More civil rights GONE with new rape law in California

[TheLoneGunman]

The usual standard for CHARGING someone with a crime is "clear and convincing evidence". This is not a terribly hard standard and as you can easily verify many innocent people are charged under this standard.

The new standard in rape cases is "proponderance of evidence". This is the "51% standard". It means that if you have a case where the female says it was rape and the male says it never happened and there is the smallest piece of even circumstancial evidence (ex. motive or opportunity) then the person gets charged.

The bigger problem here is that a rape ACCUSATION (and worse a CHILD RAPE accusation) is almost the same as a conviction.

Would you really treat a neighbor the same if they were charged with such a crime? Would you treat a co-worker fairly (and not make them the butt of jokes and worse) if they were charged? How could you ever "take it back" when they were cleared?

Remember Richard Jewell (the man accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombing with NO evidence other than some idiot FBI profiler) How can he ever regain his life.

We need to make the bar HIGHER not lower in these cases.

Further, we need to INCREASE the sanctions for people that make false reports of rape. At present, except for a small misdemeanor, there is no risk to someone who makes knowingly false accusations.

Finally, Gov. Gray Davis who signed this law has his own skeletons. If I revealed certain facts about his background and political dealings, he would be finished as a politician, if not as a free man. He is the last person who should be signing laws like this

[poiselle]

I was watching one of those stupid shows, it may have been 20/20, and they were discussing a student who was expelled from Dartmouth after being accused of rape. The frightening thing was the group of students protesting and yelling that anybody even accused of sexual assault must be removed from the campus immediately. Many people seem to be willing to marginalize rights under the pretense of safety. If you are falsely accused of rape or acquitted, can you sue the accuser? It seems rather odious and I know it would be decried as discouraging witnesses from coming forward, but can it be done?

[welfareloser]

this is kind of tough to say, because in many rape cases there just ISN'T any evidence, but a law like this just isn't appropriate in a world where people lie...

and LORD i don't know why we don't have worse penalties for people who lie about being raped. i think if it is just difficult or impossible to prove, or if the jury had some doubts, fine, leave her alone. but when you have something very clear-cut, like a woman who splatters herself with dog semen and writes racial epithets on herself.... she should get in BIG trouble.

and this will also increase the occurence of "nahhh, i shouldn't have slept with him last night... he was so pushy, he talked me into it... i didn't really want to... hey wait! that's rape! kick @$$!" it's not illegal to be a pushy self-centered pig, and if you allow that... your fault.

yes, there is still a problem of rape being underreported, and this may reduce that problem just a little bit... but at a whopper of a cost.

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by welfareloser
this is kind of tough to say, because in many rape cases there just ISN'T any evidence


Of course there are there are evidence: semen stains, other DNA evidence, dialated vagina (or else), witnesses.... plus there is many more...

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Burzhui


Of course there are there are evidence: semen stains, other DNA evidence, dialated vagina (or else), witnesses.... plus there is many more...

how many rapes have witnesses other than the participants?!?!? most don't.

and the rest of the things you listed are excellent evidence of SEXUAL ACTIVITY, not whether said activity was welcomed by the woman or not. your list PLUS contusions and lacerations would be pretty good evidence of rape, but rape does not always result in visible physical damage (for example, if the dude is holding a gun to your head, you're probably not going to be struggling much...)

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by welfareloser


how many rapes have witnesses other than the participants?!?!? most don't.

and the rest of the things you listed are excellent evidence of SEXUAL ACTIVITY, not whether said activity was welcomed by the woman or not. your list PLUS contusions and lacerations would be pretty good evidence of rape, but rape does not always result in visible physical damage (for example, if the dude is holding a gun to your head, you're probably not going to be struggling much...)
Good points. Furthermore when a woman comes forward and takes it to court they make her look like a whore and try to twist everything, which makes it so not many woman come forward. There is a storyline on my soap opera right now about this 17 year old girl who just got raped by a sorry excuse of a human being and is afraid to come forward. Witnesses are virtually impossible in a case like that so motive and opprotunity seem like good factors to go by. The accuser can also be examined by pyschologists or whoever to see if they are telling the truth (I have seen it on Law and Order haha). I think it would be pretty hard to fake that kind of upset. Overall I think our legal system is overly concerned about the rights of the accused and criminals. What about the rights of the victims?

[attgig]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
The new standard in rape cases is "proponderance of evidence". This is the "51% standard". It means that if you have a case where the female says it was rape and the male says it never happened and there is the smallest piece of even circumstancial evidence (ex. motive or opportunity) then the person gets charged.



Is sex ever NOT on a guys mind?!?!? there's your motive right there....



oh, and maggie...yeah...soap operas...nice parallel to reality :D

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie

Good points. Furthermore when a woman comes forward and takes it to court they make her look like a whore and try to twist everything, which makes it so not many woman come forward. There is a storyline on my soap opera right now about this 17 year old girl who just got raped by a sorry excuse of a human being and is afraid to come forward. Witnesses are virtually impossible in a case like that so motive and opprotunity seem like good factors to go by. The accuser can also be examined by pyschologists or whoever to see if they are telling the truth (I have seen it on Law and Order haha). I think it would be pretty hard to fake that kind of upset. Overall I think our legal system is overly concerned about the rights of the accused and criminals. What about the rights of the victims?

a good issue, but a separate one. a law like this just makes false accusations more likely, it really doesn't do much for real victims. i think it IS easy to "fake" such upset as would be caused by rape. a girl gets PRESSURED into having sex (heinous, yes, but different) and then goes about convincing herself, with the help of enabling factors like these laws, that she has been raped, and then transfers all of her guilt and upset onto the "rapist." she'll do plenty of crying in court, trust me.

it's horrible that this can happen, because it does a disservice to women who are actually raped. they won't be taken as seriously. a law like this allows questionable accusations to be taken seriously, and soon all accusations will be seen as questionable, and it is only going to hurt victims in the long run.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie

Good points. Furthermore when a woman comes forward and takes it to court they make her look like a whore and try to twist everything, which makes it so not many woman come forward. There is a storyline on my soap opera right now about this 17 year old girl who just got raped by a sorry excuse of a human being and is afraid to come forward. Witnesses are virtually impossible in a case like that so motive and opprotunity seem like good factors to go by. The accuser can also be examined by pyschologists or whoever to see if they are telling the truth (I have seen it on Law and Order haha). I think it would be pretty hard to fake that kind of upset. Overall I think our legal system is overly concerned about the rights of the accused and criminals. What about the rights of the victims?

Hey, why din't we just kill anyone who is accused of rape as soon as the accusation is made! That will protect the "victim".
Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals.

Bang you head into a desk or something until this thought leaks in there.
My sister is mentaly ill. She was able to fake the "trauma" of sexual abuse that did not happen. A "regresion therapist" convinced her it happened and it took some time in an institution, profesional treatment and some good drugs to get her back to being a reasonable person.
My family was wounded deeply by this "therapist" who wanted to make a name for herself. Under this new law someone could have went to jail for months while awaiting trial and losing huge ammounts of income. Plus lawyer fees, which we didn't have. Who would be the victim here?
A family destroyed, reputations ruined. We would have lost our home, cars, everything of value. We could have been seperated.
Based on a preponderance of evidence.
Luckily the laws at the time were such that evidence had to be gathered BEFORE anyone's life could be ruined.
Who did she accuse? Over a six month period she accused: My dad, both grandfathers, most of my uncles and several neighbors.

The rights of the victim? The victim isn't about to be thrown in prison and be buggered up the a** every Friday night for 15 years.

Anyone can be falsely accused. People who are willing to throw my rights away so they can be safer scare me. There were plenty of people willing to do that in Germany circa 1932.


A victim is already hurt in a crime. Hurting someone who may or may not be a criminal "just because" is unacceptable.

[OC]

Another reason why I'll never live in the Republik of Kalifornia again. I'll add it to the list.

-OC

[Grimm]

Isn't that law actualy illegal?

[g222leav]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman


Finally, Gov. Gray Davis who signed this law has his own skeletons. If I revealed certain facts about his background and political dealings, he would be finished as a politician, if not as a free man. He is the last person who should be signing laws like this

is that why they call you the lone gunman?

on a serious note, i agree with welfareloser...

liars in california? no way, never

[attgig]

Originally posted by overclocked
Another reason why I'll never live in the Republik of Kalifornia again. I'll add it to the list.

-OC


i hear that OC....

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by att gig

oh, and maggie...yeah...soap operas...nice parallel to reality :D
Yea soap operas are unrealistic but rape sure as hell isn't!

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by evilcyclops

Accused people are not criminals. Accused people are not criminals.
I said accused people AND criminals. Their rights are more looked after than those of victims. Most rape victims do not come forward. Gee I wonder why! Maybe because our legal system is so perverse and sucks so bad they figure it is not worth putting themselves through a trial where they are made out to look like a whore, the guy gets off or maybe gets a year or two in jail until he is up for parole, meanwhile the woman's savings is eaten up by lawyers. Yea sounds worth it to me.
Originally posted by evilcyclops

My sister is mentaly ill. She was able to fake the "trauma" of sexual abuse that did not happen. A "regresion therapist" convinced her it happened and it took some time in an institution, profesional treatment and some good drugs to get her back to being a reasonable person.It is not impossible for women to lie about this, and yes pyschologists can sway people, but I do not think these arguments apply in the majority of rape charges. Mentally ill people are special cases.

Originally posted by evilcyclops

The rights of the victim? The victim isn't about to be thrown in prison and be buggered up the a** every Friday night for 15 years.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A RAPIST DESERVES.


Originally posted by evilcyclops

A victim is already hurt in a crime. Hurting someone who may or may not be a criminal "just because" is unacceptable.
You are right about the last part. Unfortunately it is never always possible to tell who is lying and who is not, especially in a rape case (due to lack of evidence). However we can't focus so much on the rights of the accused to the point where guilty offenders go free! Nothing is certain and there is always a risk of an innocent person being convicted. But by your logic, it sounds like you are saying the victim is already hurt, so we should just do nothing. What I am saying is I think the majority of rape cases aren't "just because".
Personally if a guy did that to me I think I would just kill him rather than put myself through more agony (a trial). The average time for murder in this country is 7 YEARS. I wonder what is for rape? Probably a lot less. I will find out.

[poiselle]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie




However we can't focus so much on the rights of the accused to the point where guilty offenders go free!
Acually our justice system is based on the idea that it is better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person sent to jail. It does not always work that way, but that was the intention. The accused should have all the rights possible. If you give someone lots of ways to get out of it and they are still convicted it is likely that they are guilty. Victim's rights should not be placed ahead of the accused simply because bad things happen to them. Once you are accused of a crime as terrible as rape that stigma will not go away. I know the victims will have to live with the trauma forever as well, but possibly creating two victims is not the answer. I don't think we should start making new rules of evidence for different crimes. If it would not get a person arrested for murder than it should not be enough to arrest them for rape.

[welfareloser]

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. if there is any doubt, you are presumed innocent. that's how it is. innocent people in jail is not okay. the difficulty of proof is precisely why we should NOT "lower the bar," as tlg put it, in these cases.

under the previous rape-law regime, if there's no proof, you go free, and a reputation as a "possible rapist" follows you. not cool if you're innocent, but livable, and then people have some warning and know not to get caught in a dark alley with you at night. sloppy, but it kinda worked.

i'm sure this new law won't sound so good when your husband/brother/boyfriend/whateva pisses off his 15-year-old babysitter and winds up in jail because she found a used condom in his bathroom trash and smeared it in her underwear.

think that's preposterous? women have gotten PREGNANT doing that, and forced a guy to pay child support for a kid that she made by deliberately defeating safety precautions that he took.

there are problems with the judicial system's handling of rape victims, but as i have said, this ain't gonna fix 'em.

[maggiebirdie]

Again you are using extreme examples.

THE MAJORITY OF RAPE CASES ARE NOT FALSIFIED. RAPE IS A COMMON OFFENSE. JUST LOOK AT COLLEGE CAMPUSES AS ONE EXAMPLE!

I am not saying our justice system should not be concerned with innocent people being locked up. I am just saying it shouldn't be consumed with it to the point where they end up setting a bunch of sex offenders free.

You would probably understand more if you were a woman and being told every day by family "don't be out alone past dark!" and crap like that. Men are not as ceceptible to rape as women are, and it is because of scumbag rapists that I and every other woman has to live in fear every day to a certain extent.

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie
Again you are using extreme examples.

THE MAJORITY OF RAPE CASES ARE NOT FALSIFIED. RAPE IS A COMMON OFFENSE. JUST LOOK AT COLLEGE CAMPUSES AS ONE EXAMPLE!


Hate to burden you with the facts, but where exactly are they?

If you are referring to conviction rates, asssume for a minute you are accused of rape. If you have no money for an attorney is there ANY chance you will get off? (answer: about the same as a snowball in hell) If you do have money and are offered a "deal" (ex. plead guilty and get some minor sentence otherwise risk getting buggered every day for the next 15 years, which would you choose?)

Except in cases of FORCIBLE rape (the MINORITY of cases) even though there might be semen, that doesn't prove anything. (The movie "The Crush" is actually a fairly common situation).

I don't want to get too personal with you, but look at yourself in the mirror after a particularly wild sexual encounter and see if you can't make a case that you were "raped". Chances are there will be some mild bruising (i.e. my skin is very sensitive and even mild touching will leave marks), some abrasions/chafing in certain areas and maybe some other things. All you need is to act/be distraught and you instantly become the perfect victim.

I am just curious, but how do you make it up to someone who has suffered after falsely being accused of rape? How can you "undo" someone being sodomized in jail? How can you "undo" someone's house being burned down because the "rumor" was that they were a child molester? I have clients who have been in situations like that and even after it is revealed that they are the victims, they are still treated like criminals

[gwilks98]

Where are you people getting your facts from?

I've heard a lot of crazy sh*t in my life, but you're throwing out some HIGHLY unlikely scenarios.


1. Used Condoms. Sperm cannot last long at all outside the human body, his or hers. I forget the amount of time, but it's fairly short. Even then, most sperm cells die in the acidic walls of a vagina before they can even "swim" upstream.

2. False rape reports. The number of cases that can be proven as false reports are a very small minority. I think it's in the <1% range. Guys should really be worrying about the following point instead:


3. It's true that a highly substantial number of women in this country meet the legal requirements of "rape." HOWEVER, the vast majority of these scenarios involve one or both parties using alcohol and/or drugs. In Missouri, a sexual encounter meets the legal definition of rape even if both drunken parties consent to sex. Regardless of the nature between the two people (husband and wife, for example), if a woman can be declared legally drunk, she cannot consent to sexual interaction of any kind. Thus the penetrator, no matter how intoxicated, becomes a sex offender. Period. The figures you see on rape are inflated because of this.

Both sides of this coin are being blown way out of proportion, people. Sexual Assualt, and the labeling that is put on it's offenders is a political hotbed right now. There's not much we can do about these politically motivated laws...so we might as well just cover our a$$es as best as we can.

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by gwilks98
1. Used Condoms. Sperm cannot last long at all outside the human body, his or hers. I forget the amount of time, but it's fairly short. Even then, most sperm cells die in the acidic walls of a vagina before they can even "swim" upstream.

What is the significance of this?
They aren't interrogating the sperm. Why do they have to be alive?



2. False rape reports. The number of cases that can be proven as false reports are a very small minority. I think it's in the <1% range.

I bet there are less than 10% of the rape cases where there is ABSOLUTE proof that someone is guilty. (There are more cases where there is sperm, and many more where there is a confession or guilty plea, but I am referring to those with multiple independant pieces of evidences all pointing to only 1 possible person)



In Missouri, a sexual encounter meets the legal definition of rape even if both drunken parties consent to sex. Regardless of the nature between the two people (husband and wife, for example), if a woman can be declared legally drunk, she cannot consent to sexual interaction of any kind. Thus the penetrator, no matter how intoxicated, becomes a sex offender. Period. The figures you see on rape are inflated because of this.


Why is it that the "penetrator" is guilty?
If the man is drunk but the woman isn't, why isn't SHE the rapist? After all, she is consenting, but the man isn't able to consent.

Is it possible that many, many more men and boys are being "raped" by woman and because there is no evidence (such as what you would find in male/male or male-on-female rape) they are never prosecuted?

[welfareloser]

there have been at least ten cases in the us in the last couple of years as follows:

man and woman have sex with a condom because they both don't want babies

man goes to take a shower

woman grabs condom and empties contents into vaginal tract

9 months later, the man starts paying child support

the majority of sperm do die within 15 minutes of release, but so long as they remain moist (as they would in a flopped-over condom or in a vaginal tract) they can survive up to ten days, and it only takes one. i can vouch for this one... if i do the math, i find that i got knocked up by a week-old sperm.

and we just don't KNOW how often there are false accusations of rape. if you take a look at respectable peer-reviewed psychology journals, there is an awful lot of evidence out there that LOTS of accusations are false. we instill a sense of shame about sex in our women, and so in order to transfer that shame, they make a sexual encounter "all someone elses fault."

two big things to consider:
1. not many people are doing research into false accusations, either because their proposals don't get funded or because they never even write the proposals because accusing women of false rape accusations is not cool in the current political climate
2. WE DON'T KNOW!!! generally, there just isn't much evidence of rape. it's impossible to say X percentage of cases are this, Y percentage are that... and if we don't get some major funding for a lot of research, we'll never know. one study here and there isn't going to do much for us, becuase psychological studies that involve surveys are vulnerable to participants lying, so it takes HUNDREDS of studies, all slightly different, to get a reasonable picture of what's really going on.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie
Again you are using extreme examples.

THE MAJORITY OF RAPE CASES ARE NOT FALSIFIED. RAPE IS A COMMON OFFENSE. JUST LOOK AT COLLEGE CAMPUSES AS ONE EXAMPLE!

I am not saying our justice system should not be concerned with innocent people being locked up. I am just saying it shouldn't be consumed with it to the point where they end up setting a bunch of sex offenders free.

okay, yes, everyone agrees that we should be concerned with both of these extreme conditions. but you seem to be arguing in favor of this new law based on an agenda of victims' rights. i think victims would be much better served by laws that kept their anonymity absolutely preserved (journalists who leak their names go to jail), laws that get them all the free counselling they can stand, counsellors that teach them coping techniques so that the trial is not traumatic, (so she can listen to the opposing lawyer trashing her and say to herself: that is not me that he is describing, he doesn't know me; he is just doing his job to get his scumbag client off), etc. i think that this law has a hundred-fold more potential for helping along false accusations that helping out truly scared women.


Originally posted by maggiebirdie
You would probably understand more if you were a woman and being told every day by family "don't be out alone past dark!" and crap like that. Men are not as ceceptible to rape as women are, and it is because of scumbag rapists that I and every other woman has to live in fear every day to a certain extent.

i am a woman, and i don't go out after dark alone. and actually, a male is three times more likely to be assaulted (for his wallet rather than his woo) than a woman, because men aren't as careful and they DO tend to go out alone after dark.

you don't know whether or not the majority of cases are falsified.

i'm on a college campus. date rape... if you are thinking of that "statistic" that "one in every four college women has been sexually assaulted," which is on posters and pamphlets... that stems from one very FLAWED survey. "sexually assaulted" included a guy on the dance floor kissing you.

i don't think exchanging the current condition of "women living in fear of rape" for a condition of "men living in fear of being accused of rape" is any improvement.

and lets say we got every accused rapist the hell off the streets. you still shouldn't be going out at night, 'cause the streets are full of muggers.

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by evilcyclops

The rights of the victim? The victim isn't about to be thrown in prison and be buggered up the a** every Friday night for 15 years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A RAPIST DESERVES.



Aha!

Rape is good in your eyes, but only when the victim is someone you don't like.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie

I said accused people AND criminals. Their rights are more looked after than those of victims. Most rape victims do not come forward. Gee I wonder why! Maybe because our legal system is so perverse and sucks so bad they figure it is not worth putting themselves through a trial where they are made out to look like a whore, the guy gets off or maybe gets a year or two in jail until he is up for parole, meanwhile the woman's savings is eaten up by lawyers. Yea sounds worth it to me. It is not impossible for women to lie about this, and yes pyschologists can sway people, but I do not think these arguments apply in the majority of rape charges. Mentally ill people are special cases.

You missed the point, even though I repeated it 20 times. I will say it again and try to be very clear. Please try realy realy hard to understand. I know you ignore information after you have had your mind mad up for you, but try hard anyway.
Just because someone is accused of something does not mean they did it. A person that has been accused of something should not be treated like a criminal until it can be proven that they commited a crime. This way people are not jailed for no reason. This protection does not exist in China, look at the human rights abuses that occur there. The California law makes it just as bad in Cali as China when accusations of rape are made. Just because you are not a man does not mean that this can't effect you. It established a precedent that people are NOT innocent until proven guilty.


Originally posted by maggiebirdie

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A RAPIST DESERVES.


I'm not talking about a rapist. I'm talking about an innocent man accused of rape. Don't lay that less than 1% crap on me either. You can not support that statistic with any facts. I'm talking about real facts, not biased surveys.


Originally posted by maggiebirdie

You are right about the last part. Unfortunately it is never always possible to tell who is lying and who is not, especially in a rape case (due to lack of evidence). However we can't focus so much on the rights of the accused to the point where guilty offenders go free! Nothing is certain and there is always a risk of an innocent person being convicted. But by your logic, it sounds like you are saying the victim is already hurt, so we should just do nothing. What I am saying is I think the majority of rape cases aren't "just because".
Personally if a guy did that to me I think I would just kill him rather than put myself through more agony (a trial). The average time for murder in this country is 7 YEARS. I wonder what is for rape? Probably a lot less. I will find out.

Your willingness to deny basic human rights to men, based on the fact that men are evil rapists and all belong in prison anyway philosophy, speaks poorly of you. If you hate men so much, how do you think we should feel about you. Hate is a bad thing. Seek counseling.

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by gwilks98
Where are you people getting your facts from?

I've heard a lot of crazy sh*t in my life, but you're throwing out some HIGHLY unlikely scenarios.
Thank You! Someone finally agrees with me.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie
Thank You! Someone finally agrees with me.

Hmmm.... Maybe there is a reason most people don't agree with you.
:hmm:

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman


Aha!

Rape is good in your eyes, but only when the victim is someone you don't like.
None of it is "good" but it is what they deserve. The punishment should fit the crime.

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by evilcyclops


Hmmm.... Maybe there is a reason most people don't agree with you.
:hmm:

<sarcasm> Yes it keeps me up at nights the genuises at Gotapex don't agree with me </sarcasm>
Seriously though, I am not a liberal. You are. That's why we don't agree.

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by evilcyclops


You missed the point, even though I repeated it 20 times. I will say it again and try to be very clear. Please try realy realy hard to understand. I know you ignore information after you have had your mind mad up for you, but try hard anyway.
Just because someone is accused of something does not mean they did it. A person that has been accused of something should not be treated like a criminal until it can be proven that they commited a crime. This way people are not jailed for no reason. This protection does not exist in China, look at the human rights abuses that occur there. The California law makes it just as bad in Cali as China when accusations of rape are made. Just because you are not a man does not mean that this can't effect you. It established a precedent that people are NOT innocent until proven guilty.



I'm not talking about a rapist. I'm talking about an innocent man accused of rape. Don't lay that less than 1% crap on me either. You can not support that statistic with any facts. I'm talking about real facts, not biased surveys.



Your willingness to deny basic human rights to men, based on the fact that men are evil rapists and all belong in prison anyway philosophy, speaks poorly of you. If you hate men so much, how do you think we should feel about you. Hate is a bad thing. Seek counseling. And where are YOUR facts that innocent men go to jail?? I am saying in our liberal court system, the protection of "basic human rights" get taken too far to the point of criminals getting off on technicalities.
I am not saying none of them are innocent, but you seem to think the majority ARE. I don't hate men. I hate rapists, and other criminals for that matter. They are why this world is unsafe. I should seek counseling cause I don't agree with you? haha. That's a new one.

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by welfareloser


okay, yes, everyone agrees that we should be concerned with both of these extreme conditions. but you seem to be arguing in favor of this new law based on an agenda of victims' rights. i think victims would be much better served by laws that kept their anonymity absolutely preserved (journalists who leak their names go to jail), laws that get them all the free counselling they can stand, counsellors that teach them coping techniques so that the trial is not traumatic, (so she can listen to the opposing lawyer trashing her and say to herself: that is not me that he is describing, he doesn't know me; he is just doing his job to get his scumbag client off), etc. i think that this law has a hundred-fold more potential for helping along false accusations that helping out truly scared women.



i am a woman, and i don't go out after dark alone. and actually, a male is three times more likely to be assaulted (for his wallet rather than his woo) than a woman, because men aren't as careful and they DO tend to go out alone after dark.

you don't know whether or not the majority of cases are falsified.

i'm on a college campus. date rape... if you are thinking of that "statistic" that "one in every four college women has been sexually assaulted," which is on posters and pamphlets... that stems from one very FLAWED survey. "sexually assaulted" included a guy on the dance floor kissing you.

i don't think exchanging the current condition of "women living in fear of rape" for a condition of "men living in fear of being accused of rape" is any improvement.

and lets say we got every accused rapist the hell off the streets. you still shouldn't be going out at night, 'cause the streets are full of muggers.

You do have some valid points. Thanks to some females anything can be classified as sexual assault. It is hard to know where to draw the line. However in a rape case, evidence is hard to obtain, so we shouldn't just let them off because of that. "Oh there are no witnesses of you raping this girl, so you're free to go." "These bruises couldn't have been caused by kinky sex, so you're free to go." That wouldn't work well for society either.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie


You do have some valid points. Thanks to some females anything can be classified as sexual assault. It is hard to know where to draw the line. However in a rape case, evidence is hard to obtain, so we shouldn't just let them off because of that. "Oh there are no witnesses of you raping this girl, so you're free to go." "These bruises couldn't have been caused by kinky sex, so you're free to go." That wouldn't work well for society either.

so what you want is: "okay, there are no witnesses, and those bruises look like she fell while rollerblading, but she's crying really hard, so you go to jail?"

again, you'd better hope the men that you care about don't piss off the wrong girl.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie


You do have some valid points. Thanks to some females anything can be classified as sexual assault. It is hard to know where to draw the line. However in a rape case, evidence is hard to obtain, so we shouldn't just let them off because of that. "Oh there are no witnesses of you raping this girl, so you're free to go." "These bruises couldn't have been caused by kinky sex, so you're free to go." That wouldn't work well for society either.

It's called forensic science. Through the size, nature, location, etc of the marks they can get a reasonable picture of how they were caused. Like most crimes, if evidence is collected immediately there is a good chance of a conviction, if a crime actualy occured.
BTW, I have to say that I am against jailing first time violent rapists. They should be castrated and sent home the same day. Conversly we should make damn sure they did it.
Maggie, it's about due process. Due process should be observed despite the accusation. Whatever the crime.
Presumption of guilt doesn't fly here. Move to China if you want that.

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by evilcyclops
It's called forensic science. Through the size, nature, location, etc of the marks they can get a reasonable picture of how they were caused. Like most crimes, if evidence is collected immediately there is a good chance of a conviction, if a crime actualy occured.

part of my reason for posting was that the new law allows filings long after the fact and WITHOUT this evidence.

Also, forensic medicine is not nearly as scientific as claimed.

Do you really believe that ALL the blood was planted in the OJ case? If not, then that is a shining example of a failure because forensic medicine showed that all samples had EDTA preservative.


BTW, I have to say that I am against jailing first time violent rapists. They should be castrated and sent home the same day. Conversly we should make damn sure they did it.

Are you aware of the number of the number of lab mistakes that occur every day??
Most are not on life-threatening problems so you don't hear of them as often, but they happen all the time. I have had several clients who were in solitary confinement with nothing around and one of several drug tests taken came back positive. This is impossible because they couldn't suddenly become negative if they were positive just before (there was no time to clean out their system and nothing to mask the test). It was a simply lab mislabeling problem or contamination error. However, the people were still punished for this error.

I can just imagine if it happened to you:
"Gee Mr. Cyclops, we're sorry. Here, have your balls back. Perhaps we can put them in a bag and you can take them home. Whoops!"

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by evilcyclops


It's called forensic science. Through the size, nature, location, etc of the marks they can get a reasonable picture of how they were caused. Like most crimes, if evidence is collected immediately there is a good chance of a conviction, if a crime actualy occured.
BTW, I have to say that I am against jailing first time violent rapists. They should be castrated and sent home the same day. Conversly we should make damn sure they did it.
Maggie, it's about due process. Due process should be observed despite the accusation. Whatever the crime.
Presumption of guilt doesn't fly here. Move to China if you want that.
I am not saying presume guilt, I am saying be careful who you let off.
I believe in due process. Unfortunetly due process can extend to getting off on a technicality. Happens all the time. That is what they need to stop.

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Are you aware of the number of the number of lab mistakes that occur every day??
[/B]Ho hum. More uncommon examples. :rolleyes:

[maggiebirdie]

Yes, DNA evidence is soooo unreliable :rolleyes:
If the girl comes forward right away there should be DNA evidence and physical trauma. I still don't think bruises from that are easily mistaken, and DNA results are very accurate. Also, if there aren't any bruises, it is possible the girl was threatened with a knife or a gun. I am just saying (yet again) I think falsified cases are not as common as you all think.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie
Ho hum. More uncommon examples. :rolleyes:

NOT NOT NOT uncommon. i have worked in labs that do this. so have many of my friends. i can definitely say that 1% of all test results are just flat-out WRONG - someone had the dial set to 3000 instead of 30000. someone confused protocol A with protocol B. and if you only have a small sample, you don't get 8 zillion chances to get it right.

and the "this contusion was DEFINITELY caused by this" is being seriously called into question. MD's have huge egos, and their education teaches them that the follow step a to step b to step c in a mechanical process to come up with an answer and by god that answer is RIGHT. they don't deal well with "maybes." it's causing problems. i'll find some journal articles for you later to back this up, gotta go now.

[maggiebirdie]

Originally posted by welfareloser


NOT NOT NOT uncommon. i have worked in labs that do this. so have many of my friends. i can definitely say that 1% of all test results are just flat-out WRONG - someone had the dial set to 3000 instead of 30000. someone confused protocol A with protocol B. and if you only have a small sample, you don't get 8 zillion chances to get it right.

and the "this contusion was DEFINITELY caused by this" is being seriously called into question. MD's have huge egos, and their education teaches them that the follow step a to step b to step c in a mechanical process to come up with an answer and by god that answer is RIGHT. they don't deal well with "maybes." it's causing problems. i'll find some journal articles for you later to back this up, gotta go now.
Nothing is perfect, WL. 1% in my mind equals uncommon and infrequent.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by maggiebirdie

Nothing is perfect, WL. 1% in my mind equals uncommon and infrequent.

i'm saying the well run labs that i know had a MINIMUM error of 1%, i can say that without question... my guess is that it was more like 10%. when you experiment on animals, and things go wrong, you throw the results out and keep the good iterations. you don't get that luxury when working with a very small sperm sample that has the power to put a man in jail for life. one in a hundred is not infrequent, it is unacceptable.

and new tests come out all the time, get put into general use... and then a coupla years later, it's found out that oops... this test has a 40% fals-positive rate. sorry, we'll take it off the market now!

and then there are the crappy cheap labs, with the crappy cheap labor, the millions of standards violations... they do lots of business 'cuz they're cheap. hmmm....

and now, a few choice (of many hundreds available) abstracts relating to how doctors may THINK they can say "yes that wound was absolutely caused by blah blah" and get someone convicted, when in reality they don't know what the hell they're talking about, etc. juries love the man in the white coat who speaks with confidence, and it is very difficult to convince them that he could be wrong. it causes problems. i think we're already putting too many innocents in jail, and more isn't better, 'cuz we're not [insert human-rights violating country here.] if someone is going to go to jail, we need MORE proof than the current standard, not less, because our standards are already too damned sloppy.

Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1997 Jun;18(2):177-180 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut


Cockroach: the omnivorous scavenger. Potential misinterpretation of postmortem injuries.

Denic N, Huyer DW, Sinal SH, Lantz PE, Smith CR, Silver MM.

Department of Pathology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Interpretation of postmortem injuries, including their differentiation from those produced antemortem, may be difficult even for experienced forensic pathologists. A variety of animals or insects residing in the death environment may alter the appearance of the deceased. Dictyoptera blattaria (the cockroach) is common in the residential setting. Three cases of sudden and unexpected infant death are presented in which postmortem injuries inflicted by cockroaches initially raised concern of nonaccidental injury. The true nature of the lesions was not recognized by the people at the death scene and, in one case, observation of neck injuries raised suspicion of possible strangulation. In another, the lesions were thought to be burns of different ages. Cockroaches are omnivorous scavengers that devour keratin. They will bite human flesh in both the living and dead with resultant injury. Recognition of cockroach bites will help in the evaluation of injuries discovered during child death investigations.

PMID: 9185937 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


J Forensic Sci 1990 Sep;35(5):1226-1235 Related Articles, Books


An elliptical incised wound of the breast misinterpreted as a bite injury.

Sperry K, Campbell HR Jr.

Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office, Atlanta, GA.

Bite injuries upon homicide victims are most often initially identified by the forensic pathologist during the course of the autopsy examination. Following such recognition, the injury or photographs of the traumatized site are then referred to a forensic odontologist for his or her examination, further characterization, and subsequent comparison with any suspect's dentition. However, if the pathologist misidentifies an injury caused by another mechanism as a human bite, this mistake can potentially be perpetuated by the dental consultant, since relatively few dentists regularly examine traumatic injuries other than those arising from bites. To illustrate such an event, a case is presented involving an incised wound of the breast, which was originally identified as an avulsive bite wound. Detailed examination by two odontologic consultants confirmed the wound as having been caused by human teeth, and further, they related the "bite injury" to a specific individual. The bite injury interpretation represented the only scientific evidence implicating the suspect at a subsequent trial for capital murder. Later examination of the tissues and photographs by a forensic pathologist and another dental consultant revealed that the injury was not due to human dentition, but rather resulted from a sharp-edged instrument. These consultants conducted a unique experiment to reduplicate the injury and prove its causation. This information was presented to the jury during the suspect's trial and resulted in his acquittal on all charges.

[welfareloser]

Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2000 Mar;21(1):11-20 Related Articles, Books


Level of agreement between opinions of medical examiner investigators and forensic pathologist medical examiners regarding the manner of death.

deJong JL, Hanzlick R.

Fulton County Medical Examiner's Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

To evaluate the level of agreement between medical examiner investigators' opinion of the manner of death and what the manner of death was as certified by forensic pathologist medical examiners (MEs), we reviewed the case records stored in a database of all deaths reported to the office of the medical examiner in Fulton County, Georgia. Of 15,771 deaths reported to the office during a 10-year period, a difference exists in 1908 cases. In 900 natural deaths, the investigators recorded 135 accident, 10 homicide, 10 suicide, and 745 undetermined manners of death. In 755 accidental deaths, the investigators recorded 16 natural, 8 homicide, 13 suicide, and 718 undetermined manners of death. In 107 homicides, the investigators recorded 12 natural, 8 accident, 0 suicide, and 87 undetermined manners of death. In 70 suicides, the investigators recorded 9 natural, 9 accident, 3 homicide, and 49 undetermined manners of death. In 61 deaths classified as undetermined, the investigators recorded 25 natural, 13 accident, 17 homicide, and 6 suicide manners of death. In 15 deaths, the discrepancy exists due to an apparent error in the database information. This study confirms a high concordance between investigator and ME opinion regarding manner of death but also documents the need for case review and autopsies by forensic pathologists to confirm the investigators' opinion of the manner of death, determine the manner of death when the investigator selects undetermined, and on occasion, refute the investigators' opinion regarding the manner of death.

PMID: 10739221 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1999 Sep;20(3):269-273 Related Articles, Books


A review of major factors contributing to errors in human hair association by microscopy.

Smith SL, Linch CA.

Forensic and Technical Services Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Dulles, Virginia 20104-1000, USA.

Forensic hair examiners using traditional microscopic comparison techniques cannot state with certainty, except in extremely rare cases, that a found hair originated from a particular individual. They also cannot provide a statistical likelihood that a hair came from a certain individual and not another. There is no data available regarding the frequency of a specific microscopic hair characteristic (i.e., microtype) or trait in a particular population. Microtype is a term we use to describe certain internal characteristics and features expressed when observing hairs with unpolarized transmitted light. Courts seem to be sympathetic to lawyer's concerns that there are no accepted probability standards for human hair identification. Under Daubert, microscopic hair analysis testimony (or other scientific testimony) is allowed if the technique can be shown to have testability, peer review, general acceptance, and a known error rate. As with other forensic disciplines, laboratory error rate determination for a specific hair comparison case is not possible. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based typing of hair roots offer hair examiners an opportunity to begin cataloging data with regard to microscopic hair association error rates. This is certainly a realistic manner in which to ascertain which hair microtypes and case circumstances repeatedly cause difficulty in association. Two cases are presented in which PCR typing revealed an incorrect inclusion in one and an incorrect exclusion in another. This paper does not suggest that such limited observations define a rate of occurrence. These cases illustrate evidentiary conditions or case circumstances which may potentially contribute to microscopic hair association errors. Issues discussed in this review paper address the potential questions an expert witness may expect in a Daubert hair analysis admissibility hearing.
Arch Kriminol 1998 Mar;201(3-4):93-96 Related Articles, Books


[Analytical confirmation of error in false positive amphetamine immunoassays and results].

[Article in German]

Schutz H, Erdmann F, Magiera ES, Weiler G.

Institut fur Rechtsmedizin, Universitat Giessen.

Numerous urine samples were found to be positive when using a new amphetamine immunoassay (AxSYM). Confirmation analysis was carried out in a second laboratory at "reasonable prices" using a simple TLC-method with non specific ninhydrine detection and resulted in many "positive" confirmation findings. The GC/MS analysis clearly indicated the absence of amphetamine derivatives regularly encountered in forensic toxicology. The false-positive immunochemical findings may probably be caused by endogenous substances.

Brain Inj 1997 Nov;11(11):791-799 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut


Response bias in plaintiffs' histories.

Lees-Haley PR, Williams CW, Zasler ND, Marguilies S, English LT, Stevens KB.

Lees-Haley Psychological Corporation, Woodland Hills, CA, USA.

This study investigated response bias in self-reported history of factors relevant to the assessment of traumatic brain injury, toxic brain injury and related emotional distress. Response bias refers to systematic error in self-report data. A total of 446 subjects (comprising 131 litigating and 315 non-litigating adults from five locations in the United States) completed a symptom questionnaire. Data were obtained from university faculty and students, from patients in clinics specializing in physiatry neurology, and family medicine, and from plaintiffs undergoing forensic neuropsychological evaluations. Comparisons were made for litigant and non litigant ratings of their past and current cognitive and emotional functioning, including life in general, ability to concentrate, memory, depression, anxiety, alcohol, drugs, ability to work or attend school, irritability, headaches, confusion, self-esteem, and fatigue. Although there is no basis for hypothesizing plaintiffs to be healthier than the general population, plaintiffs rated their pre-injury functioning superior to non-plaintiffs. These findings suggest that response biases need to be taken into account by forensic examiners when relying on litigants' self-reports of pre-injury status.