THIS IS A COMMENT FROM ONE OF MOST ASTUTE READERS, SLWERNER, TO THE PREVIOUS POST ON ANONYMITY. IN THE COMMENT, HE IS RESPONDING TO ANOTHER READER.
Anonymous ”Trouble with anonymity is the serial rapists of the world like Andrew Luster, who would still be drugging and raping women had it not been for a few brave souls who came forward.”
Not only is this one single example (against hundreds of examples of innocent men being harmed by false accusations); there is nothing to indicate that if his name had not been publicized, he would not have been linked to the 20 women he was convicted of raping. In case your just dropping his name without actually knowing anything about the case, he was identified by three women who knew him already, and the police found videos enabling them to link him to the others. They NEVER needed the public-at-large’s help to do this. I’d say nice try, but that would be a lie. Your effort here was obvious and pathetic.
Anonymous - ”Not only that, if we had anonymity, it could double the number of rape-kit-test-results just sitting around in storage. It's estimated that there are now hundreds of thousands of these kits all over the country.”
Meaning what, exactly? Are you supposing that all those rape kits have been used, or are simply stockpiled in SANE exam rooms in the event they are needed? And, remember, all those women who are later revealed to have been lying (often about sexual contact even occurring), but who got SANE exams in response to their false allegation, also have a kit that was used. Why test those kits of women know to have lied? Danmell Ndonye had one done, so did Crystal Magnum. What value lies in testing such kits, except, as in the case of Mangum, exonerating those she accused?
And, since your illogic is so hard to follow, please explain how not having an alleged rapists identity publicly revealed is going to impact a woman’s decision on whether or not to file charges. A more rational argument would be that, knowing that her attacker would be exposed publicly, and that such exposure could allow others to figure out that she was an (alleged) victim, would have a much greater impact on making a woman ask to have charges filed and the kit processed. [bet your canned feminist talking points didn’t prepare you for that one]
How, exactly, would not publishing his identity actually allow a rapist a greater chance of not being convicted? Jurors are admonished to base their decisions on the evidence presented at trial, and not rely on anything they’ve read in the press. That’s why, despite the press being able to make any man seem guilty, even those cases that go to trial have a rather low rate of conviction. Evidence in NOT what the paper says it is.
Now, you want to know haw to help make it more likely for real rapists to walk? Easy! Encourage more women to make false rape claims.
I’ll give you a concrete example of how that works. Earlier this year, my wife, who is a prosecutor took a case of a man accused of raping an under-aged family member to trial (I’m a skeptic, but knowing some privileged info about the case, it seems more likely than not that this had been a real rape).
During the voir dire, the female defense attorney cleverly brought up the issue of false rape allegations, asking the question of each prospective juror that was called to the box. A number of them (mostly men, BTW) allowed that they’d heard of it happening, but claimed to have little idea about how likely it was. But, then, a woman was called up, who looked very classy, well educated, well read and up-to-date, and confident. When she was asked about FRA’s she proclaimed, “Oh, I know they happen all the time. People just don’t realize often it happens”.
Later, after the “not guilty” verdict, she indicated that she knew, that in that moment, the case had been lost. A woman who simply knew that FRA’s happen rather frequently, and who wasn’t afraid to tell the truth, was all it took to “poison” the jury, and ensure that (in all likelihood) and actual rapist “walked”.
Satisfied? Want to harm even more women? Just keep the FRA’s coming so that the world can see how often women DO lie, and for what specious reasons they chose to do so. Knowledge is power, as they say, and knowledge of FRA’s is certainly a boon to all innocent men – while unintentionally aiding real rapists. You have heard of “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, haven’t you? FRA’s ending up helping rapist is a really good example of what it means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
Perfect example -- the prospective juror who knew the truth. That's why rape victims tell us they hate false rape accusers. You people who enable false accusers, like that commentator slwerner is responding to, have to answer for every rapist who gets off -- because jurors can't trust a woman when she says she was raped.
You feminists, you all think I'm a rape apologist or some such awful thing. The fact is, if you'd only help me, we'd do more good for rape victims than all the sexual assault clinics in America. We'd actually restore integrity to rape accusers! But let me guess, you all really don't care about that, do you?
Great Job Slwerner!
Exact same thing is true of paedophile hysteria, millions of ordinary, safe, caring men won't touch with a bargepole voluntary work with Boy Scouts etc etc etc.
The real point in slwerners post is that LEGAL PROFESSIONALS, including Judges, are becoming ever more aware of the dubious veracity of women on oath...
Trouble with non-anonymity is the serial false rape accusers of the world like Crystal Gail Mangum, who would still be drugged and falsely accusing men had it not been for a few brave souls who came forward.
Not only that, if we keep non-anonymity, it could double the number of false rape accusers just sitting around waiting for their opportunity. It's estimated that there are now hundreds of thousands of these people all over the country.
Why would anybody want to make it easy for a false rape accuser to walk?
When feminists start telling women they need to be careful to avoid being raped (the way mothers tell their sons to be careful walking in bad neighborhoods), then maybe I'll start to listen when they insist on subjecting innocent men to the harm by publicly naming them. As it is, the feminists want it both ways: they want to give women license to live dangerously, but when those women fall in the clutches of a serial rapist, they want the right to name even innocent men in order to nab a rapist who never should have been able to get close to his "victims."
Evidence in NOT what the paper says it is.
Unfortunatly many people who go on to serve as jurors are influenced by this no matter how many times a judge instructs them to only base their decision on the evidence.This applies to all cases not just rape which is why the defendant should remain anonymous.Even with anonymity the defendant always looks guilty and a lot of jurors are thinking that he/she must have done something if they're sitting at the defendant's table.
Prosecutors should actually be sued more (for a variety of reasons)in Federal Court where they have no immunity in violation of civil rights cases because they frequently withhold exculpatory evidence or speak to the press to prejudice a defendant's case.
Linda Fairstein was sued and it wasn't dismissed on the basis of immunity but on something else.The federal judge who dismissed it was incorrect but they'll always try to find a way to dismiss or prosecutors would be sued all the time for their misconduct. BTW, aside from being disbarred, what ever happened to Nifong?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/jovanovic_sex_suit_tossed_J6wqp0xJjSaIBORLnYVz1O
Afor
I know I will not go near kids...it is not worth the risk.
Anon
nifong got ONE DAY in jail!
Can you believe that!
He deserves 25-life.
Giving rape test kits to womens groups will only foster and enable even more innocent men going to jail on false rape claims.
These kits should have to be signed out from police departments, and the womens names should be kept in a dat base to see if in fact some serial false rape accusers (there are now many), that are accumulateing 30-40 semen loads on her shelf to see who she can try to take down for cash and a book deal.
This is yet another serious perversion on American law enforcement thats (gives rape test kits to any women who wants one) to enable some sick, twisted women to put innocent men and boys in prison for decades.
The only winners in the war on working class heterosexual males are the white, middle class, Gender / Raunch community.
In many areas of the world their is order, and safety for the citizens that is maintained by some sort of law enforcement.
It seems American law enforcement, in order to cash in, and bloat their budgets, have financial incentives to arrest males on domestic violence calls, and they have no financial incentives to arrest females in domestic violence calls.
This is federally funded discrimination, and in effect fosters the perpetually violent culture we are now in. U see its not just the fact that law enforcement arrest non violent men, and enable violent women..you see children are now learning unrestrained violence from their violent mothers and forming a sort of perpetual matriarchal underclass of uneducated violent children. ( by the way, of which the young males are easily harvested for the military)
Welcome to the land of chaos, perversion, and near anarchy for the matriarchal underclass...while the white upper class Gender / Raunch feminists and their constructionists in our universities across America keep drafting the next perversion. Their busy drafting the next wave of perversion that says its the really the upper white middle class Gender / Raunch community that are more oppressed that the even the blacks.
The Gender / Raunch community in America are in fact the upper crust of America that are the constructionists of their de-facto rule over the matriarchal underclass of uneducated broken and divided laborers.
@anonymous^
I learned in my first Criminal Justice class that police departments are afraid not to take the man away in Domestic Violence scenarios. The reason is simple, they are afraid of being sued by the woman.
Police chiefs/captains/lieutenants etc. the ones who set policy and write standard operating procedures look at the law and do the numbers.
@anonymous^
I learned in my first Criminal Justice class that police departments are afraid not to take the man away in Domestic Violence scenarios. The reason is simple, they are afraid of being sued by the woman.
Police chiefs/captains/lieutenants etc. the ones who set policy and write standard operating procedures look at the law and do the numbers.
Things like VAWA set laws that police have to enforce. Like primary offender laws that force police to always take the man away. They aren't being misogynist they are just following the law.
That is not to say that some police cross the line in a misguided sense of idealism.
If a city's law enforcement responds to a domestic violence call they will more than likely take the man away. That is not to say officers don't use their discretion. More often than not the man will be taken to a hotel or a relatives house.
However do the math as far as not taking away the man. A woman claims emotional abuse or causes trauma to herself. She sues the city police department for not taking her partner away.
So this all takes place in a hypothetical city of 10,000. She earns a reward of 1.5 million dollars. The police departments budget for that year.
Roughly the same thing happens with false rape accusations. The police take the man in because if they don't they open themselves to legal, libel and political ruin. Once again, some law enforcement officals do take it too far with a misguided sense of chivalry and/or feminist idealism.
We have discussed on this blog that laws need to change before anything else does. Laws were enacted that take away men's due process rights. Law enforcement officers cannot decide which laws they want to follow and which ones they don't. There is something called discretion which officers on scene can use to a degree. Like giving a man the opportunity to either leave the house or go too jail.
I think its wrong but until the law changes thats all that they can do.
"Now, you want to know haw to help make it more likely for real rapists to walk? Easy! Encourage more women to make false rape claims."
Excellent retort.
False rape accusations benefit two groups of criminals: actual rapists and the women who make them.
Sigh!
Again with the nonsense from S. - "It seems American law enforcement, in order to cash in, and bloat their budgets, have financial incentives to arrest males on domestic violence calls..."
How, S., how do they profit? It actually cost money to process an arrest. As I have demonstrated for you (on multiple occasions) there is NO mechanism by which they are given federal (nor state or local) "kick-backs" for misandrous misuses of the law. They do it out of a misplaced sense of duty - not for financial gain.
The problem with posting such obvious nonsense is that it is so easily refuted.
This would not be such a problem if there weren't those with a deep vested interest in ACTUALLY profiting from the "Rape Culture" who would dearly love to be able to dismiss the vitally important that site site seeks to do.
When you continually post those ill-thoughout obviously nonsensical boiler-play rants, you provide those who would wish to discredit The False Rape Society the ammunition they so desperately need to do so. Thanks to your efforts, they can point to your frequent posts as representation of what the rest of us MUST think and believe. They can then easily paint us all a nothing more than a bunch of tin foil hat-wearing, conspiracy theory believing, poorly-educated Yahoos.
Now, I don't want to deprive you of your right to speak your mind. But, for the sake of the reputation of this site, please consider including a disclaimer along with your ill-placed rants, indicating your views to be solely your own, and not representative of The False Rape Society nor it's ardent followers. Thank You.
slwerner, I am interested in all the new law enforcement jobs that have been created to process, handle, or otherwise work in the sex assault cottage industry. From handling evidence to dealing with "victims" to prosecuting the cases. These folks have vested interests and will, of course, do what they have to do to perpetuate their jobs by insisting that rape is rampant, etc. This industry has taken on a life of its own, and much of it was built on lies (one-in-four, two percent, etc.). Once created, it is nearly impossible to get rid of them.
Archivist - "I am interested in all the new law enforcement jobs that have been created to process, handle, or otherwise work in the sex assault cottage industry. From handling evidence to dealing with "victims" to prosecuting the cases. These folks have vested interests and will, of course, do what they have to do to perpetuate their jobs by insisting that rape is rampant, etc."
I certainly do not intend to suggest any sort of blanket absolution for LE. As we have seen, not only do they often fail - spectacularly - they also often operate from just the mind-set you refer to - that rape is a rampant crime.
Yes, there are those who do enjoy a financial benefit from the crime of rape - whether or not a given case is real. But what is being repeatedly suggested is that LE (more specifically, police and prosecutors) are directly profiting from targeting men for rape and DV arrests and prosecutions. Such suggests are completely unfounded, as the processing of such instance only ever COSTS them to carry-out (and, as I've provided substantial documentation to S. to demonstrate, there is no mechanism by which VAWA monies can be easily obtained, even for targeted programs designed to address issues of sexual violence, let alone individual cases).
Those that do owe their livelihoods to violence against women tend to be agencies who are either unaffiliated with LE, or are adjunct operations of LE (victims and witness assistance, for instance).
To help S. understand this better, I once pointed him to the actual distribution of VAWA grants to agencies in my area. They primarily went to non-LE entities. And even the one grant that was to an LE function was less than 1/10 of the operational cost of the proposed task group. No chance to profit there, either.
I'd go so far as to speculate that VAWA grants are little more than concealed "pork", given out as political pay-offs. From the local data I looked at, those jurisdictions that voted heavily Democrat seem to have gotten he Lion's Share of those few (small dollar) grants that were awarded.
Again, I’m not looking to exonerate LE. I just believe that we all will be better served in remaining honest about the issues, rather than allowing ourselves to begin spouting easily refuted nonsense that our detractor could easily use against us, and the greater good of shining a light on the realities of the false rape crisis.
First, I am going to suggest to our reader who insists on a law enforcement conspiracy that, although I believe his claims are posited in good faith and with the best of intentions, his efforts are backfiring because he's never been able to substantiate the claim. He's alienating readers who want Steve and me to censor him.
This ought not to be a house divided.
I am, therefore, going to respectfully ask that any claims re: a law enforcement conspiracy be supported with objectively verifiable evidence.
From what I can tell, the issue is lot more complex than that. In my previous comment, I think I come closer to suggesting what's at the root of the problem. It's not a LE-bias, it's more a product of legislative efforts to fund rape initiatives, whether or not they warrant funding. And, yes, there are some terrible cops out there, and yes, there are some cops with a chivalrous or a feminist agenda. That's not the norm, as far as I can tell.
Archivist - "This ought not to be a house divided."
Thank you for stepping in to hopefully settle this, and my apologies to all for my part in perpetuating and divisions amongst us.
I suffer from condition which makes me prone to becoming defensive and then responding using some poor judgment at times. I'm not sure of the technical term for my condition, but it's commonly referred to as "being human".
slwerner, I fully appreciate all your efforts. I think you've patiently tried to explain your position, with which I agree, over the course of many weeks, and I can understand your frustration.
While we have enormous respect for all our readers who are allied with our mission, and especially those innocents who've been victimized by America's silent epidemic, the false rape claim, by the same token, this is not a clearinghouse for every far-fetched notion that purports to "explain" the false rape phenomenon when such notions are not grounded in fact or reason.
Getting back to the topic I had brought up in my post that Blogger declared to be "Too Large", one other thing I would bring up to those who still do not wish to see false rape allegations as harmful to real rape victims, is something which the case I referenced points out.
Without going into specific details of that case, the alleged victim was a not atypical "troubled" teenager, who did not get along with her parents, had disciplinary issues, had substance abuse issues, and had been quite promiscuous (which the jury was not allowed to know anything about).
Now, there are two things commonly seen with such "troubled" teens. First, it is well established that they are very prone to lie (about almost anything and everything). They are know to lie even about serious matters such as physical and sexual abuse, especially when they believe that they can gain some sympathy or advantage by lying about such things.
The second thing observed of such teens is that they are often the victims of sexual abuses by those around them - including family members. This is highly prevalent amongst such teenage girls (I suspect that it affects boy as well, but no one seems to wish to talk as freely about it)
This tends to happen to them because they represent an "ideal" target - one who has made herself less likely to be believed due tot he fact that she has previously been known to frequently lie.
A predatory person who has contact with her can thus seek to take sexual advantage of her with the expectation that if she does tell someone else, she is unlikely to be believed.
Such situations are not that rare. And, such were the circumstance in the case which my wife took to trial at the insistence of other family members who became convinced, that in this instance, the girl was actually telling the truth.
But, even without her sexual history being made known, the other issues regarding this girls behaviors - not to mention her observable "bad girl" demeanor - still represented substantial obstacles to overcome in getting a jury to believe her. Her own history of lies might well have let her rapist get away with it as much as the revelation regarding the prevalence of FRA's. The jury may simply have put two-and-two together.
Lies tend to hurt the credibility of those who are know to be prone to tell them, whether it be on an individual basis, or on the basis of a discernable “class” of individuals. Woman, as a class, need to be more aware of this, especially as the waves of FRA’s being exposed will come to harm the credibility of women who may end up actually being raped.
"slwerner, I am interested in all the new law enforcement jobs that have been created to process, handle, or otherwise work in the sex assault cottage industry."
Very few if any of jobs created by the sex assault cottage industry -- largely funded by the VAWA -- are law enforcement positions. And from what I can tell from trying to figure out where all that VAWA money goes, none of it seems to be marked to hire police. In fact, most of the "rape cases" on college campuses are not handled by anyone in the criminal justice system. They are neither investigated by police, nor tried by judges.
"I am, therefore, going to respectfully ask that any claims re: a law enforcement conspiracy be supported with objectively verifiable evidence."
I appreciate the effort. And while I might share your concern, I do not share your optimism, as it seems painfully obvious that the problem is not being caused by people who will respond to a request for reason.
Two things:
1) Slwerner, great post. This point from Anon should be driven home over and over: False rape accusations benefit two groups of criminals: actual rapists and the women who make them. Perfect distillation of this issue.
2) As for Scott, the Raunch/Gender TROLL, I am also exhausted of having otherwise quality discussion constantly de-railed by his unsubstantiated, ignorant VAWA/LE claims. Perhaps a moderation policy could be put in place at this blog to deal with this garbage in a fair manner.
Shorter: delete these comments. The guy has been warned for MONTHS now to stop trolling and continues unabated.
Nashvegas - "As for Scott..."
I have a great deal of concern for Scott. He has personally been the victim of an FRA.
The problem seems to have become that he retains so much anger about the mishandling of his case (or, at least, the lack of effort by local police in clearing his name) that he has taken some otherwise very valid observations regarding the pernicious influence that gender-feminism HAS definitely had in the conduct of law enforcement, and has tried to imagine a profit based allegiance between LE and those feminists.
My fear for Scott is that he has actually come to sincerely believe his own imagination. He has, unfortunately (in my opinion) declared that his accuser is not to blame for what SHE put him through, but rather the police, acting out of some conspiracy to encourage women to target men with FRA's (for profit).
Again, Scott is a victim! I cannot stress this strongly enough. I cannot begin to comprehend how his ordeal has impacted him.
My hope has always been to convince him to consider these issues he raises more thoroughly. He's not wrong in his assessment that feminism has had a deleterious effect on how LE has handled rape allegations. And it true that so-called "raunch-feminists" (Amanda Hess comes to mind, as one example) have taken a keen interest in developing the notion of a "rape culture".
The disconnect seems to be in assuming that LE is always a willing participant in the goals of feminists, supporting their aims of breaking down traditional society. The fact is that "coercion" rather than "cooperation" would much better describe the interactions between most of LE and those feminists - with perhaps a bit too much of a "Dudley Do-Right" mentality thrown in, so that officers don't clearly see that their actions have been coerced.
I hope that Scott will consider this perspective; and also come to realize that but for his accusers choice to accuse him, the police would never have become involved to "screw it up". She is, and always was, the true culprit in his case.
The Gender/Raunch community ... has fingers in many pies.
Mr. Werner, and Mr. pierce (Both men i hold in high regard), I have said my truths here as i understand them and have witnessed them, at much risk to myself.
Because the new Gender /Raunch community in America is so powerful in the media, in universities, and yes, even have control over law enforcement protocol, that most current mens rights activists want to appease them, and beg like dogs for acceptance of rights for them too.
I believe, by nature the Gender / Raunch community will not be appeased, and the Gender /Raunch community will not be the folks that reward men/fathers/boys with equal protection under the law.
I believe misguided males who are begging the Gender / Raunch establishment is as futile as the appeasement of Hitler before WW2.
The clash of truth versus false will take place, and the first shots have been fired !!
As you all know, I am also the victim of an FRA.
"The Police".
No such animal any more, sure, they all work in the same station, but there is traffic dept, custody dept, young offender dept, etc etc etc, and sex crime dept.
Make no mistake, the sex crime department, and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service in the UK) are largely staffed by "wimminz" and the funding for growing these departments and targets and policies set by them came from Central Government.
In this way, yes, you bet your ass, Government *is* funding these hate crimes, by fostering an environment in which there are no checks and balances.
Should we feel animosity towards the guys in say the Traffic dept?
Well, they sure as hell aren't part of the solution.
Sure, career suicide and bye bye pension if they decide to testify against or arrest other cops, I can dig that.
Once suspended, disciplined and then fired they aren't going to be much help to us either.
But they still aren't part of the solution.
And the wimminz in the rape squad are still part of the problem, a part funded by Government.
But folks, WE ARE GETTING THERE.
Attitudes in Courts ARE shifting...
I have had three separate lawyers say to me lately, in relation to false allegations of DV and rape, that an innocent man (for it is almost always a man) claiming injustice in a Court is "pushing against an open door", and this is a change that has come about in the past year or so.
Nashvegas, you call for my censorship without challenging any of my assertions. Why is that?? Am i dealing with a choleric child who has tantrums when he hears things he does not like, or a reasonable being who can point out the flaws in my assertions??
@Nashvegas,
Go to hell you censoring pig!
Leave Scott alone!
As for Nashvegas (sometimes he posts anonymously), the ANTI-Raunch/Gender TROLL, I am also exhausted of having otherwise quality discussions constantly de-railed by his unsubstantiated, ignorant accusations against anyone with any VAWA/LE claims. Perhaps a tolerance policy could be put in place at this blog to deal with his INTOLERANT garbage in a fair manner.
Shorter: keep these comments and support free expression. The Nashvegas guy has been warning Scott for MONTHS now to stop trolling and continues unabated.
AFOR, have you seen this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/sep/30/murder-law-reform
1) I have never posted anonymously to this blog.
2) It is not a personal attack to point out that a poster's comments are borderline (when not entirely) trollish or riddled with false, ignorant assertions. That's just calling a spade a spade.
3) Blog moderation does not equal censorship. Blogs that deal effectively with spammers and troll posters incubate higher quality and more focused discussions. And many blogs with successful moderation policies tweak and adapt them over time, based on performance and community feedback. There are numerous examples of this all over the interwebs.
Breaking rules that are imposed on a comment section of a private blog (to preserve quality discussion) and having your post removed as a result, is not even remotely equivalent to genuine censorship.
4) Anonymous @ 5:30: HA!!
"How, S., how do they profit? It actually cost money to process an arrest."
Frankly Slwerner, this is silly. Of course false allegations take up police time and resources. But at the end of the day, this is still helping to keep those officers in a job. And ultimately it is the taxpayer's money that is being wasted. It is not coming out of the pay and benefits of the officers involved. You seem to believe that any measure that increases the demand for the services of a given occupation is bad for that occupation.
Law enforcement benefits to a large extent from the perception that crime is higher, as it increases support for higher police funding and powers. And law enforcement benefits from the state criminalizing more things, as it creates more work for law enforcement.
It is not far-fetched at all to suggest that significant sections of law enforcement owe their livelihoods to continuing to exaggerate the prevalence of sexual assault, just as significant sections of law enforcement owe their livelihoods to continuing stupid policies like the war on drugs. Law enforcement is a vested interest like any other.
Nick S. - ”Frankly Slwerner, this is silly. Of course false allegations take up police time and resources. But at the end of the day, this is still helping to keep those officers in a job. And ultimately it is the taxpayer's money that is being wasted. It is not coming out of the pay and benefits of the officers involved. You seem to believe that any measure that increases the demand for the services of a given occupation is bad for that occupation.“
What’s “silly” is that you somehow seem to be unaware of the reality that many police agencies have already implemented or are facing furloughs and lay-offs due to budget short-falls. Just because crime goes up does not necessarily translate into increased funding. Police and DA’s are not business, and do not profit – let alone from having more work to do. The reality is that they are now having to do more with less (funding) due to the drop in tax revenues being experienced in may locales.
Nick –S. - ”Law enforcement benefits to a large extent from the perception that crime is higher, as it increases support for higher police funding and powers. And law enforcement benefits from the state criminalizing more things, as it creates more work for law enforcement.”
But, the reality is that crime is up – property crimes are way up, even where violent crimes are dropping or remaining constant. It’s a simple matter of economics. And, yes, more crime and making more things crimes certainly does make more work. But, again, budgets are not growing in response. Do a little research into what’s happening with police and DA budgets – then compare those budgets both to population growth and to the number of crimes with various jurisdictions.
Nick S. - ”It is not far-fetched at all to suggest that significant sections of law enforcement owe their livelihoods to continuing to exaggerate the prevalence of sexual assault, just as significant sections of law enforcement owe their livelihoods to continuing stupid policies like the war on drugs. Law enforcement is a vsted interest like any other.”
Sexual assault continues to be such a small fraction of overall crime that it is simply not as any where near to what the “War of Drugs” (WOD). Your point about the WOD is valid as to the livelihoods of LE. But, sex crimes are fewer that most other types of crimes, which lend themselves to livelihoods for members of LE. There is no advantage to having more sex crimes, compared to more of other types of crimes, in terms of providing work/jobs for LE. This belief of yours (and a couple of other posters here) that LE is specifically looking to foster more sex crimes, manufacture faulty statistics about those crimes, and even encourage women to make FRA so that they can “profit”, is what’s really “silly” here. For what you’re suggesting, any crime will do – and most are easier and less expensive to deal with than are sex crimes.
Plus, posting easily refuted BS as if it were fact, rather than just an individuals speculations, just makes the FRS look like a bunch of poorly educated, shallow-thinking bufoons
Nick S. - ”Frankly Slwerner, this is silly. Of course false allegations take up police time and resources. But at the end of the day, this is still helping to keep those officers in a job. And ultimately it is the taxpayer's money that is being wasted. It is not coming out of the pay and benefits of the officers involved. You seem to believe that any measure that increases the demand for the services of a given occupation is bad for that occupation.“
What’s “silly” is that you somehow seem to be unaware of the reality that many police agencies have already implemented or are facing furloughs and lay-offs due to budget short-falls. Just because crime goes up does not necessarily translate into increased funding. Police and DA’s are not business, and do not profit – let alone from having more work to do. The reality is that they are now having to do more with less (funding) due to the drop in tax revenues being experienced in may locales.
Nick –S. - ”Law enforcement benefits to a large extent from the perception that crime is higher, as it increases support for higher police funding and powers. And law enforcement benefits from the state criminalizing more things, as it creates more work for law enforcement.”
But, the reality is that crime is up – property crimes are way up, even where violent crimes are dropping or remaining constant. It’s a simple matter of economics. And, yes, more crime and making more things crimes certainly does make more work. But, again, budgets are not growing in response. Do a little research into what’s happening with police and DA budgets – then compare those budgets both to population growth and to the number of crimes with various jurisdictions.
Nick S. - ”It is not far-fetched at all to suggest that significant sections of law enforcement owe their livelihoods to continuing to exaggerate the prevalence of sexual assault, just as significant sections of law enforcement owe their livelihoods to continuing stupid policies like the war on drugs. Law enforcement is a vsted interest like any other.”
Sexual assault continues to be such a small fraction of overall crime that it is simply not as any where near to what the “War of Drugs” (WOD). Your point about the WOD is valid as to the livelihoods of LE. But, sex crimes are fewer that most other types of crimes, which lend themselves to livelihoods for members of LE. There is no advantage to having more sex crimes, compared to more of other types of crimes, in terms of providing work/jobs for LE. This belief of yours (and a couple of other posters here) that LE is specifically looking to foster more sex crimes, manufacture faulty statistics about those crimes, and even encourage women to make FRA so that they can “profit”, is what’s really “silly” here. For what you’re suggesting, any crime will do – and most are easier and less expensive to deal with than are sex crimes.
Slwerner, a few points:
- As for your claim that funding for police departments is not keeping pace with increases in crime, I don't doubt that that may well be true in this precise moment in time. Because the financial problems of many governments are so dire at the moment, they are being forced to make tougher decisions than they otherwise would. But what holds for periods of severe fiscal crisis is not necessarily what holds in most circumstances
- if you look at the longer-term picture, crime rates have fallen substantially since the early 1990s, yet I am quite sure that funding for law enforcement has not been cut proportionately in response to that. So your contention that funding for law enforcement does not even keep pace with increases in crime is patently false in most cases. That is, what you are saying may be true in a narrow and limited set of circumstances (such as the current fiscal crisis), but it is not true in the majority of circumstances. Moreover, it is not that far-fetched to think that law enforcement might respond to a fall in crime by pursuing more bogus crimes or cracking down on less serious offenses in order to keep themselves in a job.
"Police and DA’s are not business, and do not profit – let alone from having more work to do."
Of course not. That is the whole point I am getting at. Because police and DAs are not business, their livelihoods do not depend on the success or failure of what they do in the same way that a business might. A police officer will still get the same pay and retirement benefits regardless of how effectively budgets are managed. It is not as though they need to cut costs and turn a profit in order to keep their shareholders happy and avoid being put out of business.
If (say) a private detective is a doing a lousy job, a client can take their business elsewhere. But police and DAs are state monopolies funded by compulsory taxation, so the public cannot simply take their money elsewhere if they are not doing a good job.
"But, sex crimes are fewer that most other types of crimes, which lend themselves to livelihoods for members of LE. There is no advantage to having more sex crimes, compared to more of other types of crimes, in terms of providing work/jobs for LE."
I never suggested that sex crimes represent the vast bulk of what law enforcement deals with, or that LE does not benefit just as much from other crimes and misdemeanors as they do from sex crimes. This does not change the fact that sex crimes still benefit LE all the same. Even if it is only a small percentage of their work, it is still driving up demand for their services.
Your reasoning seems to go something like this: 'Nick believes LE benefits from false allegations. Therefore, he must believe that LE does not benefit from other crimes. LE does benefit from other crimes. Ergo, Nick must be wrong.'
This is a good illustration of a facetious straw man argument. You have invented a bogus line of reasoning, falsely attributed it to me, and then knocked it over.
[To be continued]
"This belief of yours (and a couple of other posters here) that LE is specifically looking to foster more sex crimes, manufacture faulty statistics about those crimes, and even encourage women to make FRA so that they can “profit”, is what’s really “silly” here."
I have never suggested that law enforcement is deliberately manufacturing faulty statistics on sex crimes. I don't have to defend the views of every other poster here. I will speak for myself, thanks.
While law enforcement may well at times promote false claims about the prevalence of sex crimes or play down how common false allegations are, I doubt very much that they are the ones "manufacturing" these faulty statistics in the first place. More likely is that these faulty statistics are manufactured by feminist bureaucrats and academics, and then filter down various government departments. Law enforcement is there to implement the policies and social control of those in power, and are every bit as susceptible to the ideologies of the government and political class as any other government department.
Law enforcement are not necessarily the driving force, or the ones who have created the problem in the first place. But they often get on the bandwagon and benefit to some extent.
"For what you’re suggesting, any crime will do – and most are easier and less expensive to deal with than are sex crimes."
Again, I never suggested it was ONLY sex crimes that benefit LE. The existence of other areas that might benefit LE does not preclude LE from also benefiting from sex crimes.
As for the cost, as I keep pointing out it is the public money they are wasting. No skin off their noses.
The argument that LE does not need to benefit from sex crimes as they can benefit from so many other crimes is a bit like the argument I have come across that false rape allegations must be rare because women don't need to exact revenge on men through false allegations, as women have so many other means of exacting revenge on men.
The obvious flaw in this line of argument is that the existence of one does not preclude the other. Just because I have a knife does not preclude me from also using a gun.
Что подарить девушке на 8-е марта?
Post a Comment