Joobs, I read your posts this morning, but when I got home this evening the thread had gone. its not clear to me why they might have done that, and perhaps I missed something. clearly the word ‘r@pe’ is a trigger word, however i’m not aware of any rules preventing the discussion of crime and conviction rates, and if the word itself is the reason they have wiped the thread its risible, especially since there are 17 pages devoted to hard core pornography on the news forum that are much more explicit, provocative, and argumentative than anything contained in our discussion. (* forum empties as posters rush over to news*)
I don’t particularly want to restart the discussion, and I doubt we will be allowed to anyway, however I wanted to make some final comments.
1.i cited information that half of judges were unaware of the rules on the admission of sexual history evidence, and that this sort of evidence was admitted into three quarters of rape cases. Your response was something along the lines that this was ‘rubbish’, that it was certainly not true under current rules, and that it must be ‘propaganda’ from a site spouting ‘nonsense’.
In fact that information is from a home office report produced this year looking specifically at the issue of section 41 rules. The study was conducted by Jennifer Temkin, professor of law at sussex university and the country’s leading expert on r@pe law. Here is the report reference (the main findings are summarized near the beginning), and here is Jennifer Temkins credentials page with details of further research and information should you be so minded as to educate yourself beyond the prejudices you have displayed start to finish in this debate.
2. you made several references to false reporting as if this might be a significant factor in low conviction rates. In fact, the only methodologically sound and statistically relevant studies conducted(one by NYPD sex crimes unit, one in new Zealand and one in Sweden) found a false reporting rate of 2%, in line with most other crimes. The highest rates of false reporting is, as one might expect, of burglaries due to insurance scams. the obsession with false reporting of r@pe is in direct contrast to the absence of concern about low conviction rates, and is part of the problem not part of the solution.
3. you continually claim that the concept of reasonable doubt in a case of two people’s words against each other accounts for much of the low conviction rate, however this does not explain the fall in the conviction rate over the last two decades (given that the home office study of attrition rates indicates that the percentage of cases involving uncorroborated/disputed consent remains unchanged). your logic also does not apply to the issue of rape of under 16s, and of the 5000 recorded cases in 2004/5 convictions were obtained in only 7% of cases (home office figures cited here). given that every one of these cases is de facto a statutory rape and consent is not an issue, this conviction rate is truly appalling. if you intend to start speculating about what might account for this, please evidence your speculations rather than wildly flinging around your prejudices
4. you have consistently defended the judicial system we have, and seem to take the view that is inevitable that r@pe should evade accountability within it (once again ignoring the decline in convition rates). in my view any system, however ancient and laudable, that is unable to secure a reasonable rate of convictions for a serious violent offence is failing not just the victims but society as a whole. There is much that could be done, for example better education of judges, better direction of juries, the use of expert witnesses, specialist prosecutors, and a change in social attitudes, but I don’t think you are really interested in or concerned about that so much as in defending the status quo.
i originally made a comment that was intended to indicate that the position of women in western society, frequently cited as one of our ‘freedoms’, is not ideal and I cited the r@pe conviction rate as an example of that. You immediately began to attack me, demanding that I evidence information that is in the public domain, and offering wild speculations or criticisms without evidence yourself. Each time i provided you with evidence you cast another aspersion or shifted the goalposts. i ended up having to cite multiple home office studies, the british crime analysis survey, newspaper reports and experts in the field all because *you* didn’t want to accept information that is generally accepted. i don’t know what would motivate you to behave in that way (i imagine it to be a combination of misogyny, ignorance, isolation and arrogance), but i do know that it was an effective tactic at obscuring truth and preventing any real discussion or progression of the issues. Well you caught me once, and I stuck with this because the issue is an important one, but you will not catch me again and if in future you challenge me on information that is in the public domain and commonly accepted, it will be up to you to demonstrate and evidence it as incorrect, and if you fall back on insults, sarcasm and personal attacks i will simply walk away and leave you to stew in your own poisonous vitriol. I didn’t know you as a poster before this exchange joobs, but i‘ve got your m.o. now. Hasta la vista, baby.
“Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
Rape, murder and torture would simply not be 'reported' nor 'recognised' by dictators-loving 'husbands', 'policemen' or 'political elites' in all other forms of social organisation.
NO society is without any flaw.
Can you suggest a social form where there is NO murder, NO rape and NO torture AND you can GUARANTEE these??
Originally posted by MizDemeanour: Joobs, I read your posts this morning, but when I got home this evening the thread had gone. its not clear to me why they might have done that, and perhaps I missed something.
Because they are a bunch of tossers. They are forever doing this.
quote:
1.i cited information that half of judges were unaware of the rules on the admission of sexual history evidence, and that this sort of evidence was admitted into three quarters of rape cases. Your response was something along the lines that this was ‘rubbish’, that it was certainly not true under current rules, and that it must be ‘propaganda’ from a site spouting ‘nonsense’.
And I simply stated that though this may have been the case in the past it certainly wasn't now. I admit my reply was a bit ambiguous and in reality I was meaning in comparison to previous practice. There is no doubting that such argument is still used but is done in completely different ways and certainly isn't the degrading or disreputable conduct it once was. I don't deny that the odd bad argument is still presented but those are certainly not the norm.
quote:
In fact that information is from a home office report produced this year looking specifically at the issue of section 41 rules.
Have you actually read the findings of this report (I actually had a copy of it and wondered when you would get around to it). BTW Some of the stats are dubious because of their small sample ratio (ask a statitician). That aside and accepting them for arguments sake. The conclusions of the report are not quite as you would have everyone believe. Yes sexual conduct can and does get mentioned but as the report states this is almost always done under strict agreement and conducted very briefly, often only 1 or 2 questions. It certainly isn't as previously used, and as you imply, gratuitously done and at length.
quote:
2. you made several references to false reporting as if this might be a significant factor in low conviction rates.
I merely mentioned false reporting along with other reasons why many cases fail to reach the courts. I never claimed that false reporting was a "significant factor". Please do not try to misrepresent what I actually said. Unfortunately, I cannot quote my exact words now but anyone who had read the previous thread will know that my assertions were as I say. I actually said that such reasons though all small percents do all add up. Throughout I have always asserted that the most significant factor is actually lack of corroborating evidence. Do you deny that this was my true "significance" comment?
quote:
3. you continually claim that the concept of reasonable doubt in a case of two people’s words against each other accounts for much of the low conviction rate, however this does not explain the fall in the conviction rate over the last two decades (given that the home office study of attrition rates indicates that the percentage of cases involving uncorroborated/disputed consent remains unchanged).
Many more cases are reported now than previously. However, though there are more reported the cases which make it to court do not match the same increase therefore as a statistic of the reported the % will fall - simple maths. However, this really is lying with stats. When one examines the actual no of prosecuted cases with the number of guilty verdicts the stats show that the percentage has remained pretty consistant, 1 in 3 cases prove guilty. Also one has to remember that over the 20 year period various governments have changed the parameters of how the stats are collected and compiled - We all know how they like to manipulate the crime figures to project their own agenda.
quote:
your logic also does not apply to the issue of rape of under 16s, and of the 5000 recorded cases in 2004/5 convictions were obtained in only 7% of cases
Ah your knowledge of the law is exposed again. Consent is an issue for those over 13, not 16 as you claim. However, the same stat problem arises here many of those cases will not have been prosecuted so 7% really only has meaning when one equates that to the no of cases tried not the no reported. Similarly many of these cases would be child abuse cases and not r@pe.
quote:
4. you have consistently defended the judicial system we have, and seem to take the view that is inevitable that r@pe should evade accountability within it (once again ignoring the decline in convition rates).
Nope not my view at all just more conjecture on your part.
quote:
There is much that could be done, for example better education of judges, better direction of juries, the use of expert witnesses, specialist prosecutors, and a change in social attitudes,
Expert witnesses - what rubbish are you speaking now? Do you actually know what the legal status of such people is? Their testimony is no different from yours or mine. They merely state their opinion based on their "expert" knowledge. There is nothing at present to stop prosecution or defence calling said witnesses so what is your point? BTW do you wish to discuss the many convictions based on "expert" testimony which are later overturned because the "expert" was wrong. Oh let's re-lock up those women guilty for cot deaths - after all an expert said they were guilty, didn't he.
Spec prosecutors - Most (if not all) prosecution barristers in these cases have extensive experience both in prosecuting and defending said. So your point is pretty dubious as to any real merit.
Changes in social attitudes are not about the law so that is totally irrelevent to any discussion of the legal aspect - and you talk about side issues.
quote:
but I don’t think you are really interested in or concerned about that so much as in defending the status quo.
I do not care what you think. You have already shown that your fertile imagination is prone to what ifs when making assessments in such cases.
quote:
i originally made a comment that was intended to indicate that the position of women in western society, frequently cited as one of our ‘freedoms’, is not ideal and I cited the r@pe conviction rate as an example of that. You immediately began to attack me
I questioned your assertion that the word of men is taken over the word of a woman. That you never have shown, it just remains your erroneous premise. Actually in child custody cases the reverse is known and evident - How often in those cases does a woman offer the argument of an abusive partner as reason for their not getting custody - Lots and never with any medical or police evidence to back the claim. This is a well known ploy and yet the woman's word is invariably accepted.
quote:
demanding that I evidence information that is in the public domain, and offering wild speculations or criticisms without evidence yourself.
Except I did give correct figures (with refs) though you decided to moan about my lack of referencing before reading posts I had made over an hour before your critisism was posted. Your fault you were too lazy to read new posts before making your critisisms.
quote:
Each time i provided you with evidence you cast another aspersion or shifted the goalposts. i ended up having to cite multiple home office studies, the british crime analysis survey, newspaper reports and experts in the field all because *you* didn’t want to accept information that is generally accepted.
Lets recap here, originally you said your figures were of "western society", I had doubts about that comment and asked you to give some details how you arrived at them. Correct? When you did offer confirmation your post clearly showed that these figures were in fact just UK ones. Fine, but you didn't say that originally - had you done so I would have been able to check your stats quite easily. You gave misleading information and that is what caused my concern.
quote:
i don’t know what would motivate you to behave in that way (i imagine it to be a combination of misogyny, ignorance, isolation and arrogance),
Well ad hom attacks don't seem to be a problem for you, do they. Yet you argue about such being used in the cases under discussion.
quote:
but i do know that it was an effective tactic at obscuring truth and preventing any real discussion or progression of the issues.
Every argument you have proposed has been of your own invention, women vs mens word, what if, etc. I have pointed out the flaws in your reasoning and their leaps of faith which you have just ignored or tried to excuse away.
quote:
Well you caught me once, and I stuck with this because the issue is an important one, but you will not catch me again
I bet I will if you continue to argue from bias and your personal subjective opinions and claim these to be fact or proven from stats.
quote:
if you fall back on insults, sarcasm and personal attacks
Well, for those who read the original thread and your comments herein I think we can all see who has in almost every post resorted to ad hom and personal insult. Let's see. D1ckhead, obsessive narccisist, mysoginy, isolation, etc. and in your closing comment here posionous vitriol. LOL
Yep your record in this discussion stands out like a beacon for all to see.
quote:
i will simply walk away and leave you to stew in your own poisonous vitriol. I didn’t know you as a poster before this exchange joobs, but i‘ve got your m.o. now. Hasta la vista, baby.
My m.o - 4 periods of jury service and too much watching of legal dramas really have given you all the patter and in-depth knowledge, eh?
Originally posted by kevlar: What's the deal with lie detector tests and why are they not used? As i said on the thread before it was deleted, it works for Trisha!
They're not foolproof basically. Not so much because people can beat them, but because they're prone to false positives, i.e. people being stressed about the test, despite telling the truth.
I don't think Trisha is a very good example of proper legal due process!
------ "The lack of flying kangaroos patently proves that Darwinism is false." - blast99
They're not foolproof basically. Not so much because people can beat them, but because they're prone to false positives, i.e. people being stressed about the test, despite telling the truth.
Have you actually read the findings of this report (I actually had a copy of it and wondered when you would get around to it).
if you had the report why did you rubbish the information i posted? why did you suggest it was 'out of date propaganda' from dubious sites that i was stupid to belive?
quote:
I merely mentioned false reporting along with other reasons why many cases fail to reach the courts.{/QUOTE] you 'merely mentioned it' several times, including speculating that it was 'more likely' that failed relationships would produce a false claim, repeating several times that 'women do lie you know' and offering your personal knowledge of such cases, as if discussing the tiny percentage of false reporting might somehow illuminate the discussion of low conviction rastes.
agreed you did also emphasise the issue of lack of corroborating evidence, and you stated this as the main reason so many prosecutions fail. my point about who is believed in cases of uncorroborated/disputed consent is that many juries seem to take the view that if a woman cannot *prove* she did not consent, and the man claims she did, then the man's claim alone is sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt. juries are not obliged to take this extremely concrete view of the situation, and are supposed to weigh up who to believe. a male claim of consent does not automatically intoduce 'reasonable' doubt but juries seem to give the balance of weight to that claim rather than to a woman's claim that she didn't. in simplest terms, they believe men.
with regard to your remarks about possible interventions to improve the conviction rate, many of these have been succesful in the states. i am not aware of any UK r@ape case where expert witnesses have been called, and the point of such a witness in this sort of case is not to advise on evidence to but advise on the nature of the crime and the effect it often has on the victim. for example, some members of the public seem to wonder how it can be r@ape if the woman has not been battered black and blue, and others do not understand why there might be delays in reporting. both of these are factors that could incline a jury towards doubt, and an expert witness could ensure that at least they consider this sort of information in an informed light. with regard to social attitudes, it may be irrelevant to you but one of my original concerns was with double standards in our society in general in which women are on the one hand 'free' to dress and behave as they please, but on the other hand, may find that held against them in the event of an attack. [QUOTE] You have already shown that your fertile imagination is prone to what ifs
would that be like your fertile imagination conjecturing a probability that the incidence rate of r@pe had fallen?
the issue of custody in divorce cases is not one i am going to get into with you here. As a society, yes we favour women for custody of children, at least in part because they are usually the primary carer, and less likely to be in full time work. i don't know where you get your 'well known' information from, espcially as the proceedings of the family courts are confidential, however its largely unnecessary for any woman to claim her ex is violent in order to get custody as the law favours her anyway. there was recently an interesting article in the observer about the family courts, and it was made clear by the senior judge that the 'fathers for justice' style cases are few and far between, and it is far more likely that men will fail to meet the contact arrangements rather than be prevented from doing so. none the less, i can see why men get so aggreived over some of these issues.
quote:
you decided to moan about my lack of referencing before reading posts I had made over an hour before your critisism was posted. Your fault you were too lazy to read new posts before making your critisisms.
i wasn't 'too lazy' to read your posts. i had the reply box up and was writing my reply whilst doing other things. i didn't realise how much time had passed and i didn't refresh the page before i posted so didn't see the only set of references you gave. its just one of those things jools, and i did acknowledge immediately.
quote:
Yep your record in this discussion stands out like a beacon for all to see.
actually joobs, you started it. pretty much your first comments were attacking and insulting and included the line 'jeez you really are stupid'. you can hardly be surprised if i responded in kind. perhaps i shouldn't have done, but you annoyed me. i have no objections to robust argument and pithy comments but you launch straight in with aggressive insults. having had a quick look through your posting history i see you behave like that pretty much all the time. if you look through mine you'll find plenty of disagreements but i doubt you could find even 5% containing the sort of unnecessary insults and attacks that are standard fare from you.
with some effort of will, i haven't insulted or attacked you in this post, and i wont be doing so again, but if you can't reciprocate i won't be responding at all.
They're not foolproof basically. Not so much because people can beat them, but because they're prone to false positives, i.e. people being stressed about the test, despite telling the truth.
Are they used in the US legal system?
Yes and no, one can opt to take one but the results cannot be claimed to prove anything. If you do opt for one all you can do is say that it points to your being truthful/lying.
Originally posted by MizDemeanour: if you had the report why did you rubbish the information i posted? why did you suggest it was 'out of date propaganda' from dubious sites that i was stupid to belive?
I was not specifically referring to this report whe
