How Many Women Need to Come Forward to Match the Believably of One Man?

@tildeb

Again, you seem determined to avoid the central and thorny issue that ‘modifying’ due process negates it and in fact introduces the fundamental replacement of injustice to correct for injustice.”

Not avoiding, but I’m not seeing the necessity of putting any particular social construct into what seemingly is the platonic realm and is therefore perfect and cannot be modified further. If that is where you are coming from, because it seems like you are, what it looks like is that you are putting the worth of a particular legal construct ahead of the well-being of most likely the majority of people that have to live under its writ. Furthermore, you come across as vigorously defending a status quo that, evinced by posts like the OP and the post on the Neurobiology of Sexual assault that illustrate a malfunctioning system that is detrimental to those who live within it.

Well, what I represent in this graph are some of the most common secondary victimization behaviors. Again, these are composites. This is regional data from large metropolitan surveys. This is not national work, so keep it in that context. But when a victim goes forward to law enforcement to report the assault, on average, victims and law enforcement agree that 69 percent of the time, law enforcement tells them, “Don’t do this.” They discourage the victim from making the report in the first place. On average, 51 percent of the time, law enforcement tell victims what happened to them is not serious enough to pursue through the criminal justice system. Seventy percent of the time, law enforcement ask victims about their dress or their behavior or what they might have done to provoke the assault. On average, 90 percent of victims encounter at least one secondary victimization behavior in their interactions with law enforcement during that first reporting process.”

What I’m not hearing is an acknowledgement of the serious justice deficits that are current features of the system, but rather a spirited defense of theoretical axiomatic principles. That is apples and oranges – due process is right as rain, but right now, right here in society, it isn’t working.

“This isn’t a modification of due process you’re advocating; it’s the elimination of it you’re trying to rationalize… in the name of justice, of course.”

The current system does not dispense justice persay and reform is necessary.

“Without due process there can be no level playing field.”

No level playing field exists.

“One is guilty simply by accusation. This is why accusation alone can now be wielded to achieve effect REGARDLESS of its truth value. That’s not ‘justice’ at all.”

So how many women’s allegations are necessary before she is believed? If the number is greater than one (which currently it is) then systemic change is required. In an earlier response you indicated that with new evidentiary procedures the situation improved. Perhaps we should deal with the what been termed from anywhere from 400,000 to tens of thousands of rape kits that lay withing evidence lockers in law enforcement centers across the United States. See we have the technology, and yet it (and justice) languishes in the background. Further evidence that system change is required.

“This is a prime example of social justice warrior ideology hard at work destroying shared values, “

Actually, it is a call to acknowledge and reform the current systems inadequacies, and if that is not possible, replace them with something that actually foments justice for all the people who have to live under it.

” like respecting what’s true, where in the name of some fuzzy group of victims,”

There is no fuzziness involved with the second class situation that women in our society are in. Being not considered part of the default class of people that gets human rights produces less than optimal results for those who inhabit second class status (and lower) in our society. Advocating for and making changes to the social system they co-inhabit with us, to better serve them is the right course of action.

——

“One is guilty simply by accusation.”

You frame this as if it is an endemic problem in society. Currently it is between a 2% to 10% chance of a false accusation (2% being quite liberal, given the context of how false accusations are reported across different law contexts)… most certainly not an crisis situation.

“Conclusion –
Research shows that rates of false reporting
are frequently inflated, in part because of
inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak
understanding of sexual assault. Misconceptions
about false reporting rates have direct, negative
consequences and can contribute to why many
victims don’t report sexual assaults (Lisak et
al., 2010).”

What is a systemic feature of society is the rape and sexual assault of women, by men (1 in 6 American Women by the National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey (1998) ). This is the problem that needs to be focused not, not the ‘guilt by association’ angle because it simply doesn’t happen that often. Where as sexual assault occurs once every 96 seconds in the US (Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010-2014 (2015).

So like, what the hell Tildeb? What is with the casual dismissal of women’s struggle and the conflation of a materialist class based anaylsis with po-mo (‘SJW antics’?) in the pursuit of great justice in society? More to the point, we have the valid concerns of the class of women coming to the forefront and you insist on trying to centre the narrative on due process and false accusations.

The process, whether it is due or not, currently in society does not work very well.

False accusations are rare enough not to be a major point of contention (yet are almost always part of your assertions) as they do not happen on the scale anything like what is happening to women with regards to sexual assault.

Where the hell is your anger and vociferous airing of displeasure about the actual systemic epidemic of injustice in our system? Do you perceive the #metoo and similar movements as a threat to your legal rights in society? Could you put yourself in the shoes of women, for an instant, and see the complete lack of legal rights (and equality under the law) and actionable legal status in society that they have been suffering under since for basically fucking-forever? Isn’t that just a touch more important?

Like, you’re worried about false accusations (not a significant problem) but not the actual problem of the system supported violence against women in our society?

Don’t defend axioms that are not being challenged. Not once have I called for due process to be changed, but the for the serious modification of the front and back end of the legal system that buttresses the system inequality that women face when reporting sexual assault. Let me show you where I want to see change, this again from the post on Neurobiology of Sexual assault:

“So let’s start off with a quote from law enforcement. This is a very seasoned detective, 15 years in a sex crimes unit. When I asked him sort of what happens when victims come in to report an assault to the criminal justice system, this is what he said. He said: “The stuff they say makes no sense” — referring to victims — “So no I don’t always believe them and yeah I let them know that. And then they say ‘Nevermind. I don’t want to do this.’ Okay, then. Complainant refused to prosecute; case closed.”

So now let’s loop in the rape victim advocate perspective: “It’s hard trying to stop what police do to victims. They don’t believe them and they treat them so bad that the victims give up. It happens over and over again.”

So now let’s loop in the victim’s perspective. In reference to her interactions with her law enforcement officer, she said the following. She said: “He didn’t believe me and he treated me badly. It didn’t surprise me when he said there wasn’t enough to go on to do anything. It didn’t surprise me, but it still hurt.”

So what do we get from these three simple quotes? What these three quotes show us right off the bat is that sexual assault case attrition happens very early on in the criminal justice system. It’s happening in the first interactions between the victims and law enforcement. Indeed, if we take these qualitative data and look at them from a quantitative perspective, we see very similar findings.”

How is challenging this one aspect the legal process akin to calling for the dismantling of ‘due process’? It isn’t. Thus, the hard defense of all things good and moral against the raging illiberal po-mo tide is misplaced in this context.

So, I’m guessing I wasn’t clear enough on what changing the system with regards to due process meant in context of the argument I was making. I hope this clears things up a bit.

LikeLike

@Tildeb

“So, please, outline the legal status you wish to implement with this blanket and as yet unseen and unspoken modification to due process you are willing to support.”

Lol. Spoken and unseen indeed. Let’s do this.

1. This is a very seasoned detective, 15 years in a sex crimes unit. When I asked him sort of what happens when victims come in to report an assault to the criminal justice system, this is what he said. He said: “The stuff they say makes no sense” — referring to victims — “So no I don’t always believe them and yeah I let them know that. And then they say ‘Nevermind. I don’t want to do this.’ Okay, then. Complainant refused to prosecute; case closed.”

1a. – Educate and change the attitudes of the front line of the criminal justice system that so that their first response is, at the very least neutral, so that people who have been victimized will not turn away at very outset.

2. “It’s hard trying to stop what police do to victims. They don’t believe them and they treat them so bad that the victims give up. It happens over and over again.”

2a – Educate and change the attitudes of the front line of the criminal justice system that so that their first response is, at the very least neutral, so that people who have been victimized will not turn away at very outset.

3.She said: “He didn’t believe me and he treated me badly. It didn’t surprise me when he said there wasn’t enough to go on to do anything. It didn’t surprise me, but it still hurt.”

So what do we get from these three simple quotes? What these three quotes show us right off the bat is that sexual assault case attrition happens very early on in the criminal justice system.

3a. Educate and change the attitudes of the front line of the criminal justice system that so that their first response is, at the very least neutral, so that people who have been victimized will not turn away at very outset.

Holy shit, right?

“Greater than 1? Is 1 sufficient to convict?

And so beginneth the gish-gallop aimed at the strawmen you construct. Can you not?

Research shows that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak understanding of sexual assault. Misconceptions about false reporting rates have direct, negative consequences and can contribute to why many victims don’t report sexual assaults.

But when a victim goes forward to law enforcement to report the assault, on average, victims and law enforcement agree that 69 percent of the time, law enforcement tells them, “Don’t do this.” They discourage the victim from making the report in the first place. On average, 51 percent of the time, law enforcement tell victims what happened to them is not serious enough to pursue through the criminal justice system. Seventy percent of the time, law enforcement ask victims about their dress or their behavior or what they might have done to provoke the assault. On average, 90 percent of victims encounter at least one secondary victimization behavior in their interactions with law enforcement during that first reporting process.”

So right there is where I would start. Maybe not discouraging/turning away (conservatively) 2/3 of women who have been assaulted from even entering the system and not traumatizing them again when they do decide to enter the system. So start your damned argument there. Stop with the slippery slope non-sense.

“I mean, seriously, Arb, to what extent are you willing to reduce your liberty and rights as an individual in order to produce this ‘justice’ you think exists somewhere within a ‘modified’ due process.:

Women have had a diminished set of liberty and rights since just about forever. Summarized by Stephen J. Schulhofer (University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol 143:2151)

“Feminist criticism of criminal law and criminal justice administration has proliferated over the past decade and now touches scores of doctrinal, practical, and theoretical issues. These critiques and the associated proposals for reform are usually acknowledged to be controversial (and even “radical”) by proponents and opponents alike. Yet, across a wide range of issues, the feminist position has its basis in a simple fact that cannot be considered debatable: criminal law is, from top to bottom, preoccupied with male concerns and male perspectives.

In this Article, I explain why this seemingly tendentious claim is not only accurate but uncontroversial. I then seek to show how the male orientation of existing criminal law creates both the necessity for reform and a major obstacle to doing it well. The feminist challenge is to adapt male-oriented criminal laws and practices to the concerns of a group of victims and offenders who are normally left out of the picture. This turns out to be difficult, and not just because of a lack of empathy for the needs of women. Factoring female victims and female offenders into the criminal law equation is hard because of many conflicting concerns and commitments that most Americans share.”

I’m still hearing zero from you about the fact women are not treated equally or justly in the system (precluding any frakking notion of a ‘fair’ playing field) only more arguments for more of the same shitty deal for women. That is unimpressive, to say the least, and speaks a great deal about your particular conception of what a ‘just’ society looks like.

There are systemic problems that have been identified in peer reviewed articles and solutions offered to the observable male bias inherent within the justice system with solutions and suggestions all without causing the apocalyptic slippery slope of lawlessness and chaos(tm Jordan Peterson)you constantly make reference.

This is a long article, and I haven’t read past the intro and conclusion, but it is appears possible to modify the system without bringing the halls crashing down.

LikeLike

@Tildeb

Comment from said referenced article.
The importance of due process…

“It is a uniquely difficult field to navigate, but there must be a balance between believing the accuser and the presumption that the accused is innocent. It is both logically impossible and vitally important that both of these beliefs be held simultaneously. This is why we must be scrupulous when weighing the evidence in support of either presupposition.”

However, the final sentence has got me troubled. “Or, more aptly, it is better to risk a guilty man’s reputation remaining untarnished than to risk ruining the life and career of an innocent one.” The author hasn’t made that case. The sentence would seem to suggest that cases with a requisite level of doubt shouldn’t make it to Court. The Justice system is exactly the place where such cases need to be tried. The decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a sexual assault or rape case rests with the relevant authority (DA in USA, Police Prosecution here in Aus). If a case meets the baseline evidence requirements to be prosecuted, it should be regardless of the potential cost to reputation. The determination of whether that accused is convicted then rests with the Court. If a case against a wrongly accused person has been duly brought notwithstanding such innocence, the cost to the accused’s reputation is a price that must, unfortunately, be paid in the pursuit of due process.

I’m not sure what the deal is with the lack of citations when borrowing other peoples ideas, but I’m pretty sure Quillette and Tyler Watkins would appreciate mention of original authorship, as well courtesy to your readers who shouldn’t have to track down your sources.

Anyhow, as Watkins notes, it is a difficult field to navigate. A person’s reputation however is irrelevant if the requisite baseline of evidence has been met. As it should be. And really, the concern about the damage to men’s reputations is quite unfounded as allegations of sexual assault have not impeded the careers of the current president of the US and a SCOTUS justice.

LikeLike

@tildeb

“It has been my experience that when I provide links in comments…

Fair enough. The link limit here is four, for future reference.

“You have refused to clarify how many women are required to counter presumption of innocence of a man accused but have clawed back your position tremendously when you seem to accept the necessity of presumption of innocence.”

That was not the original question. But the road you took, and really your dictation of the narrative isn’t my primary concern.

The OP states this – “One man’s career, reputation, and name is worth 159 victims. He gets a slap on the wrist if it’s 60. If it’s less than that? He was never a rapist anyways in the eye of the public.”

So, it does take multiple accusations versus the word of one man. Unanswered is the number of people who have been sorted away from the justice system before any sort of legal process can begin.

“You say you are in favour for the role of evidence to convict, yet continue to insist that this principle somehow games the system in favour of men and is in need of fundamental systemic change.”

Getting access or being denied access to the legal system *is* part of the process. That is the part I am referring to, because like any formal system, people interpret it and apply it inconsistently and very often detrimentally in practice. It is this to which I aim my contention.

“When pressed, you say better education of front line workers is necessary – which is not a systemic change you advocate – and then pretend I’m somehow against this reasonable education but you won’t say what the legal changes are necessary to get around this tedious and damaging due process coupled – you know, real systemic change – with the insufferable presumption of innocence,”

This is your argumentative style. You ignore what is being said, start your own narrative and then demand response to the situations you set up. Let me quote from one of my responses…

“Don’t defend axioms that are not being challenged. Not once have I called for due process to be changed, but the for the serious modification of the front and back end of the legal system that buttresses the system inequality that women face when reporting sexual assault.”

So, stop going off on what you deem to be important and then demanding I answer to your narrative – I could do similar, with the facts you patently ignore – most of this paragraph for example:

The process, whether it is due or not, currently in society does not work very well.

Like, you’re worried about false accusations (not a significant problem) but not the actual problem of the system supported violence against women in our society?

It isn’t particularly honest or charitable because you seem to be following the “how to derail a SJW script” while ignoring the arguments being presented.

” other than being willing to accept collateral damage to men when that evidence is completely lacking yet are the ones left with destroyed reputations and ruined careers because, hey, you think that’s okay in the grand scheme of things.

Men’s reputations or Women’s lives? They have a name for the preferences you adhere to in this context – misogynistic, its not a good look but as long as we’re tossing pejoratives around (SJW anyone?)

“That’s your real concern about equality and diversity and fairness and justice in action of real individuals: jettisoned for men in the name for redress to a victimized and oppressed group if the group is women. Oh, but you don;t see that as sexism in action.”

Let’s start with this: (Schulhofer’s intro from the Pennsylvania Law Review)

“These critiques and the associated proposals for reform are usually acknowledged to be controversial (and even “radical”) by proponents and opponents alike. Yet, across a wide range of issues, the feminist position has its basis in a simple fact that cannot be considered debatable: criminal law is, from top to bottom, preoccupied with male concerns and male perspectives.

In this Article, I explain why this seemingly tendentious claim is not only accurate but uncontroversial.”

Challenging a male dominated and male centric system will create backlash and strong proponents to changing a system that directly benefits them. The system is arrayed against women, and despite having some positive features still contributes to the inequality in society.

How does one start changing this system – changing the front end is a start, and I have said so.

“You talk out of both sides of your mouth here, Arb, because changing the system necessarily involves changing the law and you presume there is some magical middle ground that can be had… if only men weren’t such a problem.

Reforming the system isn’t going to be an easy or pleasurable experience, but changing from a male-centric system of justice to one that encompasses all of humanity is a project worth undertaking. How? The conclusion from Gendered Justice:Women in the Criminal Justice System?

“A review of women’s life circumstances and of the backgrounds of female
offenders in the system makes clear that there are more effective ways to prevent and
address women’s criminality than are currently in use. Criminal justice practice could be
improved by addressing women’s pathways into the criminal justice system, their
differences in offense patterns from the patterns of male offenders, their experiences in
the criminal justice system, and their responses to programs.

It is important to reexamine the gendered effects of public policies that criminalize
substance abuse, which often result in the overrepresentation of women in U.S. jails and
prisons. Mandatory minimum-sentencing statutes for drug offenses have had a
devastating effect on women and have unfairly punished them as well as their children.

Standard gender-neutral correctional procedures have also disadvantaged women in that
such procedures do not take into account the histories of abuse of many female offenders.
The criminal justice system must become trauma-informed in order to provide effective
interventions and services for women.

At present, both the availability of programming for women offenders and the types of
services offered fall short of what is needed. For example, because women in treatment
find recovery complicated by trauma, child-care issues, inadequate social support
systems, and lack of financial resources, programming for women must take these issues
into account. Additionally, it is critical that programs provide appropriate screening and
assessment of the needs (not risks) of individual clients, along with a range of services
designed to meet those needs.

In creating appropriate services that truly take into account and respond to gender and
cultural factors, we need first to reexamine our current criminal justice policies. We can
then work to adjust those policies so that the response to women’s offending is one that
emphasizes human needs, specifically those that reflect the realities of women’s lives.
Rather than focusing solely on punitive sanctions, we can begin to systematically
consider the least restrictive appropriate alternatives to incarceration.”

The article is provides a great base in which to begin reform.

“This position of yours reeks of an anti liberal sexist ideology and maintains the stink of totalitarian Marxism where you are quite willing to give to the state our individual legal autonomy in the name of protecting women from systemic abuse by men. That’s your framing.”

Nah. That’s the pre-ordained conclusion on the anti-SJW trajectory you rhetorically set up. Argue against your straw as much as you would like.

“As an educator, why aren’t you demanding special symposiums for men addressing the systemic bias and discrimination against men in primary and elementary education because, hey, 90% of elementary school teachers are women”

What? You actually have no idea what feminism strives for do you? The cure for both situations is, indeed, more feminism.

Let’s do elementary education – Men will be better in elementary education when the (patriarchal) stigma associated with it being a female occupation is removed. Further progress will be made when men, as a class, stop adhering to the dictates of toxic masculinity which makes them unfit for dealing with and nurturing children.

So what should be addressed is the systemic barriers facing men with regards to the intersectional bevy of problems they face while trying to get representation in female dominated aspect of society. The larger roots of the problem – patriarchal devaluation of female fields and the malignant gender expectations placed on men, in accordance with patriarchal norms that steers their nature away from the attitudes that are required to deal positively with children.

“this lack of equity between the sexes MUST be caused by systemic discrimination exercised by the power of women over the victimized group of men? “

Your analysis is self-serving, not to mention short-sighted.

“Come on, Arb, where’s your consistency in principles? Where’s your blanket acceptance for trimming all those women from jobs they are qualified to hold – so what if it harms a few of the dominant privileged and oppressing power group”

Women will lose some positions once the patriarchal standards are removed. The distorted patriarchal status quo will be upset, the dominant group will lose some power and standing, but only to the degree that their power was intrinsically based on the patriarchal distortion we like to call the ‘status-quo’.

So I don’t know what you are banging on about, because removing systemic barriers that prevent a move toward a more egalitarian society would seem to be something you’d be in favour of.

Far be it from me to distract you from your attack on your version of what I believe.

“You see the idiocy of this assumption about identity politics, about social framing”

What I see is your ignorance of radical feminist theory and praxis and your willingness to ignore important distinctions in your opponents arguments to continue your crusade against SJW’s and the regressive left. Ignoring what people are saying, a distinguishing characteristic of the regressive left, isn’t a particularly laudable distinction to share.

“Do you see the callous disregard for individual rights and freedoms such ideological ‘justice’ you support necessarily invokes and then imposes on real people in real life? The victims will still be there; you just want to change its sex and call that a ‘solution’… but only for women.

I see an analysis either purposefully or carelessly devoid of attention to class analysis and how power is wielded in the real world. I see an analysis grounded in a framework of ideas that adamantly resists self-examination and reflection, and mainly exists to defend a status-quo that is inherently inequitable; but inequitable to the right people, thus merits its continuance.

“Do you see that arguing against the ideology you are promoting …

As evinced earlier, you don’t seem to have a clue about what ideology I am promoting, so I’m eager to hear my defence of what my arguments are…

LikeLike