What are these politicians gaining from setting the world back? What possible reason could they have for their stupidity? This isn't just America here, a lot of countries that call themselves Democratic are trying to put down everyone who isn't in power.
We're in an age where the people fear the government, which a great person once said is a clear sign of tyranny.
The religious affairs minister, Suryadharma Ali, wants to draw up "a set of universal criteria" on what constitutes pornography, "one of which will be when a woman wears a skirt above the knee". ... The debate about hemlines - which began last year, when the governor of Jakarta, Fauzi Bowo, blamed a spate of rapes in public minivans on miniskirts worn by victims - has highlighted tensions between conservatives and liberals in Indonesia.
ya it's sad. I have seen reports about this for years. I think the military isn't interested in pursuing these possible rape cases because it's trying to protect itself. Also rape accusations in general are fickle unless there is concrete proof. The burden of proof is generally on accuser and that's probably how it should be, but...
Then you hear of those cases where someone is falsely accused and goes to prison, like that girl who accused her stepdad of rape and just now said she made up after he has been in jail for 15 years.
I think the fact she didn't get punished for perjury (at least) is the worst part of that story. The precedent this sets is horrible: the man didn't do anything wrong, he just made his little girl upset so she sent him to jail for 15 years. The judge or jury claimed the reason for letting her go was in fear that the punishment would convince ACTUAL victims to keep silent out of fear. A deep concern, but a ridiculous one.
I'm gonna say not so ridiculous. First of all, without knowing the girl's age, you have to consider her naivete. It doesn't seem fair to punish a grown adult for a (terrible, yes) mistake she made as a young girl. Reparations for the man's 15 years in prison is a little more apt.
But more generally, the people who cry about false rape accusations are often concerned only with false accusations. They aren't concerned about the rape victims who are honest in their accusations. They contribute to a victim-blaming rape culture that insists on putting rape victims instead of rapists under a microscope. They discourage women from coming forward about their rapes for fear of being labeled a liar, being accused of regretting consensual sex and calling it rape to escape the "shame of whoredom", being attacked by their rapist again, being harassed for trying to "ruin" their rapist's lives.
Since like 2-4% of rape accusations are false, most rapists never stand trial, and most that stand trial don't spend a single day in jail, I'm gonna go ahead and call that case an isolated incident. We should probably be more concerned about the 96-98% of accurately reported rapes, and the 60% of rapes that go unreported.
We need to change how we talk about sex in our culture. When we treat it as something shameful and bad, when we treat women who have and enjoy sex like dirty whores and not human beings, we blur the line between sex and rape by treating all forms of sexual contact as a giant mass of "bad". We need to stop victim-blaming, and stop telling women that wear short skirts or drink alcohol or have lots of sex that they're "asking for it." We need to talk to our kids about consent and rape. We need to tell men not to rape instead of telling women not to get raped.
All of those things would lower rape rates and increase rape reporting rates. But most importantly, we need to tell young men and women what to do if they are raped in our sex ed classes (ie. do not take a shower, go straight to an ER or a police station, do X, Y, and Z to report your rapist to the authorities), and stop punishing rape victims who do come forward.
No, I didn't. I explained that the actions of a young, naive child shouldn't be punished 15 years later as if they were committed by a full grown adult, in response to HeadlessMarv saying that she should have at least been punished for perjury.
You make an interesting point, and I agree with you. I simply find it irritating that actual rape victims would be affected by punishing someone who lied about being a victim.
For one thing, the entire sentence was 15 years. He was released after nine due to her recanting.
For another, he wasn't imprisoned on her word. There was physical evidence.Second source with even more details. The recantation isn't unquestionable given that physical and circumstantial evidence that backed up her story. The girl in question has lead a very troubled life before and after the accusation and has recently been in (religious) rehab.
And finally the statute of limitation has passed on perjury or false filings charges, so she would be immune from prosecution anyway. Even if you wanted to prosecute a woman for something she did at eleven.
I explained that the actions of a young, naive child
Two things; First, you didn't explain, you stated. Second, why use the word naive, if not to pardon her actions in some way? She committed perjury, that is nowhere close to even resembling naivety.
I simply find it irritating that actual rape victims would be affected by punishing someone who lied about being a victim.
There are a lot of people who look at rare cases like this one and accuse other rape victims of being liars, especially if the rape victim "messed up" in some way (again, drinking, flirting, their clothing, and so on). Many women are afraid to come forward because they fear they won't be taken seriously, they will be blamed for their attack, they will be accused of lying about sex that was "actually" consensual, etc. Particularly if they knew their rapist, which most rape victims do.
I'm of two minds about this. (You know what they say about lawyers, if you ask 2 lawyers for their opinion, you'll always get 3+ opinions).
I said before (I think here) and I'll say again, no one ever deserves to get raped, or even physically or mentally pressured into any sort of physical contact which they don't want.
But, Rape is an incredibly serious crime, and if it's the position of the accused that the sex was consensual, I think it's fundamentally unfair to eliminate whole categories of defenses on the ground that they "blame the victim." Likewise for precluding any argument that the accuser is lying about
Rape cases, particularly in light of a "consensual sex" defense, almost inevitably come down to "he says" - "she says" arguments. If the accuser comes forward right away and there's physical evidence of force being used (bruises etc) that tips it to one side, but suppose the accuser comes forward weeks or months later and the accused says "yes we had sex, but it was absolutely consensual, she's crazy because I avoided her afterward."
You can say that women ordinarily wouldn't lie about rape, but how does that turn into "beyond reasonable doubt" for a criminal charge?
Edit: and that's not even considering that once those charges are brought, one is immidiately converted into an "accused rapist" The filing of charges along brings lots of consequences.
No one should be arrested and convicted of a crime based off of an unsubstantiated claim. But with only 2-4% of rape accusations being false, another 60% of rapes going unreported, 25% of reported rapes leading to an arrest, and 25% of those arrests leading to jail time, I don't think false rape convictions are a huge epidemic.
If anyone is convicted of rape, or any other crime, based off of one person's accusation and no other evidence, there's a bigger problem in our justice system. As pal_sch said regarding that case, there was additional physical and circumstantial evidence that convicted him, and there is reason to believe that her recantation is not reliable.
Why the fuck is this so important to you? I gave my opinion and explained my reasoning. The further details provided by pal_sch backed up my reasoning. I don't agree with you, get over it.
Because this shit matters. And when people make arguments in accusation or defense of it, their reasoning matters too. You didn't explain anything, you made a statement of opinion and then told me to read someone else's comment when I asked you to clarify. I don't a shit if you agree or disagree with me, I want you to explain your arguments yourself. Why should I respect your opinion if you can't be bothered backing it up yourself?
OK, what the hell? Her statement was entirely reasonable and you have (I'm going to assume accidentally) misread or ignored her central point (that we don't prosecute adults for mistakes made in childhood, a pretty well accepted fact) in favour of attacking the word 'naive' being used for an eleven year old girl. And all this requires your not engaging with the fuller facts of the case because cunfuzzled wasn't the one to post them.
Do you actually have a point you are trying to make or are you just having a bad day?
If you want someone to accept your opinion, not necessarily agree with it, then provide the reasoning behind it. The full account of what happened in this case is not the reasoning.
We both read the same text and both walked away with different views, so pointing me back to it isn't going to help me understand
It annoys me immensely when people present their opinions to me but then fail to explain them, when they assume I will just understand.
Thing is, 87.5% of the people accused of rape (if 25% of 25% of accused rapists are found guilty, that means 87.5% aren't) are found not guilty, but will carry the stigma of that charge for a very long time. That is a significant harm to someone who may very well have believed he was having consensual sex with a willing partner, and it doesn't seem to enter the ledger when figuring the social harm balance. This is in no way meant to minmize the trauma or seriousness of being raped, but it does seem like an intractable problem for the justice system, and I have to believe that at least some of the men faced with charges of rape are getting a raw deal.
As for the Unreported statistic, I've seen studies with that figure landing all over the place, and heavily dependent on how the survey defines "rape" (or doesn't). There certainly are unreported rapes, but assigning numbers to it without some huge caveats attached seems like a little bit of voodoo statistics.
Curiously, that's how I feel when I read Robert Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy. Maybe I'm missing something or is he intentionally coming off a a bag with which one douches?
No one should be arrested and convicted of a crime based off of an unsubstantiated claim. But with only 2-4% of rape accusations being false, another 60% of rapes going unreported, 25% of reported rapes leading to an arrest, and 25% of those arrests leading to jail time, I don't think false rape convictions are a huge epidemic.
If anyone is convicted of rape, or any other crime, based off of one person's accusation and no other evidence, there's a bigger problem in our justice system. As pal_sch said regarding that case, there was additional physical and circumstantial evidence that convicted him, and there is reason to believe that her recantation is not reliable.
You more or less correctly identify the problem.
I don't think false rape cases are an epidemic by any stretch of the imagination, but statistics like that, by their very nature cannot tell you whether any particular accuser is telling the truth or not.
and the real problem is that, in our justice system, you can, in fact, potentially get a rape conviction on nothing other than the statement of the victim that it occured and her ability to identify the perpetrator.
Now, she'd have to testify in a case like that, and be subject to cross examination on the stand, and if her story breaks up her credibility is shot, so you hope the jury can figure out if she's lying.
But you always have to think, "how many jury members believe "why would a woman lie about being raped?" or from the other side, do any jury members believe "of course the woman would lie about that," and be making a biased guess at her credibility and his credibility.
