Women who lie in court

Remove all ads!

Sir Rechet's statements are certainly a little inflamatory, but I don't think they're directly contradictory. He's not even saying anyone forced anyone else's had. The 'they brought it upon themselves' statement has always meant 'they put themselves in a situation where it was likely to happen' to me, sort of akin to 'you set yourself up for it'.

 

In that case, I still disagree that no compassion should be felt for those who put themselves in situations where it is possible or likely to happen. The situation shouldn't be that way - women should be able to go to a bar and get a drink and hit on guys without being scared of getting raped, or without being told, "well, clearly since you flirted with him, you promised him your prize package, it's your fault that he took it, and I feel nothing for you."

And even if they blatantly use men for drinks, they can be *****es, but rape is never their fault. The man should have control, and respect for women enough to know what "stop," "no," or lack of "yes," means.

 

Don't you think there's quite a difference between deserving something and not taking all possible outcomes of one's actions into consideration?

@joaq: Most men can contain themselves, no problems. But since rapes DO exist, clearly some can't.

Guess we'll have to disagree then. There must be consequences for stupid actions, especially if willfully causing harm to other human beings (physical, or in this case mostly mental) is involved. Don't play with other's feelings or face the consequences when they finally snap.

And please, stop using the bar patron example as something you'd realistically expect to be raped for - both I and NOG have several times pointed out that it's extremely mild offense.

 

Correction. Clearly some do not.

There's a big difference between not controlling oneself and being unable to do so. Rapists aren't victims. While an exceedingly low number of rapists really might be "unable" to control themselves, it strains credulity well past the breaking point to say that this is true of many or most of them.

It's one thing to say that someone should have known better than to engage in this, that, or some other risky behavior. It's quite another to say that she deserves no sympathy for what happens to her or that she deserves to be raped. The only people who deserve to be raped are those rapists that think their victims "deserved it."

 

...

I'm honestly dumbfounded. I have said time after time that I think no one deserves to be raped, yet I get exactly that on nearly every reply.

Or is it just me that takes somewhat extreme stand against anyone treating other people like sh!t? Gosh, even Jesus himself taught that "treat others like you'd like to be treated yourself". (Paraphrasing)

I don't consider it really being anyone's fault if a person totally goes berserks after *enough* mistreatment. That's Basic Human Nature 101. The problem, however, is knowing what exactly lights a given person up. Therefore, pushing every button just to see what happens is not only mean, it's outright stupid as well. Doing it knowingly is worse still.

Let me put forth yet another analogy. Did the engineers at Chernobyl, 1986, deserve to get killed in the accident that followed, or was it their own stupidity that caused their deaths? Think about it.

 

Chernobyl was an accident and rape is a conscious decision made by the perpetrator -- your comparison is irrelevant. If all you were trying to say is that engaging in certain types of risky behavior can lead to being a rape victim, I doubt too many people would have complained. This, after all, is inarguably true. You didn't just say that, though. You upped the ante by further stating that such victims were undeserving of sympathy. It is true that you risk getting burned when you play with fire, but that doesn't mean you deserve no sympathy when it happens.

On a side note, I see no substantive difference between saying a victim deserves no sympathy and saying a victim deserved to be victimized. In my mind, they are one and the same. A victim is only undeserving of sympathy is when he deserves what he gets.

 

Actually, this is a big debate in psychology: whether or not rapists have a real choice.

 

I'd be curious to see the details, if you have them. Your serial rapist or your random assailant has indeed often been found to be the victim of some sort of mental illness. I have not seen the same regarding date-rape, which is what we would be talking about here, nor have I seen anything to indicate that rapists, as a bloc, cannot control their urges.

 

There is a big debate whether there is such a thing as free choice at all. Whether we are individuals, whether our sense of self is something real or just an illusion. That everything we are, that everything we do is a result of biology and genetic programming. Very interesting discussion but I do not think it is all that relevant here cause if it is then no one is responsible for anything and even if that turns out to be true it is impossible to have any kind of organized society if that is taken into consideration.

 

The big evidence for rapists being mentally ill as a whole is the incredibly high recidivism rate. There's always a risk of repeat offenders in any crime, but when such a vast majority continues no matter how many times they're imprisoned for it, it indicates to some that choice has little to do with it. Not to all, of course, nor is it anything close to hard evidence, but it's plenty to fuel a debate.

Unfortunately, much of psychology is of such a nature that you can't just perform a few tests and confirm/refute any commonality.

 

This is true of many violent crimes, not just rape, including assualt. That's why many states have gone to the "three strikes option," because of so many repeat offenders of a variety of felony crimes. What it indicates to me is that the "stay" is too short, if they are imprisoned and repeating their vioent crimes that much. IMO, rape has little to do with sex, or bar flies, or male sexual frustration, but it is another form of violence, since murder crimes committed against women are often accompanied with rape. It's about violence, not sex.

 

I don't believe that most rapists are unable to control their urges due to mental illness. A very few might be, but I see that sort of argument as a cop out.

But this thread is not about rapists -- it's about women who lie about a situation and get innocent men labelled as rapists. Given how strongly decent men feel about rape, and the difficulties involved in proving that a rape occurred, I find cases like the one I cited to be utterly reprehensible. I was trying to say that women today have great power to destroy men, and for the men who deserve it, good! But that power should be used responsibly, and not just because some stupid cow got her feelings hurt sans an actual sexual assault.

 

But the presence of sexual arousal as evidenced by an erection (necessary for a rape in the strictest sense) means that there is a sexual element nonetheless. I guess part of the 'wrongness' or sickness in these persons would be that there is sexual arousal associated with violence at all. (And I don't mean 'pretend' violence or rough sex between consensual partners, but the "I am going to hurt you very badly, for real, and you are not going to like it" variety.)

 

It's just my opinion, but these guys hate and resent women, and the violence against women is what turns them on. As Drew pointed out, date-rape is something different and we should view it differently, but actual rape, where a woman is chosen at random off the street and attacked has nothing to do with sex, IMO.

 

Well, this is the other side of the coin I was referring above. No man deserves such treatment, but in some cases, the accused aren't exactly saints themselves either. But let's not get into that again, shall we?

As long as there isn't foolproof lie detectors in every courtroom, the sorry truth is that b*tches like that will sometimes get away it. And it's not just false accusations - lying as such is all too often the most advantageous course to take. Plead guilty and do hard time with 100% certainty or lie your ass off for a chance of freedom. Hmm.. tough choice?

 

there's a huge difference in the statistics, though. I couldn't find much (oddly), but the one thing I could find was that paedophilia typically has a recidivism rate of 25% or higher (depending on states), while other crimes were (un)lucky if they hit 5%.

Mind you, I don't buy the excuse, but the debate is a little more than 'humans are just machines without free will'.

This is why the rules and standards of evidence must be just as strong in a rape case as they are in any other, and furthermore, the jury should be more strictly instructed concerning emotion, belief, and doubt. I'm betting a lot of such cases (and possibly real rape cases as well) rest not so heavily on evidence and much more heavily on the horror-factor of rape.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

 

Yeah, but that's covering all crimes as opposed to particular crimes. The issue at hand is the likelyhood that someone will commit the same crime again.

 

I understand that is your point, but mine is that instances of crime are connected, and violent acts, like rape, are also connected to other types of crime, hence the reason there are so many repeat offenders. Basically, a rapist is a "criminal," not just some sexually frustated guy who has bad luck with bar flies.

 

Whether or not a woman is a schlong teaser is irrelevant. I've dated women who totally led me to believe that I was gonna get some action at the end of the night, only to get a peck on the cheek and a "Call me sometime!" Sure, I was a blue balled boy, but I had a choice to just go home and take a cold shower or commit a filthy heinous crime. In case someone here thinks I'm a criminal at heart, I'll be blunt -- I chose the cold shower. No amount of teasing by a woman can ever be logically construed as justification for rape.
Such an argument is utterly repugnant to any right thinking human being.

What concerns me more is not the tease woman, but the sober one who at 11pm Saturday night boinks her date. It is totally consensual and they both have a good time. By 10am Sunday morning she decides that what she did was a mistake, and to assuage her guilt, she decides to claim that it was rape. The guy's life is ruined, but that's no problem for her -- the paramount concern is a woman's feelings, not the truth and certainly not the life, well-beling, or reputation of a guy who did nothing more than what she asked him to do. With our current society's desire to punish men regardless of facts, she's likely to succeed in destroying the poor guy. If it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that a woman like this is lying, I firmly believe that her sentence should be equivalent to that of a rapist.