Due process? Hello..hello? Is this thing on? I need to hear again how our present system of justice is serving the needs of all people in society…
Things are not okay. The status quo is currently unacceptable and must be changed.
Canadian cogitations about politics, social issues, and science. Vituperation optional.
Due process? Hello..hello? Is this thing on? I need to hear again how our present system of justice is serving the needs of all people in society…
Things are not okay. The status quo is currently unacceptable and must be changed.
Art, health, civilizations, photography, nature, books, recipes, etc.
Independent source for the top stories in worldwide gender identity news
LESBIAN SF & FANTASY WRITER, & ADVENTURER
A fine WordPress.com site
herstory. poetry. recipes. rants.
Communications, politics, peace and justice
Transgender Teacher and Journalist
Conceptual spaces: politics, philosophy, art, literature, religion, cultural history
Loving, Growing, Being
A topnotch WordPress.com site
Life After an Emotionally Abusive Relationship
Exploring best practice and research in sexual violence. A loud voice in the fight against victim blaming. Written and Managed by Psychologist and Best Selling Author Dr Jessica Taylor
No product, no face paint. I am enough.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle
the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta
About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes
Reflecting Equality in Australian Legislation for women
Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism
Author
The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised
writer, doctor, wearer of many hats
Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator
Identifying as female since the dawn of time.
A blog by Helen Saxby
A blog in support of Helen Steel
Where media credibility has been reborn.
Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian
Radical Feminism Discourse
deconstructing identity and culture
Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy
Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks
cranky. joyful. radical. funny. feminist.
Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution
These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress
Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution
Peak Trans and other feminist topics
if you don't like the news, make some of your own
Musing over important things. More questions than answers.
27 comments
October 4, 2018 at 7:41 am
john zande
This is really exposing the ghastly state of affairs, isn’t it. Perhaps some good will come of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
October 4, 2018 at 9:44 am
The Arbourist
@ JZ
I agree. It is a class problem as the people in the dominant class don’t usually have this problem, thus it doesn’t exist.
Certainly there are other factors, economic status for instance, the inform how justly society treat you and of courses the colour of your skin.
I hope you are right JZ, this state of affairs is quite unacceptable. This imbalance must continue to be pushed to the forefront, otherwise the status quo will quietly reassert itself once the media coverage moves on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 4, 2018 at 9:53 am
john zande
There has to be consequences. If we can’t get that right then nothing will change.
LikeLiked by 2 people
October 4, 2018 at 9:54 am
Vesuvius R. Kaine
Unfortunately the majority of the post is just loser-based, hyperbolic b.s., but yes – 1 human being with proof is all it should ever take, and we can include molesters and animal abusers in there as well. All monsters, all wastes of oxygen, and if male, they should be crucified and left to be eaten by the crows, d*ck first.
LikeLike
October 4, 2018 at 10:09 am
tildeb
Due process isn’t the problem, which is why getting rid of it fixes nothing but adds systemic injustice as if this were a ‘solution’. It’s not.
Nor is this a class problem and magically dismantling class structure as if this will finally rid us of hierarchies will not fix the problem. Maybe, just maybe, changing the law isn’t the solution any more than making sea level rise illegal is a workable solution. The issue is one of producing evidence and I suspect technology will end up playing a central role if it can help produce compelling evidence of wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt.
LikeLike
October 4, 2018 at 12:45 pm
The Arbourist
@tildeb
The lack of due process is the problem. As evinced by the some of the examples in the thread.
Women and people of colour, who are treated consistently unfairly under our current set of laws would disagree, as do I.
I’d be happy if we could treat women and minorities with the same standards that the majority currently enjoys. The current set of laws regarding sexual assault are unjustly being applied in society, they or the application thereof needs to change.
LikeLike
October 4, 2018 at 5:24 pm
tildeb
Going after dismantling the principle – due process – because of a harmful product that emerges from the courts is like dismantling the scientific method because of some harmful applications that emerge from manufacturing these ideas. It’s tempting to advocate for the shortcut of getting ‘rid’ of what you claim is an impediment because you believe it might ‘help’ rectify injustice. Surprising to only those who don’t allow reality to arbitrate their beliefs about it, you don’t rectify injustice by codifying the means to guarantee injustice (by going around due process because, well, because it interferes with making a man guilty of some sexual ‘crime’ by accusation alone).
Look, you don’t fix the harmful products (lack of evidence in a he said/she said charge) by going after the principle of due process. But, as is absolutely par for the course, this PoMo idiocy is another in a long line of ‘Bomb the village to save it from destruction’ ideology. Nothing positive comes from this kind of Identity Politics; all you’re doing is trying to tear down the fundamental legal principle necessary for justice in the name of justice. This ideology you are swimming in is fully religious because it is entirely faith-based and contrary to reality no matter how swell and wonderful and inclusive and corrective the terms are you use to try to rationalize achieving their opposite, no matter how many examples of accusations of sexual misconduct you bring forward. Your solution is no solution to the problem you believe it addresses but it is a guaranteed way to entrench legal injustice for all people.
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 6:43 am
The Arbourist
There is nothing wrong with modifying the concept of due process to actually have it reflect it’s true definition. Currently due process isn’t working in it’s current state for roughly half the population.
So, change is necessary. Especially if we can get a more sensitive version in place that does not make seeking justice near impossible for large segments of the population.
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 5, 2018 at 7:30 am
tildeb
This sounds lovely. The problem is in its application. 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. This is the insanity of Post Modern thinking in action. Without due process there can be no level playing field. 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. 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.
This is a prime example of social justice warrior ideology hard at work destroying shared values, like respecting what’s true, where in the name of some fuzzy group of victims, in the name of some fuzzy group of oppressed, illiberal liberals attempt to destroy fundamental liberal principles in the name of those liberal principles. It’s insane. It’s bombing the village to save the village and then justified by GroupThink. Orwell had something to say about this.
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 12:30 pm
Carmen
“ . . . If male, they should be crucified, and left to be eaten by the crows, d*ck first.”
A modest proposal but it might work. ;)
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 5, 2018 at 12:47 pm
The Arbourist
@tildeb
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.
The current system does not dispense justice persay and reform is necessary.
No level playing field exists.
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.
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.
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.
——
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:
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
October 5, 2018 at 1:00 pm
The Arbourist
@Carmen
The social class (male/female) divide of perspective on this issue is quite perplexing.
I hope you can stomach some of the atmosphere down here in the comment section. :/
Apologies.
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Carmen
Arb, thanks so much for your detailed response to Tildeb. I know it takes time and energy to compile such responses and please know that I – for one – appreciate the effort you put forth. I am listening just now to Susan Collins in her strident defence of Brett Kavanaugh’s fitness for the appointment to the Supreme Court -no doubt leading to her ‘yes’ vote. I am actually quite perplexed about the opinions of that case – it’s very obvious that one’s stand is quite dependent on whether one is female or male. I suggested on a blog the other day (one I was subsequently banished from) that it is almost impossible for some men to recognize their privilege in society. Power dynamics suggest that those who have it hang onto it for dear life. :(
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 5, 2018 at 2:29 pm
tildeb
I know what you want to ‘modify’ and I know the extent to which you wish to make it based on an emotional argument overflowing with anecdotes about women not gaining justice in your favour, and I know to some extent the collateral damage you are willing to allow – to men, fo course, but really to anyone who disagrees with your call to action by modifying due process, but what I’m not hearing is your working solution. 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. I presume it has something to do with the actual number of women’s accusations. Greater than 1? Is 1 sufficient to convict? Does there need to be anything other than the accusation? Is there a time limit? Age limit? Does there need to be any evidence other than the accusation? How much? Of what kind? From what source is acceptable? To what extent does a denial mitigate the power of an accusation? 1 to 1? 10 to 1? How many character references? From which sex counts more? Should we tolerate a presumption of innocence or is this simply a tool of the patriarchy that must be modified to achieve the solution you seem to feel is necessary? 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. How much privileging of the accuser’;s testimony will suit you? To what extent do the gonads of the accuser play in producing privilege in law for some accusers but not others? Speak up, Arb. Leave the testimonials aside for the moment and produce a working legal solution before you leave the room that achieves both justice for all and legal equality for all regardless of prohibited grounds for discrimination you seem willing to entertain. Let’s talk about THAT before returning to the fundamental principle I am striving to support in the face of your emotional accusatory onslaught demanding my support for this fuzzy notion you presumably have fleshed out of a ‘modified’ legal change to due process you seek.
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 2:35 pm
tildeb
It’s only perplexing to those of of us who don’t divide real people, real individuals, into vast groups called Us and Them, into Victims and Victimizers, into Oppressors and the Oppressed. It must be quite perplexing indeed to a True Believer who encounters people who actually think all individuals should have the same rights and the same freedoms and the same legal autonomy rather than receive them from the groups YOU believe they entirely belong.
Well. Welcome to the world of non believers, Arb. Remind you of anything?
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 2:42 pm
tildeb
I suspect the tremendous publicity around this confirmation hearing will drive a couple of dozen men from the ranks of the Democrats to either not voting in the upcoming midterms or voting Republican to every female Republican driven to vote for the Democrats. The larger issue is one of simply being accused and the extent to which such an allegation is then presumed to be sufficient to destroy reputations and careers.
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Carmen
I’ll no doubt be accused of making an emotional argument but it seems to me that the larger issue is as Arb as suggested – that of women not being believed. Stats bear this out, Tildeb. So few men are actually charged with crimes of this nature that women give up before they start. Which is why so few women report. It seems to me that the larger issue, when you analyze what the stats suggest – is that men are the liars, suggesting consent when in actual fact, as assault has occurred. And men are believed. Consistently.
You might also want to consider this: People lie to get OUT of trouble, not to get into trouble. Think of all the trouble women get into, just for reporting. It shouldn’t be that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 5, 2018 at 3:33 pm
tildeb
Oh, I understand perfectly, Carmen. I also agree it’s a ongoing, never ending problem as long as you have men and women alone together. Sexual aggression by males cannot be legislated away. And modifying due process by eliminating the presumption of innocence only produces sexual privilege in law. That is a prohibited discrimination. And it works both ways. Our legal system is built on the idea that 9 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person be falsely convicted. The same frustration Arb loves to use as a springboard to undermine our basic freedoms and rights in the name of victimized women is felt by any police officer working under our system of presumption of innocence. And the same claims that the system doesn’t work is made about all kinds of crimes where the guilt go free because of a l lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. That’s why I think a technological solution whereby women can capture evidence of a sexual assault offers us a real improvement versus Arb’s heavy handed approach to endorse a kind of vigilantism where accusation alone is sufficient, where privileging certain testimony should be implemented. He simply doesn’t care or even recognize the danger of supporting this… until he (or someone he cares about) is – to name but one example – falsely accused by a disgruntled student or vindictive parent, loses both his job and his professional reputation only by accusation, and has to face the consequences of his social activism to put himself at such risk without legal recourse because he helped change the law and reject due process predicated on his innocence. All the emotional appealing at that point he has made on this issue becomes obvious in its insufficiency to protect his legal equality with his accuser.
Has no been to the Holocaust Museum and read the lines of Niemoller? Let me remind everyone:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
That’s what happens when we go along with the social justice warriors bent on doing their Red Guard duty by destroying the foundations of western liberal democracy in the name of tolerance and respect and diversity and justice, and so on. This kind of Identity Politics bullshit is totalitarian to the core. Orwell has warned us. And we each of us need to fight this political correctness, this Marxism in action, tooth and nail if we are to do our civic duty to not just our shared rights and freedoms but for generations to come.
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 7:26 pm
The Arbourist
@Tildeb
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?
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.
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
October 5, 2018 at 9:21 pm
tildeb
So… no changes to the law. Just more education for front line workers involved in the accusation. Am I reading you correctly?
LikeLike
October 6, 2018 at 3:44 pm
tildeb
The inconvenience of evidence…
“In 1992, the Innocence Project was founded in response to the large number of falsely incriminated individuals that were being exonerated due to advancements in DNA testing and analyses in criminal investigations. Since then, they have documented 362 cases in which a prisoner was exonerated due to exculpatory DNA evidence. These innocent people served an average of 14 years in prison for crimes they did not commit.
By far, the leading cause of false imprisonment in these cases was eyewitness misidentification, which played a role in 70 percent of the convictions. Nearly half of those misidentifications (46 percent) involved multiple eyewitnesses “identifying” the same, innocent person. Separate findings noted in the case of Perry vs. New Hampshire suggest that as many as one out of every three eyewitness identifications are incorrect.
Contrary to what one might expect, a 2013 study found that eyewitness testimonies of victims are far more likely to play a role in wrongful convictions than those of bystanders. (It should be noted that in the case of sexual assaults, this is partially attributable to the prevalence of cases in which there is no non-victim eyewitness.) Out of 71 people wrongfully convicted of rape, 73 percent were misidentified by an eyewitness. 92 percent of these misidentifications were by the victim alone or both the victim and a third party eyewitness, making victims four times more likely to be the one who had misidentified the perpetrator (only 23 percent of misidentifications were by a third party).”
LikeLike
October 6, 2018 at 3:48 pm
tildeb
Fun with statistics:
“Confronted with stories like these, activists routinely point to data that shows the rate of false claims is only about 5.9 percent. However, they invariably neglect to mention that this figure only covers those cases that were unequivocally proven to be false by authorities. It does not include cases dropped due to insufficient evidence or otherwise left unresolved because the victim withdrew from the process, or was unable to identify the perpetrator, or mislabeled an incident that does not fit the legal definition of sexual assault. The number of cases that fall into one or more of these categories is 44.9 percent, not including the 5.9 percent figure, above. It’s therefore impossible to tell what the true percentage of false accusations is…”
LikeLike
October 7, 2018 at 8:50 am
The Arbourist
@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
October 7, 2018 at 8:58 am
The Arbourist
@tildeb
Yes.
How vitally important it is do to so because of the barriers, like secondary victimization, deter women from even entering the legal system. Which is sorta the point isn’t it? Hey great we’ve got this spiffy justice system but it’s not available because we turn away most of the people who want to use it (and the legal protections and formalities). There is no justice if one is systematically deterred from even starting the process.
LikeLike
October 7, 2018 at 9:39 am
tildeb
It has been my experience that when I provide links in comments, WordPress often does weird stuff, not least of which is send it to spam. So I simply use quotes to show that these are not my words. If asked, I will then provide source detail so that the admin is expecting them and can check where they might have gone.
Of course a better job needs to be done. Of course concern for the welfare of people discriminated against needs to elevated. Of course more education is need when insufficient sensitivity is lacking. But that’s not your point in the OP. You demand systemic changes. That’s what I’m pointing out is fraught with danger to all individuals.
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. 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. 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, which you quote is used to justify the risk to reputation with SUFFICIENT evidence… 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. 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.
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. Yeah, it’s no problem accusing if you’re woman because Arb thinks that alone suffices…. Well, sorry, but that’s unprincipled and idiotic because such thinking is the poster child for guaranteed injustice.
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. I’m pointing out this actual position you promote is an intellectually dishonest and bankrupt shell game you’re playing, and it involves my legal rights. It’s deeply worrisome you can’t see or appreciate just how totalitarian this approach is.
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 and so 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? 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 – to help rectify this terrible social injustice, this systemic injustice, against men in primary education? The number don’t lie. Where’s antifa when you need them, am I right?
You see the idiocy of this assumption about identity politics, about social framing, you must advance to pretend a middle ground even exists between the way things are and the way you presume things should be.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. That is sexist to the core.
Do you see that arguing against the ideology you are promoting does not mean one holds the opposite values of all the lovely terms used by such social justice warriors as yourself? Do you see that the terms you like to use – like equality and diversity and fairness and justice – are the first victims of your ideology in action?
LikeLike
October 7, 2018 at 9:40 am
The Arbourist
From Vice –
“In fact, it’s the lives of survivors who report their assaults that are far more likely to end up “in tatters,” as Trump put it, than the lives of the people they accuse. This can get lost amid the broadsides being delivered by the president and his Adult Son in sort of a dynastic #MeToo backlash, but it doesn’t change the underlying facts.
“Many, many people report that the trauma and the pain [of reporting their rape] is equivalent to and sometimes greater than the pain caused by the rape itself,” Morris Hoffer told me.
Prosecutors know this. Police do, too. In fact, University of Kansas Law Professor Corey Rayburn Yung told me, many cops warn survivors exactly what seeking justice will cost them—how much time and dignity they will lose, how little hope of an arrest or conviction—as a way of urging them to drop their case. Using federal crime numbers, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) estimated that for every 1,000 rapes, 57 reports will lead to arrests, 11 will be referred to prosecutors, and just seven cases will lead to felony conviction.
“It’s a disaster for you if you falsely report, or even truly report a rape,” Yung said. “Even within the false reporting numbers, we have reason to believe those are inflated. It’s a dumping ground for cases police don’t want.”
Mountains of evidence suggest that only a small fraction of rapes reported to police ever prove to be “unfounded”, as federal law enforcement dubs false claims; the actual figure is generally pegged at between 2 and 10 percent. Yung said only a single analysis has ever deviated from that range, and it’s been largely discredited. ”
So, in general the process of reporting sexual assault is a fraught and hazardous process for women. Generally speaking the process is unhelpful and rarely bares any fruit in terms of justice being served coupled with the very real chance of for the accuser for social/career self-immolation during the process.
Yet, tildeb, the shit sandwich women are faced with, even trying to get access to due process isn’t on your radar. We’ve had some 20 posts concerned with ‘due process’ and false accusations and the possible damage to male reputations. That’s troubling, and hey feel free to label this an emotional argument and handwave it away, I’m good with that, but in terms of an actual commitment toward a just society you miss the mark. Because there is a great deal of injustice happening, and defending the status-quo isn’t to rectify that problem anytime soon.
LikeLike
October 7, 2018 at 1:09 pm
The Arbourist
@tildeb
Fair enough. The link limit here is four, for future reference.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your analysis is self-serving, not to mention short-sighted.
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.
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.
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.
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