussion—that false allegations are incredibly rare.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
A lot of people want to believe that important stuff is always simple, so they can discount any dissenting opinion as motivated by ill-will, rather than address that complexity.
As a general rule this is becoming more and more the case. It's sheer laziness and mob-oriented stifling of perceived dissent - which often isn't even dissent so much as the desire to discuss these issues.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Hope it ends well. Rape is ####ed..but so is ruining a life on bull#### grounds.Seriously, I hope it ends well.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”
― Carl Sagan
Steubenville? Prolonged gang rape of 16-year old girl, tons of evidence in the form of videos and pictures. All perpetrators got minimum sentences and the local community reaction was attacking the victim. If you ever think that there's no "rape culture", Steubenville.
(Also, Bill Cosby is not only free but also touring.)
But you're not completely off base. Unless there's a celebrity involved, it's the difficult/questionable cases that typically become high profile, due to the nature of people and media.
If the case is a clear, it doesn't split opinions and instill debates. If it doesn't split opinions, it doesn't grab people's attention. Pundits won't pick up on them because they're not great for driving their agendas. In essence, it doesn't get clicks and shares and won't spread.
Or to put it another way: it's the questionable cases that sell the best.
Ya that might be it. Clearly guilty guys aren't much news I guess.
I'm not sure if that was intended to be a serious analogy or a joke... I'm pretty sure it's serious. If so, it fails at about 8 seconds in when it suggests, effectively, that you ask your partner, "hey, would you like some sex?"
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
