On May 1, the Sidney Morning Herald screeched: "POLICE rejected a third of sexual assault reports in south-western Sydney last year - and at least half of those might have been genuine crimes, a statewide audit has found." The newspaper continued: "Of the 91 sexual assaults reported to Bankstown police from October 2009 to September last year, 30 were rejected." And: "In half the cases there was no clear evidence that it was a false report."
Well, it turns out the hand-wringing was unfounded. The persons who prepared the study now admit that the reasons the particular police department rejected so many sexual assault claims were perfectly valid. An official conceded: “We went through the reports of sexual assault that had been rejected and it became clear there were perfectly good reasons for rejection. In one case, for example, investigation by police had revealed three lots of CCTV footage showing that the alleged victim of a sexual assault had never been at any of the locations where she was allegedly sexually assaulted."
So, why the initial Chicken Little report? The information regarding the rejections was located in a section of the police computer system to which the persons doing the study had no access.
SOURCES:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-reject-genuine-crime-reports-20110501-1e38e.html
http://express.whereilive.com.au/news/story/weatherburn-says-criticism-of-bankstown-police-was-a-mistake/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
American Law enforcement started taking the federal money years ago, and now after years of not charging false rape accusers(in order to keep federal/feminist empowerment pork dollars flowing in) a "culture of false rape accusations" has developed.
Does American law enforcement now turn away from the "federal pork for perversion of statistics dollars", in order to combat the growing matriarchy?? Or does it further soil unto itself, by ramping up their protocol perversions and semantics games, and rely on more and more on the federal pork dollar.
"Presume guilt! Women and children first! Castrate!
"I am Fembot! Warning, two-legged being with penis approaching!"
Great! Aren't they saying that in 15% of the cases there was clear evidence that the rape accusation was wrong?
They were saying that, indirectly, but that did not interest them.
"Of the 91 sexual assaults reported to Bankstown police from October 2009 to September last year, 30 were rejected." And: "In half the cases there was no clear evidence that it was a false report."
Imagine 15% of the cases clearly obviously wrong. That means that there are plenty more cases where the accuser is more careful not to make accusations that are easily disproved.
oh, one more point.
Why were the clearly wrong accusations not investigated? As criminally false accusations?
”On May 1, the Sidney Morning Herald screeched: "POLICE rejected a third of sexual assault reports in south-western Sydney last year”…”The persons who prepared the study now admit that the reasons the particular police department rejected so many sexual assault claims were perfectly valid.”
Yes, of course, even when the police are doing their jobs correctly they’re going to catch Hell for it – especially when the wished of the larger SGI aren’t being catered to.
Here’s an instance when those who are truly concerned about the issue of FRA’s and their many attendant harms ought to take a stand on behalf of a police department who’ve bucked the expectations of the SGI and have opted to simply do their jobs as they ought to. This PD should be applauded as an example to other PD’s around the world. Refocusing the police efforts away from servitude towards the SGI is one very important way to help mitigate the harm done to innocent men who re targeted by FRA’s (whether named outright, or merely being unfortunate enough to match the “description”).
It would be counter-productive to not recognize those instance wherein police are acting correctly, doing proper investigations and avoiding the impulse to respond to the word “rape” by seeking out some man to take their agitation on. If we are to criticize them (quite correctly) when they fail in their duties, we make hypocrites of ourselves if we then decline to recognize those who do uphold their duties.
Of course, it could be worse. We could start posting a bunch of inane, misguided crap about how police are simply enriching themselves via FRA’s. And, if we really wanted to make our side look bad, we could post stuff that’s so off-base that it would seem to causal readers that we are collectively to ignorant to understand the difference between the UD and other countries, like, for instance Australia.
Of course, we cannot stop every single woefully unintelligent comment. But, we should endeavor to post enough constructive, intelligent comments so as to counter-balance those that would make us look like a bunch of rubes. This site has (thankfully) managed to catch the attentions of many people, a significant portion of whom are some what new to the issue. We should be working to provide an education about the issue rather than allow the focus of this forum to descend into little more than a misguide effort to miscast the larger issue according to one persons deluded understanding.
There are many facets to the FRA issue, yet they all arise from a single, consistent source – those who chose to make self-serving FRA’s. Because there are so many other aspects which need to be addresses due to the cascade set-off by those making FRA’s, we need to be broad-minded, to think big about how to address the overall problem in a cohesive and consistent way so as to draw the focus to the actual most problematic areas.
What we don’t need is small-mind, myopically focused, reductionism that seeks to make one single adjunct entity the primary focus of all blame.
Human-Stupidity.com - ”Why were the clearly wrong accusations not investigated? As criminally false accusations?”
As one who’s had a chance to have conversations with some veteran police detectives, I’ve yet to encounter a one who didn’t have a half-dozen or so stories about blatantly obvious false allegations wherein they simply talked the women out of making a formal complaint. I would suspect that in most of those cases, they were both trying to spare the woman any further trouble, and (perhaps even more so) trying to save themselves the trouble of “investigating” a claim that they knew to be completely untrue.
While it sounds a bit lazy, there is quite e bit of common sense involved. If an officer has to spend the time to interview multiple possible witnesses, search for non-existent physical evidence [it may be known that there is none to be found, but the only way to demonstrate such a lack of evidence is to have exhaustively searched for it], write out a report; that officer will have been effectively taken off-line from more effective use of time – apprehending inebriated individuals who are endangering others by attempting to drive, for instance.
And, even though false accusers are in fact breaking the law, investigations into patently obvious false reports will help to build what case? A misdemeanor false reporting case? And to what end, time an expense in filing a case, seating a jury, and conducting a trial which will, at best result in a $50 fine, suspended sentence, and a weekend of community service?
Serious cases of robbery, assault (non-sexual, committed against men, BTW), vandalism, arson, etc, etc. are already having to be plead to lesser charges due to the huge backlogs faced by the criminal courts. A prosecutor bring in a case of a drunk woman making a false allegation while trying to keep her publicly-drunken ass out of jail, is only going to get that prosecutor cross-wise with a judge – who might just toss the case outright as a waste of taxpayer money. [note to those not well enough versed in Elementary School Civics, judges are not part of the police force, nor law enforcement]
I have long argued that what is desperately needed are felony-level charges which can be applied to instances of FRA’s which lead to considerable expense or “any” harm to innocent individuals, so that it would be “worthwhile” to investigate, charge, try, convict, and sentence those who’ve made the false charges.
Yet, there are still many instance of false claims which would be best disposed of by police simply pressing for an on-the-spot recantation.
So basically they didn't check their facts and went forward like crash dummies? Not surprised. It's the SGI's specialty.
Law enforcements around the world are designed to deter crime. Charging false rape accusers is designed to "deter crime".
Not charging false rape accusers does nothing to hinder the now "culture of false rape accusations". Who is supposed to keep law and order, and deter false rape accusations...the guy workin at the local 7-11 convenience store??
S - "Not charging false rape accusers..."
It would help if you'd read the articles sometimes. Women making FRA's are often charged. But, unlike the situation in the UK, it will usually only be a misdemeanor – which will mean an investment of time and effort to pursue, with the most probable penalty limited to fines that cover court costs.
But, clearly, as is quite evidenced by the current situation in the UK, charging, prosecuting, and jailing false accusers isn’t THE answer. Despite the rate at which it’s happening over there (enough the W.A.R. became concerned about the numbers of women being prosecuted), woman are still making FRA’s.
Seems that a woman’s desire to gain something via and FRA tends to outweigh her concern about possible punishments later in many cases.
But, it’s really no different than what can be seen with most every other crime. Murders get charged, and yet we still have murders. Rapist certainly get charged. Hasn’t put an end to rape. In fact, you can go right down any list of crimes and see that despite even rather harsh penalties, criminals keep committing crimes. Their hoped-for gains over-ride their fear of punishment.
Still, none of this will make one bit of difference to you. You’re so certain that your narrow –minded, narrow-focused view is correct that no mountain of contrary facts will ever sway you. That fact that you still rant about the non-existent “bounty system” of Federal money based on number of allegations serves to prove that facts and reality hold no sway over your fevered imagination. This idea that “if only LE would charge them” all FRA’s would cease is yet another of your views that known and observable facts clearly refute (even though charging them is certainly the right thing to do, regardless of it’s actual deterrent effect). The problems of FRA’s are much, much, much bigger than your simplistic views of police policies causing them, and police making money off of them.
slwerner, when are you going to come and be a contributor at FRS? I am going to wear you down eventually, my friend!
The problem is that Judges are lawyers and Profit directly from pursuing injustice.
Said another way: The black robed agents of Satan have corrupted the Police policies under themselves, cops have to please prosecutors (lawyers too) and Judges.
After all it is only a crime if the Judge says it is a crime, and they are NOT doing that for FRA's.
Not to be an ass but show me the stats on the percentage of FRA's prosecuted.
The plain fact, no matter how you say it: is that the court systems is corrupt beyond belief.
You can call it injustice,perversion,
degeneration,raunch,
corruption, malfeasance,
willful maliciousness,
tainted by profit,greed,
or whatever your adverb of choice is, they all reflect
the stinking cesspool of filth that is the courts and all those who prop up their unconstitutional
power.
All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
Let us at least be free to discuss the corruption openly.
(before the internet identifier makes me a thought criminal for typing this)
Post a Comment