Recently on this blog, there has been an ongoing argument about whether Law Enforcement properly handles false rape accusations, and criminal investigations in general.
While the anger that those who have been falsely accused is certainly understandable, the constant blaming of Law Enforcement, is, to put it bluntly, misplaced. The blame for a false accusation belongs in one place and one place only: on the person who makes the complaint.
Read that again, and let it sink in.
The person responsible for a false accusation is the person who files the complaint. Until such time as a person either goes to the police and files a claim, or goes to the hospital and says they were raped, it is more than likely that the police will never become involved. It takes a specific action by one party (with a report of rape), to elicit a reaction from Law Enforcement (an investigation of an alleged rape).
Does Law Enforcement get it wrong sometimes? Of course it does. Police are human, and, therefore, fallible. And this site is more than willing to call them out on it when they do. But this does not mean that police constantly go out of their way to persecute innocent men.**
The thing that we must keep in mind is that this site is not about bashing Law Enforcement. The simple fact is that without them, this site would not exist. It is the police who uncover that allegations of rape are false in almost every we post here (some are discovered during a trial, or after conviction, but those are much less frequent). Either they uncover evidence that proves the complaint false, or while investigating, they uncover something that doesn’t add up/make sense, and that is usually enough for the accuser to admit she or he lied.
Therefore, overall, they are getting it right. To state otherwise devalues what this site stands for: support and recognition of those who have been falsely accused of rape, or sexual assault, be they man or woman. We have fought too hard to make this a credible site, and the constant attack on Law Enforcement, is damaging that effort.
If you wish to comment on the specific case, and the way it was handled, feel free. If you wish to discuss arrest policies, and what needs to be changed, feel free. If Law Enforcement did something wrong in a specific article, then go ahead and bring it up.
But keep in mind that almost always, they did get it right, sooner or later, or the story wouldn’t be posted.
** It is understood that the vast majority of false rape accusations are made against men.
P.S. – As an aside, I hate to go to comment moderation, but if this constant back and forth continues to derail comment threads, it may be necessary. While I am all for open discussion, the vision of where this site is going is too great to risk over people who hate LE. There are sites better suited to express that attitude, and it only makes our job more difficult.
Posts
52 comments:
The blame for a false accusation belongs not only with the perp -- although it certainly does belong with her! -- but also with everyone who enables her, including (and especially) police, prosecutors, judges and the media.
A false accusation is a crime that requires a team effort, and to deny that fact is to do a disservice to the falsely accused.
To be sure, there is a fair amount of anger and hatred towards law enforcement on this site. But there is also a fair amount of anger and hatred towards feminists, legislators, governments, chivalrous men, sometimes women more generally, and assorted other groups on this site.
So I am somewhat bemused to find that law enforcement is apparently being given a degree of special protection from the ire that is otherwise fairly freely directed in all directions. Of course, blog owners have the right to regulate what content they allow on their forums. If it is decreed that hostility towards LE is not permissible, we will all just have to accept that and decide if we want to take our business elsewhere. But I will at least take the opportunity to say that I don't think it is conceptually sound and will not help our cause.
The problem with many of the arguments put forward in defense of law enforcement is that much the same arguments could be used in defense of others like legislators, governments and feminists. They could just as easily say 'It's not our fault that individual women have abused the system. All we wanted to do is put in place policies to protect women. If some women have abused the system, blame those individuals, not us.'
If you follow these debates carefully, you will notice that many feminists are actually starting to resort to such arguments. For example, you see it in some passing 'earnest feminists' who visit this site and offer some criticism of false accusers or some support for punishing the false accusers. Often the subtle implication, context or manipulation is that we should really be directing all the blame at the individual women who have abused the system, rather than blaming the laws and policies that help facilitate or are vulnerable to such abuse.
If the argument is that we must direct all the blame at the individual women who make the false claims, rather than the institutions, forces and policies that assist the false accusers, then it begs certain questions, such as: why bother with trying to change laws at all? If the problem is always the individual that abuses the system rather than the system itself? After all, if no women made up false accusations these laws and policies would not be a problem. Shouldn't we just focus all our efforts on shaming and blaming and discouraging women from ever making false allegations in the first place? Because lest we forget, it is always the false accuser that starts the ball rolling. So just forget about everyone else that enables and facilitates.
Again, I have to ask the question. Why are we making excuses for law enforcement that we would not make for others? And why are we allowing the same kinds of feeble defenses that will undoubtedly be used by the rape feminists and assorted fellow travelers to get themselves off the hook to be used by law enforcement?
Nick, when have you seen an instance of a law enforcement foul-up on this site that we excused? Seriously? We call cops on their mistakes whenever we see it.
Does it happen? Hell, yeah! Does it happen too often? Yes. The point is, it's not the norm.
What we are urging is fact-based comments, not generalizations that fail to make a distinction between cowardly legislators who pander to "women's groups" by "getting tough on rapists" (which really means the presumptively innocent) and cops like, for example, the Baltimore Police Department, that has been raked over the coals in the past several months by a local newspaper that insists ape is rampant and that the police despartment is too quick to dismiss rape claims.
Some generalizations are appropriate because the rape culture mentality permeates their existence: the rape feminists lead the pack, followed by cowardly legislators who never saw a "get tough on presumptively innocent men" they didn't like, and the news media, which thinks it's a sign of progressivism and intelligence to assume every rape claim is true.
When law enforcement fouls up, we call them on it. But here's the truth as I see it -- and this is based on studying this issue closely for years withoug any bias or interest in the issue: the vast majority of police officers who deal with false rape claims do a good job.
Do you know how many false rape claims we'd have if we didn't have a stern police officers who see through bullshit and warn the accuser about pursuing it? The number would be staggering.
If a cop fouls up, if a cop is too quick to arrest before investigating, as too many are, let's call them on it. But the generalization that cops are in bed with the feminsts and the cowardly legislators and the misandric news media doesn't work.
"To serve and protect".
That's where I think a lot of the anger comes from.
Nobody expects law enforcement to in effect "take sides" at the drop of a hat, or the first hint of a false accusation.
That, however, is the common perception amongst the falsely accused.
YOU
MUST
READ
THIS
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/police-drage-password-sex
You can call this anything you like, but you can't file it under "To serve and protect".
I think the REAL issue here is that NOBODY REALISES THE POLICE ARE A POLITICALLY CONTROLLED TOOL until they are falsely accused.
Politically derived funding, targets, operations, ideologies, etc.
YES, it is true, for a false accusation to go away, IT TAKES THE POLICE DOING THEIR JOB, and the numbers prove that more often than not, that is indeed exactly what the Police do.
Do they do it well enough?
That is another question.
In the UK, from official Home Office figures, 80% of all rape allegations are dropped by the Police, and 12% of those allegations that are dropped by the Police are categorised as being false accusations.
And yet nationally last week we had "only" three women imprisoned for Perverting the Course of Justice.
Feminazi's like to talk about a "rape continuum", and in a sense they are right, there is one, but it should really be called a "Justice continuum", and you can equally apply it to Domestic Violence, Child Custody and Residence, and other antisocial acts such as car theft and home burglary.
None of the victims of those crimes are particularly impressed with the Police either.
We live in a world where the Police and Law and Order are marketed to the Public in exactly the same way as the latest Ford.
The reality never lives up to the hype of the advert.
I think the problem HERE, at the FRS, is that the excellent work here deals with FRA's, but the accused have no outlet for the related injustices that they feel (rightly or wrongly) towards law enforcement and the justice system, so it all gets rolled into one here.
Please please please read the link above, this tells you what is wrong with the current system, and it doesn't take more than a room temperature IQ to work out that this wrong is due to political interference into the Police job description, making them do things that no police force on the planet should be asked to do.
No wonder they fuck up in these areas.
Yes, the police did, eventually, after a very slow and long drawn out but extremely through investigation, decide that in my case there was no case to answer (and so the civil / family courts side of my case rolls on) and I cannot knock them for that.
What I can and do knock them for is taking one whole year to do that, albeit, while understanding that the REASON it took them a whole year to exonerate me was because of the sheer volume of false complaints that they have to investigate.... THAT is not their fault, THAT is the fault of legislators, the media and feminists in general.
Pierce, I know that neither you or Steven excuse clear failings by law enforcement. That indeed would be a preposterous claim to make.
My second post wasn't directed at the way law enforcement is generally treated at this site. I was merely working through the logical implications of a specific argument. Often in debates people will resort to some arguments without properly considering their implications, even if other arguments may have sounder reasoning.
I will return to this thread soon, when I have more time.
"let that sink in"; sir its not sinking in, Law enforcement has a constitutional duty to deter false rape accusers, and they are neglecting their duty.
American law enforcement is now in effect "manufacturing statistics", that prejudice and mislead the public against the innocent.
Law enforcements misguided activities are under the impression that when they feed "faulty and inflammatory manufactured statistics" to feminists that they are in some way just "protecting women."
They have not yet feminism is not the same, in fact feminist classrooms are now full of the upperwhite middle class "sexually oppressed" community, and their classrooms look more like a gay rally than anything to do with womens equality.
So let the world understand that the American culture of homosexuality has its roots in the "manufactured statistics" from American law enforcement, who have "Empowered" Gender / Raunch feminist quackademeics.
America may be decades from stopping the faulty and inflammatory rhetoric that is "Empowering" the Gender / raunch community, so this may be just a heads up to other countries who are not that interested in having their law enforcements "Empowering" the "homosexually oppressed" with faulty and inflammatory rhetoric.
Let's BLAME the individual accuser, right?
How many times has it been shown that the individual accuser is MENTALLY unbalanced? How many times is the false accuser a manipulated child?
But hey! Let's not blame those who enable blatantly false accusers to ruin a person's life and reputation.
They are just doing their job!
Another MUST READ: FINALLY! For your reading pleasure, Actual cases brought to trial, actual plea bargain cases:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/10/fears_of_juror_biases_often_pr.html
A state legislator in New York has proposed a bill that would ban plea deals in sex assault cases, but Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Anna Faraglia, above, says it's a bad idea. She argues that banning all plea deals is insensitive to the needs of victims, could lead to backlogs on the docket and in the end might mean guilty defendants will walk.
4
Share 23 Comments CLEVELAND, Ohio -- One factor can trump all others when prosecutors are deciding whether to take a sex assault case to trial or to give the accused a plea deal: the public's preconceived notions of what constitutes rape.
More than most crimes, rape stirs emotions within the public consciousness and prompts gut reactions to the circumstances and characters involved. Prosecutors often feel they have to review their cases with consideration to how the facts might play on a jury. And that means many cases are never brought to trial or are pleaded down to lesser charges or sometimes to non-sex-related offenses that exempt the defendant from having to register as a sex offender.
According to a Plain Dealer analysis, defendants accepted plea deals in about 70 percent of the 2,477 sex crimes cases indicted in Cuyahoga County between 2004 and 2008.
Of those, more than 18 percent pleaded guilty only to non-sex offenses. And among the minority of cases that were decided by juries, about 18 percent of defendants were acquitted of all sex charges.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/10/fears_of_juror_biases_often_pr.html
Michael Adkins
The accusation: The victim had let Adkins live in her home, and they had consensual sex for several months. But in February 2007, the victim told police Adkins had become violent and raped her vaginally and anally with a flashlight.
Original charges: Rape, domestic violence
Pleaded to: Abduction (sexual motivation and sexual violent predator specifications were deleted)
Sentence: One year in prison
Why prosecutors offered the plea: The case went to trial twice. Both those attempts ended in a mistrial -- the first time because the victim did not heed instructions not to discuss the defendant's criminal history on the witness stand; the second because the victim mentioned the first trial during her testimony. Also, prosecutors had to gauge how a jury might view the nature and history of the couple's sexual relationship. And results of a medical exam revealed none of the bodily injury a jury might expect to see in a victim who had been violated with such an object. Instead of taking the case to trial a third time, prosecutors offered the plea.
I don't know why this keeps cutting the link off in half -
the other part is :
blog.cleveland.conm/metro/2010/10/fears_of_juror_biases_often_pr.html
[will the third try be the charm?...]
Anonymous - "let that sink in"; sir its not sinking in, Law enforcement has a constitutional duty to deter false rape accusers, and they are neglecting their duty.
Yes, LE needs to be more to dissuade (women) from making FRA's. But, they can only do so much.
I'm assuming that your S., from the Boston area who was falsely accused by a women who was mostly just looking to get victims assistance money? If so, how exactly do you think they should have stopped your false accuser? [I'm not asking to be snarky, but to try to evoke from you your actual thought son what they might have done differently - without launching into your typical over-generalized tirade. Seriously, what where they supposed to have done. She made up her mind to accuse you in order to get money. Yet, you’ve stated you don’t blame her? You only blame the cops? Would you have even been depending on the cops to exonerate you if she’d never accused you?].
The problem is that no one in LE is either omniscient nor clairvoyant (if there were such people, you can bet they'd be using such "gifts" to make millions rather than toiling away long hours in LE jobs). They do not and cannot know which person filing a complaint might be lying. Even if they are armed with the knowledge that something on the order of 30%+ of woman making rape claims are lying, they are still duty bound to take that complaint (hugely negative fallout if they ever refused to do so), and can only determine the validity of a claim based on the evidence that they can find. They cannot rule a claim false just because they might be suspicious of a claimant. They can only "challenge" the claimant in hopes tripping them up or convincing them to back-down from what might appear to be a nonsensical claim.
But, there is NO WAY for them to refuse to take a statement and “look into it” (not if they wish to keep their jobs).
The real deterrent to (women making) FRA’s will come from real punishments being meted out to those proven guilty of making false claims. And, if we are ever to see such effective punishments, we are simply going to have tough statutes which will allow for charges in which the punishment will actually fit the crime. {bear in mind that typical sentencing guidelines mean that it would be quite difficult for a judge to sentence a first time offender to jail for a misdemeanor). Providing LE with some “teeth” would help encourage them to be more consistent with actually bothering to press charges [Note – As a policy matter, I sincerely believe that charges should be filed, even if only misdemeanor and unlikely to lead to serious punishment. Simply letting them off sends a terrible message, and prevents them from having a well-earned “black mark” on their records]
The need for felony-level charges for false reporters is much needed and long overdue.
[getting close to the size where Blogger chokes on my posts, so more later]
Off topic, but I have to wonder if Google didn't spend so much time sending their Street-cam cars into neighborhoods, snooping out people home WiFi networks, would they maybe have time to fix the many errors that seem to be cropping up in Blogger?
AfOR - ” What I can and do knock them for is taking one whole year to do that, albeit, while understanding that the REASON it took them a whole year to exonerate me was because of the sheer volume of false complaints that they have to investigate.... THAT is not their fault, THAT is the fault of legislators, the media and feminists in general.”
AfOR,
Few people have as much reason to be angry as do you. Thus, it is admirable that while you DO blame the police for their “bungling”, “over-reaching” (as I recall, they seized all your electronic equipment, seemingly out of line with what you were accused of doing?*), and possibly procrastinating; you still haven’t lost focus on the fact the blame for mishandling of allegation and the harms that befall innocent men continues to be wide spread- nor that the root of the evil lies with the false accuser herself.
You also done a consistently good job of pointing out the actual statistics for number of allegations, number of arrests and number of prosecutions for UK cases, clearly showing that there is a very high probability that a significant portion of allegations have no foundation, and are handled as such. It’s the presentation and analysis of such indisputable stats which helps to sell a curious world on the sincerity and well-reasoned intentions of the FRS. I feel I’ve been remiss in not noting this nor thanking you enough.
I’m all for a case-by-case examination of what happens when FRA’s are made, looking at cases with an open mind, and letting the evidence take US where IT will (as opposed to pre-conceived notions that a certain group must always be solely at fault). This would mean that examples of incompetence, bad policy, poor decisions, and even misconduct would be pointed out and condemned. But, that would also mean acknowledging when things are handled correctly.
There have been quite a few recent stories covered by the FRS in which police responded to allegations correctly, investigating fully, and coming to the conclusion that it was a lie (even getting confessions in some instance), all without going off “half-coked” and arresting men who happened to be in the vicinity or (loosely) matched given descriptions. Yet, it seem no one else bothers to remark on those stories, with some posters (I suspect) specifically ignoring those stories as they don’t fit in with their preferred memes.
The link that another "Anonymous" has tried to post:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/10/fears_of_juror_biases_often_pr.html
@ slwerner.
Make no mistake, I was *extremely* lucky... I should not have to rely on "luck" in the Justice system.
I was arrested, *ALL* my shit was seized and inspected, I was rendered homeless and unemployable, eg broke.
However....
I did make bail.
I was not charged.
I was not "outed" to the press.
On the downside...
My FRA was made as an intrinsic part of a family / civil law dispute, because the Police took a year plus to exonerate me...
I have not seen my children, or had any contact or any kind of news, for 500 days and counting.
The *sole* justification for this has been ex-parte orders made...
a/ on the basis of the false allegations, and..
b/ on the fact that until recently I had not been exonerated by the Police, ergo, the "no smoke without fire" innuendo.
These abuses against myself, my family and my children were NOT perpetrated by the Police, but by the very system that screwed the Police, then citing the fact that the Police had not exonerated me, and the attendant innuendo and implications...
THESE matters, being made in family / civil courts by legal professionals and my accuser via them, are, of course, "privileged" legally, which is nice and convenient for all involved.
In ***MY*** case, THIS is where the real harm was done, not the Police, directly, as it were.
HTH etc
Anonymous - "The link that another "Anonymous" has tried to post"
Thank you for the link.
It is quite an interesting item to consider. Although it has a "tone" of lament that surrounding circumstances and adjunct evidence might be keeping rapists out of jail; it never-the-less begs the question: "If prosecutors do not feel that they can convince a jury that a crime has been committed, then doesn't that in-and-of-itself indicate that there may have, indeed, been no crime?"
I've made this point before (or, tried to anyway) that prosecutors do not like to take "he said/she said" cases to trial, knowing full well that it will be difficult to prove rape.
But, perhaps what I've failed to stress is the “expected” roles that the parties involved take. Defense attorney’s are expected to advocate zealously on behalf of their client. They are not to allow any personal belief that their client is guilty taint the way in which they advocate for that client. Even if they are presented with over-whelming and incontrovertible evidence of guilt, while they might implore their client to take a deal, they cannot unilaterally make any decisions on their clients behalf (even if they believe that they are doing the best thing for their client). If their client insists on taking a case all the way to trial, a defense attorney must acquiesce to that decision, and must proceed as though that client is innocent.
I make that point in an effort to highlight what I am going to present next. A prosecutor is expected to be the advocate for justice on behalf of the allege victim (although, technically, they represent the “states interests”, and not those of that allege victim specifically). In as much, they are required to proceed as though they believe the alleged victim – unless and until they have conclusive evidence that said alleged victim is lying.
What this means (and what a fair number here seem to fail to grasp) is that they are not allowed to usurp the role of the jurors, and unilaterally determine that the alleged victim is “likely” lying. They MUST have evidence to justify why they ask to dismiss charges.
If they feel that the alleged victim is lying, and that this will impact the outcome of a trial, they can decline to prosecute; but, they must be able to defend that decision to superiors (who will likely be required to defend that decision to the press and public [has anyone noticed the info I’ve been posting about what DA Ken Buck in now up against?]). This is the same thing that they must do if they feel that the evidence they have to present will not be likely to convince a jury.
Unlike a defense attorney (in that they do not represent the alleged victim, per se), prosecutors can chose to not take a case to trial against the wishes of that alleged victim – but there is often “Hell to Pay” should they do so. This is why the choice to take a weak case to trial is often termed ”victim-driven”.
What a number of others on this forum seem to believe is that prosecutors are actual omniscient, and know that a given women is lying about having been raped, or (prior to the advent of DNA evidence) could know that a witness (victim or corroborating) identification was in error – and thus proceeding with a prosecution against an innocent man was an act of prosecutorial misconduct (as in the recently highlighted case of Alan Newton). Yet the reality is that prosecutors are actually just regular people, who can fall victim to a good liar the same as anyone else.
Additionally, while it is required to turn over (discover) any potentially exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, it is NOT the duty of the prosecution to present that evidence at trial – that’s where defense counsel is supposed to be earning their fees.
Perhaps the best way to explain this would be a well known example. The fact that Kobe Bryant’s accuser had the DNA of other men found in her rape kit did not conclusively prove that Bryant did not rape her – thus it is only “potentially” exculpatory. The prosecutor, had he actually wished to take the case to trial, would not have been required to disclose the presence of “alternate suspect” DNA, nor even tot present any DNA evidence. That’s were defense counsel would be expected to take over the introduction of such evidence. Under Colorado law, the presence of DNA other than the suspects allows for what is known as an “alternate suspect” theory, which preclude any Rape Shield exclusion of that evidence. [it’s one of those “technical” issues that seems to defy common sense (as do many of the Rape Shield Statutes) such that even if she had stipulated to the sex with other men, the fact that the specimen was being offered as proof of sexual activity with Bryant, it still would allow the defense to point out the presence of that “alternate suspect” DNA. The fact that the alternate suspect exception was only intended to address misidentifications of suspects, the way it was decided allows it to be used any time other DNA turns up – with the possible exception of a husband or boyfriends DNA, as they could be judge not to be ‘alternate suspects”. Sorry to veer off into all that, but, again, common sense cannot always be applied to legal proceedings]
If, in any cases occurring under the new paradigm of DNA evidence in every case, the defense does not take advantage of the right to present potentially exculpatory evidence “left out” by the prosecution, then that failure is on them – and is NOT prosecutorial misconduct.
Judges also have an expect role to play in cases either taken to trial or adjudicated via a plead deal. They must serve as arbitrators of what the Law allows as evidence (to be presented by either side) for a juries consideration. And, they are expected to keep the conduct of all participants at a trial “in-line” [Judge Lance Ito’s failure to do this in the OJ trail is often noted as an example of a judge should not conduct a trial].
In the case of a plea offer, a judge must acquaint themselves of the facts of the cases, and be able to determine if a given plea deal is acceptable. Judges do actually reject plea deals they feel are inappropriate.
And, not to be left out of consideration are the juries and the jurors themselves. They are expected, and indeed “charged with” being the ultimate determiners of guilt or innocence. They must decide whether or not a given prosecution has met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If evidence is properly and fully present to them, yet they fail to properly and fully consider it, then that is their failure (and not prosecutorial misconduct, nor ineffectiveness of defense counsel).
A good example would be the (virtual) exoneration of cold-blooded shotgun murderess Mary Winkler. The prosecution in her case properly presented not only evidence of the nature of her cold-blood act and the absolutely callous way in which she carried out her evil deed, they also presented ample evidence of her fraudulent check scheme (as the real reason behind her murderous act), and even present the testimony of her one children as to any lack of observable violence or oppression by their father (in response to her much-delayed excuse of having been systematically abused). However, a jury dominated by 10 women refused to properly weigh that evidence, and instead simply determined that, as a women, the only possible motivation she could have had was such severe abuse that it drove her over the edge.
That, you see, is a failure on the part of a jury. It was NOT prosecutorial misconduct.
There are multiple “players” involved in any case that is prosecuted. Any one of them can fail in their duties, and anyone of them can act improperly/illegally resulting in an unjust outcome. There is more to consider than just prosecutorial misconduct when what we feel is the wrong outcome occurs.
@AfOR
I'm so happy to read that the false accusation part of your case is done and over. In regard to everything you said above concerning law enforcement and the links and examples you have cited -- you've told it exactly like it is and I couldn't agree more.
On the topic of encryption and having to reveal passwords, there are also big issues at the border of Canada and the US.
http://blog.invisible-privacy.com/2010/01/canadian-border-crossing-problemsread.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html
http://dprogram.net/2009/03/02/federal-court-no-5th-amendment-protection-for-passwordsencryption-keys/
My case is over now too (no-billed by a grand jury) after a year of waiting. My perception of and feelings about law enforcement, forensics, the justice system, feminists, and women in general has been forever changed -- and not in a good way. Now I am working on rebuilding my life, health, and trust in people.
It's not merely Law Enforcement that has problems -- the entire system that needs to be rebuilt and restored so that EQUAL JUSTICE can be meted out.
Common Law had so many things right. Sir Matthew Hale was a genius when he admonished juries to “view the woman’s testimony with caution. Rape is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved and harder to be defended by the party accused though never so innocent.” Hale's admonishment strikes at the heart of the problem: the system does not deal well with ambiguity in an atmosphere of moral panic and hysteria where those in power remain immune and unchecked in their use of their power. But what can one do in the face of this? What to do?
"Common Law had so many things right. Sir Matthew Hale was a genius when he admonished juries to “view the woman’s testimony with caution. Rape is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved and harder to be defended by the party accused though never so innocent.” Hale's admonishment strikes at the heart of the problem: the system does not deal well with ambiguity in an atmosphere of moral panic and hysteria where those in power remain immune and unchecked in their use of their power. But what can one do in the face of this? What to do?"
Keep telling it like it is, while showing complete contempt for 50 cent moral whores like Harriet Harman et al.
Anonymous - "Hale's admonishment strikes at the heart of the problem: the system does not deal well with ambiguity in an atmosphere of moral panic and hysteria where those in power remain immune and unchecked in their use of their power. But what can one do in the face of this? What to do?"
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest ways in which to address the issues, as well as to debate their individual merits on a forum such as this.
My proposals would entail first (and foremost) addressing the adequate punishment for those making FRA's as a deterrent being the most effective (as, if false accusers can be dissuaded, all of the other potential harms and failings are completely avoided).
To that end, as I have repeatedly stated, felony-level charges for FRA's are an imperative. The possibility of actual jail time (no first time offender automatic avoidance), a felony record, and charges which actually make it worth the time and effort to for LE to pursue are the most immediate benefits to be had from laws similar to the UK's Pervert The Course of Justice statute.
Next, false offenders need to be punished financially. First, by fining them the entire costs arising from their willful fabrications. Then, by civil actions by those harmed by their selfish lies.
Seeing other women who've deliberately lied ending up in jail, with criminal records that will follow them for ever, and reduced to a Spartan subsistence lifestyle should go a great way towards convincing other women that the risks and cost are just not worth whatever they might hope to get out of making an FRA.
Aside from developing a meaningful deterrent, policy policies must be addressed so that the standard of “innocent until proven guilty” is uniformly applied, and an attitude of “investigation before arrest” comes to prevail.
Strict and severe penalties need to be considered for those who fail to follow such reasonable policies. And, furthermore, those that are found to have acted maliciously need to face not only firing, but some jail time of their own.
This carries through to prosecutors who fail to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence. Even though the study that I linked in the last thread didn’t demonstrated what the poster who first referred to it believed that it did, it did, never-the-less make the point that (at least in California) it seems that the bar is far too lenient on those who are found to have committed such levels of misconduct. I concur with it’s authors that reform of the disciplinary process in also needed to reduce the occurrence of such potentially harmful misconduct [note - there was no breakdown between more minor forms of misconduct and more severe ones, such as failing to disclose evidence; but it is reasonable to conclude that more than 10 out of 707 offense were likely to have been of a more serious nature].
And, let us not forget the press, and their eagerness to have innocent men smeared. We are also going to need laws that prohibit the naming of suspects (at least those who are suspects based solely on a woman’s accusation) unless and until there is actually determined to be some more compelling evidence that would suggest a public benefit to their being so named. Having such a law would allow for unjustly named innocent men to seek remuneration for the financial (and, perhaps, physical and psychological) harms accruing to them as result of their names having been made public by suing any and all news outlets responsible for such an irresponsible revelation.
Anyway, those are my “off-the-top-of my-head” suggestions on what can be done.
"What this means (and what a fair number here seem to fail to grasp) is that they are not allowed to usurp the role of the jurors, and unilaterally determine that the alleged victim is “likely” lying. They MUST have evidence to justify why they ask to dismiss charges."
Again, this is why there should be a statutory requirement for corroborating evidence. This way prosecutors cannot be pressured by political motives, the victim, or her family and friends, to prosecute without evidence. It also makes it much easier for prosecutors to defend their actions to the press and public -- it's simply the Law.
This, in combination with making false rape accusation a felony, would go a long way in helping to correct the problem of false rape accusations.
Pierce, just to return to what we were discussing in the first few posts. It seems the problem is that we are arguing over two separate things.
I agree that whether or not the police do a good job of weeding out false allegations is indeed a legitimate point about whether or not LE are seen as a significant part of the problem. But that wasn't the point I was originally arguing with. I was arguing with this point that we shouldn't blame the police because the false accuser is always the one that starts the ball rolling. While the former argument is legitimate, the latter is an excuse that anyone can resort to.
As for the claim that police do a good job of weeding out false allegations, I am not entirely convinced. I am not denying that a lot of rape allegations are dismissed by police. But this is likely often because the allegation was so obviously flawed from the start, not because the police went out of their way to find out it was false.
Given that the role of the police is to gather evidence for the prosecution and to prove guilt, not refute it, it is only natural that the police have some bias towards believing a suspect is guilty. So it requires heroic assumptions to think that the police would go out of their way to establish that a suspect may be innocent.
And given how many false rape allegations there are, if every single one led to a prosecution the court system would be overwhelmed and not be able to cope or deal with much else. So there is little alternative but for police and prosecutors to dismiss a lot of cases. Why make a virtue of necessity?
Nick, I can't argue with what you say. I think we are closer to agreement on this issue than some might think.
Not sure what's up with Blogger, but my posts appear to go through, then suddenly disappear.
Mr Werner, i appreciate you addressing this issue.
I was arguing with this point that we shouldn't blame the police because the false accuser is always the one that starts the ball rolling. While the former argument is legitimate, the latter is an excuse that anyone can resort to.
Nick,
I'm in agreement with most of what you said, but go back and read the paragraph right after where I stated that. The police are not going to do a thing, until such time as an allegation is made. The person who FILES the complaint, is solely responsible for getting the ball rolling. If there is no complaint, there is not investigation, and no innocent person can be railroaded.
What the police do AFTER a complaint is made, has been covered rather well by slwerner. Yes, the police are there to gather evidence that either proves, or disproves the claim. I have absolutely NO problem with law enforcement investigating a claim as thoroughly as possible. As long as they are honest about the results. Whether that proves the claim, or not. Either way, they don't "manufacture statistics", or deserve blanket condemnation. Are there things that need to be fixed? Sure. Anonymity for all involved, no arrest without investigation and proof (corroboration) that a crime took place are the two that come to mind immediately.
The reason I wrote this, as slwerner so eloquently put it, is that this is not a site for blanket hatred of Law Enforcement. And the argument is getting old. We acknowledge that LE gets it wrong. But the also get it right. We wouldn't exist if they didn't.
And I do get that there are angry people, but we MUST put the MAJORITY of the blame where it is deserved.... on the person making the accusation. They, and they alone determine if Law Enforcement get involved. To do otherwise, lets the false accuser off the hook.
In my case I was only one of hundreds of men suspected of a local rape allegation.
The police went to my place of work and demanded/bullied my employment records from him w/o a warrant.
The police set up a road block on a major road near the scene of the crime and stopped EVERY vehicle upon that road for 3 weeks and questioned the people therein.
The police demanded to see my vehicle w/o a warrant.
The police demanded I come in fora videotaped strip down to look for tattoo's upon my person.
None of this was legal or constitutional,yest it happened to me and hundreds of other MEN just for living in the area.
Justify that,if you can.
-recluse-
recluse - "Justify that,if you can."
There is no justification for any of that. It is the very sort of things that the FRS wished to see ended. Where police have over-stepped, we need to highlight their unacceptable behaviors as an example to those who come by here of why they need to be willing to help push for changes. You should send in what ever documentation you have of what transpired, and perhaps Steven or Pierce can work it into a post demonstrating what we fight against.
Given the level to which you civil rights were violated, you need to speak to a civil attorney and contact the USDOJ Civil Rights Division (I can get you contact info if you have trouble finding it). Even though you seem to have submitted willingly, you likely were lead to believe that you had no choice. Such deception would make certainly make it actionable.
For the first time I actually agree with Slwerner, in that many reforms need to take place. I also agree with Archivist, that Law Enforcement does try to get it right, most of the time.
If I could change the system in only one way, I would direct Law Enforcement to vigorously prosecute False Rape Accusations, and don't tell me that they cant do it. LE did just this recently when a false accusation was leveraged against two female correctional officers. LE filed a felony charge against the woman who lied, that the correctional officers raped her.
To many FRA accusations go unpunished in America. Many see the system as corrupted and the meal ticket of those in the Rape Industry. Or as Anon put it, They are just doing their job! Oct 25, 2010 9:54:00 AM
There is a different set of standards depending who you are, what color, and sex.
Not to go to far off the subject here but there is a double standard. Law Enforcement, enforcing the laws in separate ways. One example would be if you are black and caught with drugs you are more likely to spend time in prison. If you are white and caught with drugs you are more likely to get probation and drug counseling. The second example would be where I live in San Diego, California the police step up there patrols in predominantly Hispanic areas to enforce the strict teen curfew laws. These same teen curfew laws are virtually non existent in the predominantly white communities. The third example is with Rape accusations, if you are male you will be held and required to prove innocence. If you are female we will take your story as fact and even if we later did discover you were lying, don't worry about it.
I agree that they can start handing out Felonies for False Rape accusers, and don't say they cant do it because they can and they have. As Anon put it, "let that sink in"; sir its not sinking in, Law enforcement has a constitutional duty to deter false rape accusers, and they are neglecting their duty. Oct 25, 2010 9:17:00 AM
The integrity of Law Enforcement would gain more respect if they pursued vigorously False Rape Accusers, something that is lacking in America. As we all know the accusation is the conviction.
The scales of justice: lady justice is not only blind but she is deaf.
If/When my husband's case is over, I will send a link to FRS so you will see about the corruption in my husband's case.
Arrested with no questioning, thrown in jail, hog-tied beaten until unconscious, then sodomized and beated again. This was done by Law Enforcement, those sworn to serve and protect!! My husband will NEVER be the same again!
The first night he was released, shots were fired in to our property while we were outside. Unmarked cars drive by slowly and stop and just watch, almost on a daily basis.
He is in therapy now, extensive medications for PTSD from his experiences in jail.
The accuser? She "takes care of" some of those same officers, if you catch my drift. So they are taking care of her.
I will never trust Law Enforcement again. I fear for my life and his every day. Seriously, we live in fear.
I removed my post. While I think what I wrote, is certainly true, and as slwerner put it, actionable, there could, and I stress "could", be something to what he says. And it was insensitive. My apologies, recluse.
Arod,
That is, IMO, one of the most level headed posts you've made here in quite a while, and if that had been the tenor from the start, then this post would never have been put up.
One major disagreement though. The police have absolutely NO constitutional duty to do anything. They have no obligation to protect you, and as is stated HERE:
THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME-FIGHTING POWER
But the constitutions of the Founding Era gave no hint of any thin blue line. Nothing in their texts enunciated any governmental power to "fight crime" at all. "Crime-fighting" was intended as the domain of individuals touched by crime. The original design under the American legal order was to restore a semblance of private justice. The courts were a mere forum, or avenue, for private persons to attain justice from a malfeasor.67 The slow alteration of the criminal courts into a venue only for the government's claims against private persons turned the very spirit of the Founders' model on its head.
To suggest that modern policing is extraconstitutional is not to imply that every aspect of police work is constitutionally improper.68 Rather, it is to say that the totality and effect of modern policing negates the meaning and purpose of certain constitutional protections the Framers intended to protect and carry forward to future generations. Modern-style policing leaves many fundamental constitutional interests utterly unenforced.
Americans today, for example, are far more vulnerable to invasive searches and seizures by the state than were the Americans of 1791.69 The Framers lived in an era in which much less of the world was in "plain view" of the government and a "stop and frisk" would have been rare indeed.70 The totality of modern policing also places pedestrian and vehicle travel at the mercy of the state, a development the Framers would have almost certainly never sanctioned. These infringements result not from a single aspect of modern policing, but from the whole of modern policing's control over large domains of private life that were once "policed" by private citizens.
The site is an interesting read. My take on it is, as policing is not specified by the constitution, then:
Law enforcement has a constitutional duty to deter false rape accusers, and they are neglecting their duty.
Doesn't work. They have no constitutional duty to do a damn thing.
I think I should probably clarify my position a little further. What I disagree with is what appears to be the implication of the argument that has been put by Slwerner on some threads and by Steven in this thread. To my reading, they seem to be saying that if a woman makes a false allegation and the police believe it and act upon that belief to (say) harass the accused, recommend charges etc., we should still put the bulk of the blame onto the false accuser rather than law enforcement. Again, I am not sure if I am interpreting everyone accurately. But that seems to be the implication of this argument.
There are a number of problems with this approach, not least of which is that it essentially reduces the police to the role of passive weapon of any vindictive, maladjusted individual. As Steven points out, the police have no obligation to protect people. So they certainly have no obligation to protect women or to simply act on any allegation made to them in the absence of further evidence.
But the main problem with this is that in any society there are always going to be immoral, vindictive, maladjusted individuals, and we cannot eliminate such individuals from society altogether. But we can at least ensure that our institutions function better and do not systematically empower such individuals or at least are not overly vulnerable to manipulation by such individuals. It is always easier to reform institutions than to perfect human nature. Indeed, that is the whole point of society's collective institutions. We don't always trust individuals to get it right, but we make sure that the system overall has enough balances to work out okay most of the time.
None of this is to say that false accusers should be given a free pass, or should not be punished. There is clearly a need for tougher penalties, and we really should make an example of some of the worst cases to act as a deterrent. But there comes a point where putting all the blame on the false accusers becomes counterproductive.
But focusing on punishing false accusers has its limits, because in many cases there may not be sufficient evidence to bring a case against a false accuser (unless we turn the tables on women and undermine the presumption-of-innocence). That is why it is so important to disempower the false accusers in the first place, rather than focus on punishing them afterwards.
S.L. W. I DID try to post a hird time.
It disappeared.
Many of my posts have been disappeared from here.
One point I DID make in the "blame the accusers" theory, is that - as has been duly noted many many times - many of these false accusers are MENTALLY UNBALANCED or are young children being urged by an adult to make accusations.
I would like someone to persuade me that convictions of those falsely accused are rare, because that certainly isn't MY experience, nor does it seem to be the experience of the four men featured in that article.
I would not have convicted a single one of them, yet all four were railroaded on NO evidence, recanting accusers, and no "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria.
If it happened to them that easily, how can you presume there are many others, or that this is indeed rare.
It wasn't RARE for me.
Nick S. - "To my reading, they seem to be saying that if a woman makes a false allegation and the police believe it and act upon that belief to (say) harass the accused, recommend charges etc., we should still put the bulk of the blame onto the false accuser rather than law enforcement."
Um..No!
If the police DO NOT do a proper investigation and end up recommending charges against an innocent man, then they certainly SHARE the blame. But, it's hard to see how they're more to blame than the one who started the lie (I'm dead-set against this Arod99K-styled absolution for the false accusers (in the comment after yours you'll see where he's one of those who believes that false accusers are mostly crazies and those who’ve been manipulated into do it).
And, Nick, what of all those recent example we have of the police correctly investigating and deducing that there was no crime – without arresting anyone. I trust your not one of those who just skips over those stories, nor one of those who would still try to suggest that the police were still somehow to blame for the whole mess?
And, what about situations wherein the false accuser actually takes the time to try to setup her claim. We’ve see examples where they stripped themselves naked, where they cut themselves and/or torn their clothing; we’ve even seen a recent story where on of them retrieved a used condom from her targets trash to try to set him up and have his DNA as evidence. [I trust I don’t have to point out to you that in each of these cases, the police saw through the hoax? Can I get you to acknowledge that they did a very good job in those cases?] But, what if a woman manages to set things so well, and lie so effectively that the police are not able to determine that she’s lying? Are you going to claim that they’re to blame for not be clairvoyant enough, or will you acknowledge that it cannot be rationally laid at their feet that they weren’t able to put a stop to it?
What I’m getting at (and have been for a long time now) is that the matter of whose to blame, and to what extent each of the “players” is to blame will vary based on the facts of any given individual case. What I’m rejecting is these over-simplified “one-size-fits-all” sort of conclusions which assume that we can generalize about what we typically see, and then accurately apply those trends to explain other cases. That’s were Arod keeps falling flat on his face. He wants simple answers – like picking one group and saddling them with the bulk of the blame, and applying blanket absolutions to another.
The issue of FRA’s is immensely complex. But, then again, we are not a bunch of simpletons. Nor should we start acting like we are, IMHO.
Arod99k - ” I agree that they can start handing out Felonies for False Rape accusers, and don't say they cant do it because they can and they have.”
In some cases they can, but, here in the US, in most jurisdictions, they cannot. Just because you do not have a very strong understanding of the law, doesn’t mean that it will some work the way you believe it should. The reality is that police and prosecutors can only charge what they are statutorily allowed to. In most cases, the TOP charge for filing a false report to police (there is no law which distinguishes a false rape report from any other type of false report – they’re all consider the same crime) is a misdemeanor. And, while some may carry up to 2 years possible jail time, judges are required to act under what are known as “sentencing guidelines”, or offer compelling reasons why they choose to ignore them. In most cases, if you’ll read those guidelines, you’ll likely see that for those who are “first time offenders”, the sentencing will be quite lenient, usually small fines and community service instead of jail time. The idea is to “scare” them out of misbehaving again, rather than possibly causing them future hardships of having “done time” and a criminal record.
This is why I keep calling for the implementation of felony-level charges that can be applied to false allegations. It’s because I actually have some understand of how the law works.
Arod99k(?) - ” One point I DID make in the "blame the accusers" theory, is that - as has been duly noted many many times - many of these false accusers are MENTALLY UNBALANCED or are young children being urged by an adult to make accusations.”
Sorry, but neither has ever been found as one of the primary reasons that (adult) women make FRA’s (it may be more applicable to those made by children, especially those which coincide with custody disputes). Most (by far) are made for Revenge, for and Alibi, or for Attention (actual studies, like those done by Eugene Kanin’s bear this out).
Your attempt to apply some sort of blanket amnesty/absolution upon those who willingly, knowingly, and selfishly make false allegations is mostly without merit Рand rather puzzling, I might add. I guess I left wondering, what is it you believe of Sylvia Salda̱a Was she mentally unstable? Did someone coerce her? Or, did she know exactly what she was doing, and planned it out for maximum effect?
[I too must break up my posts - Blogger seems to be getting worse]
Law Enforcement and DNA
http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=900572&evid=1
Anonymous - ”Law Enforcement and DNA”
While it certainly make a strong case for more transparency regarding the results of random matching in cold cases, as the author concedes, the outcome based on a match done in 2005 aren’t likely to have much in common with how things are now being done.
”In the final analysis, the point may not be that difficult even for prosecutors to concede. After all, most DNA cases these days involve matches at 10 loci or more, with 13 considered foolproof, producing RMPs in the range of 1 in tens or hundreds of billions. As Blake observes, multiplying such odds by the number of profiles in a database would dilute the power of the evidence a bit, but the chance of a coincidental match would still be fantastically small. Thus, in most instances, there will be little difference between the two calculations.”
In fact, here in Colorado, the debate over the requirements of admissibility of DNA evidence had already been addressed (People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 78 (Colo.
2001)), the up-shot being that the requirement for identification purposes would require meeting the CODIS (the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System) proscribed 13 core loci test.
Thus, a 5-loci match from degraded DNA (as was used in California in the Puckett case) would not have been admissible for the purpose of positive identification in any cases here.
Additionally, that same 13-point match is used in CODIS cold-case searches. I can’t say if California is still doing low-level matches using their Richmond database or not, but, if they are, I doubt that such matches would still be admissible as positive identification.
Still, I would agree that the defense should always be made aware of match quality in any RMP used to identify a possible suspect.
"But, what if a woman manages to set things so well, and lie so effectively that the police are not able to determine that she’s lying? Are you going to claim that they’re to blame for not be clairvoyant enough, or will you acknowledge that it cannot be rationally laid at their feet that they weren’t able to put a stop to it?" - Slwerner
No, I am certainly not suggesting that police should be psychic and work out who is lying 100% of the time. What I am suggesting is that in a decent, functioning system individuals should not have their rights infringed heavily simply based on the allegation of another, with little or no corroborating evidence. The police don't have to assume every woman is lying, just acknowledge that without sufficient evidence the man is still presumed innocent. [I acknowledge that this may not be possible 100% of the time, and there will be some occasions where an innocent person is arrested based on circumstantial evidence, bad luck or the like. But this should be the general guiding principle].
It is my experience of dealing with police, and that of friends who have been victims of false allegations, that the police often have far too little regard for citizens rights and particularly the rights of citizens to go about their business freely until such a time that there is real evidence of wrongdoing. Police forces do tend to attract a fair number of people who are authoritarian bullies by nature. The police are always demanding increased powers, and they would gladly do away with all civil liberties and impose a total police state if they could (or increasingly are in many countries).
"[I trust I don’t have to point out to you that in each of these cases, the police saw through the hoax? Can I get you to acknowledge that they did a very good job in those cases?]"
I am prepared to acknowledge that in some cases the police do a good job of uncovering false allegations. But given how common false allegations have become, and given that many of the women who make them are not particularly good liars or actors, how hard can it be to uncover false allegations? If people were constantly coming to me with outlandish stories, I think I would learn to pick them sooner or later. And I wouldn't expect a medal for working it out.
The real question is, why are there still many cops who are willing to believe women's stories when they would be exposed to plenty of experience that should teach them to know better?
Nick S. - "The real question is, why are there still many cops who are willing to believe women's stories when they would be exposed to plenty of experience that should teach them to know better?"
The cops I've met and talked with have all been a bit older, and mostly detectives. They also tend to be a bit more jaded, and it seems that every one of them, with just a bit of prodding was able to regale me with a story or two (or ten) of their own encounters with women making false claims of having been raped from back when they were patrol officers. Most seem to start with “I was about to arrest her when…”
This is how I personally came to find out that quite a few false allegations of rape never get past the initial claim to an officer. It seems that in most such instance, the women was noticeably drunk and often disorderly (and sometimes at some state of undress), and fearing arrest, they’d blurt out “I was raped!”, hoping to get some sympathy.
But, when challenged for more information, most failed to spit out anything approaching credibility. And, when further challenged as to the veracity of the claim, most seem to have admitted they were lying right away. Because they didn’t try to push it any further, IIRC, not one of them was ever reported for having made the claim. It was likely a bit of old-fashioned white-knighting on the part of the officers to not wish to see the women get into any further trouble, and perhaps figuring that it was the “booze talking” (they’d have probably done the same for a drunk guy making some stupid sounding claim, I’d guess).
But, what I’m getting at is that these were all older guys, who’d likely “matured” during their patrol days, and had had a chance to reflect on and incorporate their varied experiences.
If I were to guess, I imagine that the more aggressive ones, full f themselves, drunk with power, and far too prone to go all-out “white knight” for some woman (and her tales – probably in hopes of some tail…if you get my drift) are the younger ones, who haven’t had enough experience with the women at the wretched bottom-end of society to fully understand that “sugar and spice” is just an empty old saying.
Closer to home for me, we’ve had a recent rash of over-aggressive cops getting into trouble fro brutality. I cannot say how many of them were younger cops, but from the video’s captured of them roughing up people, I got the distinct impression that they were all younger guys.
Without seeing some sort of study to know for sure, it seems to me that the career of young cops seems to be one of “get better or get out”. I suspect that those who tend to be bullies, if they don’t reform, will not advance and are more likely to be forced out.
A lot of folks prefer to believe that police will always circle the wagons around their fellow cops (the thin blue line), but I know that the prosecution of cops for misconduct on the job (quite a striking array of conducts actually) happens with some regularity in my wife’s jurisdiction. And, quite a few years back, she did a stint with the USDOJ at the US Attorney’s Office, during which one of the cases she helped on the prosecution of was the entire Ouray, Colorado Sheriffs Department for their running of the drug trade in the town. It was a small town, family affair (the entire force being related to one another), and the US Attorney took the bunch of them down. One committed suicide about a week into his prison sentence. Another case she had some familiarity was that of two prison guards who lead a prisoner into a holding cell where two other inmates where waiting to beat him to death (if I recall, there was evidence that they had been paid off by gang-members on the outside to set it up).
So, when I start hearing people say that cops never get in trouble, I tend to guess that they’re really just fairly clueless.
Attacking heterosexual males is a way the new Gender / Raunch community are "Empowering" themselves.
It is a very serious perversion and a stain on the American constitution for American law enforcement to now be "manufacturing faulty and inflammatory statistics" that are serving no real purpose beyond "Empowering" the Gender / raunch feminists who puke these inflammatory statistics out to their students.
History will note that American homosexuals usurped a tremendous amount of "cultural power" by puking faulty and inflammatory statistics to college kids, and it was the practices of American law enforcement at that time in history that manufactured these statistics for them.
This is a very serious accusation to make, and most Americans cannot see it; so just let other nations note that " they may not want to let the perversion take root in their law enforcement communities to begin with.
I sure hope that eight copies of the post 've been trying to get through don't suddenly show p.
S. - ”It is a very serious perversion and a stain on the American constitution for American law enforcement to now be "manufacturing faulty and inflammatory statistics" “
Let’s examine what you’re saying here. First, let’s get a good definition of the term you like to use, manufacture.
Manufacture - Def (Encarta) 3. invent something
transitive verb to invent or make something up
• manufactured an excuse
Now, let’s take a look at what is manufactured. According the USDOJ Uniform Crime reporting, for their primary what is collected is a tally of the number of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence allegations that are made by alleged victims. (you can see it here
So what is initially manufactured are the individual allegations that are then reported by LE agency to the DOJ to be counted. You can read about their Reporting procedures The numbers for rape and sexual assault are based on treating each report as true unless and until it is determined to be unfounded. It was that part about:
”Unfounded offenses and clearances—When, through investigation, an agency determines that complaints of crimes are unfounded or false, the agency eliminates that offense from its crime tally through an entry on the monthly report.”
Now, the last question to be considered: Who did the manufacturing?
Well, since the police didn’t decide to make up allegations to be submitted, the ones who are actually creating (producing, manufacturing) those allegations are the alleged victims who bring them to the attention of the police. These individual allegations to be reported represent the statistical data points, and were created by the choice of those who reported them to have taken the action to report them.
What the police do is, if they find an allegation to be “unfounded” is to remove it from the count of allegations brought to them by alleged victims – in practical terms, they UNMANUFACTURE those statistical data points.
You see, S., the statistical data points are created by an individual reporting that crime, and are eliminated by police if they are found not to be actual crimes.
It seems you’ve been misunderstanding the role that LE plays in the process of creating (manufacturing), verifying (or eliminating), reporting, compiling, analyzing, and reporting the statistics – they don’t manufacture them, they just report or eliminate them.
Perhaps it’s time to edit your rant before you paste it into another post.
Mr Werner, "faulty and inflammatory statistics" kinda speaks for itself.
A. faulty
B. inflammatory
With all due respect sir, Im going to cease my targeting of the perversion that has engulfed American law enforcement, in order for this blog to continue its efforts to show the public that false rape accusations are happening all over America.
These are my last words on this blog about the causes and conditions that have fostered the false rape culture, and will keep to the business of commenting on the circumstances of individual cases that as posted.
I sure hope that eight copies of the post 've been trying to get through don't suddenly show p.
slwerner (and everyone else)
The posts most likely end up in the spam filter. I have noticed this quite often. I haven't been publishing, as I see at least 1 gets through. Don't know what is causing the problems, but as soon as we get it figured out, I'll let everyone know.
Slwerner, it might be the case that in some jurisdictions police are regularly charged for misconduct. But I know that that is certainly not the case in a lot of places.
Speaking of my own country, there was a recent high-profile case in Western Australia where a video was discovered by the state crime commission. It showed a group of several police officers in a city police lockup repeatedly tasering a man lying on the ground for failing to comply with a strip search. None of those officers was charged over the incident! Even the state attorney-general expressed suprise that there were no charges. Although Western Australia has long had a reputation as being more of a cowboy, redneck state where rough justice tends to prevail. I am not sure if things would be dealt with the same way in every state. [The state government has been trying to push through laws giving police increased stop-and-search powers, and this has been somewhat embarrassing for them, causing the public to think about whether it is a good idea to give police more power].
Part of the problem is that prosecutors rely on police to gather evidence, so this compromises them when bringing charges against police. And governments don't wish to undermine public confidence in law enforcement, and also rely on the police to gather fines and provide other services, so they don't wish to alienate police too much either. This often means that governments are reluctant to devote the resources and powers needed to root out police misconduct.
Nick S. - "Part of the problem is that prosecutors rely on police to gather evidence, so this compromises them when bringing charges against police."
That's the reason why (here) "special prosecutors" are brought in from other jurisdictions to handle the prosecutions of police and other government employees. There has been a effort to remove the issues of agencies which must interact having to be heavy-handed with one another.
Post a Comment