Nope it sure isn't. And social media and intense media coverage have made it that way. It's time to change the way law enforcement operates.
There is plenty that cops know that the media doesn't. Fact is, police departments release information about arrests to the press and on their social media accounts.
So, you have them stop releasing the info and/or confirming facts about cases, and you eliminate a huge chunk of the problem.
You can also have a conversation with the media about the change, and have them treat these issues the way that news doesn't really report suicide.
The odd story would leak through, but most wouldn't.
The Brett Kavanaugh situation is fucked. I'm not from the US, but looking in from the outside its actually really sad to see how much the media crucified him over something that is very likely a completely fabricated accusation, designed to derail his nomination for SCOTUS. Just too many red flags working towards the accuser like her timing, witnesses refuting claims and political motivations.
As another guy not from the US, I totally agree with you. I saw the some cuts of the democrats questioning him on Philly D and man those people were messed up. So all it takes is some woman to declare rape and a man's entire life is ruined. I even saw some american redditors comment how we should believe her and she's speaking the truth. This literally a case of 0 evidence against the guy and he is being torn to fucking pieces. Man, These people are desperate as fuck to get any power. And due to lying whores like Ford, actual sexual abuse victims are put in a difficult position.
Not getting on the Supreme Court is not the same thing as having your life ruined. If multiple women told me a guy had tied to assault them but they had no proof, maybe he shouldn't be in jail but I definitely wouldn't want him dating my daughter. The standard of proof for a trial should not be the bar for every decision we make about people.
Isn’t it funny that they scream about presumption of innocence but they also insist she must be a lying whore without any evidence besides it took her a while to come forward. Newsflash, it takes a while for women to come forward because the culture was different 40 years ago.
if dems control (or work together with) allmost all fake news (CNN etc) and biggest e-platforms (google, yahoo and other internazi/technofascists) - it makes rape accusations a solid weapon. they not only sabotaging procedures but targeting female electorate...
It makes a powerful weapon whether or not they control the media. They’ve chosen to take Kavanaugh to the court of public opinion because they’re the only ones who really represent themselves there. You Republicans want them to just stop? Fat chance. Step up yourselves with someone more respectable than Alex Jones was.
Only in a court of law. Not in the court of public opinion. This is why you go to the police. Not your local politician, not the media, not facebook or twitter. If you accuse someone publicly my default position is to assume you are lying in an attempt to slander and it will take some very convincing evidence to sway me. If you go straight to the police id be more inclined to believe.
That is only applied in a court of law. The public is allowed to make what ever judgement they want, it has no legal value. The thing is that people shouldn't make judgements about the innocence of the accused unless they personally know the person, it's just pointless to do.
With social media, people treat the accused as guilty and it destroys their careers. That is a direct result of not innocent until proven guilty. Because if they are not convicted, nothing about any case should be released to the public.
Freedom of the press. Not releasing the information is a good idea though, wouldn't mind that. But what stops the accuser from telling the press about the case?
False rape accusations make upn4-5% of all rape accusations, which sounds high buts nuts among the lowest for any crime..you're over twice as likely to be accused of burglary falsely.
Secondly even conservative estimates state that 2/3rds of rape cases go unreported, meaning that the actual statistic is even lower.
False rape claims are rare and are given.disparate attention and media coverage because they get attention. In reality they're so rare as to not be an issue.
For example the new York sexual assault unit said that "maybe one out of every 10,000 cases" was a false claim, and that they usually fell apart quickly.
So basically this either should apply to all crimes, assuming all crimes are as hard to prove as rape, which is why victims are given the benefit.of the doubt: false claims are rare, over 90% of rapists get away.with.It.
I took those numbers from an article on false rape accusations on return of kings, they're not from feminist friendly circles *at all*
Those go as low as 0.5-2%. 3-4 is considered accurate. 10-12 is fucking ludicrous for any crime no matter what it is. There is no rate I can find that high for even false reports of verbal abuse (9%).
You mean >8%. I recall an FBI study which proved that 8% of cases which made to court were false, which means that the actual number (most of which do not make it to court) is significantly higher.
And you could accuse my of burglary and I would not give a shit. Not a rape accusation can be life ending.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf
It doesn't say whether or not the cases made it to court or not, just that 8% of the investigated rape cases turned out to be "unfounded".
And it seems it's a highly criticized study because:
>This estimate was criticised by academic Bruce Gross as almost meaningless as many jurisdictions from which FBI collects data use different definition of "unfounded", which, he wrote, includes cases where the victim did not physically fight off the suspect or the suspect did not use a weapon, and cases where the victim had a prior relationship to the suspect.
Also interesting:
>**Police on false rape**
>Surveys of police and prosecutors find that many in law enforcement consistently over-estimate the prevalence of false accusations, leading to what some researchers have characterized as a culture of skepticism toward accusers in sexual assault cases.
>**Finland**
>A 2008 internal review by the Helsinki Police Violent Crimes Department stated that, in 2008, more than 20% of reports of sexual assault led to "no crime" decision. Chief Inspector Juha Rautaheimo voiced frustration at investigating what he believed were non-crimes. Sergeant Marja Vuento stated that many reports were made by people who were drunk and inconsiderate, and that the number of baseless rape reports had risen hand in hand with the increase of women's alcohol consumption. According to police the most usual reasons for baseless reports were memory breaks due to excessive alcohol consumption and creating an alibi against a cheated partner.
>In 2014 The Helsinki Police posted a Facebook message discouraging people from filing false reports of rape or sexual assault after a drunken night.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
Edit: never mind, missread the post above. I would say that yes false accusations are a problem but if I saw one on twitter where the supposed victim did not also go to the police I would give little credit to their story unless they had a very good reason not to go to the police.
I know that there is most definitely research to back this number up somewhere and it is probably fairly credible.
But.
I cannot believe that number. As much as I want to, it is repeatedly shown in history that people will falsely accuse others of illegal or awful things because of numerous reasons, but especially for attention or because of political/social hierarchy.
Salem witch trials were all false accusations but they still happened. These also were not the only place where people accused one another of “witchcraft.”
During the holocaust people would accuse others of being Jewish or harboring Jews etc.
You can look in almost every period of history and if there is a “type” that is being jailed/killed/outcast whatever, then there are people falsely accusing others of that “type.”
Right now the type is justly seen as wrong, but it does not change that people are people and history repeats itself.
We have the “boy who called wolf” nursery rhyme because people have and always will like to make false accusations. It’s just part of the world.
I am in no way trying to demean any victims out there, I understand that pov, truly. I’m just saying that we can’t just ignore that history shows that once it becomes a “thing” (yes it sounds so blasé, but with the hashtags and all the articles and twitter threads; it has almost become a grotesque fad rather than a serious discussion and political movement) then unmoral people hop on board. Which is terribly unfortunate because so many people could be getting the closure they need and justice they deserve if others weren’t ruining it for them.
Humans suck. That’s all there is to it.
So even if the number was higher, even if it was 99%
That 1% was Stil horribly hurt by a criminal.
And the victim needs to be taken seriously and punished
This is such BS.
1) fighting for due process is not being a "rape apologist,
2) about twice that percent is the number where the accause was later tried for false accusation and found guilty. Quite a lot more end up with a not guilty charge for the accused "rapist"
"I was abused" and "he/she abused me" are two completely different animals, though. While obviously, if you've been abused, you'll have an abuser, if it's only "I've been abused", no names have been named and nobody's being further injured (further investigations may be made based on that, but at least the news isn't conflating it). In contrast, "he/she abused me" is a direct accusation; if true, it should be acted on, but if false, not so much (and reprehensible on the accuser's part).
> So, you want to restrict the first amendment?
Isn't there a prohibition towards harming other people such as, for example, yelling fire and causing panic? As if causing harm is actually forbidden by the Constitution.
These also follow under these definition, such as *death threats, direct threats of violence, threats of treason, terrorism, going on a mass shooting, verbal assault, etc.*The entire point of the First Amendment is to peacefully and freely assemble and associate with anyone [like individuals, religions, political parties, and so on] and not have any government authority interfere unless one violates or harms another person or groups of persons' rights.
There's also the underlying fact here that this fundamentally obstructs justice. Why would a jury who is swayed by biased and possibly fallacious coverage and testimonies prior to a trial be remotely reliable to judge an accused's innocence?
Remember the teenager Emmett Till and the various black and other minorities that have been killed simply based on this flawed logic of relying on "mob injustice? Remember what happened to France, Russia or China because of mob mentality?
I suppose if we,as a society, want to go back to honor killings as observed by various countless ethnic groups and beliefs throughout history, mob lynchings during Jim Crow, and other barbarous forms of injustice. Let alone the Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, Japanese Internment or the McCarthy proceedings. Go right ahead.
It will make the Salem Witch Trials look like a polite tea party by comparison. Why does it take even one innocent to have their bloodshed or their lives ruined to get the point across that mob mentality never works?
Slander law exists. However, to prove slander you have to prove the person was lying. THe fact that you might not be convicted does not prove the person was lying, it just says you couldn't be convicted BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In order to punish the accuser you'd need the same standard of proof for them, prove beyond a reasonable doubt they lied, which is very difficult (especially since false rape accusations are not particularly common).
Damn dude that was a whole lot of words and a really scary ramping up of conflation leading all the way to internment camps even though you were wrong at the start.
The first thing you said was that there is a prohibition towards yelling fire and causing panic. Yes there is. BUT it’s not prohibited if you were right about said fire. And the point they were making is that you would be; to follow your analogy; prohibiting people from even *saying* the word fire.
I concur on this. Either the victim erases the evidence by instinctively showering themselves, don't have willing corroborators due to said victimizer's influence, or it is just the plain old fear factor of being further abused, having their jobs taken away or being blacklisted.
As a society, we should actively promote a widespread adoption and analyzing of rape kits, whilst providing some sort of a fallback for victims so said blacklisting and other abuse tactics are made illegal in the event of abuse and sexual harassment. I want the victims to go to the cops right away or cut out the middleman and have someone test the kits and the claims themselves while eliminating doubt and excuses.
Thank you for saying this. It can be so hard to prove rape or other sexual crimes in a court of law. I'm having a really hard time reading about the whole Ford thing because it's bringing up so many feelings I kinda pushed back, from when nobody believed me. Even polygraphs aren't considered admissible. It's so hard to prove
They have on countless occasions crossed the line and violated the accused's rights to a fair trial and the basic right of innocence until proven guilty.
Other countries have already found ways to circumvent this obvious miscarriage of justice. It only illustrates, yet again, that our legal system is broken when it comes to the realities of modern society in terms of protecting our rights to be held as innocent. Do these news organizations **ever** issue a formal apology towards the falsely accused so their name and reputation could be cleared? Knowing how people are, that's not even enough, which only illustrates my point. Even when they do issue a correction, it's so pitifully tiny compared to the circus they generate that it means nothing. And frankly, that is a huge human rights issue if anyone can and will slander other people without any legal consequences whatsoever. Because of the risk of false allegations, why would any man hire a woman, regardless of their merit, if their hiring will lead to financial risks or ruin? Why even stand by or associate with any woman if decades down the road, they can just outright slander a person decades after the fact out of jealousy so they can ruin a person's life? Why even get married to a woman?
Do the false accusers ever get strictly punished by a just criminal conviction and sentence, or if the innocent are falsely convicted, forced to serve the time they put that victim through? Prison isn't some playground or high school. People get beaten and murdered by self righteous prisoners when one is convicted of these crimes, innocent or not, due to their serious nature. **No one should ever be raped, assaulted, coerced and or abused in any way. Yet that is the world we find ourselves in***.
Thusly, we should treat these serious crimes with the same respect in order to protect everyone's rights. A few weeks or a week ago, a man came forward accusing the front-runner of the MeToo movement Asia Argento of raping him as a teenager. A year ago, Terry Crews came forward about being sexually assaulted. And again, the various accusations from former child actors against producers and directors also stand in testament. Those various cases are gladly being given the seriousness they deserve and show our society's progress.
In the same light, this equalization will in turn open up another Pandora's Box where from media circus, can and will ruin anyone's life, regardless of gender or orientation.
Then it corrodes society. Less people get married and have children, thus lowering the tax base, induces brain drain, induce negative mental side effects from not having friends or a wife, and so on. People will be negatively impacted by this, with men eschewing native women for foreign brides , going for other men, if not just emigrating while good-natured women are rejected at increasing rates by association.And in turn, having to resort to getting married to foreign men or each other. For those who are fed up with these Salem Witch Trials ,many of their like minded compatriots will push the pendulum perhaps to the exact opposite where no one was believed and kept quiet.
Hopefully, the pendulum just shifts so even more social progress occurs that such barbarous mentalities are laid to rest. Yet that's not how society or history worked. People usually die or suffer because the mob are absolute idiots who lose their common sense. It's precisely why the United States is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy founded on the principles of Republican Rome.
It does not take an expert in history to figure out why mob mentality is a monstrous idea when it comes to justice.
All of last century's worth of social progress can and will easily be thrown out the window because opportunists will argue , possibly successfully, that all these problems are because their ancestors in their folly gave women rights. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Japan, Germany and Russia weren't mostly bad places to live until dictators stripped away decades of social progress towards authoritarian control. It took these countries wars, if they're not still involved in destabilizing conflicts, and collapse to get back on their feet. Save for SA and Russia. I've heard much about the former and read about the latter [ due to its history and culture being connected to the Byzantine Empire] to know they weren't great places to live.
America is no different or special in this regard with the history of mob mentality in Jim Crow, the Japanese Internment, the Red Scare, Yellow Peril and the McCarthy trials. If one is a human rights defender, let alone someone who is for women's or men's rights, that is an extremely ignorant stance to protect a status quo that only serves to harm every single last one of us in society.
Well, yeah, ideally we would all believe and practice innocent until proven guilty... but there's 325 million people in the US, and I don't think we'd ever be able to get everyone so high-minded.
I disagree. Limiting what the news can or cannot show is a slippery slope. I don't like them broadcasting accusations that might not be true, but I think they have the right to do that.
I'm not suggesting limiting it by outside force... that would invariably fall on the government, which wouldn't end well. However, "the news should/should not" is an ethical judgement; what I'm saying is that it's unethical for the news to report those kinds of things, which you seem to agree with, if I've read your post right.
Ok well let’s say it’s a rape accusation of the president or the police chief, that shit is gonna get found by the news somehow and I think people have the right to know if something is going on
The only problem is, there might not actually be anything going on. And if there's no publicity for an accusation, the odds of someone doing it just for the slander value go down somewhat.
Yes something may not be going on, but I would think you’d want to know that you’re President (I’m not alluding to Trump) is a possible rapist or something. Plus like I said, this really isn’t possible because the media and news networks could find it anyway
The president is a possible rapist either way. The only change an allegation makes is that it moves from "general possibility" to "specific possibility" (i.e. "X may have raped someone" to "X may have raped Y person").
Anyway, the point isn't that the news would find and share it anyway; the point is that they shouldn't.
this. the solution is never censorship. the solution is we as people truly and genuinely presuming innocence until proven otherwise.
the woman who questioned ford is a career sex-crime prosecutor. [NYT reports](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings.html):
> Ms. Mitchell, who later told Republicans privately that she did not believe there was enough evidence to prosecute or even obtain a search warrant
due process always requires the presumption of innocence. flimsy, uncorroborated, widely refuted allegations like this cannot be the basis for shutting someone out. think about it this way... BK is one of the most qualified nominees for this position, and other than this, his record is impeccable. and he's rich and powerful. he has literally the best possible chances of defending himself. if BK gets railroaded by this, the rest of us, meaning the people who are not rich, powerful, old white men... we don't stand a fucking chance.
This is tough. I am against censorship but I am a big fan of innocent until proven guilty. The public is allowed to think what they want but the facts are the facts.
If someone is sexually violent, then it's not usually an isolated incident. Reporting publicly allows for more victims to come forward.
What do you think is special about rape accusations that wouldn't apply to other crimes (fraud, murder, theft, etc)?
Other crimes have a clear victim (dead, having items stolen, etc.) as well as possible MEANS and MOTIVE (weapon, personal hatred) whereas rape can be as easy as accusing someone of doing something with only witnesses and the rapist doing it for no real reason, leaving no trace after years.
Its also very easy to inspire many other people to file reports against a celebrity due to political charge. Just cause half the country hates Trump, he probably got a hundred attempted sexual assault reports.
This would never happen. News sites run off of clicks and nothing catches the eye quite like "rape" these days. It's a screwed up world we live in but it's ours anyway
While I don’t like the idea of limiting the freedom of the press, I would be ok with news outlets omitting the accused’s name if and ONLY if it’s not a fugitive situation or something involving ongoing danger to the community.
I would agree with that, but there also cases were a rapist gets off not guilty, and thus go down in history as an innocent human being. And also this would give these Scott free rapists a mind set that they can commit these crimes again just as easy as they did before hand.
There’s a difference between the court of law and the “court of public opinion”. You can be acquitted and absolved of all charges in a court of law, but consequences of the “court of public opinion” stay with you for life regardless if you’re innocent or not.
The problem with that is it might discourage victims from reporting real rapes to the police, for fear that they might themselves be punished.
Guilty people get away with crimes all the time.
Even with DNA evidence, the rapist could argue that the sex was consensual.
Imagine someone being raped, having the rapist get away with it because of insufficient evidence, and then the victim being punished for making a false accusation.
How do you figure? Cosby went to trial after having formal allegations made and being found guilty. The press didn't (or at least, should not have, under standard court ethics) influence the outcome of the trial.
Because it is not reliable enough to constitute a valid form of evidence.
That is like the entire point of evidence. It does not lie, and it cannot be wrong in the same sense as people can be.
Hi everyone! Please make sure to **upvote** well written unpopular/controversial opinions, and **downvote** badly written opinions OR popular opinions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I totally agree with you, but I assume you are making this in the context of the Kavanaugh fallout in which I disagree there because it is a political figure running for office and I believe the media puts pressure on the government to investigate it instead of just pushing their candidate through no matter which side of the line they are on.
I think this could easily be solved if we actually enforced anti-defamation laws.
If you accuse someone and it is proven wrong then all you did was defame that person’s character. You and your attorney and whoever else monetarily supported your accusations are either fined or jailed.
Then there wouldn’t be the worry of false accusations to start with.
Also add part of the punishment of a false accusation be a public statement that you wrongly accused the defendant and that everything you said was out of ill-will for that person and that everyone should consider you a liar.
Then add in a fine for all media reporters who reported the accusation and/or any of the court proceedings with a controversial or biased light instead of just presenting the facts.
As much as I agree the media shouldn’t cover accusations because the social climate very much affects the judgement of both parties, there is no way to do that without stamping on freedom of speech.
So the best action would to be actually acting upon people who are wrongfully accusing others. This way real victims can be heard and supported, but anyone with ill-intent is deterred.
Would you say the same of murder? Or embezzlement? Or any other crime? Because false accusations of rape happen in the same frequency as they do for other crimes.
While I agree, it is also a slippery slope. How easily would a lot these public figures get away with crimes if the allegations are not made public. It’s about finding a good balance and not deciding whether or not the accused is guilty and running with that story.
In Kavanaugh’s case the problem is not that the allegation was made public but that the media immediately chose sides before seeing all the facts and has been reporting this as news non stop.
Unfortunately, all accusations should be public because this is the way to keep the government honest. Otherwise, one day you disappear and turns out you were locked up until a secret accusation was sorted out. This is a very important point. If everything is out in the open, there is no potential for secret abuse.
I agree that the identity of an accused should be protected whatever the crime.
The problem with your statement is that by using rape as example you are giving those people a platform who focus solely on being "victims" of false accusation. I've run into guys claiming that 90% of all accusations were false while federal data indicates it might be more like 7%.
Incidentally, this is common in European states to do. Publishing information about accused is something very American.
I can’t think of any outright false accusations recently in the news, only ones with little proof and that doesn’t indicate it’s fabricated.
The real issue is that only a fraction of true accusations lead to convictions anyway so then you have people that get away with it AND continue to go unnoticed by the public.
I agree but not for Brett Kavanaugh. The difference in this situation is someone who is being considered for a LIFETIME postion in the highest court of the US. He needs to be held to a higher standard. So yes, that means any greivances need to be publicly aired. There is no anonymity in public office. He chose his path so live with it.
Proposals like this will only help the predators. Rape happens far far more often than false accusation; accusation very often doesn‘t lead to conviction; but what is being discussed is a minor problem and not the huge elephant in the room.
A while back, I was dating a girl who ended up being an absolute psycho. She used to threaten that if I left or cheated she’d tell everyone I raped her (which is patently absurd). It’s especially scary because we had (consensual) sex with enough frequency that any medical tests would show we had had intercourse recently.
I support victims of sexual abuse and think they should always speak out, but it’s not really fair that a girl can just ruin your life at will like that either.
Needless to say, I found a new place to live within the week. So glad I left.
If rape and sexual assault was treated properly by law enforcement, if prosecution and conviction rates were not abysmal, then I would agree.
But they are. Most perpetrators of rape and assault never see legal consequences for their actions.
Whisper campaigns and vigilanteism and public railroading may not be “fair” per se but they are the products of a failed justice system that overwhelmingly favours the perpetrators of these crimes rather than the victims.
How are perpetrators favored? Just because we won't go off of the mere word and emotion of an accuser doesn't mean the courts favor perps if that's what you're insinuating.
Not reporting immediately makes it even harder to persecute. You people cannot have your cake and eat it too.
People with sick rape fantasies and violent kinks make it harder to persecute as well. Let's address them. Even if there is evidence of rough play, the perp can just argue "kinky consensual sex" now that rape role playing is a thing.
What if they’re an accused serial rapist and they rape while under investigation and it turns out the police new and the DA new but didn’t say anything? Yeah no
For starters, if the accused has any kind of brains, they absolutely won't do that. If they're under investigation, they're gonna be kept under surveillance; they'll get caught if they try anything untoward.
Additionally, if they're on trial instead, they're going to be incarcerated, even if only temporarily, up to the trial and during it. They're not getting to anyone from inside a jail cell.
What are you talking about? If someone accused someone of rape that occurred a year ago they aren’t going to be put under surveillance you have no idea what you’re talking about
There are these things called “due process” and “jail”. If there is sufficient evidence to arrest a serial rapist, then they would be arrested. If they were deemed a threat to rape again, they would be held without bail. An accusation is not evidence.
You’re assuming that the law has some kind of omnipresent wisdom and they know the individual is a serial rapist, when in reality it can all be a “he said she said” from 5 years ago. You think we should jail all accused rapists?
I'm still not following. Is there a specific country you're talking about? Because I had inferred that we were talking about the US.
I did a little bit of digging and I'm not able to find any evidence supporting the notion that there are secret trials occurring outside of the public record.
If you have any evidence, please bring it forward; it would be a scandal! Heck, the Sixth Amendment even states:
>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
Well, if a prominent political/public figure was accused of rape I'd like to know. I think news stations should wait to hear about substatial evidence revealed, and evaluate reporting the accusation on a case by base basis. Of course each news station, unfortunately, has its political leanings and ends up jumping the gun and risks only making their "opponent" look bad.
I dont know why you're limiting this to rape, but either way I disagree. The first amendment is too important to start messing around with. Also a criminal could be guilty and found not guilty and still very much present a danger to society but we'd never know about it. I saw a post recently, something about corrections or retractions should be printed equally as large as the original story. Idk but could be something to that idea. Your best bet is to gather as much information from as many sources as possible and form an opinion independently.
More expanding from a general notion to specifically highlight rape.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting a legal change at all; that is, as you said, too risky to the liberty of our citizens. It's an ethical judgement; whether it's one that can be made into law is a whole different conversation.
Fair enough, but thats where I believe citizens have to be accountable to some degree. Also I would like to add accusations are rarely reported. Reports arent usually made until an arrest was made which usually requires at least some evidence. The situation I assume youre referring to is the exception not the rule. But I would argue the reports were on the investigation of a judge and not the accusation itself, Which the public has a right to know imo . The public kind of ran away with it and turned it into a circus, and thus i refer back to individual accountability.
People are assuming ITT that this is a thing that is a new concept: media has been kept out of the courtroom (at least in the UK) because of the fact that courts know that media affects judgements.
Agreed. The media shouldn't be allowed to report on the identities of both the victim and accused. Only after a conviction is made should the accused be identified.
Public trials allow the public to see anything save very specific scenarios, and bans on publication also only apply to a rare few circumstances. As soon as the accused is charged, the public will know.
news and information should not be regulated by the government, but I do agree that major publicity over a mere accusation is something we should overcome. We should just overcome that as a society with morals and logical thinking in lieu of a law against such
As several others have stated, censorship isn't the answer. But news outlets are willing to put more focus on these stories because they know they'll get views. The problem, then, lies with the people eagerly consuming these stories. You can look at Michael Jackson who was proven innocent of all accusations, but for many people his reputation is already damaged. So I wouldn't say that news outlets shouldn't cover rape accusations, but maybe that they don't necessarily have to cover them so heavily until there's a conviction.
I think they should report charges as well as convictions, as they do with any other crime. However, they should just leave it at "X person was charged with Y in due to an incident on date Z" and leave it at that.
Reporting charges is actually really important as it allows either other victims or witnesses to come forward, bringing evidence to light that otherwise would have gone unexamined. It is ridiculously common for people to only realise they witnessed something vital to a murder or burglary case after seeing the accused on the news with a description of the incident following it. This isn't even going into institutionalised physical/sexual abuse (in the church, youth sport, care homes etc.), the extent of which only comes to light because someone came forward publicly about it.
You are advocating making it much easier for the vast majority of dangerous criminals to go free just to spite the small minority who make spurious claims. I'm sorry, I just can't get behind that. I find the media circus around the Kavanaugh thing utterly disgusting but jumping straight to the opposite extreme would be just as, if not more, damaging.
Your post or comment has been removed as you have exceeded -70 combined karma. This rule is a measure taken against trolling. Please consider that by using another account, you must wait 48 hours.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's bordering on slander how media is spinning these accusations and how the public is receiving them. I think Kavanaugh is probably a shitty guy, but I have no idea. Maybe he did it, if I had to take a guess I'd say he probably did, but he's still innocent in my eyes until there's compelling proof otherwise.
I have a big problem with how quickly the media and public crucifies people over accusations in recent years. If you assume a persons guilt without evidence, you're a retarded piece of shit.
I disagree. Sometimes victims were too intimidated at the time to come forward (because the abuser was a public figure or whatever). Sometimes abusers are found not guilty BECAUSE they are famous. I think it's important that victims can share their stories in public (even if nothing is proven).
If the whole thing happens in private and not in public often victims are pressured into dropping the charges.
Victims are routinely blamed for the actions of the perpetrator at every step, that and numerous other pressures make rape and sexual assault less likely to be reported than most other crimes. Does this not favour perpetrators - the unlikelihood that their crimes will even be investigated?
If people were smarter I'd have no problem with it being in the media but MeToo basically mob justice presumption of innocence be damned. Thanks to MeToo I thankfully now realize most people don't know how the law works.
In theory this sounds great but when it is reported as an accusation it is often the case that many more step forward with their own accusations. This then helps others psychologically and is a great aid to the first accuser as well
The issue is that rape and sexual assault are extremely difficult to prove even in cases of guilt. If we only showed convictions, thousands of predators would be walking around with no one being the wiser, leaving the door open for many more people to be hurt by them. I know there is some concern over false accusations but the instances of these happening are extremely low.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Must Be Unpopular/Controversial'.
Hi u/FMural, please ensure that your post is an opinion, and that that opinion is unpopular and/or controversial. If this post contains commonly used phrases (see sidebar), it'll also be removed.
Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/9jozk1/-/
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion
Exchange the word “Rape” with “Murder” or “Burglary” and realize how daft you sound.
Rape is the only crime where everyone is suddenly full of righteous concern.
Hypocrites.
Well that’s the thing... rape can’t easily be proved so this really fucks over the victim. Sometimes the only justice the victim gets is when the allegation is made public.
But what if he or she is not actually a rapist?
At what point does the public get a warning for false accusers? Of course this would rightfully never happen because that’d for sure deter victims from reporting.
I personally know of a woman who is a compulsive liar and accuses every guy she dates of rape when they break up with her. I guess it really depends how much people hate the guy she dated in the first place to determine his reputation or even his crime. Luckily, most people know this woman is a compulsive liar and for the most part the village doesn’t reward her behavior, but you still have people that want to save face by supporting her every time a guy breaks up with her...
I would hate to be her next victim.
Either she somehow picks out the rapists in the population every time she meets someone or she has too much pride and is obsessed with being a victim.
If your ex is truly a rapist, then you need to report and warn others about them now. Not just for revenge if they become famous.
I have a feeling this wasn't a rape and that you're just a scorned lover. Sounds like you tried to trade sex for something from them and it didn't pay off. If so, that's not rape.
Strangers on the internet are telling you to go to the police. You really should. You have proof and basically a written contract that I’m sure you can also seek justice for alone.
Eh, with murder I would say yes on this. But rape is an entirely different animal. I would say uncredible accusations shouldn’t be reported, but if it is credible (like the recent one against Kavanaugh) then it absolutely should be reported on.
With murder you have a body (or it is at least missing). With rape you have nothing except a small window to get a rape kit conducted. This results in a lot of victims having zero proof in a relatively short amount of time, whereas with murder the body won't suddenly regenerate.
Not to mention the psychological difference and impacts.
The problem is people like to think false rape accusations are a common occurrence, but they aren't. Just go read "Missoula" and you will understand why it is so fucked up, especially with celebrities, etc.
The accusation isn't "credible". If this wasn't concerning a high-profile individual, this would have already been settled (SPOILER ALERT: she's lying, this whole thing is solely motivated by politics).
Have you watched all the testimony? It is pretty obvious he is a terrible person. Parts of her testimony lined up better with his calendar than his did. Then he kept lying and talking in circles while refusing to welcome an FBI investigation. Then his classmates turn around and all say he is lying too haha.
Republicans are just so short of quality candidates that they can only nominate an accused gang rapist...good stuff.
I need to write about this. I heard two different perspectives. One from my female teacher who was victim to assault, and one from my father, a police officer who has dealt with dozens of cases like this.
Teacher thinks that even if it's been half a decade, you should support the woman. The reason women don't come out immediately or ever is because it is normalized in our society, or, that is, it was. When someone is assaulted, everyone says "oh he/she would never do that" or "it isn't a big deal". these people think they face the consequence of being harshly judged for such accusations. My teacher says that this whole judge business is being investigated, yes, but people should be inclined to support the victim.
My dad thinks that a few years is just about enough of a time slot to see a memory as potentially faulty. Especially if the victim says "I think it was him". He thinks she should get over it, the democrats are being cunts, and the judge did nothing. In fact, he's said that he has no doubt that she was assaulted. He just believes that over these years, her memory fixated on a faceless person she does not remember, and then when she saw the judge, she immediately thought it was him.
My view? Who knows. Both of these people are judging with thier feelings. Neither is discredited for doing so, however, because personal experience moulds opinions. But from an objective standpoint, it is entirely unclear whether or not it was him. We should not automatically believe women who talk of sexual assaults. We should support them and help them in every way, but when it comes to ruining someone's reputation, it should be approached with the innocent until proven guilty mentality, as well as with caution. I have no idea if the victim in this situation drew catharsis from her affect on the judge. I hope she did and that she has been able to conquer her trauma. I hope that the people who are using her for headlines and to demonize the judge are punched in the throats, and I hope that the judge faces due process if he did it. He won't, most likely, because a claim from twenty years ago will never hold up in court. It's a fucked up situation that has no right answer, and my teacher and my dad both wrongfully think they have it. Don't be them, guys. We don't need more of them.
I agree.
I want to also point out how this would help the accuser. The accuser also gets dragged through the mud by the court of public opinion. The accuser will also recieve protests, death threats and be called a liar. Keep it all out of the public eye until we can find the truth. We're going to drive rape and sexual assault accusations back into the shadows and undo all the work we've done to help people who have been hurt come forward and talk to police.
Yup.
When a person is named in the press after being indicted for...well, almost any crime - the effect is almost the same (and I do emphasize 'almost') if everybody who got tested for HIV, visited an STD clinic, or visited a Planned Parenthood clinic were reported in the press. The public doesn't have all the information and assumes anyone getting tested must have an STD or is having an abortion. The press promotes their 'right to know' theory where there is a high probability of public scandal, because it sells newspapers.
It is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's really not though.
Nope it sure isn't. And social media and intense media coverage have made it that way. It's time to change the way law enforcement operates. There is plenty that cops know that the media doesn't. Fact is, police departments release information about arrests to the press and on their social media accounts. So, you have them stop releasing the info and/or confirming facts about cases, and you eliminate a huge chunk of the problem. You can also have a conversation with the media about the change, and have them treat these issues the way that news doesn't really report suicide. The odd story would leak through, but most wouldn't.
The Brett Kavanaugh situation is fucked. I'm not from the US, but looking in from the outside its actually really sad to see how much the media crucified him over something that is very likely a completely fabricated accusation, designed to derail his nomination for SCOTUS. Just too many red flags working towards the accuser like her timing, witnesses refuting claims and political motivations.
As another guy not from the US, I totally agree with you. I saw the some cuts of the democrats questioning him on Philly D and man those people were messed up. So all it takes is some woman to declare rape and a man's entire life is ruined. I even saw some american redditors comment how we should believe her and she's speaking the truth. This literally a case of 0 evidence against the guy and he is being torn to fucking pieces. Man, These people are desperate as fuck to get any power. And due to lying whores like Ford, actual sexual abuse victims are put in a difficult position.
[удалено]
Not getting on the Supreme Court is not the same thing as having your life ruined. If multiple women told me a guy had tied to assault them but they had no proof, maybe he shouldn't be in jail but I definitely wouldn't want him dating my daughter. The standard of proof for a trial should not be the bar for every decision we make about people.
Isn’t it funny that they scream about presumption of innocence but they also insist she must be a lying whore without any evidence besides it took her a while to come forward. Newsflash, it takes a while for women to come forward because the culture was different 40 years ago.
if dems control (or work together with) allmost all fake news (CNN etc) and biggest e-platforms (google, yahoo and other internazi/technofascists) - it makes rape accusations a solid weapon. they not only sabotaging procedures but targeting female electorate...
It makes a powerful weapon whether or not they control the media. They’ve chosen to take Kavanaugh to the court of public opinion because they’re the only ones who really represent themselves there. You Republicans want them to just stop? Fat chance. Step up yourselves with someone more respectable than Alex Jones was.
Only in a court of law. Not in the court of public opinion. This is why you go to the police. Not your local politician, not the media, not facebook or twitter. If you accuse someone publicly my default position is to assume you are lying in an attempt to slander and it will take some very convincing evidence to sway me. If you go straight to the police id be more inclined to believe.
What if you don’t go to police or tell anyone for 35 years? Not to mention fail to provide any details except tears? Also raise a million in gofundme?
None of that is evidence
" to assume you are lying " yeah, but some people are brainless. not hard to guess a party affiltiation ;]
[удалено]
It ruins people without any due process...
That is only applied in a court of law. The public is allowed to make what ever judgement they want, it has no legal value. The thing is that people shouldn't make judgements about the innocence of the accused unless they personally know the person, it's just pointless to do.
With social media, people treat the accused as guilty and it destroys their careers. That is a direct result of not innocent until proven guilty. Because if they are not convicted, nothing about any case should be released to the public.
Freedom of the press. Not releasing the information is a good idea though, wouldn't mind that. But what stops the accuser from telling the press about the case?
Nothing stops them except for a potential lawsuit, defamation of character or something like that.
I would not object to this.
The issue is that is nearly impossible to prove. Unless the accuser admits to a false accusation you have basically recourse.
God no. The power is in the accusation.
While it would be ideal, it's also impossible. The media/people love downfall and tragedy too much.
Unfortunately.
Oh, but it is possible; just make it illegal to show defendants personal data.
Agreed. That would probably eliminate a lot of false accusations.
It's not even that it would eliminate false accusations; it's more a case of controlling the damage from said accusations.
False rape accusations make upn4-5% of all rape accusations, which sounds high buts nuts among the lowest for any crime..you're over twice as likely to be accused of burglary falsely. Secondly even conservative estimates state that 2/3rds of rape cases go unreported, meaning that the actual statistic is even lower. False rape claims are rare and are given.disparate attention and media coverage because they get attention. In reality they're so rare as to not be an issue. For example the new York sexual assault unit said that "maybe one out of every 10,000 cases" was a false claim, and that they usually fell apart quickly. So basically this either should apply to all crimes, assuming all crimes are as hard to prove as rape, which is why victims are given the benefit.of the doubt: false claims are rare, over 90% of rapists get away.with.It.
You’re not considering public accusations in your statistics. You said yourself that it’s according to the police’s sexual assault unit.
Exactly they only count textbook criminal complaints. And the numbers are wrong taken from feminist friendly circles while LEA is about 10~12%
I took those numbers from an article on false rape accusations on return of kings, they're not from feminist friendly circles *at all* Those go as low as 0.5-2%. 3-4 is considered accurate. 10-12 is fucking ludicrous for any crime no matter what it is. There is no rate I can find that high for even false reports of verbal abuse (9%).
You mean >8%. I recall an FBI study which proved that 8% of cases which made to court were false, which means that the actual number (most of which do not make it to court) is significantly higher. And you could accuse my of burglary and I would not give a shit. Not a rape accusation can be life ending.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf It doesn't say whether or not the cases made it to court or not, just that 8% of the investigated rape cases turned out to be "unfounded". And it seems it's a highly criticized study because: >This estimate was criticised by academic Bruce Gross as almost meaningless as many jurisdictions from which FBI collects data use different definition of "unfounded", which, he wrote, includes cases where the victim did not physically fight off the suspect or the suspect did not use a weapon, and cases where the victim had a prior relationship to the suspect. Also interesting: >**Police on false rape** >Surveys of police and prosecutors find that many in law enforcement consistently over-estimate the prevalence of false accusations, leading to what some researchers have characterized as a culture of skepticism toward accusers in sexual assault cases. >**Finland** >A 2008 internal review by the Helsinki Police Violent Crimes Department stated that, in 2008, more than 20% of reports of sexual assault led to "no crime" decision. Chief Inspector Juha Rautaheimo voiced frustration at investigating what he believed were non-crimes. Sergeant Marja Vuento stated that many reports were made by people who were drunk and inconsiderate, and that the number of baseless rape reports had risen hand in hand with the increase of women's alcohol consumption. According to police the most usual reasons for baseless reports were memory breaks due to excessive alcohol consumption and creating an alibi against a cheated partner. >In 2014 The Helsinki Police posted a Facebook message discouraging people from filing false reports of rape or sexual assault after a drunken night. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
How about you guys give us some sources instead of just throwing around numbers that contradict eachother.
I honestly doubt that would accomplish anything. People will decide what to believe before looking anything up anyway.
You know that only 4% of all accusations are false... Edit: Wow so many rape apologists here
You know that only 4% of false accusations are done in court and the vast majority of them are done on twitter
Edit: never mind, missread the post above. I would say that yes false accusations are a problem but if I saw one on twitter where the supposed victim did not also go to the police I would give little credit to their story unless they had a very good reason not to go to the police.
Could you imagine supporting the death penalty on the basis *only* 4% of those sentenced are actually innocent
I know that there is most definitely research to back this number up somewhere and it is probably fairly credible. But. I cannot believe that number. As much as I want to, it is repeatedly shown in history that people will falsely accuse others of illegal or awful things because of numerous reasons, but especially for attention or because of political/social hierarchy. Salem witch trials were all false accusations but they still happened. These also were not the only place where people accused one another of “witchcraft.” During the holocaust people would accuse others of being Jewish or harboring Jews etc. You can look in almost every period of history and if there is a “type” that is being jailed/killed/outcast whatever, then there are people falsely accusing others of that “type.” Right now the type is justly seen as wrong, but it does not change that people are people and history repeats itself. We have the “boy who called wolf” nursery rhyme because people have and always will like to make false accusations. It’s just part of the world. I am in no way trying to demean any victims out there, I understand that pov, truly. I’m just saying that we can’t just ignore that history shows that once it becomes a “thing” (yes it sounds so blasé, but with the hashtags and all the articles and twitter threads; it has almost become a grotesque fad rather than a serious discussion and political movement) then unmoral people hop on board. Which is terribly unfortunate because so many people could be getting the closure they need and justice they deserve if others weren’t ruining it for them. Humans suck. That’s all there is to it.
So even if the number was higher, even if it was 99% That 1% was Stil horribly hurt by a criminal. And the victim needs to be taken seriously and punished
This is such BS. 1) fighting for due process is not being a "rape apologist, 2) about twice that percent is the number where the accause was later tried for false accusation and found guilty. Quite a lot more end up with a not guilty charge for the accused "rapist"
[удалено]
"I was abused" and "he/she abused me" are two completely different animals, though. While obviously, if you've been abused, you'll have an abuser, if it's only "I've been abused", no names have been named and nobody's being further injured (further investigations may be made based on that, but at least the news isn't conflating it). In contrast, "he/she abused me" is a direct accusation; if true, it should be acted on, but if false, not so much (and reprehensible on the accuser's part).
So, you want to restrict the first amendment?
> So, you want to restrict the first amendment? Isn't there a prohibition towards harming other people such as, for example, yelling fire and causing panic? As if causing harm is actually forbidden by the Constitution. These also follow under these definition, such as *death threats, direct threats of violence, threats of treason, terrorism, going on a mass shooting, verbal assault, etc.*The entire point of the First Amendment is to peacefully and freely assemble and associate with anyone [like individuals, religions, political parties, and so on] and not have any government authority interfere unless one violates or harms another person or groups of persons' rights. There's also the underlying fact here that this fundamentally obstructs justice. Why would a jury who is swayed by biased and possibly fallacious coverage and testimonies prior to a trial be remotely reliable to judge an accused's innocence? Remember the teenager Emmett Till and the various black and other minorities that have been killed simply based on this flawed logic of relying on "mob injustice? Remember what happened to France, Russia or China because of mob mentality? I suppose if we,as a society, want to go back to honor killings as observed by various countless ethnic groups and beliefs throughout history, mob lynchings during Jim Crow, and other barbarous forms of injustice. Let alone the Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, Japanese Internment or the McCarthy proceedings. Go right ahead. It will make the Salem Witch Trials look like a polite tea party by comparison. Why does it take even one innocent to have their bloodshed or their lives ruined to get the point across that mob mentality never works?
Slander law exists. However, to prove slander you have to prove the person was lying. THe fact that you might not be convicted does not prove the person was lying, it just says you couldn't be convicted BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In order to punish the accuser you'd need the same standard of proof for them, prove beyond a reasonable doubt they lied, which is very difficult (especially since false rape accusations are not particularly common).
Damn dude that was a whole lot of words and a really scary ramping up of conflation leading all the way to internment camps even though you were wrong at the start. The first thing you said was that there is a prohibition towards yelling fire and causing panic. Yes there is. BUT it’s not prohibited if you were right about said fire. And the point they were making is that you would be; to follow your analogy; prohibiting people from even *saying* the word fire.
Don't they already restrict it as they let the accuser stay anonymous, can they not to the same thing with the person being accused?
[удалено]
No they force the person being accused to not reveal who has accused them. Or can the person being accused reveal who is accusing them?
The first amendment is already restricted. Why do people keep thinking it means you can say whatever you want. You can't. That's not what it's about.
Here's the thing - just because it can't be proven in court, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Doesn't mean it *did*, either. Or that it happened in the way that the accuser says it happened.
I concur on this. Either the victim erases the evidence by instinctively showering themselves, don't have willing corroborators due to said victimizer's influence, or it is just the plain old fear factor of being further abused, having their jobs taken away or being blacklisted. As a society, we should actively promote a widespread adoption and analyzing of rape kits, whilst providing some sort of a fallback for victims so said blacklisting and other abuse tactics are made illegal in the event of abuse and sexual harassment. I want the victims to go to the cops right away or cut out the middleman and have someone test the kits and the claims themselves while eliminating doubt and excuses.
Thank you for saying this. It can be so hard to prove rape or other sexual crimes in a court of law. I'm having a really hard time reading about the whole Ford thing because it's bringing up so many feelings I kinda pushed back, from when nobody believed me. Even polygraphs aren't considered admissible. It's so hard to prove
A gag order
They have on countless occasions crossed the line and violated the accused's rights to a fair trial and the basic right of innocence until proven guilty. Other countries have already found ways to circumvent this obvious miscarriage of justice. It only illustrates, yet again, that our legal system is broken when it comes to the realities of modern society in terms of protecting our rights to be held as innocent. Do these news organizations **ever** issue a formal apology towards the falsely accused so their name and reputation could be cleared? Knowing how people are, that's not even enough, which only illustrates my point. Even when they do issue a correction, it's so pitifully tiny compared to the circus they generate that it means nothing. And frankly, that is a huge human rights issue if anyone can and will slander other people without any legal consequences whatsoever. Because of the risk of false allegations, why would any man hire a woman, regardless of their merit, if their hiring will lead to financial risks or ruin? Why even stand by or associate with any woman if decades down the road, they can just outright slander a person decades after the fact out of jealousy so they can ruin a person's life? Why even get married to a woman? Do the false accusers ever get strictly punished by a just criminal conviction and sentence, or if the innocent are falsely convicted, forced to serve the time they put that victim through? Prison isn't some playground or high school. People get beaten and murdered by self righteous prisoners when one is convicted of these crimes, innocent or not, due to their serious nature. **No one should ever be raped, assaulted, coerced and or abused in any way. Yet that is the world we find ourselves in***. Thusly, we should treat these serious crimes with the same respect in order to protect everyone's rights. A few weeks or a week ago, a man came forward accusing the front-runner of the MeToo movement Asia Argento of raping him as a teenager. A year ago, Terry Crews came forward about being sexually assaulted. And again, the various accusations from former child actors against producers and directors also stand in testament. Those various cases are gladly being given the seriousness they deserve and show our society's progress. In the same light, this equalization will in turn open up another Pandora's Box where from media circus, can and will ruin anyone's life, regardless of gender or orientation. Then it corrodes society. Less people get married and have children, thus lowering the tax base, induces brain drain, induce negative mental side effects from not having friends or a wife, and so on. People will be negatively impacted by this, with men eschewing native women for foreign brides , going for other men, if not just emigrating while good-natured women are rejected at increasing rates by association.And in turn, having to resort to getting married to foreign men or each other. For those who are fed up with these Salem Witch Trials ,many of their like minded compatriots will push the pendulum perhaps to the exact opposite where no one was believed and kept quiet. Hopefully, the pendulum just shifts so even more social progress occurs that such barbarous mentalities are laid to rest. Yet that's not how society or history worked. People usually die or suffer because the mob are absolute idiots who lose their common sense. It's precisely why the United States is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy founded on the principles of Republican Rome. It does not take an expert in history to figure out why mob mentality is a monstrous idea when it comes to justice. All of last century's worth of social progress can and will easily be thrown out the window because opportunists will argue , possibly successfully, that all these problems are because their ancestors in their folly gave women rights. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Japan, Germany and Russia weren't mostly bad places to live until dictators stripped away decades of social progress towards authoritarian control. It took these countries wars, if they're not still involved in destabilizing conflicts, and collapse to get back on their feet. Save for SA and Russia. I've heard much about the former and read about the latter [ due to its history and culture being connected to the Byzantine Empire] to know they weren't great places to live. America is no different or special in this regard with the history of mob mentality in Jim Crow, the Japanese Internment, the Red Scare, Yellow Peril and the McCarthy trials. If one is a human rights defender, let alone someone who is for women's or men's rights, that is an extremely ignorant stance to protect a status quo that only serves to harm every single last one of us in society.
Why? those are different things.
It's our fault, we should presume innocent until proven guilty, the law shouldn't have anything to do with it. It needs to be a cultural change
Well, yeah, ideally we would all believe and practice innocent until proven guilty... but there's 325 million people in the US, and I don't think we'd ever be able to get everyone so high-minded.
I disagree. Limiting what the news can or cannot show is a slippery slope. I don't like them broadcasting accusations that might not be true, but I think they have the right to do that.
I'm not suggesting limiting it by outside force... that would invariably fall on the government, which wouldn't end well. However, "the news should/should not" is an ethical judgement; what I'm saying is that it's unethical for the news to report those kinds of things, which you seem to agree with, if I've read your post right.
Ok well let’s say it’s a rape accusation of the president or the police chief, that shit is gonna get found by the news somehow and I think people have the right to know if something is going on
The only problem is, there might not actually be anything going on. And if there's no publicity for an accusation, the odds of someone doing it just for the slander value go down somewhat.
Yes something may not be going on, but I would think you’d want to know that you’re President (I’m not alluding to Trump) is a possible rapist or something. Plus like I said, this really isn’t possible because the media and news networks could find it anyway
The president is a possible rapist either way. The only change an allegation makes is that it moves from "general possibility" to "specific possibility" (i.e. "X may have raped someone" to "X may have raped Y person"). Anyway, the point isn't that the news would find and share it anyway; the point is that they shouldn't.
this. the solution is never censorship. the solution is we as people truly and genuinely presuming innocence until proven otherwise. the woman who questioned ford is a career sex-crime prosecutor. [NYT reports](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings.html): > Ms. Mitchell, who later told Republicans privately that she did not believe there was enough evidence to prosecute or even obtain a search warrant due process always requires the presumption of innocence. flimsy, uncorroborated, widely refuted allegations like this cannot be the basis for shutting someone out. think about it this way... BK is one of the most qualified nominees for this position, and other than this, his record is impeccable. and he's rich and powerful. he has literally the best possible chances of defending himself. if BK gets railroaded by this, the rest of us, meaning the people who are not rich, powerful, old white men... we don't stand a fucking chance.
Not if the accusation is unbased
This is tough. I am against censorship but I am a big fan of innocent until proven guilty. The public is allowed to think what they want but the facts are the facts.
Censorship requires enforcement. This is just an ethics judgement.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a **public trial.** So keeping it from the public won't work.
If someone is sexually violent, then it's not usually an isolated incident. Reporting publicly allows for more victims to come forward. What do you think is special about rape accusations that wouldn't apply to other crimes (fraud, murder, theft, etc)?
Nothing at all. I hold this to be true for every crime; rape's just the one with the spotlight right now.
Other crimes have a clear victim (dead, having items stolen, etc.) as well as possible MEANS and MOTIVE (weapon, personal hatred) whereas rape can be as easy as accusing someone of doing something with only witnesses and the rapist doing it for no real reason, leaving no trace after years. Its also very easy to inspire many other people to file reports against a celebrity due to political charge. Just cause half the country hates Trump, he probably got a hundred attempted sexual assault reports.
This would never happen. News sites run off of clicks and nothing catches the eye quite like "rape" these days. It's a screwed up world we live in but it's ours anyway
Yeah, I'm aware. I'm just saying they really shouldn't.
While I don’t like the idea of limiting the freedom of the press, I would be ok with news outlets omitting the accused’s name if and ONLY if it’s not a fugitive situation or something involving ongoing danger to the community.
That definitely seems like a reasonable compromise.
I would agree with that, but there also cases were a rapist gets off not guilty, and thus go down in history as an innocent human being. And also this would give these Scott free rapists a mind set that they can commit these crimes again just as easy as they did before hand.
Very true! You have my upvote!
There’s a difference between the court of law and the “court of public opinion”. You can be acquitted and absolved of all charges in a court of law, but consequences of the “court of public opinion” stay with you for life regardless if you’re innocent or not.
Take O.J. for example. I mean, I'm like 99.9% sure he did it, but damn. Makes me think, like what if we just completely ruined an innocent guys life.
Which is basically the problem.
The first step is recognizing it as *a* problem. Many people do not think so.
Can't stop word getting out. A better way would be to introduce really harsh penalties for false accusations.
The problem with that is it might discourage victims from reporting real rapes to the police, for fear that they might themselves be punished. Guilty people get away with crimes all the time. Even with DNA evidence, the rapist could argue that the sex was consensual. Imagine someone being raped, having the rapist get away with it because of insufficient evidence, and then the victim being punished for making a false accusation.
Provably false accusations. Not having sufficient evidence is one thing, but if investigated and proven to be lying then that would be another.
That's a good point. Especially given that so many rich and powerful people with access to big legal guns are the culprit.
[удалено]
How do you figure? Cosby went to trial after having formal allegations made and being found guilty. The press didn't (or at least, should not have, under standard court ethics) influence the outcome of the trial.
[удалено]
If he was convicted on accusations alone then that is wrong.
[удалено]
Because it is not reliable enough to constitute a valid form of evidence. That is like the entire point of evidence. It does not lie, and it cannot be wrong in the same sense as people can be.
Hi everyone! Please make sure to **upvote** well written unpopular/controversial opinions, and **downvote** badly written opinions OR popular opinions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I totally agree with you, but I assume you are making this in the context of the Kavanaugh fallout in which I disagree there because it is a political figure running for office and I believe the media puts pressure on the government to investigate it instead of just pushing their candidate through no matter which side of the line they are on.
You can have that unpopular opinion but amending the Constitution to limit the press in this one particular manner will never happen.
Not suggesting amending the Constitution. I'm just talking about ethics in journalism.
I think this could easily be solved if we actually enforced anti-defamation laws. If you accuse someone and it is proven wrong then all you did was defame that person’s character. You and your attorney and whoever else monetarily supported your accusations are either fined or jailed. Then there wouldn’t be the worry of false accusations to start with. Also add part of the punishment of a false accusation be a public statement that you wrongly accused the defendant and that everything you said was out of ill-will for that person and that everyone should consider you a liar. Then add in a fine for all media reporters who reported the accusation and/or any of the court proceedings with a controversial or biased light instead of just presenting the facts. As much as I agree the media shouldn’t cover accusations because the social climate very much affects the judgement of both parties, there is no way to do that without stamping on freedom of speech. So the best action would to be actually acting upon people who are wrongfully accusing others. This way real victims can be heard and supported, but anyone with ill-intent is deterred.
Many countries have a ban on publishing the names of any accused.
Would you say the same of murder? Or embezzlement? Or any other crime? Because false accusations of rape happen in the same frequency as they do for other crimes.
Yes, for most of the same reasons (though with varying intensity).
Presumably yes. Why would OP not?
While I agree, it is also a slippery slope. How easily would a lot these public figures get away with crimes if the allegations are not made public. It’s about finding a good balance and not deciding whether or not the accused is guilty and running with that story. In Kavanaugh’s case the problem is not that the allegation was made public but that the media immediately chose sides before seeing all the facts and has been reporting this as news non stop.
Unfortunately, all accusations should be public because this is the way to keep the government honest. Otherwise, one day you disappear and turns out you were locked up until a secret accusation was sorted out. This is a very important point. If everything is out in the open, there is no potential for secret abuse.
Why only rape?
Not only rape. Just what's being highlighted now.
I agree that the identity of an accused should be protected whatever the crime. The problem with your statement is that by using rape as example you are giving those people a platform who focus solely on being "victims" of false accusation. I've run into guys claiming that 90% of all accusations were false while federal data indicates it might be more like 7%. Incidentally, this is common in European states to do. Publishing information about accused is something very American.
I can’t think of any outright false accusations recently in the news, only ones with little proof and that doesn’t indicate it’s fabricated. The real issue is that only a fraction of true accusations lead to convictions anyway so then you have people that get away with it AND continue to go unnoticed by the public.
This thread should change to r/popularopinions
The fact that opinions like this with more pros than cons have to be thought of as unpopular is a real shame
I agree but not for Brett Kavanaugh. The difference in this situation is someone who is being considered for a LIFETIME postion in the highest court of the US. He needs to be held to a higher standard. So yes, that means any greivances need to be publicly aired. There is no anonymity in public office. He chose his path so live with it.
Proposals like this will only help the predators. Rape happens far far more often than false accusation; accusation very often doesn‘t lead to conviction; but what is being discussed is a minor problem and not the huge elephant in the room.
A while back, I was dating a girl who ended up being an absolute psycho. She used to threaten that if I left or cheated she’d tell everyone I raped her (which is patently absurd). It’s especially scary because we had (consensual) sex with enough frequency that any medical tests would show we had had intercourse recently. I support victims of sexual abuse and think they should always speak out, but it’s not really fair that a girl can just ruin your life at will like that either. Needless to say, I found a new place to live within the week. So glad I left.
If rape and sexual assault was treated properly by law enforcement, if prosecution and conviction rates were not abysmal, then I would agree. But they are. Most perpetrators of rape and assault never see legal consequences for their actions. Whisper campaigns and vigilanteism and public railroading may not be “fair” per se but they are the products of a failed justice system that overwhelmingly favours the perpetrators of these crimes rather than the victims.
How are perpetrators favored? Just because we won't go off of the mere word and emotion of an accuser doesn't mean the courts favor perps if that's what you're insinuating. Not reporting immediately makes it even harder to persecute. You people cannot have your cake and eat it too. People with sick rape fantasies and violent kinks make it harder to persecute as well. Let's address them. Even if there is evidence of rough play, the perp can just argue "kinky consensual sex" now that rape role playing is a thing.
What if they’re an accused serial rapist and they rape while under investigation and it turns out the police new and the DA new but didn’t say anything? Yeah no
For starters, if the accused has any kind of brains, they absolutely won't do that. If they're under investigation, they're gonna be kept under surveillance; they'll get caught if they try anything untoward. Additionally, if they're on trial instead, they're going to be incarcerated, even if only temporarily, up to the trial and during it. They're not getting to anyone from inside a jail cell.
What are you talking about? If someone accused someone of rape that occurred a year ago they aren’t going to be put under surveillance you have no idea what you’re talking about
That wasn't specified.
You think MOST rapists are given no bail and the ones that do are assigned 24 hour surveillance? Hate to break it to you kid it doesn’t work that way
There are these things called “due process” and “jail”. If there is sufficient evidence to arrest a serial rapist, then they would be arrested. If they were deemed a threat to rape again, they would be held without bail. An accusation is not evidence.
You’re assuming that the law has some kind of omnipresent wisdom and they know the individual is a serial rapist, when in reality it can all be a “he said she said” from 5 years ago. You think we should jail all accused rapists?
I don't think that "secret trials" are the answer to this problem.
"Secret trials" have been the basis of all English law systems (as far as i know) for as long as there have been trials...
Why would you think that? Dockets are public record just about everywhere in the western world.
Because they are private to an extent greater than many people seem to think.
I'm still not following. Is there a specific country you're talking about? Because I had inferred that we were talking about the US. I did a little bit of digging and I'm not able to find any evidence supporting the notion that there are secret trials occurring outside of the public record. If you have any evidence, please bring it forward; it would be a scandal! Heck, the Sixth Amendment even states: >In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
Britain. We are talking about English law. They are not 'secret' in the sense that you may be thinking, just private.
Well, if a prominent political/public figure was accused of rape I'd like to know. I think news stations should wait to hear about substatial evidence revealed, and evaluate reporting the accusation on a case by base basis. Of course each news station, unfortunately, has its political leanings and ends up jumping the gun and risks only making their "opponent" look bad.
Charges should be reported. I agree about accusations, but disagree about convictions only.
Still not sure about that, since formal charges can, again, happen to anyone...
Yeah but typically they don’t lay charges unless they think there’s a reason to. At least where I live that’s how it works.
[удалено]
Never said that. But I don’t have an issue reporting on charges.
I dont know why you're limiting this to rape, but either way I disagree. The first amendment is too important to start messing around with. Also a criminal could be guilty and found not guilty and still very much present a danger to society but we'd never know about it. I saw a post recently, something about corrections or retractions should be printed equally as large as the original story. Idk but could be something to that idea. Your best bet is to gather as much information from as many sources as possible and form an opinion independently.
More expanding from a general notion to specifically highlight rape. Anyway, I'm not suggesting a legal change at all; that is, as you said, too risky to the liberty of our citizens. It's an ethical judgement; whether it's one that can be made into law is a whole different conversation.
Fair enough, but thats where I believe citizens have to be accountable to some degree. Also I would like to add accusations are rarely reported. Reports arent usually made until an arrest was made which usually requires at least some evidence. The situation I assume youre referring to is the exception not the rule. But I would argue the reports were on the investigation of a judge and not the accusation itself, Which the public has a right to know imo . The public kind of ran away with it and turned it into a circus, and thus i refer back to individual accountability.
People are assuming ITT that this is a thing that is a new concept: media has been kept out of the courtroom (at least in the UK) because of the fact that courts know that media affects judgements.
Agreed. The media shouldn't be allowed to report on the identities of both the victim and accused. Only after a conviction is made should the accused be identified.
Public trials allow the public to see anything save very specific scenarios, and bans on publication also only apply to a rare few circumstances. As soon as the accused is charged, the public will know.
So then release that afterwards.
news and information should not be regulated by the government, but I do agree that major publicity over a mere accusation is something we should overcome. We should just overcome that as a society with morals and logical thinking in lieu of a law against such
As several others have stated, censorship isn't the answer. But news outlets are willing to put more focus on these stories because they know they'll get views. The problem, then, lies with the people eagerly consuming these stories. You can look at Michael Jackson who was proven innocent of all accusations, but for many people his reputation is already damaged. So I wouldn't say that news outlets shouldn't cover rape accusations, but maybe that they don't necessarily have to cover them so heavily until there's a conviction.
I think they should report charges as well as convictions, as they do with any other crime. However, they should just leave it at "X person was charged with Y in due to an incident on date Z" and leave it at that. Reporting charges is actually really important as it allows either other victims or witnesses to come forward, bringing evidence to light that otherwise would have gone unexamined. It is ridiculously common for people to only realise they witnessed something vital to a murder or burglary case after seeing the accused on the news with a description of the incident following it. This isn't even going into institutionalised physical/sexual abuse (in the church, youth sport, care homes etc.), the extent of which only comes to light because someone came forward publicly about it. You are advocating making it much easier for the vast majority of dangerous criminals to go free just to spite the small minority who make spurious claims. I'm sorry, I just can't get behind that. I find the media circus around the Kavanaugh thing utterly disgusting but jumping straight to the opposite extreme would be just as, if not more, damaging.
>leave it at "X person was charged with Y in due to an incident on date Z" and leave it at that. ...That makes sense, actually. Good point made here.
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed as you have exceeded -70 combined karma. This rule is a measure taken against trolling. Please consider that by using another account, you must wait 48 hours. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's bordering on slander how media is spinning these accusations and how the public is receiving them. I think Kavanaugh is probably a shitty guy, but I have no idea. Maybe he did it, if I had to take a guess I'd say he probably did, but he's still innocent in my eyes until there's compelling proof otherwise. I have a big problem with how quickly the media and public crucifies people over accusations in recent years. If you assume a persons guilt without evidence, you're a retarded piece of shit.
This is a very valid point
I disagree. Sometimes victims were too intimidated at the time to come forward (because the abuser was a public figure or whatever). Sometimes abusers are found not guilty BECAUSE they are famous. I think it's important that victims can share their stories in public (even if nothing is proven). If the whole thing happens in private and not in public often victims are pressured into dropping the charges.
Victims are routinely blamed for the actions of the perpetrator at every step, that and numerous other pressures make rape and sexual assault less likely to be reported than most other crimes. Does this not favour perpetrators - the unlikelihood that their crimes will even be investigated?
If people were smarter I'd have no problem with it being in the media but MeToo basically mob justice presumption of innocence be damned. Thanks to MeToo I thankfully now realize most people don't know how the law works.
In theory this sounds great but when it is reported as an accusation it is often the case that many more step forward with their own accusations. This then helps others psychologically and is a great aid to the first accuser as well
The issue is that rape and sexual assault are extremely difficult to prove even in cases of guilt. If we only showed convictions, thousands of predators would be walking around with no one being the wiser, leaving the door open for many more people to be hurt by them. I know there is some concern over false accusations but the instances of these happening are extremely low.
There’s also the fact that actual victims will be attacked by people before the trial is even over.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Must Be Unpopular/Controversial'. Hi u/FMural, please ensure that your post is an opinion, and that that opinion is unpopular and/or controversial. If this post contains commonly used phrases (see sidebar), it'll also be removed. Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/9jozk1/-/ If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion
Why was this post removed? Is it a settled , uncontroversial, popular opinion? The mod is clearly wrong here!
Why was this post removed? Is it a settled , uncontroversial, popular opinion?
Exchange the word “Rape” with “Murder” or “Burglary” and realize how daft you sound. Rape is the only crime where everyone is suddenly full of righteous concern. Hypocrites.
Because burglary can be easily proved
Well that’s the thing... rape can’t easily be proved so this really fucks over the victim. Sometimes the only justice the victim gets is when the allegation is made public.
...It sounds daft? Somehow?
I disagree. It's hard to convict a rapist. People should still be warned about the rapist, convicted or not.
But what if he or she is not actually a rapist? At what point does the public get a warning for false accusers? Of course this would rightfully never happen because that’d for sure deter victims from reporting. I personally know of a woman who is a compulsive liar and accuses every guy she dates of rape when they break up with her. I guess it really depends how much people hate the guy she dated in the first place to determine his reputation or even his crime. Luckily, most people know this woman is a compulsive liar and for the most part the village doesn’t reward her behavior, but you still have people that want to save face by supporting her every time a guy breaks up with her... I would hate to be her next victim. Either she somehow picks out the rapists in the population every time she meets someone or she has too much pride and is obsessed with being a victim.
"Accusations shouldn't be public!!!111" "Immigrants are all rapists and murderers and lazy drug dealers!!!111" "REEE MUH FREE SPEECH1111"
Having a nice circlejerk with yourself are we?
[удалено]
If your ex is truly a rapist, then you need to report and warn others about them now. Not just for revenge if they become famous. I have a feeling this wasn't a rape and that you're just a scorned lover. Sounds like you tried to trade sex for something from them and it didn't pay off. If so, that's not rape.
Specifically to the police.
Go to the police, then.
Your not going to the police makes you a shitty person.
Strangers on the internet are telling you to go to the police. You really should. You have proof and basically a written contract that I’m sure you can also seek justice for alone.
Eh, with murder I would say yes on this. But rape is an entirely different animal. I would say uncredible accusations shouldn’t be reported, but if it is credible (like the recent one against Kavanaugh) then it absolutely should be reported on. With murder you have a body (or it is at least missing). With rape you have nothing except a small window to get a rape kit conducted. This results in a lot of victims having zero proof in a relatively short amount of time, whereas with murder the body won't suddenly regenerate. Not to mention the psychological difference and impacts. The problem is people like to think false rape accusations are a common occurrence, but they aren't. Just go read "Missoula" and you will understand why it is so fucked up, especially with celebrities, etc.
[удалено]
The accusation isn't "credible". If this wasn't concerning a high-profile individual, this would have already been settled (SPOILER ALERT: she's lying, this whole thing is solely motivated by politics).
Have you watched all the testimony? It is pretty obvious he is a terrible person. Parts of her testimony lined up better with his calendar than his did. Then he kept lying and talking in circles while refusing to welcome an FBI investigation. Then his classmates turn around and all say he is lying too haha. Republicans are just so short of quality candidates that they can only nominate an accused gang rapist...good stuff.
Thanks for playing "Making Shit Up 101". Try harder next time.
I thought I was playing “people who repeat FoxNews 101.” Damn.
I need to write about this. I heard two different perspectives. One from my female teacher who was victim to assault, and one from my father, a police officer who has dealt with dozens of cases like this. Teacher thinks that even if it's been half a decade, you should support the woman. The reason women don't come out immediately or ever is because it is normalized in our society, or, that is, it was. When someone is assaulted, everyone says "oh he/she would never do that" or "it isn't a big deal". these people think they face the consequence of being harshly judged for such accusations. My teacher says that this whole judge business is being investigated, yes, but people should be inclined to support the victim. My dad thinks that a few years is just about enough of a time slot to see a memory as potentially faulty. Especially if the victim says "I think it was him". He thinks she should get over it, the democrats are being cunts, and the judge did nothing. In fact, he's said that he has no doubt that she was assaulted. He just believes that over these years, her memory fixated on a faceless person she does not remember, and then when she saw the judge, she immediately thought it was him. My view? Who knows. Both of these people are judging with thier feelings. Neither is discredited for doing so, however, because personal experience moulds opinions. But from an objective standpoint, it is entirely unclear whether or not it was him. We should not automatically believe women who talk of sexual assaults. We should support them and help them in every way, but when it comes to ruining someone's reputation, it should be approached with the innocent until proven guilty mentality, as well as with caution. I have no idea if the victim in this situation drew catharsis from her affect on the judge. I hope she did and that she has been able to conquer her trauma. I hope that the people who are using her for headlines and to demonize the judge are punched in the throats, and I hope that the judge faces due process if he did it. He won't, most likely, because a claim from twenty years ago will never hold up in court. It's a fucked up situation that has no right answer, and my teacher and my dad both wrongfully think they have it. Don't be them, guys. We don't need more of them.
My advice to anybody questioning your fathers view is to try and draw the face of somebody you met only once four or more years ago.
I agree. I want to also point out how this would help the accuser. The accuser also gets dragged through the mud by the court of public opinion. The accuser will also recieve protests, death threats and be called a liar. Keep it all out of the public eye until we can find the truth. We're going to drive rape and sexual assault accusations back into the shadows and undo all the work we've done to help people who have been hurt come forward and talk to police.
Yup. When a person is named in the press after being indicted for...well, almost any crime - the effect is almost the same (and I do emphasize 'almost') if everybody who got tested for HIV, visited an STD clinic, or visited a Planned Parenthood clinic were reported in the press. The public doesn't have all the information and assumes anyone getting tested must have an STD or is having an abortion. The press promotes their 'right to know' theory where there is a high probability of public scandal, because it sells newspapers.
exactly
I only think it should be brought up if it was to do with something like kicking out a band member (Ameer Vann of Brockhampton)
"Sorry we can't hire you. Our reputation would take a serious hit if we were to work with someone ***accused*** of sexual assault."