The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Believe Women?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Or Who? Whom? part XXVIII:

Though “credible” means “able to be believed”, the question would’ve gone from good to great if it had asked “Do you believe Tara Reade’s allegation of sexual assault by Joe Biden?”

This isn’t precisely the death of #MeToo, just its total enslavement. The movement has fully capitulated to and been subjugated by the neo-liberal establishment. It was unwieldy early on, but that independence is history. It will exist exclusively in service to the powers that be from now on.

That doesn’t mean Biden is necessarily safe. Here’s the pretense to toss him overboard. Biden’s fate is in the hands of the DNC. If he’s useful, Reade’s a lying whore. If he’s outlived his usefulness, we must believe women! That’s how the establishment likes it and it’s what Biden deserves.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Election 2020, Joe Biden, Polling 
Hide 57 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rosie says:

    There always seems to be a difference of about 10% between men and women on these issues.

    If he’s useful, Reade’s a lying whore. If he’s outlived his usefulness, we must believe women! That’s how the establishment likes it and it’s what Biden deserves.

    Precisely, and one unfortunate consequence that this will breed cynicism about workplace sexual harassment that disproportionately affects women who really are too powerless to protect themselves, e.g. waitresses.

    https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/workforce/restaurants-sexual-harassment-problems-come-fore

    • Agree: iffen
    • Troll: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @Dumbo

    Precisely, and one unfortunate consequence that this will breed cynicism about workplace sexual harassment that disproportionately affects women

     

    Well, one would think that in *only* affects women, since is rare for men to be sexually harassed or complain of being harassed (by women. Gay harassment is another matter).

    I personally think real "workplace sexual harassment" is rare. What you have are women who are ogled or invited out by a few men they don't like ("creeps"), but without any violence or intimidation, and they call that "harassment", while others are rejected or pumped and dumped by CEOs, Hollywood producers, etc, and they call that "harassment" too. There was one broad (I think that dumb slut Asia Argento) who hang out with Weinstein for a year after having been "raped".

    Waitresses, I don't know, depending on the place, part of their job is to look alluring or interested in the customers, it's something between acting and prostitution, in a way. So I can see why bad things could happen. But yes, poor waitresses, that I agree.
  2. anon[727] • Disclaimer says:

    It all depends on whether the DNCe has someone credible to replace Biden with. Kind of doubt Gov Gav has enough positive media exposure right now, Gov Cuomo has some negatives. Both of them are probably looking at 2024.

    The M$M can cover for Biden for months without even half trying. YouTube can take down vids with impunity. It’s just a question of whether the DNCe and their media partners can carry Biden across the finish line or not. There’s precedent in the BJ Clinton cases, where women were ignored for years. The same could be done to Reade, in conjunction with some sort of smear campaign, again as the Clintons did with targeted women.

    Purely in my opinion, #MeToo was a way to get rid of some Hollywood figures while appeasing aging women who resented the loss of their sex appeal. The casting couch was a known “feature” of Hollywood almost 100 years ago, it was no secret in 2000. There are so many pictures of “harassed” women hanging off of Harvey Weinstein’s arm, with broad smiles on their faces.

  3. Biden’s sole purpose was to defeat Sanders. Funnily enough, he hasn’t quite done this.

    Remember how they cancelled New York’s presidential primary? Well, it’s back on, because Bernie & Yang sued the NY Elections Board. This why Biden can’t even consider dropping out.

  4. I’ve just personally adopted a policy of ‘side with men’. I don’t know if it happened, I don’t care. You want me guilty until proven innocent, I’ll flip the double standard in your face.

  5. Dumbo says:
    @Rosie
    There always seems to be a difference of about 10% between men and women on these issues.

    If he’s useful, Reade’s a lying whore. If he’s outlived his usefulness, we must believe women! That’s how the establishment likes it and it’s what Biden deserves.
     
    Precisely, and one unfortunate consequence that this will breed cynicism about workplace sexual harassment that disproportionately affects women who really are too powerless to protect themselves, e.g. waitresses.

    https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/workforce/restaurants-sexual-harassment-problems-come-fore

    Precisely, and one unfortunate consequence that this will breed cynicism about workplace sexual harassment that disproportionately affects women

    Well, one would think that in *only* affects women, since is rare for men to be sexually harassed or complain of being harassed (by women. Gay harassment is another matter).

    I personally think real “workplace sexual harassment” is rare. What you have are women who are ogled or invited out by a few men they don’t like (“creeps”), but without any violence or intimidation, and they call that “harassment”, while others are rejected or pumped and dumped by CEOs, Hollywood producers, etc, and they call that “harassment” too. There was one broad (I think that dumb slut Asia Argento) who hang out with Weinstein for a year after having been “raped”.

    Waitresses, I don’t know, depending on the place, part of their job is to look alluring or interested in the customers, it’s something between acting and prostitution, in a way. So I can see why bad things could happen. But yes, poor waitresses, that I agree.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I personally think real “workplace sexual harassment” is rare.
     
    That may be, and if so, I would credit the system of protections in place for women for ameliorating the problem. I think one of the problems with this issue is that most men are not inclined to harass women, and so they assume it's not really a problem.

    The problem here is the old Platonic dilemma. The men who most want power are often precisely the ones least deserving of it.

    In any event, I agree with you that intimidation is really the most important factor. The lesser the power imbalance, the more outrageous the offending conduct must be to warrant a finding of harassment.


    Waitresses, I don’t know, depending on the place, part of their job is to look alluring or interested in the customers, it’s something between acting and prostitution, in a way. So I can see why bad things could happen. But yes, poor waitresses, that I agree.
     
    Here again, you have to understand that the standard for sexual harassment is that a reasonable woman, under the circumstances, would find the conduct so offensive as to alter the conditions of employment to her detriment. If you work at Hooters, the threshold for intolerable conduct is going to be very different from what you would expect at a family restaurant.

    Circumstances are very important. Men perceive this as unpredictability and leaves them feeling vulnerable, but a fact-driven analysis is at least as likely as not to work in their favor.

  6. res says:

    Given the Democrats 14% I was a little surprised to see postgrads at 32% (question 71). Any thoughts on that?

    What your graphic cries out for is comparison with cases where the party affiliations are reversed. I was unable to find a YouGov poll question about Kavanaugh (do you know of one?), but this one for Trump looks perfect.
    15. Sexual Assault | Credible
    A number of women have recently accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Do you think that these assertions generally are or are not
    credible?
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/10/18/most-republicans-dont-think-sexual-assault-would-d

    That comparison makes abundantly clear that this is pure partisanship. And rather makes a mockery of the “believe all women” rhetoric spewed by Democrats during both the Trump and Kavanaugh controversies. Republicans are just as partisan, but seem less hypocritical to me given they don’t virtue signal about it the way Democrats do.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Trump got 37% of the post-grad vote according to the 2016 exit polls, compared to just 8% of the Democrat vote, so partisanship goes a long way in explaining this, too.
  7. What do you mean “has been subjugated”? It was never more than a political front to begin with.

    Always, people who are supposedly on the right make the mistake of thinking that any cause or movement championed by the left is based on firm principles, and always they are proven wrong. You’d think they’d update their priors at some point.

    The cause is never the cause, it’s always an excuse to grab power.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    If it was purely political from the beginning, why sacrifice Democrat-friendly men like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Matt Lauer?
  8. Dumbo says:

    I don’t know the details about Biden’s case, and frankly, I don’t care that much. Women keep changing their minds. I have nothing against women, but I don’t take them so seriously anymore, especially in this type of accusation.

    We soon realize that most women who complain about “abusive boyfriends” are the ones who looked for exactly that type of guy again and again and refused to leave him…

    We soon realize that a lot of women who complain about sexual harassment and “me too” are not the good girls, who are somehow rarely harassed, but very morally dubious women who had no qualms to use sex as a form of exchange when it was convenient for them.

    We soon realize that many women can realize that they were “raped” or “abused” only several years after the fact.

    And that’s not counting whatever is happening in Sweden, where even touching a woman’s arm without her consent can be considered “rape” or “assault”. (They even have something called “negligent rape”, which happens when you don’t want to rape anyone but end up raping accidentally, somehow).

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I don’t know the details about Biden’s case, and frankly, I don’t care that much.
     
    Politically motivated moral witch hunts are distasteful whichever side is doing it. I personally doubt whether they're effective. All they do is make the voters even more cynical and disillusioned. People just assume that all accusations against political figures are politically motivated hatchet jobs. Because they are.

    I think it would be a mistake for the Republicans to go after Biden on this, just as it was a mistake for the Dems to go after Trump for pussy-grabbing. And it was a mistake for Republicans to go after Bill Clinton for his little adventures with Monica Lewinski. I don't think voters care very much.

    How many voters are actually going to see such things as major issues? The rabid feminists might but they all vote Democrat anyway. Evangelical Christians might but they all vote Republican anyway. So it's all pretty pointless.

    Trump won in 2016 on economic issues. If he wins this year he'll win on economic issues. If he loses this year he'll lose on economic issues.
  9. @res
    Given the Democrats 14% I was a little surprised to see postgrads at 32% (question 71). Any thoughts on that?

    What your graphic cries out for is comparison with cases where the party affiliations are reversed. I was unable to find a YouGov poll question about Kavanaugh (do you know of one?), but this one for Trump looks perfect.
    15. Sexual Assault | Credible
    A number of women have recently accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Do you think that these assertions generally are or are not
    credible?
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/10/18/most-republicans-dont-think-sexual-assault-would-d

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-10-17/assault4.png

    That comparison makes abundantly clear that this is pure partisanship. And rather makes a mockery of the "believe all women" rhetoric spewed by Democrats during both the Trump and Kavanaugh controversies. Republicans are just as partisan, but seem less hypocritical to me given they don't virtue signal about it the way Democrats do.

    Trump got 37% of the post-grad vote according to the 2016 exit polls, compared to just 8% of the Democrat vote, so partisanship goes a long way in explaining this, too.

    • Replies: @res
    That would explain it. Thanks. I thought postgrads swung harder for Hillary, but I guess not. For reference, here are the exit polls:
    https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
  10. @Michael S
    What do you mean "has been subjugated"? It was never more than a political front to begin with.

    Always, people who are supposedly on the right make the mistake of thinking that any cause or movement championed by the left is based on firm principles, and always they are proven wrong. You'd think they'd update their priors at some point.

    The cause is never the cause, it's always an excuse to grab power.

    If it was purely political from the beginning, why sacrifice Democrat-friendly men like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Matt Lauer?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    If it was purely political from the beginning, why sacrifice Democrat-friendly men like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Matt Lauer?
     
    Feminists used to be one of the most powerful groups within the Coalition of the Fringes. They've seen their power decline, sharply. The real power is now mostly in the hands of the LGBT mob. The LGBT crowd, blacks and immigrants all have more power within that coalition than the feminists.

    White heterosexual feminists are now very much a marginalised group within that coalition, widely despised f0r their white privilege and their heterosexual privilege.

    And they're not happy. They really liked having power. They liked it a lot. Especially the white heterosexual Hollywood feminists. They liked having people grovel to them.

    #MeToo was a desperate attempt by white heterosexual feminists to regain their lost power within the Coalition of the Fringes.

    Always remember when dealing with any large political coalition that the sub-groups within it see the other sub-groups as their most hated and feared enemies. They are much more vicious towards those other sub-groups than they are towards the ostensible external enemy.

    Do you remember the feminist civil war of the 90s? The so-called Feminist Sex Wars. The hatred between the anti-sex feminists and the pro-sex feminists was something to behold. The anti-sex feminists lost. They lost really badly. In some ways #MeToo can be seen as an attempted counter-revolution by the defeated anti-sex feminists.
  11. @Audacious Epigone
    Trump got 37% of the post-grad vote according to the 2016 exit polls, compared to just 8% of the Democrat vote, so partisanship goes a long way in explaining this, too.

    That would explain it. Thanks. I thought postgrads swung harder for Hillary, but I guess not. For reference, here are the exit polls:
    https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

  12. @Dumbo

    Precisely, and one unfortunate consequence that this will breed cynicism about workplace sexual harassment that disproportionately affects women

     

    Well, one would think that in *only* affects women, since is rare for men to be sexually harassed or complain of being harassed (by women. Gay harassment is another matter).

    I personally think real "workplace sexual harassment" is rare. What you have are women who are ogled or invited out by a few men they don't like ("creeps"), but without any violence or intimidation, and they call that "harassment", while others are rejected or pumped and dumped by CEOs, Hollywood producers, etc, and they call that "harassment" too. There was one broad (I think that dumb slut Asia Argento) who hang out with Weinstein for a year after having been "raped".

    Waitresses, I don't know, depending on the place, part of their job is to look alluring or interested in the customers, it's something between acting and prostitution, in a way. So I can see why bad things could happen. But yes, poor waitresses, that I agree.

    I personally think real “workplace sexual harassment” is rare.

    That may be, and if so, I would credit the system of protections in place for women for ameliorating the problem. I think one of the problems with this issue is that most men are not inclined to harass women, and so they assume it’s not really a problem.

    The problem here is the old Platonic dilemma. The men who most want power are often precisely the ones least deserving of it.

    In any event, I agree with you that intimidation is really the most important factor. The lesser the power imbalance, the more outrageous the offending conduct must be to warrant a finding of harassment.

    Waitresses, I don’t know, depending on the place, part of their job is to look alluring or interested in the customers, it’s something between acting and prostitution, in a way. So I can see why bad things could happen. But yes, poor waitresses, that I agree.

    Here again, you have to understand that the standard for sexual harassment is that a reasonable woman, under the circumstances, would find the conduct so offensive as to alter the conditions of employment to her detriment. If you work at Hooters, the threshold for intolerable conduct is going to be very different from what you would expect at a family restaurant.

    Circumstances are very important. Men perceive this as unpredictability and leaves them feeling vulnerable, but a fact-driven analysis is at least as likely as not to work in their favor.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    the standard for sexual harassment is that a reasonable woman, under the circumstances, would find the conduct so offensive as to alter the conditions of employment to her detriment.
     
    Every single concept in that statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. It's like thoughtcrime. It's whatever the Thought Police decide it is.
  13. My own somewhat inflexible opinion is time and status related.
    If a women waits 20 plus years before making an issue out of what even according to her version is little more than an unwanted sexual advance
    she should be met with either benign indifference or outright mockery.
    This is especially true if the man she is accusing is one of no small accomplishment.
    The default position should be that the woman in question is rather pathetically trying to snatch some of the man’s hard won status to make up for the sorry condition she finds herself.
    These types of accusations do little more than reinforce the worst stereotypes of women.
    To wit;
    Their almost infinite capacity to hold a grudge, to nurse a grievance and to plot revenge.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    If a women waits 20 plus years before making an issue out of what even according to her version is little more than an unwanted sexual advance
    she should be met with either benign indifference or outright mockery.
     
    If a woman waits more than 24 hours before reporting an accusation of rape to the police the accusation should be ignored.

    It should be the same with any crime. If you don't report the crime within 24 hours then any accusation you make should be ignored.
  14. @Dumbo
    I don't know the details about Biden's case, and frankly, I don't care that much. Women keep changing their minds. I have nothing against women, but I don't take them so seriously anymore, especially in this type of accusation.

    We soon realize that most women who complain about "abusive boyfriends" are the ones who looked for exactly that type of guy again and again and refused to leave him...

    We soon realize that a lot of women who complain about sexual harassment and "me too" are not the good girls, who are somehow rarely harassed, but very morally dubious women who had no qualms to use sex as a form of exchange when it was convenient for them.

    We soon realize that many women can realize that they were "raped" or "abused" only several years after the fact.

    And that's not counting whatever is happening in Sweden, where even touching a woman's arm without her consent can be considered "rape" or "assault". (They even have something called "negligent rape", which happens when you don't want to rape anyone but end up raping accidentally, somehow).

    I don’t know the details about Biden’s case, and frankly, I don’t care that much.

    Politically motivated moral witch hunts are distasteful whichever side is doing it. I personally doubt whether they’re effective. All they do is make the voters even more cynical and disillusioned. People just assume that all accusations against political figures are politically motivated hatchet jobs. Because they are.

    I think it would be a mistake for the Republicans to go after Biden on this, just as it was a mistake for the Dems to go after Trump for pussy-grabbing. And it was a mistake for Republicans to go after Bill Clinton for his little adventures with Monica Lewinski. I don’t think voters care very much.

    How many voters are actually going to see such things as major issues? The rabid feminists might but they all vote Democrat anyway. Evangelical Christians might but they all vote Republican anyway. So it’s all pretty pointless.

    Trump won in 2016 on economic issues. If he wins this year he’ll win on economic issues. If he loses this year he’ll lose on economic issues.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen

    Trump won in 2016 on economic issues. If he wins this year he’ll win on economic issues. If he loses this year he’ll lose on economic issues.
     
    Did Trump even have an economic position in 2016?

    Trump won on immigration. People voted for him for his big beautiful wall, for his nationalism, for his close-the-borders speech in Arizona, for his refusal to apologize for saying Mexico sends us their rapists, and, primarily, because the New York Times et al. hate him with a passion.
  15. @Audacious Epigone
    If it was purely political from the beginning, why sacrifice Democrat-friendly men like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Matt Lauer?

    If it was purely political from the beginning, why sacrifice Democrat-friendly men like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Matt Lauer?

    Feminists used to be one of the most powerful groups within the Coalition of the Fringes. They’ve seen their power decline, sharply. The real power is now mostly in the hands of the LGBT mob. The LGBT crowd, blacks and immigrants all have more power within that coalition than the feminists.

    White heterosexual feminists are now very much a marginalised group within that coalition, widely despised f0r their white privilege and their heterosexual privilege.

    And they’re not happy. They really liked having power. They liked it a lot. Especially the white heterosexual Hollywood feminists. They liked having people grovel to them.

    #MeToo was a desperate attempt by white heterosexual feminists to regain their lost power within the Coalition of the Fringes.

    Always remember when dealing with any large political coalition that the sub-groups within it see the other sub-groups as their most hated and feared enemies. They are much more vicious towards those other sub-groups than they are towards the ostensible external enemy.

    Do you remember the feminist civil war of the 90s? The so-called Feminist Sex Wars. The hatred between the anti-sex feminists and the pro-sex feminists was something to behold. The anti-sex feminists lost. They lost really badly. In some ways #MeToo can be seen as an attempted counter-revolution by the defeated anti-sex feminists.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  16. @dfordoom

    I don’t know the details about Biden’s case, and frankly, I don’t care that much.
     
    Politically motivated moral witch hunts are distasteful whichever side is doing it. I personally doubt whether they're effective. All they do is make the voters even more cynical and disillusioned. People just assume that all accusations against political figures are politically motivated hatchet jobs. Because they are.

    I think it would be a mistake for the Republicans to go after Biden on this, just as it was a mistake for the Dems to go after Trump for pussy-grabbing. And it was a mistake for Republicans to go after Bill Clinton for his little adventures with Monica Lewinski. I don't think voters care very much.

    How many voters are actually going to see such things as major issues? The rabid feminists might but they all vote Democrat anyway. Evangelical Christians might but they all vote Republican anyway. So it's all pretty pointless.

    Trump won in 2016 on economic issues. If he wins this year he'll win on economic issues. If he loses this year he'll lose on economic issues.

    Trump won in 2016 on economic issues. If he wins this year he’ll win on economic issues. If he loses this year he’ll lose on economic issues.

    Did Trump even have an economic position in 2016?

    Trump won on immigration. People voted for him for his big beautiful wall, for his nationalism, for his close-the-borders speech in Arizona, for his refusal to apologize for saying Mexico sends us their rapists, and, primarily, because the New York Times et al. hate him with a passion.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Did Trump even have an economic position in 2016?

    Trump won on immigration.
     
    Trump won because Rust Belt voters thought he was going to bring back their factory jobs.

    Alt-righters always make the mistake of thinking that the things they hoped for from Trump were the things that actual voters in the real world hoped for. The Big Beautiful Wall was raw meat for his base but your base doesn't win elections for you. Swing voters win elections for you. The swing voters who won the election for Trump cared about jobs for themselves and for their kids.

    The key issues in elections are always economic issues.
  17. @Rosie

    I personally think real “workplace sexual harassment” is rare.
     
    That may be, and if so, I would credit the system of protections in place for women for ameliorating the problem. I think one of the problems with this issue is that most men are not inclined to harass women, and so they assume it's not really a problem.

    The problem here is the old Platonic dilemma. The men who most want power are often precisely the ones least deserving of it.

    In any event, I agree with you that intimidation is really the most important factor. The lesser the power imbalance, the more outrageous the offending conduct must be to warrant a finding of harassment.


    Waitresses, I don’t know, depending on the place, part of their job is to look alluring or interested in the customers, it’s something between acting and prostitution, in a way. So I can see why bad things could happen. But yes, poor waitresses, that I agree.
     
    Here again, you have to understand that the standard for sexual harassment is that a reasonable woman, under the circumstances, would find the conduct so offensive as to alter the conditions of employment to her detriment. If you work at Hooters, the threshold for intolerable conduct is going to be very different from what you would expect at a family restaurant.

    Circumstances are very important. Men perceive this as unpredictability and leaves them feeling vulnerable, but a fact-driven analysis is at least as likely as not to work in their favor.

    the standard for sexual harassment is that a reasonable woman, under the circumstances, would find the conduct so offensive as to alter the conditions of employment to her detriment.

    Every single concept in that statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. It’s like thoughtcrime. It’s whatever the Thought Police decide it is.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Every single concept in that statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. It’s like thoughtcrime. It’s whatever the Thought Police decide it is.
     
    No, it isn't, an to any extent it is, so is almost everything in civil law. The reasonable person standard has a very long history, and works just fine.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard
  18. @Craig Nelsen

    Trump won in 2016 on economic issues. If he wins this year he’ll win on economic issues. If he loses this year he’ll lose on economic issues.
     
    Did Trump even have an economic position in 2016?

    Trump won on immigration. People voted for him for his big beautiful wall, for his nationalism, for his close-the-borders speech in Arizona, for his refusal to apologize for saying Mexico sends us their rapists, and, primarily, because the New York Times et al. hate him with a passion.

    Did Trump even have an economic position in 2016?

    Trump won on immigration.

    Trump won because Rust Belt voters thought he was going to bring back their factory jobs.

    Alt-righters always make the mistake of thinking that the things they hoped for from Trump were the things that actual voters in the real world hoped for. The Big Beautiful Wall was raw meat for his base but your base doesn’t win elections for you. Swing voters win elections for you. The swing voters who won the election for Trump cared about jobs for themselves and for their kids.

    The key issues in elections are always economic issues.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I don't think it's a bad approximation to say that immigration won Trump the nomination and economic populism won him the general election.
  19. @Partic
    My own somewhat inflexible opinion is time and status related.
    If a women waits 20 plus years before making an issue out of what even according to her version is little more than an unwanted sexual advance
    she should be met with either benign indifference or outright mockery.
    This is especially true if the man she is accusing is one of no small accomplishment.
    The default position should be that the woman in question is rather pathetically trying to snatch some of the man's hard won status to make up for the sorry condition she finds herself.
    These types of accusations do little more than reinforce the worst stereotypes of women.
    To wit;
    Their almost infinite capacity to hold a grudge, to nurse a grievance and to plot revenge.

    If a women waits 20 plus years before making an issue out of what even according to her version is little more than an unwanted sexual advance
    she should be met with either benign indifference or outright mockery.

    If a woman waits more than 24 hours before reporting an accusation of rape to the police the accusation should be ignored.

    It should be the same with any crime. If you don’t report the crime within 24 hours then any accusation you make should be ignored.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If a woman waits more than 24 hours before reporting an accusation of rape to the police the accusation should be ignored.
     
    Be careful what you wish for.
    , @Mr. Rational
    I had multiple felonies committed against me back in January.

    By a police officer and at least two others.

    Who came into the place where I was sleeping, behind a locked door, without a warrant or any probable cause.

    I have not yet filed criminal complaints against any of them because I have been assembling evidence.  My FOIA demand for the official record of the details was denied in toto.  Of course, my money was not returned.

    24 hours is nowhere near enough for way too many things.
  20. @dfordoom

    the standard for sexual harassment is that a reasonable woman, under the circumstances, would find the conduct so offensive as to alter the conditions of employment to her detriment.
     
    Every single concept in that statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. It's like thoughtcrime. It's whatever the Thought Police decide it is.

    Every single concept in that statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. It’s like thoughtcrime. It’s whatever the Thought Police decide it is.

    No, it isn’t, an to any extent it is, so is almost everything in civil law. The reasonable person standard has a very long history, and works just fine.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Having thought it over, Doom, it occurs to me that what you really don't like is at-will employment. You are very solicitous that the rules concerning sexual harassment be clear and plain for Holmes' "bad man" who lacks an inner moral compass. Of course, the trouble with "bright lines" is that it's easy to taunt and troll by walking right up to them without accidentally crossing them.

    Anyway, you seem to be very concerned about the due process rights that employees don't have, but only in the context of sexual harassment. This is special pleading for creeps, of course. In reality, an employer is entitled to remove a disruptive employee without regard to fault, good intentions, etc. If you want to take a position against at-will employment, you'll certainly hear no objection from me, yes, even if that means more creeps in the workplace.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_theory_of_law
    , @Partic
    Of course a reasonable person is not quite the same as a reasonable woman.
    In fact it's not even close, and that has been one of the ongoing problems with, on one hand, sex is all pleasure, and the reality, to some, that there's a lot of pain mixed in with the pleasure.
    , @dfordoom

    No, it isn’t, an to any extent it is, so is almost everything in civil law. The reasonable person standard has a very long history, and works just fine.
     
    It works just fine for lawyers. From the point of view of lawyers the more vague and meaningless the law the better.

    The reasonable person standard comes down to either a judge or a jury making a subjective judgment. Any law that relies on such a concept is a stupid unnecessary law.
  21. The Big Beautiful Wall was raw meat for his base but your base doesn’t win elections for you. Swing voters win elections for you.

    False. Elections turn at least as much on whether the base is motivated enough to show up as what swing voters decide to do. Moreover, it isn’t necessarily true that “swing voters” primarily care about economics. The White working class cares a great deal about demographic issues, but they’re not going to keep voting for Republicans who don’t follow through when it’s not in their economic interest to do so.

  22. @dfordoom

    If a women waits 20 plus years before making an issue out of what even according to her version is little more than an unwanted sexual advance
    she should be met with either benign indifference or outright mockery.
     
    If a woman waits more than 24 hours before reporting an accusation of rape to the police the accusation should be ignored.

    It should be the same with any crime. If you don't report the crime within 24 hours then any accusation you make should be ignored.

    If a woman waits more than 24 hours before reporting an accusation of rape to the police the accusation should be ignored.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  23. @Rosie

    Every single concept in that statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. It’s like thoughtcrime. It’s whatever the Thought Police decide it is.
     
    No, it isn't, an to any extent it is, so is almost everything in civil law. The reasonable person standard has a very long history, and works just fine.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

    Having thought it over, Doom, it occurs to me that what you really don’t like is at-will employment. You are very solicitous that the rules concerning sexual harassment be clear and plain for Holmes’ “bad man” who lacks an inner moral compass. Of course, the trouble with “bright lines” is that it’s easy to taunt and troll by walking right up to them without accidentally crossing them.

    Anyway, you seem to be very concerned about the due process rights that employees don’t have, but only in the context of sexual harassment. This is special pleading for creeps, of course. In reality, an employer is entitled to remove a disruptive employee without regard to fault, good intentions, etc. If you want to take a position against at-will employment, you’ll certainly hear no objection from me, yes, even if that means more creeps in the workplace.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_theory_of_law

    • Replies: @iffen
    What?
    , @dfordoom

    You are very solicitous that the rules concerning sexual harassment be clear and plain for Holmes’ “bad man” who lacks an inner moral compass.
     
    The trouble with inner moral compasses is that everyone has a different inner moral compass. For most people it's just a fancy way of saying that they behave according to their emotions.

    I'm actually very solicitous that all rules should be clear and plain.

    Let's say you tell a child that you'll punish her if she's naughty. She asks what you mean by naughty and you tell her that it means whatever you want it to mean. She then knows that she's going to be subject to completely arbitrary punishments. She might then fear you but I doubt that she'll respect you. I would have thought that if you laid down clear and plain rules for her that she'd be more likely to respect you.

    It's the same with the law. If it's arbitrary and subjective then the law will be feared rather than respected.

    This is also why I dislike concepts like hate speech. They're arbitrary and subjective so they create fear rather than respect.
    , @dfordoom

    Anyway, you seem to be very concerned about the due process rights that employees don’t have, but only in the context of sexual harassment.
     
    That's definitely not the case. I'm very much in favour of workers' rights not to face dismissal without due cause. That applies to all workers, male and female.

    As for sexual harassment, I'll modify my position just a little. My problem with sexual harassment rules and/or laws is when they have a punitive aspect to them. In other words if they're just guidelines that's one thing. If a person could lose his job that's quite another thing. If a person could lose his job then I believe that the rules should be made as clear and as plain as possible. Which means no vague nonsense that amounts to "it's sexual harassment if I feel that it is."

    Of course nothing in human affairs can ever be entirely clear-cut. There's always likely to be a need for some interpretation (otherwise lawyers could never get rich). But laws and/or rules should be framed in such a manner as to minimise the room for interpretation. As far as possible they should specify clearly exactly what is against the rules and what is not. The element of subjectivity should be reduced to a minimum. Most existing laws and/or rules regarding sexual harassment are all subjectivity.

    I'm not convinced that punitive measures are appropriate in the case of sexual harassment. After all we're not talking about rape or sexual harassment (there have long been been laws regarding those offences). Sexual harassment is a much vaguer concept dealing with much less serious actions. I'm very dubious as to whether it's a serious enough matter to cost someone his job.

    I mentioned hate speech in an earlier comment. I don't like hate speech. I certainly don't like some of the appalling sentiments expressed by some commenters on this site. But I don't see how hate speech can be defined clearly enough to make it a workable legal concept. And even if it could be defined clearly enough I don't think it should be a matter for the law, and I'm not convinced that it should be grounds for taking someone's job away from him (or her).

    There are lots of things I very strongly disapprove of but I don't think they're any concern of the law, and in most cases I don't think they're any business of an employer.
  24. @Rosie
    Having thought it over, Doom, it occurs to me that what you really don't like is at-will employment. You are very solicitous that the rules concerning sexual harassment be clear and plain for Holmes' "bad man" who lacks an inner moral compass. Of course, the trouble with "bright lines" is that it's easy to taunt and troll by walking right up to them without accidentally crossing them.

    Anyway, you seem to be very concerned about the due process rights that employees don't have, but only in the context of sexual harassment. This is special pleading for creeps, of course. In reality, an employer is entitled to remove a disruptive employee without regard to fault, good intentions, etc. If you want to take a position against at-will employment, you'll certainly hear no objection from me, yes, even if that means more creeps in the workplace.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_theory_of_law

    What?

  25. @Rosie

    Every single concept in that statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. It’s like thoughtcrime. It’s whatever the Thought Police decide it is.
     
    No, it isn't, an to any extent it is, so is almost everything in civil law. The reasonable person standard has a very long history, and works just fine.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

    Of course a reasonable person is not quite the same as a reasonable woman.
    In fact it’s not even close, and that has been one of the ongoing problems with, on one hand, sex is all pleasure, and the reality, to some, that there’s a lot of pain mixed in with the pleasure.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Of course a reasonable person is not quite the same as a reasonable woman.
     
    Yes, there is certainly a great deal of room for misunderstanding, and IMO, every benefit of the doubt should be given to those accused of wrongdoing, with discipline being gradual and progressive. I would say the same about any workplace misconduct.
  26. @Rosie

    Every single concept in that statement is so subjective as to be meaningless. It’s like thoughtcrime. It’s whatever the Thought Police decide it is.
     
    No, it isn't, an to any extent it is, so is almost everything in civil law. The reasonable person standard has a very long history, and works just fine.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

    No, it isn’t, an to any extent it is, so is almost everything in civil law. The reasonable person standard has a very long history, and works just fine.

    It works just fine for lawyers. From the point of view of lawyers the more vague and meaningless the law the better.

    The reasonable person standard comes down to either a judge or a jury making a subjective judgment. Any law that relies on such a concept is a stupid unnecessary law.

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Rosie

    The reasonable person standard comes down to either a judge or a jury making a subjective judgment. Any law that relies on such a concept is a stupid unnecessary law.
     
    Ah, that is precisely where you and I part ways. It is not possible to enumerate all the ways a person may run afoul of the law, nor would it be desirable to do so even if it were possible. The law can never be made to work like a computer. Conscience is an indispensable part of it. When necessary, the conscience of the community (jurors) decide.
  27. @Rosie
    Having thought it over, Doom, it occurs to me that what you really don't like is at-will employment. You are very solicitous that the rules concerning sexual harassment be clear and plain for Holmes' "bad man" who lacks an inner moral compass. Of course, the trouble with "bright lines" is that it's easy to taunt and troll by walking right up to them without accidentally crossing them.

    Anyway, you seem to be very concerned about the due process rights that employees don't have, but only in the context of sexual harassment. This is special pleading for creeps, of course. In reality, an employer is entitled to remove a disruptive employee without regard to fault, good intentions, etc. If you want to take a position against at-will employment, you'll certainly hear no objection from me, yes, even if that means more creeps in the workplace.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_theory_of_law

    You are very solicitous that the rules concerning sexual harassment be clear and plain for Holmes’ “bad man” who lacks an inner moral compass.

    The trouble with inner moral compasses is that everyone has a different inner moral compass. For most people it’s just a fancy way of saying that they behave according to their emotions.

    I’m actually very solicitous that all rules should be clear and plain.

    Let’s say you tell a child that you’ll punish her if she’s naughty. She asks what you mean by naughty and you tell her that it means whatever you want it to mean. She then knows that she’s going to be subject to completely arbitrary punishments. She might then fear you but I doubt that she’ll respect you. I would have thought that if you laid down clear and plain rules for her that she’d be more likely to respect you.

    It’s the same with the law. If it’s arbitrary and subjective then the law will be feared rather than respected.

    This is also why I dislike concepts like hate speech. They’re arbitrary and subjective so they create fear rather than respect.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    She asks what you mean by naughty and you tell her that it means whatever you want it to mean.
     
    Nonsense. Children know what is naughty and what is nice, though they try to play dumb. Heck, even dogs know when they have done wrong. God's law is written on our hearts.

    https://www.dogexpress.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Guilty-Dog1.jpg
  28. @dfordoom

    If a women waits 20 plus years before making an issue out of what even according to her version is little more than an unwanted sexual advance
    she should be met with either benign indifference or outright mockery.
     
    If a woman waits more than 24 hours before reporting an accusation of rape to the police the accusation should be ignored.

    It should be the same with any crime. If you don't report the crime within 24 hours then any accusation you make should be ignored.

    I had multiple felonies committed against me back in January.

    By a police officer and at least two others.

    Who came into the place where I was sleeping, behind a locked door, without a warrant or any probable cause.

    I have not yet filed criminal complaints against any of them because I have been assembling evidence.  My FOIA demand for the official record of the details was denied in toto.  Of course, my money was not returned.

    24 hours is nowhere near enough for way too many things.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.

    I had multiple felonies committed against me back in January. By a police officer and at least two others. Who came into the place where I was sleeping, behind a locked door, without a warrant or any probable cause.
     
    This is intriguing. Could you elaborate more?
    , @dfordoom

    24 hours is nowhere near enough for way too many things.
     
    I think it's reasonable to demand that at least an official preliminary report to the police should be made in 24 hours. Hey, make it 72 hours if you like. It doesn't change my point. If people can't be bothered at least notifying the police of their intention to make a formal accusation within a very short time after an alleged crime was committed then any later accusation should be ignored.

    Would you take anyone seriously if they reported a burglary or a car theft years after the crime was supposedly committed? Assuming that in the intervening years they had not made any official report whatsoever of the incident? It doesn't take years to figure out if your car was stolen. It doesn't take years to figure out if you were raped.
  29. @dfordoom

    You are very solicitous that the rules concerning sexual harassment be clear and plain for Holmes’ “bad man” who lacks an inner moral compass.
     
    The trouble with inner moral compasses is that everyone has a different inner moral compass. For most people it's just a fancy way of saying that they behave according to their emotions.

    I'm actually very solicitous that all rules should be clear and plain.

    Let's say you tell a child that you'll punish her if she's naughty. She asks what you mean by naughty and you tell her that it means whatever you want it to mean. She then knows that she's going to be subject to completely arbitrary punishments. She might then fear you but I doubt that she'll respect you. I would have thought that if you laid down clear and plain rules for her that she'd be more likely to respect you.

    It's the same with the law. If it's arbitrary and subjective then the law will be feared rather than respected.

    This is also why I dislike concepts like hate speech. They're arbitrary and subjective so they create fear rather than respect.

    She asks what you mean by naughty and you tell her that it means whatever you want it to mean.

    Nonsense. Children know what is naughty and what is nice, though they try to play dumb. Heck, even dogs know when they have done wrong. God’s law is written on our hearts.

  30. @Partic
    Of course a reasonable person is not quite the same as a reasonable woman.
    In fact it's not even close, and that has been one of the ongoing problems with, on one hand, sex is all pleasure, and the reality, to some, that there's a lot of pain mixed in with the pleasure.

    Of course a reasonable person is not quite the same as a reasonable woman.

    Yes, there is certainly a great deal of room for misunderstanding, and IMO, every benefit of the doubt should be given to those accused of wrongdoing, with discipline being gradual and progressive. I would say the same about any workplace misconduct.

  31. @dfordoom

    No, it isn’t, an to any extent it is, so is almost everything in civil law. The reasonable person standard has a very long history, and works just fine.
     
    It works just fine for lawyers. From the point of view of lawyers the more vague and meaningless the law the better.

    The reasonable person standard comes down to either a judge or a jury making a subjective judgment. Any law that relies on such a concept is a stupid unnecessary law.

    The reasonable person standard comes down to either a judge or a jury making a subjective judgment. Any law that relies on such a concept is a stupid unnecessary law.

    Ah, that is precisely where you and I part ways. It is not possible to enumerate all the ways a person may run afoul of the law, nor would it be desirable to do so even if it were possible. The law can never be made to work like a computer. Conscience is an indispensable part of it. When necessary, the conscience of the community (jurors) decide.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Conscience is an indispensable part of it. When necessary, the conscience of the community (jurors) decide.
     
    Silly me. I thought jurors were supposed to decide based on actual evidence presented in court. Even if they think the accused is a terrible person they're supposed to acquit if the evidence is insufficient. Either the evidence is there or it isn't.

    If the crime is so vague that it can't be defined without recourse to hopelessly subjective emotional arguments then a jury cannot render a fair verdict.
  32. @Mr. Rational
    I had multiple felonies committed against me back in January.

    By a police officer and at least two others.

    Who came into the place where I was sleeping, behind a locked door, without a warrant or any probable cause.

    I have not yet filed criminal complaints against any of them because I have been assembling evidence.  My FOIA demand for the official record of the details was denied in toto.  Of course, my money was not returned.

    24 hours is nowhere near enough for way too many things.

    I had multiple felonies committed against me back in January. By a police officer and at least two others. Who came into the place where I was sleeping, behind a locked door, without a warrant or any probable cause.

    This is intriguing. Could you elaborate more?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    No.
  33. @Rosie
    Having thought it over, Doom, it occurs to me that what you really don't like is at-will employment. You are very solicitous that the rules concerning sexual harassment be clear and plain for Holmes' "bad man" who lacks an inner moral compass. Of course, the trouble with "bright lines" is that it's easy to taunt and troll by walking right up to them without accidentally crossing them.

    Anyway, you seem to be very concerned about the due process rights that employees don't have, but only in the context of sexual harassment. This is special pleading for creeps, of course. In reality, an employer is entitled to remove a disruptive employee without regard to fault, good intentions, etc. If you want to take a position against at-will employment, you'll certainly hear no objection from me, yes, even if that means more creeps in the workplace.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_theory_of_law

    Anyway, you seem to be very concerned about the due process rights that employees don’t have, but only in the context of sexual harassment.

    That’s definitely not the case. I’m very much in favour of workers’ rights not to face dismissal without due cause. That applies to all workers, male and female.

    As for sexual harassment, I’ll modify my position just a little. My problem with sexual harassment rules and/or laws is when they have a punitive aspect to them. In other words if they’re just guidelines that’s one thing. If a person could lose his job that’s quite another thing. If a person could lose his job then I believe that the rules should be made as clear and as plain as possible. Which means no vague nonsense that amounts to “it’s sexual harassment if I feel that it is.”

    Of course nothing in human affairs can ever be entirely clear-cut. There’s always likely to be a need for some interpretation (otherwise lawyers could never get rich). But laws and/or rules should be framed in such a manner as to minimise the room for interpretation. As far as possible they should specify clearly exactly what is against the rules and what is not. The element of subjectivity should be reduced to a minimum. Most existing laws and/or rules regarding sexual harassment are all subjectivity.

    I’m not convinced that punitive measures are appropriate in the case of sexual harassment. After all we’re not talking about rape or sexual harassment (there have long been been laws regarding those offences). Sexual harassment is a much vaguer concept dealing with much less serious actions. I’m very dubious as to whether it’s a serious enough matter to cost someone his job.

    I mentioned hate speech in an earlier comment. I don’t like hate speech. I certainly don’t like some of the appalling sentiments expressed by some commenters on this site. But I don’t see how hate speech can be defined clearly enough to make it a workable legal concept. And even if it could be defined clearly enough I don’t think it should be a matter for the law, and I’m not convinced that it should be grounds for taking someone’s job away from him (or her).

    There are lots of things I very strongly disapprove of but I don’t think they’re any concern of the law, and in most cases I don’t think they’re any business of an employer.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    laws and/or rules should be framed in such a manner as to minimise the room for interpretation. As far as possible they should specify clearly exactly what is against the rules and what is not. The element of subjectivity should be reduced to a minimum. Most existing laws and/or rules regarding sexual harassment are all subjectivity.
     
    Quoted for truth.
  34. @Mr. Rational
    I had multiple felonies committed against me back in January.

    By a police officer and at least two others.

    Who came into the place where I was sleeping, behind a locked door, without a warrant or any probable cause.

    I have not yet filed criminal complaints against any of them because I have been assembling evidence.  My FOIA demand for the official record of the details was denied in toto.  Of course, my money was not returned.

    24 hours is nowhere near enough for way too many things.

    24 hours is nowhere near enough for way too many things.

    I think it’s reasonable to demand that at least an official preliminary report to the police should be made in 24 hours. Hey, make it 72 hours if you like. It doesn’t change my point. If people can’t be bothered at least notifying the police of their intention to make a formal accusation within a very short time after an alleged crime was committed then any later accusation should be ignored.

    Would you take anyone seriously if they reported a burglary or a car theft years after the crime was supposedly committed? Assuming that in the intervening years they had not made any official report whatsoever of the incident? It doesn’t take years to figure out if your car was stolen. It doesn’t take years to figure out if you were raped.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    It literally took weeks before I had the evidence to prove that I was maliciously injured.
  35. @Rosie

    The reasonable person standard comes down to either a judge or a jury making a subjective judgment. Any law that relies on such a concept is a stupid unnecessary law.
     
    Ah, that is precisely where you and I part ways. It is not possible to enumerate all the ways a person may run afoul of the law, nor would it be desirable to do so even if it were possible. The law can never be made to work like a computer. Conscience is an indispensable part of it. When necessary, the conscience of the community (jurors) decide.

    Conscience is an indispensable part of it. When necessary, the conscience of the community (jurors) decide.

    Silly me. I thought jurors were supposed to decide based on actual evidence presented in court. Even if they think the accused is a terrible person they’re supposed to acquit if the evidence is insufficient. Either the evidence is there or it isn’t.

    If the crime is so vague that it can’t be defined without recourse to hopelessly subjective emotional arguments then a jury cannot render a fair verdict.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Silly me. I thought jurors were supposed to decide based on actual evidence presented in court. Even if they think the accused is a terrible person they’re supposed to acquit if the evidence is insufficient. Either the evidence is there or it isn’t.
     
    The question of whether a defendant did a certain thing is separate from the question of whether the conduct in question amounts to a crime. The first one is entirely factual. The second is inevitably normative.

    If the crime is so vague that it can’t be defined without recourse to hopelessly subjective emotional arguments then a jury cannot render a fair verdict.
     
    I'm sorry but there is no alternative. Consider self-defense. Here are the elements:

    Four elements are required for self-defense: (1) an unprovoked attack, (2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and (3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to (4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.
     
    Here you see that the jury doesn't need only to determine whether the defendant killed the deceased or not, but must in fact put himself in the place of the defendant at the time of the incident in question, and ask "how would I feel"? Is it subjective, emotional? I suppose, but so what? There is no alternative.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/5-2-self-defense/
  36. @Yahya K.

    I had multiple felonies committed against me back in January. By a police officer and at least two others. Who came into the place where I was sleeping, behind a locked door, without a warrant or any probable cause.
     
    This is intriguing. Could you elaborate more?

    No.

  37. @dfordoom

    Anyway, you seem to be very concerned about the due process rights that employees don’t have, but only in the context of sexual harassment.
     
    That's definitely not the case. I'm very much in favour of workers' rights not to face dismissal without due cause. That applies to all workers, male and female.

    As for sexual harassment, I'll modify my position just a little. My problem with sexual harassment rules and/or laws is when they have a punitive aspect to them. In other words if they're just guidelines that's one thing. If a person could lose his job that's quite another thing. If a person could lose his job then I believe that the rules should be made as clear and as plain as possible. Which means no vague nonsense that amounts to "it's sexual harassment if I feel that it is."

    Of course nothing in human affairs can ever be entirely clear-cut. There's always likely to be a need for some interpretation (otherwise lawyers could never get rich). But laws and/or rules should be framed in such a manner as to minimise the room for interpretation. As far as possible they should specify clearly exactly what is against the rules and what is not. The element of subjectivity should be reduced to a minimum. Most existing laws and/or rules regarding sexual harassment are all subjectivity.

    I'm not convinced that punitive measures are appropriate in the case of sexual harassment. After all we're not talking about rape or sexual harassment (there have long been been laws regarding those offences). Sexual harassment is a much vaguer concept dealing with much less serious actions. I'm very dubious as to whether it's a serious enough matter to cost someone his job.

    I mentioned hate speech in an earlier comment. I don't like hate speech. I certainly don't like some of the appalling sentiments expressed by some commenters on this site. But I don't see how hate speech can be defined clearly enough to make it a workable legal concept. And even if it could be defined clearly enough I don't think it should be a matter for the law, and I'm not convinced that it should be grounds for taking someone's job away from him (or her).

    There are lots of things I very strongly disapprove of but I don't think they're any concern of the law, and in most cases I don't think they're any business of an employer.

    laws and/or rules should be framed in such a manner as to minimise the room for interpretation. As far as possible they should specify clearly exactly what is against the rules and what is not. The element of subjectivity should be reduced to a minimum. Most existing laws and/or rules regarding sexual harassment are all subjectivity.

    Quoted for truth.

  38. @dfordoom

    24 hours is nowhere near enough for way too many things.
     
    I think it's reasonable to demand that at least an official preliminary report to the police should be made in 24 hours. Hey, make it 72 hours if you like. It doesn't change my point. If people can't be bothered at least notifying the police of their intention to make a formal accusation within a very short time after an alleged crime was committed then any later accusation should be ignored.

    Would you take anyone seriously if they reported a burglary or a car theft years after the crime was supposedly committed? Assuming that in the intervening years they had not made any official report whatsoever of the incident? It doesn't take years to figure out if your car was stolen. It doesn't take years to figure out if you were raped.

    It literally took weeks before I had the evidence to prove that I was maliciously injured.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It literally took weeks before I had the evidence to prove that I was maliciously injured.
     
    That's a valid point. I just plucked the 24 hours figure out of the air. I don't think it matters if a person has a longer time frame in which to make an accusation, as long as it's not years.

    But in the case of rape or sexual assault I think the time frame has to be short. After 24 hours it's probably no longer going to be possible to obtain forensic evidence, either to prove the accusation or to prove the accused's innocence. The longer the time frame the less accurate the testimony of witnesses is going to be. And the longer a person has to lay a charge the more likely it is that a person will convince themselves that consensual sex regretted afterwards was actually rape. So I think rape/sexual assault may be a special case in which if it's not reported immediately the accused person's chances of a fair trial become slimmer and slimmer.

    And I think that in the case of just about any crime it is virtually impossible for the accused to get a fair trial if accusations can be made years after the event. If someone accuses you of a robbery several years ago what chance do you think you'd have of proving an alibi? I'd have trouble remembering where I was on a specific date a few weeks ago, much less several years ago. If someone accused of a crime asked me to provide him with an alibi by confirming that he was having lunch with me at 2pm on April 16th two years ago I certainly couldn't do it.

    Hasn't it been said that justice delayed is justice denied?
  39. @dfordoom

    Conscience is an indispensable part of it. When necessary, the conscience of the community (jurors) decide.
     
    Silly me. I thought jurors were supposed to decide based on actual evidence presented in court. Even if they think the accused is a terrible person they're supposed to acquit if the evidence is insufficient. Either the evidence is there or it isn't.

    If the crime is so vague that it can't be defined without recourse to hopelessly subjective emotional arguments then a jury cannot render a fair verdict.

    Silly me. I thought jurors were supposed to decide based on actual evidence presented in court. Even if they think the accused is a terrible person they’re supposed to acquit if the evidence is insufficient. Either the evidence is there or it isn’t.

    The question of whether a defendant did a certain thing is separate from the question of whether the conduct in question amounts to a crime. The first one is entirely factual. The second is inevitably normative.

    If the crime is so vague that it can’t be defined without recourse to hopelessly subjective emotional arguments then a jury cannot render a fair verdict.

    I’m sorry but there is no alternative. Consider self-defense. Here are the elements:

    Four elements are required for self-defense: (1) an unprovoked attack, (2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and (3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to (4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.

    Here you see that the jury doesn’t need only to determine whether the defendant killed the deceased or not, but must in fact put himself in the place of the defendant at the time of the incident in question, and ask “how would I feel”? Is it subjective, emotional? I suppose, but so what? There is no alternative.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/5-2-self-defense/

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Here you see that the jury doesn’t need only to determine whether the defendant killed the deceased or not, but must in fact put himself in the place of the defendant at the time of the incident in question, and ask “how would I feel”? Is it subjective, emotional? I suppose, but so what? There is no alternative.
     
    It's still desirable to reduce the element of subjectivity as much as possible.

    I'm dubious as to whether people who frame sexual harassment rules have a clear idea in their own minds as to what constitutes sexual harassment, so what chance does a person accused of such an offence have?

    Thinking back to my own early days in the workforce this is something that was left to the union to sort out. I don't think it would ever have occurred to any of the women at that workplace to report such a matter to management. They'd have reported it to their union rep and the union would have dealt with it informally. That's a system I prefer.

    Another reason why all workers, including women, need unions.
  40. @Mr. Rational
    It literally took weeks before I had the evidence to prove that I was maliciously injured.

    It literally took weeks before I had the evidence to prove that I was maliciously injured.

    That’s a valid point. I just plucked the 24 hours figure out of the air. I don’t think it matters if a person has a longer time frame in which to make an accusation, as long as it’s not years.

    But in the case of rape or sexual assault I think the time frame has to be short. After 24 hours it’s probably no longer going to be possible to obtain forensic evidence, either to prove the accusation or to prove the accused’s innocence. The longer the time frame the less accurate the testimony of witnesses is going to be. And the longer a person has to lay a charge the more likely it is that a person will convince themselves that consensual sex regretted afterwards was actually rape. So I think rape/sexual assault may be a special case in which if it’s not reported immediately the accused person’s chances of a fair trial become slimmer and slimmer.

    And I think that in the case of just about any crime it is virtually impossible for the accused to get a fair trial if accusations can be made years after the event. If someone accuses you of a robbery several years ago what chance do you think you’d have of proving an alibi? I’d have trouble remembering where I was on a specific date a few weeks ago, much less several years ago. If someone accused of a crime asked me to provide him with an alibi by confirming that he was having lunch with me at 2pm on April 16th two years ago I certainly couldn’t do it.

    Hasn’t it been said that justice delayed is justice denied?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    So I think rape/sexual assault may be a special case in which if it’s not reported immediately the accused person’s chances of a fair trial become slimmer and slimmer.
     
    Since the burden of production of evidence is on the prosecution, the defendant will get a fair trial in any case.

    And the longer a person has to lay a charge the more likely it is that a person will convince themselves that consensual sex regretted afterwards was actually rape.
     
    And the longer they will have to convince themselves that a rape was really consensual, or that they can't prove the contrary.


    Hasn’t it been said that justice delayed is justice denied?
     
    Yes, but the point of speedy trial rights is to prevent the state from subjecting citizens to indefinite pretrial detention, effectively punishing them without having proven guilt of an offence.

    Statutes of limitations run anywhere from 3 to 30 years for rape, and there is no reason whatsoever to shorten them. It's true that the prosecution is less likely to meet its burden as time goes on, but that is no reason to bar a prosecution outright. The prosecution will either be able to meet its burden or not.

    Of course, there is no time limit for media trials, nor any other procedural rights for that matter. You'll have to take to take that up with the media.
  41. @Rosie

    Silly me. I thought jurors were supposed to decide based on actual evidence presented in court. Even if they think the accused is a terrible person they’re supposed to acquit if the evidence is insufficient. Either the evidence is there or it isn’t.
     
    The question of whether a defendant did a certain thing is separate from the question of whether the conduct in question amounts to a crime. The first one is entirely factual. The second is inevitably normative.

    If the crime is so vague that it can’t be defined without recourse to hopelessly subjective emotional arguments then a jury cannot render a fair verdict.
     
    I'm sorry but there is no alternative. Consider self-defense. Here are the elements:

    Four elements are required for self-defense: (1) an unprovoked attack, (2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and (3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to (4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.
     
    Here you see that the jury doesn't need only to determine whether the defendant killed the deceased or not, but must in fact put himself in the place of the defendant at the time of the incident in question, and ask "how would I feel"? Is it subjective, emotional? I suppose, but so what? There is no alternative.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/5-2-self-defense/

    Here you see that the jury doesn’t need only to determine whether the defendant killed the deceased or not, but must in fact put himself in the place of the defendant at the time of the incident in question, and ask “how would I feel”? Is it subjective, emotional? I suppose, but so what? There is no alternative.

    It’s still desirable to reduce the element of subjectivity as much as possible.

    I’m dubious as to whether people who frame sexual harassment rules have a clear idea in their own minds as to what constitutes sexual harassment, so what chance does a person accused of such an offence have?

    Thinking back to my own early days in the workforce this is something that was left to the union to sort out. I don’t think it would ever have occurred to any of the women at that workplace to report such a matter to management. They’d have reported it to their union rep and the union would have dealt with it informally. That’s a system I prefer.

    Another reason why all workers, including women, need unions.

  42. @dfordoom

    It literally took weeks before I had the evidence to prove that I was maliciously injured.
     
    That's a valid point. I just plucked the 24 hours figure out of the air. I don't think it matters if a person has a longer time frame in which to make an accusation, as long as it's not years.

    But in the case of rape or sexual assault I think the time frame has to be short. After 24 hours it's probably no longer going to be possible to obtain forensic evidence, either to prove the accusation or to prove the accused's innocence. The longer the time frame the less accurate the testimony of witnesses is going to be. And the longer a person has to lay a charge the more likely it is that a person will convince themselves that consensual sex regretted afterwards was actually rape. So I think rape/sexual assault may be a special case in which if it's not reported immediately the accused person's chances of a fair trial become slimmer and slimmer.

    And I think that in the case of just about any crime it is virtually impossible for the accused to get a fair trial if accusations can be made years after the event. If someone accuses you of a robbery several years ago what chance do you think you'd have of proving an alibi? I'd have trouble remembering where I was on a specific date a few weeks ago, much less several years ago. If someone accused of a crime asked me to provide him with an alibi by confirming that he was having lunch with me at 2pm on April 16th two years ago I certainly couldn't do it.

    Hasn't it been said that justice delayed is justice denied?

    So I think rape/sexual assault may be a special case in which if it’s not reported immediately the accused person’s chances of a fair trial become slimmer and slimmer.

    Since the burden of production of evidence is on the prosecution, the defendant will get a fair trial in any case.

    And the longer a person has to lay a charge the more likely it is that a person will convince themselves that consensual sex regretted afterwards was actually rape.

    And the longer they will have to convince themselves that a rape was really consensual, or that they can’t prove the contrary.

    Hasn’t it been said that justice delayed is justice denied?

    Yes, but the point of speedy trial rights is to prevent the state from subjecting citizens to indefinite pretrial detention, effectively punishing them without having proven guilt of an offence.

    Statutes of limitations run anywhere from 3 to 30 years for rape, and there is no reason whatsoever to shorten them. It’s true that the prosecution is less likely to meet its burden as time goes on, but that is no reason to bar a prosecution outright. The prosecution will either be able to meet its burden or not.

    Of course, there is no time limit for media trials, nor any other procedural rights for that matter. You’ll have to take to take that up with the media.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Statutes of limitations run anywhere from 3 to 30 years for rape, and there is no reason whatsoever to shorten them. It’s true that the prosecution is less likely to meet its burden as time goes on, but that is no reason to bar a prosecution outright.
     
    I have no problems with a prosecution being delayed for a certain period of time since it may take quite a while for evidence to be gathered. I have no problems with this, as long as the initial report that a crime was committed was lodged within at most a few days from the time of the alleged offence.

    Let's say you own an extremely rare book, a first edition worth $10,000, and you think your next door neighbour stole it. It might take six months, it might even take a year, for the police to gather the evidence to proceed with a prosecution. I have no quarrel with that, as long as you reported the theft of the book within a few days of the alleged theft. The police might tell you that there is insufficient evidence to proceed at that time but the important thing is that at least an initial report has been made.

    But if you didn't even bother reporting the theft at the time but you decide a few years later to accuse your neighbour of the theft I think it's reasonable to suspect that either there wasn't a crime (because if there had been one you would have reported it) or that the circumstances were ambiguous (maybe you decided to give him the book as a gift but later regretted doing so). Because if an actual crime is committed against you you would certainly know about it at the time.

    And in the case of rape, if a woman is raped she would certainly know about it at the time. Just as if someone punched me in the nose I would know about it at the time. If I said some years after the event that some guy punched me in the nose in 2015 but I wasn't sure at the time if I had actually been punched or not I think a reasonable person would conclude that I was talking nonsense.

    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?
  43. @dfordoom

    Did Trump even have an economic position in 2016?

    Trump won on immigration.
     
    Trump won because Rust Belt voters thought he was going to bring back their factory jobs.

    Alt-righters always make the mistake of thinking that the things they hoped for from Trump were the things that actual voters in the real world hoped for. The Big Beautiful Wall was raw meat for his base but your base doesn't win elections for you. Swing voters win elections for you. The swing voters who won the election for Trump cared about jobs for themselves and for their kids.

    The key issues in elections are always economic issues.

    I don’t think it’s a bad approximation to say that immigration won Trump the nomination and economic populism won him the general election.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I don’t think it’s a bad approximation to say that immigration won Trump the nomination and economic populism won him the general election.
     
    Yes, I think that's probably a pretty fair summation.

    Which is why I think the general election this year will probably again come down to economic issues. It's not that voters don't care about other issues but they usually care a whole lot more about the economic issues.

    There are a few other issues that might conceivably be seen by voters as being almost as important as the economy. Healthcare for example. But I don't think immigration is one of those issues. I don't think foreign policy is one of those issues. I don't think a leader's sexual morality is one of those issues. I think voters care most about issues that affect them directly, rather than issues that they see as being rather abstract.
    , @Rosie

    I don’t think it’s a bad approximation to say that immigration won Trump the nomination and economic populism won him the general election.
     
    This is not an accurate analysis AE. The restrictionist base didn't just win him the primary. They also won him the general election, because they showed up to vote whereas they would not have but for his promises on immigration. This remains the case even if the majority of his voters didn't care about immigration (which I seriously doubt in any event).
  44. @Rosie

    So I think rape/sexual assault may be a special case in which if it’s not reported immediately the accused person’s chances of a fair trial become slimmer and slimmer.
     
    Since the burden of production of evidence is on the prosecution, the defendant will get a fair trial in any case.

    And the longer a person has to lay a charge the more likely it is that a person will convince themselves that consensual sex regretted afterwards was actually rape.
     
    And the longer they will have to convince themselves that a rape was really consensual, or that they can't prove the contrary.


    Hasn’t it been said that justice delayed is justice denied?
     
    Yes, but the point of speedy trial rights is to prevent the state from subjecting citizens to indefinite pretrial detention, effectively punishing them without having proven guilt of an offence.

    Statutes of limitations run anywhere from 3 to 30 years for rape, and there is no reason whatsoever to shorten them. It's true that the prosecution is less likely to meet its burden as time goes on, but that is no reason to bar a prosecution outright. The prosecution will either be able to meet its burden or not.

    Of course, there is no time limit for media trials, nor any other procedural rights for that matter. You'll have to take to take that up with the media.

    Statutes of limitations run anywhere from 3 to 30 years for rape, and there is no reason whatsoever to shorten them. It’s true that the prosecution is less likely to meet its burden as time goes on, but that is no reason to bar a prosecution outright.

    I have no problems with a prosecution being delayed for a certain period of time since it may take quite a while for evidence to be gathered. I have no problems with this, as long as the initial report that a crime was committed was lodged within at most a few days from the time of the alleged offence.

    Let’s say you own an extremely rare book, a first edition worth $10,000, and you think your next door neighbour stole it. It might take six months, it might even take a year, for the police to gather the evidence to proceed with a prosecution. I have no quarrel with that, as long as you reported the theft of the book within a few days of the alleged theft. The police might tell you that there is insufficient evidence to proceed at that time but the important thing is that at least an initial report has been made.

    But if you didn’t even bother reporting the theft at the time but you decide a few years later to accuse your neighbour of the theft I think it’s reasonable to suspect that either there wasn’t a crime (because if there had been one you would have reported it) or that the circumstances were ambiguous (maybe you decided to give him the book as a gift but later regretted doing so). Because if an actual crime is committed against you you would certainly know about it at the time.

    And in the case of rape, if a woman is raped she would certainly know about it at the time. Just as if someone punched me in the nose I would know about it at the time. If I said some years after the event that some guy punched me in the nose in 2015 but I wasn’t sure at the time if I had actually been punched or not I think a reasonable person would conclude that I was talking nonsense.

    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?
     
    If you said, "within a reasonable time, I wouldn't necessarily have any objection. What I don't like are rigid deadlines.

    And in the case of rape, if a woman is raped she would certainly know about it at the time.
     
    Not within 24 hours.

    The problem is that you don't understand the ambiguities of rape, and if you do, you assume it is just a case of remorse.

    This is a misunderstanding.

    Have you ever had an interaction with a person that you know ended badly, but you're not sure why? You play it over and over again in your head, trying to figure out if it was your fault. What you coulda shoulda done differently. But in the end, after some reflection, you conclude that you really were badly treated. It's very much like that.

    Of course, you might ask how a guy could possibly not know that a woman did not consent to sex. Well, for an answer, just listen to the way men in these parts talk about how women like to be"take" or "dominated" or some such.

    At common law, it wasn't rape unless a woman resisted "to the utmost." The problem with that rule was that it got women killed. Theoretically, a guy could put a gun to your head, and if you didn't fight, it wasn't rape.

    Suppose you own a shop, and a guy comes in and says to you, "This is a nice place you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it." Has he threatened you? What do you do? If you give him money, is it extortion?
  45. @Audacious Epigone
    I don't think it's a bad approximation to say that immigration won Trump the nomination and economic populism won him the general election.

    I don’t think it’s a bad approximation to say that immigration won Trump the nomination and economic populism won him the general election.

    Yes, I think that’s probably a pretty fair summation.

    Which is why I think the general election this year will probably again come down to economic issues. It’s not that voters don’t care about other issues but they usually care a whole lot more about the economic issues.

    There are a few other issues that might conceivably be seen by voters as being almost as important as the economy. Healthcare for example. But I don’t think immigration is one of those issues. I don’t think foreign policy is one of those issues. I don’t think a leader’s sexual morality is one of those issues. I think voters care most about issues that affect them directly, rather than issues that they see as being rather abstract.

  46. @dfordoom

    Statutes of limitations run anywhere from 3 to 30 years for rape, and there is no reason whatsoever to shorten them. It’s true that the prosecution is less likely to meet its burden as time goes on, but that is no reason to bar a prosecution outright.
     
    I have no problems with a prosecution being delayed for a certain period of time since it may take quite a while for evidence to be gathered. I have no problems with this, as long as the initial report that a crime was committed was lodged within at most a few days from the time of the alleged offence.

    Let's say you own an extremely rare book, a first edition worth $10,000, and you think your next door neighbour stole it. It might take six months, it might even take a year, for the police to gather the evidence to proceed with a prosecution. I have no quarrel with that, as long as you reported the theft of the book within a few days of the alleged theft. The police might tell you that there is insufficient evidence to proceed at that time but the important thing is that at least an initial report has been made.

    But if you didn't even bother reporting the theft at the time but you decide a few years later to accuse your neighbour of the theft I think it's reasonable to suspect that either there wasn't a crime (because if there had been one you would have reported it) or that the circumstances were ambiguous (maybe you decided to give him the book as a gift but later regretted doing so). Because if an actual crime is committed against you you would certainly know about it at the time.

    And in the case of rape, if a woman is raped she would certainly know about it at the time. Just as if someone punched me in the nose I would know about it at the time. If I said some years after the event that some guy punched me in the nose in 2015 but I wasn't sure at the time if I had actually been punched or not I think a reasonable person would conclude that I was talking nonsense.

    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?

    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?

    If you said, “within a reasonable time, I wouldn’t necessarily have any objection. What I don’t like are rigid deadlines.

    And in the case of rape, if a woman is raped she would certainly know about it at the time.

    Not within 24 hours.

    The problem is that you don’t understand the ambiguities of rape, and if you do, you assume it is just a case of remorse.

    This is a misunderstanding.

    Have you ever had an interaction with a person that you know ended badly, but you’re not sure why? You play it over and over again in your head, trying to figure out if it was your fault. What you coulda shoulda done differently. But in the end, after some reflection, you conclude that you really were badly treated. It’s very much like that.

    Of course, you might ask how a guy could possibly not know that a woman did not consent to sex. Well, for an answer, just listen to the way men in these parts talk about how women like to be”take” or “dominated” or some such.

    At common law, it wasn’t rape unless a woman resisted “to the utmost.” The problem with that rule was that it got women killed. Theoretically, a guy could put a gun to your head, and if you didn’t fight, it wasn’t rape.

    Suppose you own a shop, and a guy comes in and says to you, “This is a nice place you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.” Has he threatened you? What do you do? If you give him money, is it extortion?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    More on our confused potential rape victim.

    Suppose she decides that he didn't rape her after all. She should have been more forceful. Shouldn't have gone to his house to begin with. Whatever.

    Fast forward 20 years. The guy is up for nomination to the Supreme Court. Numerous women come forward and allege that he forced them, reciting facts very much consistent with your recollection of your experience with him.

    So you say to yourself, well I shouldn't let this gal take the heat alone. I know she's telling the truth, and this creep probably shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

    Are criminal charges appropriate? Most likely not. Might he be a different person now? Sure, maybe, and that shouldn't be ignored. But it's not so simple as to say, well these women must all be lying.

    You have to remember, sometimes people don't report things because they think they won't be believed. That's how certain priests were able to abuse multiple children. (Not picking on Catholics. This happens in other institutions, too.)
    , @dfordoom


    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?
     
    If you said, “within a reasonable time, I wouldn’t necessarily have any objection. What I don’t like are rigid deadlines.
     
    "Within a reasonable time" is a vague meaningless concept and the more vague meaningless concepts we introduce into our laws the worse trouble we're going to end up in. You have to set a figure. I'd be happy with anything between 24 hours and maybe four days.

    Have you ever had an interaction with a person that you know ended badly, but you’re not sure why? You play it over and over again in your head, trying to figure out if it was your fault. What you coulda shoulda done differently. But in the end, after some reflection, you conclude that you really were badly treated. It’s very much like that.
     
    Dear God. If the event was as ambiguous as that then there is no way that anyone should be prosecuted.

    OK, here's a scenario for you. I go to the cops and tell them I want Kathy arrested for stealing my laptop. At least I think she may have stolen it. Maybe I lent it to her. Maybe I gave it to her as a gift. I'm not really sure. But she definitely broke into my apartment to steal it. At least she may have broken in, or maybe I let her in. I'm not sure. But I still want her arrested. My feelings tell me that she stole it. Or at least my feelings told me she stole it after I'd thought about it for a while and realised that I wished I hadn't given it to her. Do you think that would be reasonable? Because that's what you're proposing for rape.

    In my scenario what has happened is that I've done something and then later regretted it. Too bad. People make mistakers. Maybe I could have behaved more sensibly, but I didn't. The only thing I can now do is to write it off to experience.

    If a woman doesn't know if she was raped or not then it is nonsensical and outrageous for such a wildly ambiguous event to be treated as a matter for the criminal justice system. Maybe the woman acted foolishly. Maybe the man acted foolishly. Maybe with the benefit of hindsight they both would have behaved differently. That's too bad. If there is so much uncertainty about the matter then it's ludicrous to treat it as a crime.

    If a woman doesn't know if she consented or not then how on earth can a court be asked to adjudicate the matter? If she doesn't know then nobody can ever know.

    The benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. Sometimes that means that guilty persons go free. But if the accused isn't given the benefit of the doubt then you end up with a police state.
  47. @Audacious Epigone
    I don't think it's a bad approximation to say that immigration won Trump the nomination and economic populism won him the general election.

    I don’t think it’s a bad approximation to say that immigration won Trump the nomination and economic populism won him the general election.

    This is not an accurate analysis AE. The restrictionist base didn’t just win him the primary. They also won him the general election, because they showed up to vote whereas they would not have but for his promises on immigration. This remains the case even if the majority of his voters didn’t care about immigration (which I seriously doubt in any event).

  48. @Rosie

    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?
     
    If you said, "within a reasonable time, I wouldn't necessarily have any objection. What I don't like are rigid deadlines.

    And in the case of rape, if a woman is raped she would certainly know about it at the time.
     
    Not within 24 hours.

    The problem is that you don't understand the ambiguities of rape, and if you do, you assume it is just a case of remorse.

    This is a misunderstanding.

    Have you ever had an interaction with a person that you know ended badly, but you're not sure why? You play it over and over again in your head, trying to figure out if it was your fault. What you coulda shoulda done differently. But in the end, after some reflection, you conclude that you really were badly treated. It's very much like that.

    Of course, you might ask how a guy could possibly not know that a woman did not consent to sex. Well, for an answer, just listen to the way men in these parts talk about how women like to be"take" or "dominated" or some such.

    At common law, it wasn't rape unless a woman resisted "to the utmost." The problem with that rule was that it got women killed. Theoretically, a guy could put a gun to your head, and if you didn't fight, it wasn't rape.

    Suppose you own a shop, and a guy comes in and says to you, "This is a nice place you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it." Has he threatened you? What do you do? If you give him money, is it extortion?

    More on our confused potential rape victim.

    Suppose she decides that he didn’t rape her after all. She should have been more forceful. Shouldn’t have gone to his house to begin with. Whatever.

    Fast forward 20 years. The guy is up for nomination to the Supreme Court. Numerous women come forward and allege that he forced them, reciting facts very much consistent with your recollection of your experience with him.

    So you say to yourself, well I shouldn’t let this gal take the heat alone. I know she’s telling the truth, and this creep probably shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court.

    Are criminal charges appropriate? Most likely not. Might he be a different person now? Sure, maybe, and that shouldn’t be ignored. But it’s not so simple as to say, well these women must all be lying.

    You have to remember, sometimes people don’t report things because they think they won’t be believed. That’s how certain priests were able to abuse multiple children. (Not picking on Catholics. This happens in other institutions, too.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You have to remember, sometimes people don’t report things because they think they won’t be believed.
     
    Maybe that's because they have no credible evidence. It's unfortunate but sometimes crimes are committed and there's no credible evidence so the guilty party goes free. It's unfortunate but unavoidable.

    In the scenario I outlined earlier it is quite possible that Kathy really did steal my laptop. But if I can't provide any real evidence that she did so then I have to accept that it's unreasonable for me to expect her to be prosecuted. All I can do is learn from the experience.

    And if I waited twenty years before accusing Kathy of stealing my laptop it would be ludicrous for me to expect her to be prosecuted. If I waited six months before accusing her it would still be ludicrous.
  49. @Rosie

    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?
     
    If you said, "within a reasonable time, I wouldn't necessarily have any objection. What I don't like are rigid deadlines.

    And in the case of rape, if a woman is raped she would certainly know about it at the time.
     
    Not within 24 hours.

    The problem is that you don't understand the ambiguities of rape, and if you do, you assume it is just a case of remorse.

    This is a misunderstanding.

    Have you ever had an interaction with a person that you know ended badly, but you're not sure why? You play it over and over again in your head, trying to figure out if it was your fault. What you coulda shoulda done differently. But in the end, after some reflection, you conclude that you really were badly treated. It's very much like that.

    Of course, you might ask how a guy could possibly not know that a woman did not consent to sex. Well, for an answer, just listen to the way men in these parts talk about how women like to be"take" or "dominated" or some such.

    At common law, it wasn't rape unless a woman resisted "to the utmost." The problem with that rule was that it got women killed. Theoretically, a guy could put a gun to your head, and if you didn't fight, it wasn't rape.

    Suppose you own a shop, and a guy comes in and says to you, "This is a nice place you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it." Has he threatened you? What do you do? If you give him money, is it extortion?

    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?

    If you said, “within a reasonable time, I wouldn’t necessarily have any objection. What I don’t like are rigid deadlines.

    “Within a reasonable time” is a vague meaningless concept and the more vague meaningless concepts we introduce into our laws the worse trouble we’re going to end up in. You have to set a figure. I’d be happy with anything between 24 hours and maybe four days.

    Have you ever had an interaction with a person that you know ended badly, but you’re not sure why? You play it over and over again in your head, trying to figure out if it was your fault. What you coulda shoulda done differently. But in the end, after some reflection, you conclude that you really were badly treated. It’s very much like that.

    Dear God. If the event was as ambiguous as that then there is no way that anyone should be prosecuted.

    OK, here’s a scenario for you. I go to the cops and tell them I want Kathy arrested for stealing my laptop. At least I think she may have stolen it. Maybe I lent it to her. Maybe I gave it to her as a gift. I’m not really sure. But she definitely broke into my apartment to steal it. At least she may have broken in, or maybe I let her in. I’m not sure. But I still want her arrested. My feelings tell me that she stole it. Or at least my feelings told me she stole it after I’d thought about it for a while and realised that I wished I hadn’t given it to her. Do you think that would be reasonable? Because that’s what you’re proposing for rape.

    In my scenario what has happened is that I’ve done something and then later regretted it. Too bad. People make mistakers. Maybe I could have behaved more sensibly, but I didn’t. The only thing I can now do is to write it off to experience.

    If a woman doesn’t know if she was raped or not then it is nonsensical and outrageous for such a wildly ambiguous event to be treated as a matter for the criminal justice system. Maybe the woman acted foolishly. Maybe the man acted foolishly. Maybe with the benefit of hindsight they both would have behaved differently. That’s too bad. If there is so much uncertainty about the matter then it’s ludicrous to treat it as a crime.

    If a woman doesn’t know if she consented or not then how on earth can a court be asked to adjudicate the matter? If she doesn’t know then nobody can ever know.

    The benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. Sometimes that means that guilty persons go free. But if the accused isn’t given the benefit of the doubt then you end up with a police state.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In my scenario what has happened is that I’ve done something and then later regretted it.
     
    This is incorrect. You know for certain that you did not intend to give her the laptop. Your only question is whether you did or said something to give her the impression that you intended to give it to her. Legally effective consent is not subjective. It is objective. That is, it doesn't matter what the alleged victim intended. It is what the defendant reasonably believed she intended, and that is what all the uncertainty is about.

    My feelings tell me that she stole it. Or at least my feelings told me she stole it after I’d thought about it for a while and realised that I wished I hadn’t given it to her. Do you think that would be reasonable? Because that’s what you’re proposing for rape.
     

    I am proposing no such thing, and I am well aware of the proof problems. I specifically said that in many of these cases, criminal prosecution is not warranted. I'm simply telling you that women don't necessarily know if they have or have not been raped. A moment's reflection should render this very obvious, because rape is a legal conclusion about the defendant's state of mind (mens rea).

    Now, you completely ignored my analogy with extortion/robbery, no doubt because it complicates the question considerably.


    In the scenario I outlined earlier it is quite possible that Kathy really did steal my laptop. But if I can’t provide any real evidence that she did so then I have to accept that it’s unreasonable for me to expect her to be prosecuted. All I can do is learn from the experience.
     
    Yes, it would be unreasonable for you to expect that. But here your analogy breaks down. We're not talking about Kathy. We're talking about someone who is much bigger and stronger than you, and he has a habit of bullying people out of their possessions in ways that may or may not amount to robbery or extortion.

    Remember, you do not have a right to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. And one would hope that such people would be held to a higher standard.

  50. @Rosie
    More on our confused potential rape victim.

    Suppose she decides that he didn't rape her after all. She should have been more forceful. Shouldn't have gone to his house to begin with. Whatever.

    Fast forward 20 years. The guy is up for nomination to the Supreme Court. Numerous women come forward and allege that he forced them, reciting facts very much consistent with your recollection of your experience with him.

    So you say to yourself, well I shouldn't let this gal take the heat alone. I know she's telling the truth, and this creep probably shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

    Are criminal charges appropriate? Most likely not. Might he be a different person now? Sure, maybe, and that shouldn't be ignored. But it's not so simple as to say, well these women must all be lying.

    You have to remember, sometimes people don't report things because they think they won't be believed. That's how certain priests were able to abuse multiple children. (Not picking on Catholics. This happens in other institutions, too.)

    You have to remember, sometimes people don’t report things because they think they won’t be believed.

    Maybe that’s because they have no credible evidence. It’s unfortunate but sometimes crimes are committed and there’s no credible evidence so the guilty party goes free. It’s unfortunate but unavoidable.

    In the scenario I outlined earlier it is quite possible that Kathy really did steal my laptop. But if I can’t provide any real evidence that she did so then I have to accept that it’s unreasonable for me to expect her to be prosecuted. All I can do is learn from the experience.

    And if I waited twenty years before accusing Kathy of stealing my laptop it would be ludicrous for me to expect her to be prosecuted. If I waited six months before accusing her it would still be ludicrous.

  51. @dfordoom


    Can you explain to me exactly what your objection is to the idea that if a crime is committed against a person then that person should at least make a report of it at the time?
     
    If you said, “within a reasonable time, I wouldn’t necessarily have any objection. What I don’t like are rigid deadlines.
     
    "Within a reasonable time" is a vague meaningless concept and the more vague meaningless concepts we introduce into our laws the worse trouble we're going to end up in. You have to set a figure. I'd be happy with anything between 24 hours and maybe four days.

    Have you ever had an interaction with a person that you know ended badly, but you’re not sure why? You play it over and over again in your head, trying to figure out if it was your fault. What you coulda shoulda done differently. But in the end, after some reflection, you conclude that you really were badly treated. It’s very much like that.
     
    Dear God. If the event was as ambiguous as that then there is no way that anyone should be prosecuted.

    OK, here's a scenario for you. I go to the cops and tell them I want Kathy arrested for stealing my laptop. At least I think she may have stolen it. Maybe I lent it to her. Maybe I gave it to her as a gift. I'm not really sure. But she definitely broke into my apartment to steal it. At least she may have broken in, or maybe I let her in. I'm not sure. But I still want her arrested. My feelings tell me that she stole it. Or at least my feelings told me she stole it after I'd thought about it for a while and realised that I wished I hadn't given it to her. Do you think that would be reasonable? Because that's what you're proposing for rape.

    In my scenario what has happened is that I've done something and then later regretted it. Too bad. People make mistakers. Maybe I could have behaved more sensibly, but I didn't. The only thing I can now do is to write it off to experience.

    If a woman doesn't know if she was raped or not then it is nonsensical and outrageous for such a wildly ambiguous event to be treated as a matter for the criminal justice system. Maybe the woman acted foolishly. Maybe the man acted foolishly. Maybe with the benefit of hindsight they both would have behaved differently. That's too bad. If there is so much uncertainty about the matter then it's ludicrous to treat it as a crime.

    If a woman doesn't know if she consented or not then how on earth can a court be asked to adjudicate the matter? If she doesn't know then nobody can ever know.

    The benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. Sometimes that means that guilty persons go free. But if the accused isn't given the benefit of the doubt then you end up with a police state.

    In my scenario what has happened is that I’ve done something and then later regretted it.

    This is incorrect. You know for certain that you did not intend to give her the laptop. Your only question is whether you did or said something to give her the impression that you intended to give it to her. Legally effective consent is not subjective. It is objective. That is, it doesn’t matter what the alleged victim intended. It is what the defendant reasonably believed she intended, and that is what all the uncertainty is about.

    My feelings tell me that she stole it. Or at least my feelings told me she stole it after I’d thought about it for a while and realised that I wished I hadn’t given it to her. Do you think that would be reasonable? Because that’s what you’re proposing for rape.

    I am proposing no such thing, and I am well aware of the proof problems. I specifically said that in many of these cases, criminal prosecution is not warranted. I’m simply telling you that women don’t necessarily know if they have or have not been raped. A moment’s reflection should render this very obvious, because rape is a legal conclusion about the defendant’s state of mind (mens rea).

    Now, you completely ignored my analogy with extortion/robbery, no doubt because it complicates the question considerably.

    In the scenario I outlined earlier it is quite possible that Kathy really did steal my laptop. But if I can’t provide any real evidence that she did so then I have to accept that it’s unreasonable for me to expect her to be prosecuted. All I can do is learn from the experience.

    Yes, it would be unreasonable for you to expect that. But here your analogy breaks down. We’re not talking about Kathy. We’re talking about someone who is much bigger and stronger than you, and he has a habit of bullying people out of their possessions in ways that may or may not amount to robbery or extortion.

    Remember, you do not have a right to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. And one would hope that such people would be held to a higher standard.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It is what the defendant reasonably believed she intended, and that is what all the uncertainty is about.
     
    Which still means it's unreasonable to fail to report the matter at the time and then make an accusation years later. It can be difficult enough to draw conclusions about the defendant’s state of mind a fairly short time afterwards. After the passage of years (or decades) it's quite impossible. After such a length of time has elapsed neither the alleged victim's nor the defendant's memories of the event are going to be reliable.

    But if the alleged victim failed to make a report of the incident at the time then that would suggest that at the time the alleged victim had serious doubts as to whether the defendant did or did not believe she had consented. It suggests at least the strong possibility that at the time she believed that he did think she had consented. But if at the time of the event the alleged victim reported a rape then that suggests that at the time she believed he did not have grounds for believing she had consented.

    And if the only evidence is the alleged victim's account of the event then after the passage of years that evidence is pretty much worthless. If no report was made at the time then it's reasonable to conclude that the circumstances were ambiguous. After years have elapsed the chances of resolving that ambiguity are close to zero. And after years have elapsed the defendant's memories of the event are probably going to be so hazy that he's going to have difficulty defending himself. He might not even remember having met the woman, much less remember having sex with her!
  52. @Rosie

    In my scenario what has happened is that I’ve done something and then later regretted it.
     
    This is incorrect. You know for certain that you did not intend to give her the laptop. Your only question is whether you did or said something to give her the impression that you intended to give it to her. Legally effective consent is not subjective. It is objective. That is, it doesn't matter what the alleged victim intended. It is what the defendant reasonably believed she intended, and that is what all the uncertainty is about.

    My feelings tell me that she stole it. Or at least my feelings told me she stole it after I’d thought about it for a while and realised that I wished I hadn’t given it to her. Do you think that would be reasonable? Because that’s what you’re proposing for rape.
     

    I am proposing no such thing, and I am well aware of the proof problems. I specifically said that in many of these cases, criminal prosecution is not warranted. I'm simply telling you that women don't necessarily know if they have or have not been raped. A moment's reflection should render this very obvious, because rape is a legal conclusion about the defendant's state of mind (mens rea).

    Now, you completely ignored my analogy with extortion/robbery, no doubt because it complicates the question considerably.


    In the scenario I outlined earlier it is quite possible that Kathy really did steal my laptop. But if I can’t provide any real evidence that she did so then I have to accept that it’s unreasonable for me to expect her to be prosecuted. All I can do is learn from the experience.
     
    Yes, it would be unreasonable for you to expect that. But here your analogy breaks down. We're not talking about Kathy. We're talking about someone who is much bigger and stronger than you, and he has a habit of bullying people out of their possessions in ways that may or may not amount to robbery or extortion.

    Remember, you do not have a right to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. And one would hope that such people would be held to a higher standard.

    It is what the defendant reasonably believed she intended, and that is what all the uncertainty is about.

    Which still means it’s unreasonable to fail to report the matter at the time and then make an accusation years later. It can be difficult enough to draw conclusions about the defendant’s state of mind a fairly short time afterwards. After the passage of years (or decades) it’s quite impossible. After such a length of time has elapsed neither the alleged victim’s nor the defendant’s memories of the event are going to be reliable.

    But if the alleged victim failed to make a report of the incident at the time then that would suggest that at the time the alleged victim had serious doubts as to whether the defendant did or did not believe she had consented. It suggests at least the strong possibility that at the time she believed that he did think she had consented. But if at the time of the event the alleged victim reported a rape then that suggests that at the time she believed he did not have grounds for believing she had consented.

    And if the only evidence is the alleged victim’s account of the event then after the passage of years that evidence is pretty much worthless. If no report was made at the time then it’s reasonable to conclude that the circumstances were ambiguous. After years have elapsed the chances of resolving that ambiguity are close to zero. And after years have elapsed the defendant’s memories of the event are probably going to be so hazy that he’s going to have difficulty defending himself. He might not even remember having met the woman, much less remember having sex with her!

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And if the only evidence is the alleged victim’s account of the event then after the passage of years that evidence is pretty much worthless. If no report was made at the time then it’s reasonable to conclude that the circumstances were ambiguous. After years have elapsed the chances of resolving that ambiguity are close to zero. And after years have elapsed the defendant’s memories of the event are probably going to be so hazy that he’s going to have difficulty defending himself. He might not even remember having met the woman, much less remember having sex with her!
     
    The more you have to think about it, the less likely t is that you should report it. I will grant you that. On the other hand, what you always fail to take into account is that the police don't have to act on a complaint, and indeed will not do so if it's unlikely to lead to a conviction. On the other hand, if they do believe it is likely to result in a conviction, possibly because they have information that even the victim does not, who are you to tell them otherwise? Like many on the dissident right, you claim to be some sort of populist, then completely dismiss the good instincts of...the people. Noone in the world has any common sense but you, so you have to impose various rules and regulations to stop them from doing stupid things.
  53. @dfordoom

    It is what the defendant reasonably believed she intended, and that is what all the uncertainty is about.
     
    Which still means it's unreasonable to fail to report the matter at the time and then make an accusation years later. It can be difficult enough to draw conclusions about the defendant’s state of mind a fairly short time afterwards. After the passage of years (or decades) it's quite impossible. After such a length of time has elapsed neither the alleged victim's nor the defendant's memories of the event are going to be reliable.

    But if the alleged victim failed to make a report of the incident at the time then that would suggest that at the time the alleged victim had serious doubts as to whether the defendant did or did not believe she had consented. It suggests at least the strong possibility that at the time she believed that he did think she had consented. But if at the time of the event the alleged victim reported a rape then that suggests that at the time she believed he did not have grounds for believing she had consented.

    And if the only evidence is the alleged victim's account of the event then after the passage of years that evidence is pretty much worthless. If no report was made at the time then it's reasonable to conclude that the circumstances were ambiguous. After years have elapsed the chances of resolving that ambiguity are close to zero. And after years have elapsed the defendant's memories of the event are probably going to be so hazy that he's going to have difficulty defending himself. He might not even remember having met the woman, much less remember having sex with her!

    And if the only evidence is the alleged victim’s account of the event then after the passage of years that evidence is pretty much worthless. If no report was made at the time then it’s reasonable to conclude that the circumstances were ambiguous. After years have elapsed the chances of resolving that ambiguity are close to zero. And after years have elapsed the defendant’s memories of the event are probably going to be so hazy that he’s going to have difficulty defending himself. He might not even remember having met the woman, much less remember having sex with her!

    The more you have to think about it, the less likely t is that you should report it. I will grant you that. On the other hand, what you always fail to take into account is that the police don’t have to act on a complaint, and indeed will not do so if it’s unlikely to lead to a conviction. On the other hand, if they do believe it is likely to result in a conviction, possibly because they have information that even the victim does not, who are you to tell them otherwise? Like many on the dissident right, you claim to be some sort of populist, then completely dismiss the good instincts of…the people. Noone in the world has any common sense but you, so you have to impose various rules and regulations to stop them from doing stupid things.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The more you have to think about it, the less likely it is that you should report it. I will grant you that.
     
    Which was my main point.

    On the other hand, what you always fail to take into account is that the police don’t have to act on a complaint, and indeed will not do so if it’s unlikely to lead to a conviction.
     
    I'm not sure what your point is. I'm arguing that an alleged rape victim should report the incident immediately. It doesn't matter if the police decide to act on it or not. At least the police have a record of the report, made at a time when the incident is still fresh in the alleged victim's memory. And assuming that the potential accused person is informed, he has a chance to put on record his account of the incident when it is still fresh in his memory.

    Bear in mind that making an immediate report will strengthen the alleged victim's case.

    On the other hand, if they do believe it is likely to result in a conviction, possibly because they have information that even the victim does not, who are you to tell them otherwise?
     
    I have no desire to tell the police how to proceed. If they decide to go ahead and charge the accused then they presumably think the evidence is pretty strong.

    To be honest my only real concern is finding a way to prevent people from being accused of rape long after the event, by which time the evidence of both parties as to what occurred has become hopelessly unreliable. Anther way to do this would be by having a statute of limitations on rape of say one year (if you want to argue passionately for two years I might grudgingly agree). Which would be reasonable. Any forensic evidence not collected at the time would be of no value anyway. And in the unlikely event that there were independent witnesses a year would be ample time for them to come forward. If they haven't come forward within a year then their memories of the incident are most likely pretty unreliable.

    I have no desire to prevent rapists from being convicted, but I do have a passionate belief that there are vey few things more important in a civilised society than the right of the accused to a fair trial. The trend over the past few decades in the Anglosphere countries at least has been to diminish the rights of the accused (and not just in the case of the crime of rape).
    , @dfordoom

    Like many on the dissident right, you claim to be some sort of populist
     
    I'm certainly not part of the dissident right. I'm not part of the right at all. I wouldn't object to being described as a dissident leftist. I would however strongly object to being described as a liberal. I'm not sure that I've ever claimed to be a populist. It's such a vague term.

    so you have to impose various rules and regulations to stop them from doing stupid things.
     
    On the whole I'm not keen on rules and regulations, except perhaps in the economic sphere. I do believe that the human capacity to do stupid things is practically limitless. I don't generally object to people doing stupid things that don't harm others.
  54. @Rosie

    And if the only evidence is the alleged victim’s account of the event then after the passage of years that evidence is pretty much worthless. If no report was made at the time then it’s reasonable to conclude that the circumstances were ambiguous. After years have elapsed the chances of resolving that ambiguity are close to zero. And after years have elapsed the defendant’s memories of the event are probably going to be so hazy that he’s going to have difficulty defending himself. He might not even remember having met the woman, much less remember having sex with her!
     
    The more you have to think about it, the less likely t is that you should report it. I will grant you that. On the other hand, what you always fail to take into account is that the police don't have to act on a complaint, and indeed will not do so if it's unlikely to lead to a conviction. On the other hand, if they do believe it is likely to result in a conviction, possibly because they have information that even the victim does not, who are you to tell them otherwise? Like many on the dissident right, you claim to be some sort of populist, then completely dismiss the good instincts of...the people. Noone in the world has any common sense but you, so you have to impose various rules and regulations to stop them from doing stupid things.

    The more you have to think about it, the less likely it is that you should report it. I will grant you that.

    Which was my main point.

    On the other hand, what you always fail to take into account is that the police don’t have to act on a complaint, and indeed will not do so if it’s unlikely to lead to a conviction.

    I’m not sure what your point is. I’m arguing that an alleged rape victim should report the incident immediately. It doesn’t matter if the police decide to act on it or not. At least the police have a record of the report, made at a time when the incident is still fresh in the alleged victim’s memory. And assuming that the potential accused person is informed, he has a chance to put on record his account of the incident when it is still fresh in his memory.

    Bear in mind that making an immediate report will strengthen the alleged victim’s case.

    On the other hand, if they do believe it is likely to result in a conviction, possibly because they have information that even the victim does not, who are you to tell them otherwise?

    I have no desire to tell the police how to proceed. If they decide to go ahead and charge the accused then they presumably think the evidence is pretty strong.

    To be honest my only real concern is finding a way to prevent people from being accused of rape long after the event, by which time the evidence of both parties as to what occurred has become hopelessly unreliable. Anther way to do this would be by having a statute of limitations on rape of say one year (if you want to argue passionately for two years I might grudgingly agree). Which would be reasonable. Any forensic evidence not collected at the time would be of no value anyway. And in the unlikely event that there were independent witnesses a year would be ample time for them to come forward. If they haven’t come forward within a year then their memories of the incident are most likely pretty unreliable.

    I have no desire to prevent rapists from being convicted, but I do have a passionate belief that there are vey few things more important in a civilised society than the right of the accused to a fair trial. The trend over the past few decades in the Anglosphere countries at least has been to diminish the rights of the accused (and not just in the case of the crime of rape).

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Anther way to do this would be by having a statute of limitations on rape of say one year (if you want to argue passionately for two years I might grudgingly agree).
     
    I appreciate your concern for the rights of the accused, and I agree. I just don't think this particular concern is warranted, because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    I don't even think that a year is an unreasonable internal guideline for the authorities to follow. The problem with statutes of limitations is that they are a rigid technicality that can result in miscarriages of justice. Prosecutors are professionally obligated to seek justice, not just convictions, and if they are convinced that justice is served by a delayed prosecution, they ought to have the discretion to do that.

    Remember this guy? He got disbarred for his flagrant disregard for justice in the Duke Lacrosse affair, and rightly so.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

    Again, I share your policy concerns 100%. I just think you have to take account of the whole context when making these sorts of judgments.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong
  55. @Rosie

    And if the only evidence is the alleged victim’s account of the event then after the passage of years that evidence is pretty much worthless. If no report was made at the time then it’s reasonable to conclude that the circumstances were ambiguous. After years have elapsed the chances of resolving that ambiguity are close to zero. And after years have elapsed the defendant’s memories of the event are probably going to be so hazy that he’s going to have difficulty defending himself. He might not even remember having met the woman, much less remember having sex with her!
     
    The more you have to think about it, the less likely t is that you should report it. I will grant you that. On the other hand, what you always fail to take into account is that the police don't have to act on a complaint, and indeed will not do so if it's unlikely to lead to a conviction. On the other hand, if they do believe it is likely to result in a conviction, possibly because they have information that even the victim does not, who are you to tell them otherwise? Like many on the dissident right, you claim to be some sort of populist, then completely dismiss the good instincts of...the people. Noone in the world has any common sense but you, so you have to impose various rules and regulations to stop them from doing stupid things.

    Like many on the dissident right, you claim to be some sort of populist

    I’m certainly not part of the dissident right. I’m not part of the right at all. I wouldn’t object to being described as a dissident leftist. I would however strongly object to being described as a liberal. I’m not sure that I’ve ever claimed to be a populist. It’s such a vague term.

    so you have to impose various rules and regulations to stop them from doing stupid things.

    On the whole I’m not keen on rules and regulations, except perhaps in the economic sphere. I do believe that the human capacity to do stupid things is practically limitless. I don’t generally object to people doing stupid things that don’t harm others.

  56. @dfordoom

    The more you have to think about it, the less likely it is that you should report it. I will grant you that.
     
    Which was my main point.

    On the other hand, what you always fail to take into account is that the police don’t have to act on a complaint, and indeed will not do so if it’s unlikely to lead to a conviction.
     
    I'm not sure what your point is. I'm arguing that an alleged rape victim should report the incident immediately. It doesn't matter if the police decide to act on it or not. At least the police have a record of the report, made at a time when the incident is still fresh in the alleged victim's memory. And assuming that the potential accused person is informed, he has a chance to put on record his account of the incident when it is still fresh in his memory.

    Bear in mind that making an immediate report will strengthen the alleged victim's case.

    On the other hand, if they do believe it is likely to result in a conviction, possibly because they have information that even the victim does not, who are you to tell them otherwise?
     
    I have no desire to tell the police how to proceed. If they decide to go ahead and charge the accused then they presumably think the evidence is pretty strong.

    To be honest my only real concern is finding a way to prevent people from being accused of rape long after the event, by which time the evidence of both parties as to what occurred has become hopelessly unreliable. Anther way to do this would be by having a statute of limitations on rape of say one year (if you want to argue passionately for two years I might grudgingly agree). Which would be reasonable. Any forensic evidence not collected at the time would be of no value anyway. And in the unlikely event that there were independent witnesses a year would be ample time for them to come forward. If they haven't come forward within a year then their memories of the incident are most likely pretty unreliable.

    I have no desire to prevent rapists from being convicted, but I do have a passionate belief that there are vey few things more important in a civilised society than the right of the accused to a fair trial. The trend over the past few decades in the Anglosphere countries at least has been to diminish the rights of the accused (and not just in the case of the crime of rape).

    Anther way to do this would be by having a statute of limitations on rape of say one year (if you want to argue passionately for two years I might grudgingly agree).

    I appreciate your concern for the rights of the accused, and I agree. I just don’t think this particular concern is warranted, because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    I don’t even think that a year is an unreasonable internal guideline for the authorities to follow. The problem with statutes of limitations is that they are a rigid technicality that can result in miscarriages of justice. Prosecutors are professionally obligated to seek justice, not just convictions, and if they are convinced that justice is served by a delayed prosecution, they ought to have the discretion to do that.

    Remember this guy? He got disbarred for his flagrant disregard for justice in the Duke Lacrosse affair, and rightly so.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

    Again, I share your policy concerns 100%. I just think you have to take account of the whole context when making these sorts of judgments.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I appreciate your concern for the rights of the accused, and I agree. I just don’t think this particular concern is warranted, because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
     
    On the whole that's true. The problem is with politically motivated accusations against public figures in which the objective is not to get a conviction but merely to damage the person's reputation. And there's also a problem with accusations against celebrities where the objective is not to get a conviction but to blackmail the accused into offering the accuser a monetary settlement. There are also a lot of accusations against clergymen where the objective is to damage the Church.

    I don’t even think that a year is an unreasonable internal guideline for the authorities to follow. The problem with statutes of limitations is that they are a rigid technicality that can result in miscarriages of justice.
     
    That's true. Unfortunately at some point you have to pick an arbitrary cutoff point. Whether you pick one year, three years or thirty years there will still be some miscarriages of justice. You have to go for a compromise. On the whole I think there's a lesser risk if the statute of limitations is set at a relatively short period.

    You realise we're now in grave danger of ending up broadly agreeing?
  57. @Rosie

    Anther way to do this would be by having a statute of limitations on rape of say one year (if you want to argue passionately for two years I might grudgingly agree).
     
    I appreciate your concern for the rights of the accused, and I agree. I just don't think this particular concern is warranted, because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    I don't even think that a year is an unreasonable internal guideline for the authorities to follow. The problem with statutes of limitations is that they are a rigid technicality that can result in miscarriages of justice. Prosecutors are professionally obligated to seek justice, not just convictions, and if they are convinced that justice is served by a delayed prosecution, they ought to have the discretion to do that.

    Remember this guy? He got disbarred for his flagrant disregard for justice in the Duke Lacrosse affair, and rightly so.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

    Again, I share your policy concerns 100%. I just think you have to take account of the whole context when making these sorts of judgments.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

    I appreciate your concern for the rights of the accused, and I agree. I just don’t think this particular concern is warranted, because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    On the whole that’s true. The problem is with politically motivated accusations against public figures in which the objective is not to get a conviction but merely to damage the person’s reputation. And there’s also a problem with accusations against celebrities where the objective is not to get a conviction but to blackmail the accused into offering the accuser a monetary settlement. There are also a lot of accusations against clergymen where the objective is to damage the Church.

    I don’t even think that a year is an unreasonable internal guideline for the authorities to follow. The problem with statutes of limitations is that they are a rigid technicality that can result in miscarriages of justice.

    That’s true. Unfortunately at some point you have to pick an arbitrary cutoff point. Whether you pick one year, three years or thirty years there will still be some miscarriages of justice. You have to go for a compromise. On the whole I think there’s a lesser risk if the statute of limitations is set at a relatively short period.

    You realise we’re now in grave danger of ending up broadly agreeing?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS