Comment: If you read our blog long enough, you might well conclude that the most dangerous place on earth for college-age men is a typical American college campus. One case after the next underscores the perils that sexually active young men face of being falsely accused of rape by young women who engage in consensual encounters but later regret it. A peculiar and disturbing phenomenon has developed: a number of reported false rape claims aren't confined to one hapless innocent male. False accusers seem to have become more brazen and their lies are now targeting groups of young men. They seem to be unconcerned that it's their word against the word of three or more young men (a very telling sign). That is what happened in the news story below about a false rape accuser at Loyola.Two important points about this story before you read it. First, police say she likely won't be charged. Why not? If the news report, below, is accurate, why would this not be a crime? Did she honestly cry "rape" and only later suddenly remember it was consensual? Sorry, that doesn't ring true. The answer as to why she won't be charged lies more likely in political correctness. The sexual grievance industry believes that charging rape liars somehow will interfere with the their war on rape -- falsely accused men and boys be damned. For every other crime, everyone accepts that concept that punishment serves to deter future occurrences of that crime. For false rape reporting, the concept of deterrence is deemed wholly unimportant and, in fact, harmful to "the greater good" -- the war on rape. It is believed that all rape claims must be encouraged, and if this brings out some false claims, so be it. Second, the woman is not named. Why not? Would an 18-year-old male charged with date rape on the basis of his female classmate's say-so, with no other evidence, be named? Damn right he would be. And his life likely would be destroyed. Why the gender asymmetry? She is not named for the same reason she won't be charged. I would like to hear just one feminist condemn the fact that she is neither be charged nor named. Just one. I'm not holding my breath.
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:
Sun-Times Media Wire
A Loyola University student who initially told police she was sexually assaulted by three fellow students early Friday later recanted her statement, police said.
Police responded at 2:19 a.m. to the 1100 block of West Loyola Avenue after a woman reported three men sexually assaulted her friend earlier in the evening, police said. The Loyla Avenue address is located on the Lakeshore Campus of Loyola University.
The woman was taken to Saint Francis Hospital in Evanston, police said.
The 18-year-old woman later recanted her statement, saying the interaction was consensual after a night of socializing, according to police, who said the three males were all Loyola students in their late teens.
This report adds the following: "Police said she is not likely to be charged with filing a false report." And this report adds the following: "The matter is not considered criminal, and Loyola police are investigating."
h/t to reader Patrick C
Posts
40 comments:
"The matter is not considered criminal, and Loyola police are investigating."
"...a woman reported three men sexually assaulted her friend..."
"The 18-year-old woman later recanted her statement, saying the interaction was consensual..."
In keeping with the goal of a "sliding-scale" for the severity of punishment for FRA's, it would be critical to know the details, including whether of not men were falsely named, and how long it took for the recantation.
From the three bit's I selectively quote above, let be suggest what I see as a probable scenario in this one:
Woman has consensual sex. Woman doesn't want to admit to a friend that it was consensual. Thus friend believes a rape has occurred, and calls police.
The woman still doesn't want to come clean to her friend, so she goes in for examination. Only later, in a room without her friend present, doe she admit to police that it had all been consensual. Perhaps this happened when police start asking her to identify the men, and she suddenly realized that her lie had gotten out of hand.
If it "went down" as I suspect, then her willingness to come clean before nay innocent men were harmed should be balanced against her carrying the lie to the point where a medical examine was under-taken, and police time devoted to the (non-)case.
While I can see why there might be some reluctance to charging her with a crime, I would still have to argue that, unless she is charged, there will be no way in which to recover the costs here lie lead to.
Personally, I'd be okay with a misdemeanor charge (which would stay on her adult record), with a dispensation including fines in the amount of the costs incurred.
Of course, all that assumes that I am correct in concluding that no innocent persons came to be harmed because of her lies.
The deviants on my college campus love to enable false rape accusers..."it furthers their agender."
Why would police charge her?? they are now getting alot of pork dollars from the federal VAWA act. For alot of police jurisdictions, Retaining law and order now takes the back seat to "collecting pork dollars" from VAWA.
Get the gender feminist perversion, and "misinformation for dollars"..out of our legal system, it is un-constitutional.
I can hear Frank Zappa singing....Cath-ol-ic girls...
There was some measure of identification involved, because the guys were identified as late teens. These cases are very dangerous because but for the recantation, one would expect all three of them to have been rounded up. We need to reward recantations, but we also need to find a way to deter that initial lie from ever leaving young women's lips.
Archivist - "We need to reward recantations, but we also need to find a way to deter that initial lie from ever leaving young women's lips."
This is the very tricky part.
Here, I think, deferred judgments may be called for.
If a woman is made to recognize that she might get off with a deferred judgment, it would seem to me to be a fairly strong inducement for her to recant early enough so that no one else is harmed.
But, the question remains, "would that also serve as an effective deterrent to others so as to keep them from making FRA's"?
Recently, I noted in passing (and, now, I really wish I had paid attention to where it was at) that some one was lamenting that if women had FRA's on their records, it might make them easy targets for rapist - who could then, the writer suggests, get away with raping her, because no one would believe she'd been raped due to her record.
First point I'd make WRT this is, that any doubt that a woman with an FRA record might experience is simply no different than the suspicion which falls upon men with sexual assault records. If a sex assault occurs, police routinely look to known sex-offenders as likely suspects. Why should a woman whose committed the crime of FRA be spared suspicion in future cases. It does not mean that her claims would be dismissed out-of-hand, but only that her story would meat with the proper amount of doubt (and, men would remain innocent until the real evidence suggested that they were guilty – half-way to toward the ideal, anyway).
If women are concerned about the record of FRA’s coming in to play against them in any way, well, the solution is simple – just don’t make FRA’s.
Which brings me to my second point. What I took away from the remark was that the idea of an FRA on a woman’s record was troubling (to that writer, anyway). This suggests to me that women would likely prefer to avoid ever getting an FRA on their records – whether just for the simple reason of not wanting to have any negatives on their records, or even out of fear of being that “easy target” of rapists in the future. Either way, I can see how just the threat of having such a record could be an effective deterrent.
Of course, all this presupposes that women start to be more regularly charged so that it will be placed on their permanent criminal records, so that women being so charges can become a visible example for other women who might otherwise be tempted to turn to the best know (ever) get-out-of-trouble card for women – the FRA.
If you read our blog long enough, you might well conclude that the most dangerous place on earth for college-age men is a typical American college campus. One case after the next underscores the perils that sexually active young men face of being falsely accused of rape by young women who engage in consensual encounters but later regret it. A peculiar and disturbing phenomenon has developed: a number of reported false rape claims aren't confined to one hapless innocent male. False accusers seem to have become more brazen and their lies are now targeting groups of young men".
At the risk of being banned as a smartass, what was the first clue?
Womyn's studies groups are found where, at colleges and universities? It make sense they would attack males attending institutions of higher learning. Who can get a decent job on a high scholl diploma alone, except some females?
There is no question that college campuses are institutionally insensitive to its male students.
Women's Studies programs are more ideologically than intellectually driven. At their core they preach that males are privileged, when that is not the experience of most students. The reality is far more nuanced, far more complicated, with "privilege" shifing depending on the circumstance.
Sexual assault programs encourage young women to invent rape from whole cloth. To suggest that women are not in great danger of rape is politically incorrect (and true).
While Title IX is supposed to promote equality, it has the effect of excluding males who aren't big enough to play football and basketball (which means, most college guys) from even having a chance to play on a collegiate sports team. At big universities, a huger percentage of male athletic scholarships go to football and basketball. Unlike women, most guys have essentially zero chance of getting an athletic scholarship because of a birth defect -- they were born as average sized males.
And now there is a big push to insure "equality" in the science, where males still have an advantage, but not in any other academic study. Fair, isn't it.
It is a toxic atmosphere for young men, and it's no wonder there are false rape claims galore on college campuses.
Archivist said...
There was some measure of identification involved, because the guys were identified as late teens. These cases are very dangerous because but for the recantation, one would expect all three of them to have been rounded up. We need to reward recantations, but we also need to find a way to deter that initial lie from ever leaving young women's lips.
Nov 16, 2009 12:31:00 PM
"We need to reward recantations,
This cannot be the real Archivist, unless you mean reward them with the same exact sentence that their vicims would have had imposed upon them.
Anon, it's always been my position that every false rape claim needs to be punished. But a rape claim that is recanted early on before an innocent male is targeted needs to be rewarded with a lesser sentence than that given to a false accuser who sends a man or boy to trial on a lie.
The punishment must match the crime.
AKA.
If no-one was hurt there should be a lesser punishment.
You also want these reductions for things such as recanting before anyone is arrested, before they are identified, before it goes to trial, before they are convicted, etc.
These reductions allow us to punish them but to also offer them a way out so they won't just stick to their lie to the point we will never know if it was an FRA or just a rape without enough evidence to convict.
Additional:
Or if it was a rape that someone was convicted of that never occurred we could punish them with extreme sentences as they had many opportunities to come clean but chose not to.
Nobody questioned why the girl recanted. Maybe she didn't want to be raped all over again in court. If this case is how MRAs define a false rape accusation, I'm not so sure this site is legitimate.
ANON SAID
Nobody questioned why the girl recanted. Maybe she didn't want to be raped all over again in court. If this case is how MRAs define a false rape accusation, I'm not so sure this site is legitimate.
Scott says..lets keep things very basic so even the simplest of simpletons can understand..
A false rape accusatio, is an acussation of rape that simply..NEVER HAPPENED.
"Rape hysteria" is a perversion that protects itself with a klan type of resistance against anyone who questions it.
To Scott:
I've always heard women recant for different reasons, and that if a woman recants, it doesn't mean she was lying. Personally I can't go along with calling this incident a false rape accusation.
Palma
Anon at 5:57 said this: "Nobody questioned why the girl recanted. Maybe she didn't want to be raped all over again in court. If this case is how MRAs define a false rape accusation, I'm not so sure this site is legitimate."
If the woman had not recanted, we must assume it is rape.
If the woman recanted, we must assume it is rape.
If the woman doesn't even report she was rape, we must assume there was a good chance she was raped. That's because of the sexual grievance industry's trump card, "underreporting."
In short, women must ALWAYS be believed when they discuss rape. Unless they recant. That's because in your radical feminist fairyland, rape oozes from every vagina, and every penis-bearing human is a rapist-in-waiting.
When women recant, there's a good chance they are simply avoiding a second "rape" during trial. This, despite the multitude of resources heaped upon rape accusers at every step of the way in colleges and outside of colleges to make reporting rape easier than any other serious crime that hinges solely on the word of the accuser.
The fact is, counselors and advocates and SANE nurses hold the accuser's hand and guide her through the judicial process every step of the way.
In contrast, the falsely accused defendant is furnished essentially zero assistance, aside from a notoriously overworked and almost always outgunned public defender, who is provided to give the appearance but not the reality of a fair trial.
At trial, accusers will be afforded every imaginable protection. The Rape Shield laws forbid even a hint of the accuser's sexual past with third parties, and often even evidence that she lied about rape in the past.
In contrast, the sexual proclvities of the accused are fair game. Fed. Rule Evid. 413 and its state law progeny (you ARE familiar with that, aren't you?) allows long-ago evidence of the accused's rape acquittals -- which effectively forces the accused to testify. This rule is unique in all of American jurisprudence, and it is among the most unjust rules of law ever devised in America.
Rape accusers are spared polygraphs, unlike any other class of criminal accuser, and unlike the men they accused.
If the accuser was drinking on campus, the fact that she reported she was raped likely will prevent the campus police from even charging her with underage drinking. The falsely accused male with whom she was drinking is not similarly protected and will be charged with underage drinking.
If he is convicted of failing to withdraw for even five seconds after she says "stop," he is a felon who likely will go to prison for years.
In contrast, if she lies and sends him to prisor for years, at most she will get six months to two years. Most likely she'll get nothing.
Statutes of limitations? They are being eliminated for men accused of rape. A woman on social security can decide to accuse her college boyfriend of rape and force him to undergo a trial. False rape claims, in contrast, generally have a very short statute of limitations period -- a year or two.
You see, dear feminist, the rules have been molded to convict men of rape. And if they happen to snag a few innocent men -- they are collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. When a woman accuses a man of rape and he denies it, there are conflicting claims of criminality, yet only one is arrested; only one's name is reported in the news for the world to titillate to his humiliation (she's anonymous -- he's not); only one is likely to be imprisoned if he's convicted; and only one will have the accusation trail him like a ghost for the rest of his life even if it is false (thirty years from now, the prospective employer of a man falsely accused of rape will need only Google his name to learn of the horrid accusation -- and likely then not give him the job).
Maybe next time you'll learn what the hell you're talking about before being so incredibly heartless.
Underreporting is a feminist wet dream, Archivist. There is zero evidence of it.
The bottom line here folks is the gender feminist / law enforcement "misinformation ALLIANCE."
This "misinformation Alliance" tells the public faulty and inflammatory misinformation about the true percentages of false rape accusations (its not 2%.)
This misinformation Alliance simply "re-defines" what the meaning of is, is, in order to manufacture this 2% false number.
This misinformation Alliance is around 30 years old now..and is un-constitutional because it creates a prejudice against innocent men/boys.
There are many negative side effects of this "Alliance".that are mostly affecting our nations children.
Anonymous - "Nobody questioned why the girl recanted."
Apparently this poster failed to read the article - "The 18-year-old woman later recanted her statement, saying the interaction was consensual after a night of socializing."
Do you understand what that means? It means that she was a willing participant in the sexual activity.
Yes, this is how all rational people define FRA's (not just the MRA's) - a report of a rape that wasn't.
Women often have reasons that cause them to be ashamed of their sexual choices afterward. It give's rise to many FRA's. But, the consistent fact remains, no rape ever took place.
Anonymous - "Underreporting is a feminist wet dream, Archivist. There is zero evidence of it."
Actually, there is a growing body of evidence that certain types of (real) rapes are, in fact under-reported - same-sex rapes.
Men, who been raped, are far, far more ashamed to report it than are women, and can expect little in the way of meaningful victim support (the best most counselors can do is to try to apply those things they'd use with female victims to men - usually not a good fit.
But, perhaps the least reported of all rapes are lesbian rapes, which are often committed against underage girls. It has come to be well known that they do, in fact, occur with alarming frequency; yet, they are almost never reported to any authority.
Of course, feminists don't like for such things to be mentioned - it disrupts their preferred meta-narrative about rape.
I am shocked that all of you believe that most women lie about rape. I understand that some girls might falsely accuse guys, but I think far more girls are raped. In my own circle of friends I've heard about many instances of rape and it is not the girl's fault. Most of the time girls are afraid to tell anybody. They just hide and drop out of school.
Palma
Palma - "I am shocked that all of you believe that most women lie about rape."
Where did you come up with that? Most women never even claim to be raped - and most never are.
It's never even said hear that most women who do report a rape are lying.
What is pointed out is that whenever, and where ever research is done, it does turn out that a significant percentage of rape claims turn out to be untrue.
The estimates do vary, and in some instance, do amount to more than half, but often seem to be at about 40%.
Thus, it seems that quite a few women do lie about rapes - certainly significantly more than the 2% number than has been widely (mis)reported [after being pulled out of someones *ss, essentially, BTW].
So, let me just come right out and ask you: Are you offended that this fact is being reported here?
Further, are you simply afraid to face the possibility that what you've been told about the rate at which women would lie about something so very serious as rape, has, itself, been a lie?
"I am shocked that all of you believe that most women lie about rape."
That is certainly not the position of this blog. Where on earth did you get that impression? Don't come back here with any more of this garbage.
Fuck you Palma.
Women supposedly afraid of a second "rape" through a trial (and by the way that really trivializes rape, doesn't it?) would be most unlikely to recant because then they would know they could be put on trial -- but not as the accuser, as the defendant. They also know they could face jail time. So, what, a rape victim will subject herself to a trial for false rape claim where she's THE DEFENDANT, and she will subject herself to jail -- just to a avoid a trial where she's THE ACCUSER? Doesn't make any sense.
Palma said: "I've always heard women recant for different reasons, and that if a woman recants, it doesn't mean she was lying. Personally I can't go along with calling this incident a false rape accusation."
As shown on this site, and by Prof. Kanin, and in every study ever conducted on false rape claims, women LIE about rape for all sorts of reasons.
If a woman says a rape occurred then recants and there is no other evidence of criminality, what do you have? A presumed innocent man, and most likely a false rape claim. Period.
Archivist said...
"In contrast, the sexual proclvities of the accused are
fair game. Fed. Rule Evid. 413 and its state law progeny (you ARE familiar with that, aren't you?) allows long-ago evidence of the accused's rape acquittals -- which effectively forces the accused to testify. This rule is unique in all of American jurisprudence, and it is among the most unjust rules of law ever devised in America".
IMHO,if I'm correct, it is also a violation of the fifth amendment's double jeopardy clause. The accused is esentially being re-tried for things he was acquitted of or, declared not guilty of at past trials.
SlWerner, Ithought you might find this interesting;
Report of LGBT domestic violence finds 125% increase in fatalities
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=99018
Anonymous - "SlWerner, I thought you might find this interesting"
I was aware that DV amongst alternative lifestyle partners was statistically higher than amongst heterosexual couples, but I was unaware of the level of that violence. Thanks for providing that information.
As an aside, I have often heard that same-sex DV typically ends up with the combatants in the worst shape, as they are more-or-less evenly matched, so the fights tend to be more prolonged. It is said the worst looking of DV combatants who are brought before the court for arraignment are lesbians. They do a lot more visible, yet less substantial damage to one another (i.e. one doesn’t knock the other out of the fight quickly), so that they often both end up looking very battered.
You are welcome SlWerner
Anonymous said...
Underreporting is a feminist wet dream, Archivist. There is zero evidence of it.
Nov 16, 2009 6:51:00 PM
That's simply not true. Be honest here - under reporting certainly exists for both men and women.
We don't know the reasons why for the same reasons we don't know the numbers - they don't report them.
And if they can't be counted they shouldn't count.
How many men report a woman is ruining his reputation by spreading the rumor he raped her or tried to rape her?
ZERO. To report something like that would risk inciting her to REALLY report it.
How many men are blackmailed by threat of "I'll say you raped me"?
Who knows. It's RARELY reported.
But it happens ALL the time.
Do men get to use speculative phantom numbers to boost FRA claims?
Of course not.
The number of men who under report FRAs are probably exactly equal to the number of women who under report rape - so it's a draw.
SgtMom - "The number of men who under report FRAs are probably exactly equal to the number of women who under report rape - so it's a draw."
I'm sure your heart was in the right place here, but....
I would caution against trying to compare FRA's (and unreported FRA's) to unreported rapes. Rapes and FRA's are two separate and distinct crimes.
I've noticed that feminist commentators (in particular) often try to gloss-over FRA's by invoking the idea that they must certainly be fewer than the numbers of unreported rapes, so that, in their minds (and the idea they are trying to get across) it all "evens out".
But, it's not "a draw" to either victims of (unreported) rapes, nor to the victims of FRA's. Both are very real crimes, with very real victims, for whom we should feel compassion, and a sense of outrage at the injustice.
It would be asinine if we were to argue that, since more men are murder than are women, it somehow all just "washes out", and we needn't care about women getting murdered (and, should just focus on that crime being committed against men - the primary victims). Why should we ever allow the feminist line of thinking to clouds the issue with their idea that FRA victims somehow "don't really count" simply because there may be more women who are raped, but don't report it (which may or may not be true - it really doesn't matter). What matters is that we not let one crime be dismissed as unimportant because another crime is held to be more important.
I like to think my heart is always in the right place.
To suggest the issue of unreported rapes shouldn't be given the weight it now has does not mean I don't care about them. I've stated before I personally know of such cases, my daughter's being one of them.
Slwerner you are knowlegeable and maybe an attorney. For the most part I agree with your comments, but the nagging thing in the back of my mind are the girls I know personally and indirectly (7) who have dropped out of school after being raped. Maybe you could talk to a few of them? They feel their world has ended. Four of them have dropped out of school. The other 3 have been warned not to press charges. It is so terribly sad.
Palma
Paloma - "They feel their world has ended. Four of them have dropped out of school. The other 3 have been warned not to press charges. It is so terribly sad."
I understand that some women do chose not to report that they have been raped, and yes, the damage that has been done to their psyche's is terribly sad.
Yet, and I'm not quite sure how to put this without sounding mean and insensitive, but...
The idea that woman are warned not to file charges (assuming an actual sexual assault has occurred), simply doesn't pass the smell test.
If this was done by a school counselor, they would be open not only loosing their jobs, but also to a lawsuit for having done this.
Perhaps, as is sometimes the cases, there has been a "cultural" element, in which the young womens own families have been the ones to pressure them not to report? I am aware that in several different cultures, it would be preferable (for the families) to not have such things made known.
The flip-side of this is that, in other situations, it is families that pressure women into making FRA's as to consensual sex they freely chose to engage in, but which had the potential to cause their families embarrassment.
Personally, I would wish that all people who have suffered being raped (or, some other sexual assault) would feel that they could report what has happened to them - but, only in those cases where it really has happened. And by this, I am referring to instances in which women, after having consent to sex (some even having initiated it) decide latter (perhaps when they sober-up), that they regret what they have willfully done, and seek to absolve themselves any personal responsibility by claiming that they were raped. This sort of thing happens way too often. And,. yes, it does have the effect of causing future victims to be doubted more. So, for many of us, it is hard to understand why other women, who have been, know someone who has been, and could possibly be reaped themselves, DO NOT join us in protesting the those who abuse the system by making false claims as they believe suits their personal agendas?
Pierce has stated here over, and over again - and I heartily concur - that seeking to put an end to the injustice of FRA in no way conflicts with efforts to protect others from the horrible crime of rape. Some people, feminists, typically, make the mistake of conflating being "anti-false rape" with be "pro-rape". Nothing could be further from the truth.
slwerner said...
It would be asinine if we were to argue that, since more men are murder than are women, it somehow all just "washes out", and we needn't care about women getting murdered (and, should just focus on that crime being committed against men - the primary victims).
Nov 17, 2009 1:50:00 PM
In case anyone qustions your statement;
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
that should have been questions
Anonymous - "In case anyone questions your statement"
Thank you for providing the documentation.
It remains important to be able to back up assertions being made - especially when we (I) are calling into question the inability of false-rape apologists to document those things upon which they base their counter-arguments (i.e. false rape reporting at 2%).
All to often, I a guilty of putting forth assertions, which I already know to be true, but I fail to take the time to cite the proper sources. Thank you for filling-in that "hole" for me.
It would be asinine if we were to argue that, since more men are murder than are women, it somehow all just "washes out", and we needn't care about women getting murdered (and, should just focus on that crime being committed against men - the primary victims).
.....................................
It would be asinine as well to justify legal legislation based on huge, unverifiable numbers of "unreported" men murdered.
The number of murdered men are reasonably verified.
The number of unreported rapes is pure conjecture.
................................
"We need to empower folks to contest statistics put forth by public officials, the media and others. Just because a stat has a qualified source, or sounds good, doesn’t mean it is being used correctly.
SexOffenderIssues has begun contacting the law enforcement agencies using those stats in an effort to get them to change it. This is what needs to be done with any misused stat whether it is from a politician or the media.
Absurd claims are at the heart of today’s legislation where RSOs are concerned, and these absurdities need to be challenged when they arise. Challenge professionally, do not allow emotion to control challenges, and avoid a lawsuit over libel or slander; be smart. Finally, do not expect that you will always win, there will be those who oppose you." http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/
slwerner said...
Anonymous - "In case anyone questions your statement"
Thank you for providing the documentation.
It remains important to be able to back up assertions being made - especially when we (I) are calling into question the inability of false-rape apologists to document those things upon which they base their counter-arguments (i.e. false rape reporting at 2%).
All to often, I a guilty of putting forth assertions, which I already know to be true, but I fail to take the time to cite the proper sources. Thank you for filling-in that "hole" for me.
Nov 18, 2009 10:17:00 AM
You are welcome SlWerner.
Post a Comment