Log in

View Full Version : Duke lacrosse players DNA results in...



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Jenny
12-18-2006, 06:13 PM
How should "we boys" judge this experience??; http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2006/12/18/544472.html&cvqh=itn_houstonrapist .Is this "equal opportunity" or "affirmative action"????Yeah... I don't know what you're trying to communicate.

evan_essence
12-18-2006, 09:21 PM
Yeah... I don't know what you're trying to communicate.That it's just as likely that's a false report as it would be if the victims were women. ;)

-Ev

[Disclaimer: In deference to the victims, I have no reason to believe that's a false report. My facetious statement is meant to be taken as social commentary.]

DJ Maimed
12-19-2006, 02:21 AM
Yeah... I don't know what you're trying to communicate.

Let's ponder....was it a;

"Are you trying to get a rise out of me agent Kujan?" post?

"Lets turn up the Springer factor to improve ratings so we can you awesome ladies a better sponsor post?" (No offense LoveKittenLingerie}:D

"Damn they are right about Houston and touching post!" (To the person that gave an invite to party with them there, let's wait a awhile on that)

"If we offend enough to get a Mod's attention they might end the silliness" post?

"Regardless of age,sex,race,religion,etc. it SUCKS to be the victim of A-HOLES" post?

I'll let ya'll figure it out! Btw. Evan_Essence....nice comeback...I like the way you think!!

scarlett_vancouver
12-19-2006, 04:30 AM
We women acknowledge that false claims, though rare, do occur and that it is a terrible thing to do .... yet several of the men are unable to show one ounce of understanding or sympathy for ANY female rape victim.

That's exactly what's so incredibly frightening about this thread. I'm not convinced that forcefit isn't a troll just poking for a reaction, but I know Deogol isn't...and it makes me shiver. :(

kittygirl
12-19-2006, 06:35 AM
I'm convinced dudes that whine and bitch and try to make all rapes seem like lies are what else -

"hobbyist rapists". These dudes probably have so many real rapes on their own hands this is the only way they can cope.

It's all lies, all of it....I don't want to get in trouble.

Jenny
12-19-2006, 08:23 AM
"Lets turn up the Springer factor to improve ratings so we can you awesome ladies a better sponsor post?" (No offense LoveKittenLingerie}:D
My gosh, that's... considerate (?) of you....


"Regardless of age,sex,race,religion,etc. it SUCKS to be the victim of A-HOLES" post?
Well, seeing as that was never under contention I don't really see what you are adding. Or were you just putting that out there?

Djoser
12-19-2006, 10:24 AM
First off, 'Mens Rights' is for pussies...

LOL, sorry, I couldn't resist that--and it's pretty much true, if crudely stated.

Second, the accuser may be a lying conniving bitch who wasn't raped at that party, but something nasty happened there. Something that was indicative of a great deal of contempt for women and minorities both.

That the accuser is hurting the chances for women who have been raped to obtain justice is more 'criminal' than anything else involved.


Getting back to mens rights, though. We are only a couple hundred years away from a social milieu in which women were basically bought and sold. That mindset didn't just up and vanish, trust me.

In spite of the advances made by women of power, men still hold far more political and economic power than women, in terms of making decisions which affect everyone out there.

Women have their power games,their ploys, and their manipulative schemes. But it is a survival mechanism, brought about by a few thousand years of being treated like especially desireable cattle.


Even in the world of stripclubs, you can see the dynamics. Men own them, and those men make more than the women who work there do. They thoroughly dominate the establishment and maintainence of rules which ensure that things go their way.

Sure, if I acted fainthearted, shy, retiring, or servile in my position as a stripclub DJ, those dancers would tear me to shreds like wild animals, lol. But I have had by far the best results from establishing an atmosphere of mutual respect, instead of playing the sexist prick like so many other males in the industry do, thinking it's the only viable route..

Jo Weldon
12-19-2006, 10:39 AM
Bingo. Women just got the right to vote in the United States less than a hundred years ago, whiney boys.

And many men are envious of the fact that SOME women (not the majority!) make four figures a night in strip clubs. But the vast majority still make considerably less, and FOR A CONSIDERABLY SHORTER TIME, than most of the men in the industry.

Every now and then in a club, some guy I turned down for a trick would say to me, "Youre losing out. If I was a woman I would go around with a mattress strapped to my back." And I would tell him he could just go out and put an ad in a sex paper and get a pager or cell phone and men would pay for him to blow them. And hed say, "I cant do that, Im not gay," and Id say, "And Im not straight, so it would be the same for you as it would for me." And they still dont get my gist.

Most men get it, but some men just dont...and these mens rights guys rarely get it. Theyre entrenched in selfpity and enraged by being deprived of whatever it is they think theyre entitled to.


First off, 'Mens Rights' is for pussies...
Getting back to mens rights, though. We are only a couple hundred years away from a social milieu in which women were basically bought and sold. That mindset didn't just up and vanish, trust me.

In spite of the advances made by women of power, men still hold far more political and economic power than women, in terms of making decisions which affect everyone out there.

Women have their power games,their ploys, and their manipulative schemes. But it is a survival mechanism, brought about by a few thousand years of being treated like especially desireable cattle.


Even in the world of stripclubs, you can see the dynamics. Men own them, and those men make more than the women who work there do. They thoroughly dominate the establishment and maintainence of rules which ensure that things go their way.

lunchbox
12-19-2006, 12:28 PM
Actually I linked the CDC which had DOJ info included.

here is the link again http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

Most people consider the CDC to be pretty damn realible source of info.

In my following post I checked the CDC's source, and the numbers didn't match.

So I did a little more checking:

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/aug/article444.html
http://www.cfsw.us/2006/04/23/thimerosal-and-cdc-lies-nailed/
http://whale.to/vaccines/hepb15.html

I can go on...

madmaxine
12-19-2006, 01:21 PM
OH ho ho, you all are so lucky I got to this thread late.

THE REASON MANY RAPES GO UNREPORTED IS THAT WOMEN ARE AFRAID TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE CASE!!!!!!! A friend of mine was raped but she couldn't move out of the neighborhood where the rapist & his friends lived.....Try sending someone to jail while his friends can and will kill you so you don't testify in court.

& I know I'm going to piss people off but I know of cases where restitution for rape was handled by the woman's male relatives, not the law. Suffice to say, some men will never rape again.

Tara Nicole
12-19-2006, 01:39 PM
In my following post I checked the CDC's source, and the numbers didn't match.

So I did a little more checking:





I can go on...

You are not seriously trying to use those sites as proof are you ::)

None of those websites are reputable sources or anything even close to being reputable. They are personal or private websites and not run by any major medical or law enforcement agency.

Most well educated people are going to give sources such as the CDC and DOJ and the American Medical Association alot more credit than a site called, of all things , " Useless Knowledge"

lunchbox
12-19-2006, 02:18 PM
You are not seriously trying to use those sites as proof are you ::)

None of those websites are reputable sources or anything even close to being reputable. They are personal or private websites and run by any major medical or law enforcement agency.

Most well educated people are going to give sources such as the CDC and DOJ and the American Medical Association alot more credit than a site called, of all things , " Useless Knowledge"
I didn't need to know that proof was required when it came to the government lying to us. I thought it was an accepted fact that they did that these days....

I'm not questioning the DOJ's numbers. I'm questioning the CDC and the AMA since they are making up numbers for whatever these stories are, and citing sources that don't support them.

Exactly what other critics are doing on the pages I've linked.

Sexual Assault continues to represent the most rapidly growing violent crime in America . It is estimated that as few as 10 percent of sexual assaults are reported to the police. (American Medical Association 2000).
According to the aforementioned DOJ report, in 2000 over just over 45% of rape/sexual assaults were reported.

Rape is one of the most underreported crimes. In 2002, only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials (DOJ 2003).
to repeat that report clearly states that the correct number to be 53.7%, and I'd like to add the report states that simple assault is the least commonly reported violent crime, with only 42.7% being reported.

Fine, ignore people who are critical of government agencies, I'll remember that the next time you are being critical of one in DD. Just answer why don't these numbers match up?

Jenny
12-19-2006, 04:10 PM
I'm not questioning the DOJ's numbers. I'm questioning the CDC and the AMA since they are making up numbers for whatever these stories are, and citing sources that don't support them.
Hmm. Okay. So you discount the AMA and instead use "Uselessknowlege.com"?

Fine, ignore people who are critical of government agencies, I'll remember that the next time you are being critical of one in DD. Just answer why don't these numbers match up?
Because someone at the AMA has just made it up. Probably some woman who was mad at her boyfriend. Just invented the numbers out of thin air.

Why don't the numbers add up. Hmm. To begin with:

Statistics about sexual violence vary due to differences in how it is defined and how data is collected. Sexual violence data usually come from police, clinical settings, nongovernmental organizations, and survey research. In a nutshell - the DOJ might have done more than one study. Conversely it is possible that they have added up different kinds of incidents that THEY define as sexual assault that may not exactly match what the DOJ defines as sexual assault.

What exactly is your hypothosis? Like, what is it that you are suggesting is going on at the CDC? I'm not suggesting that it is fundamentally wrong to question it - although you seem to have an agenda just like pretty much any other guy in this thread (rape doesn't happen; women like it; accusing someone of rape is worse than actual rape; if she didn't want to raped she shouldn't have been drinking etc.) - I am suggesting however that absent some pretty spectacular evidence a suggestion that the AMA and CDC are just making up their numbers is a pretty absurd claim.

Further I would suggest that you are contending a fairly uncontentious issue; considering that we consider sexual crimes to be a more serious invasion of our sense of self than other crimes - that is, sexually based crimes are really really bad - it is still greatly under reported. While I would agree that a 12% different is significant, and worthy of examination, does it really impact the rest of the point? Which again, leads back to the distasteful agenda which is essentially to say that you seem to be using a statistical difference in measuring reporting mechanisms to prove that a significant number of women are lying about being rapes, which is conflated to most women lying about being raped, which in turn is used to bolster an idea that prosecuting for rape is a crime against men, while rape itself is no big thing.

Tara Nicole
12-19-2006, 04:24 PM
^ well said, Jenny. Thankyou.

lunchbox
12-20-2006, 09:01 AM
What exactly is your hypothosis?
That you're being a hypocrite.

Like, what is it that you are suggesting is going on at the CDC? I'm not suggesting that it is fundamentally wrong to question it - although you seem to have an agenda just like pretty much any other guy in this thread (rape doesn't happen; women like it; accusing someone of rape is worse than actual rape; if she didn't want to raped she shouldn't have been drinking etc.) - I am suggesting however that absent some pretty spectacular evidence a suggestion that the AMA and CDC are just making up their numbers is a pretty absurd claim.
It would seem you and pretty much any other women in this thread have no problem with putting three men on trial, based on the simple fact that some men rape women. Obviously evidence, spectacular or not, isn't required when throwing rocks...

Further I would suggest that you are contending a fairly uncontentious issue; considering that we consider sexual crimes to be a more serious invasion of our sense of self than other crimes - that is, sexually based crimes are really really bad - it is still greatly under reported. While I would agree that a 12% different is significant, and worthy of examination, does it really impact the rest of the point?
I'm sorry, there was a point to all these numbers to begin with? It is actually a 14.7% difference between DOJ report, and the CDC report that claimed this report as it's source. This was not two different studies using different methods of data collection.

Which again, leads back to the distasteful agenda which is essentially to say that you seem to be using a statistical difference in measuring reporting mechanisms to prove that a significant number of women are lying about being rapes, which is conflated to most women lying about being raped, which in turn is used to bolster an idea that prosecuting for rape is a crime against men, while rape itself is no big thing.
Personally, I consider the number of false and miss reports to be mutually exclusive of those unreported. At least on this site, noone has bridged that gap.

If there was a point to this thread, it is 'should this case should be going to trial?'

Jenny
12-20-2006, 12:12 PM
That you're being a hypocrite.
Because I think the CDC is a reliable source and I don't think a blog is, and you found a statistical inconsistency? How in the world does that add up to hypocricy? That's just dumb.

In any case, you can imagine how interested I am in your evaluation of my hypocricy - I was asking for your hypothosis on why there was an error.


It would seem you and pretty much any other women in this thread have no problem with putting three men on trial, based on the simple fact that some men rape women. Obviously evidence, spectacular or not, isn't required when throwing rocks...
What? This is actually fairly typical of guys of these political leaning - you make up a position, attribute it to us and demand we defend it. Nobody here has suggested any such thing.


I'm sorry, there was a point to all these numbers to begin with? It is actually a 14.7% difference between DOJ report, and the CDC report that claimed this report as it's source. This was not two different studies using different methods of data collection.
Okay... I will admit, that I've been doing exams so it is possible I missed the comprehensive bibliography that showed it was the same study as opposed to a different study or a counting of incident reports. Would you be so kind?

The point of the all the numbers to begin with was to refute the position that women falsely accuse men of rape; nobody has suggested that such statistics would be relevant in a trial - just to discussion on whether or not hoards of women are making up rape claims. That didn't seem obvious?


Personally, I consider the number of false and miss reports to be mutually exclusive of those unreported. At least on this site, noone has bridged that gap.
I would agree. That is why I don't really know what you are getting at. That was my point - that you are using a statistical anomaly to bolster a position that is far away from that anomaly.


If there was a point to this thread, it is 'should this case should be going to trial?'
Well, again - as Ev has pointed out - all you have is statements issued by the defence. Shouldn't all of you people who think prosecuting men for rape is a crime be HAPPY that the prosecution is not trying a case in the media? That they are not besmirching the reputation of these upstanding lacrosse players? Isn't that how you guys think these things should be run? With the reputation of the complainant on public display and that of the accused closely and carefully guarded? To tell you the truth, I have no idea why you guys are so contentious about this. It seems like it should please you.

lunchbox
12-20-2006, 01:50 PM
In any case, you can imagine how interested I am in your evaluation of my hypocricy - I was asking for your hypothosis on why there was an error.
It's actually two inconsistencies in one point on a "fact sheet." I would hardly call that an error. Hypothesis as to why? The CDC likes to come up with a point, and then make up facts and figures to support it, assuming that the general public would never think to question it.

What? This is actually fairly typical of guys of these political leaning - you make up a position, attribute it to us and demand we defend it. Nobody here has suggested any such thing.
You didn't just post, "just like pretty much any other guy in this thread (rape doesn't happen; women like it; accusing someone of rape is worse than actual rape; if she didn't want to raped she shouldn't have been drinking etc.)"
Since I'm a man, and another 'man' said these already, it must be my agenda as well? BTW, in case you don't get it, you're doing it again.

Okay... I will admit, that I've been doing exams so it is possible I missed the comprehensive bibliography that showed it was the same study as opposed to a different study or a counting of incident reports. Would you be so kind?
After all the kindness you've shown? The CDC fact sheet gave the numbers and credited them to the DOJ report which contained different facts and figures. If you can't be troubled to scroll up and read, I'm not really inclined to do much else for you, so fuck it.

The point of the all the numbers to begin with was to refute the position that women falsely accuse men of rape; nobody has suggested that such statistics would be relevant in a trial - just to discussion on whether or not hoards of women are making up rape claims. That didn't seem obvious?
No, just off topic.


I would agree. That is why I don't really know what you are getting at. That was my point - that you are using a statistical anomaly to bolster a position that is far away from that anomaly.



Well, again - as Ev has pointed out - all you have is statements issued by the defence.
The prosecution has been grandstanding since day 1. Now it's their turn to take a bite of the shitburger that they made.

Shouldn't all of you people who think prosecuting men for rape is a crime be HAPPY that the prosecution is not trying a case in the media?
Is that not how this case got so much attention in the first place?

That they are not besmirching the reputation of these upstanding lacrosse players?
You mean anymore?

Isn't that how you guys think these things should be run?
Does anyone find it ironic that Jenny keeps lumping all guys in together, or at least me in with guys who have espoused entirely different viewpoints? If you missed it, go back and re-read about "guys of these political leaning"

With the reputation of the complainant on public display and that of the accused closely and carefully guarded? To tell you the truth, I have no idea why you guys are so contentious about this. It seems like it should please you.
You've basically said to everyone that you are clueless about this case, haven't followed it a single bit (even passively), or are just not smart* enough to remember a single story from when it began.

Then again, maybe you're just inserting sarcasm at the wrong time, it sure doesn't sound like it.

* I wouldn't have said this, but you had to tell Deo how you are so much smarter than he is, so I had to work something in somewhere.

Jenny
12-20-2006, 02:12 PM
It's actually two inconsistencies in one point on a "fact sheet." I would hardly call that an error. Hypothesis as to why? The CDC likes to come up with a point, and then make up facts and figures to support it, assuming that the general public would never think to question it.
You wouldn't call it an error? What would you call it?
Again - I'm okay with questioning statistics - but your hypothesis just seems kind of out there to me. The CDC is just inventing numbers - particularly when the "real" ones are perfectly consistent with their theories... you don't think multiple reports, incident reports, or even simple human error is more likely? I mean essentially you are claiming that the CDC is making up numbers, more or less, for fun, not to promote any agenda.


You didn't just post, "just like pretty much any other guy in this thread (rape doesn't happen; women like it; accusing someone of rape is worse than actual rape; if she didn't want to raped she shouldn't have been drinking etc.)"
Since I'm a man, and another 'man' said these already, it must be my agenda as well? BTW, in case you don't get it, you're doing it again.
It doesn't have to be. It just seems to be in this particular case.


After all the kindness you've shown? The CDC fact sheet gave the numbers and credited them to the DOJ report which contained different facts and figures. If you can't be troubled to scroll up and read, I'm not really inclined to do much else for you, so fuck it.
Again - I didn't get a comprehensive bibliography, and there was nowhere to scroll up to. Lunchbox - are you just making things up to make a point? If you are, you can just own up now.


No, just off topic.
Off topic from what? From the random blog and statistics that the tools I've lumped you in with think "prove" that allegations of rape are a war against men? I think that it seems pretty on point.


The prosecution has been grandstanding since day 1. Now it's their turn to take a bite of the shitburger that they made.
I don't understand what you are getting at here - are you saying that they should or should not be trying the case in the media? Like they started it (if you call making one statement starting it) and now should sling mud until the conclusion of the trial (if there is one)? I maintain that if they are going ahead with the case they likely have evidence that supports the position, otherwise, it wouldn't get past the prelim. As I said - the reason the government wins most of its cases is because it gets to choose which cases to try, and it doesn't generally pick hopeless ones. Note - because you guys aren't very good at nuance and you are excellent at attributing statements to me and women in general that have nothing to do with anything I've said - this is not the same as asserting that they must be guilty because they were charged.


Does anyone find it ironic that Jenny keeps lumping all guys in together, or at least me in with guys who have espoused entirely different viewpoints? If you missed it, go back and re-read about "guys of these political leaning"
Entirely different? Are you sure? What are your viewpoints? And I don't lump all guys together - just those that use errors in statistics in ancillary reports to bolster a position that is only marginally relevant to it (I did go into details on this above. If you were unable to comprehend it before, I doubt you'll manage this time, so I won't bother repeating). So not guys; just you.

Although another typical manisfestation: I say something that criticizes you and you inflate to a criticism of all men; just a convenient way of dismissing me as a man hater. Why yes, I HAVE talked to people like you before.


You've basically said to everyone that you are clueless about this case, haven't followed it a single bit (even passively), or are just not smart* enough to remember a single story from when it began.
I have? When did I say that? Oh - that's another one of those things that you guys like to do with giving me a position and telling me to defend it even thought it bears no resemblance to anything I've said.


* I wouldn't have said this, but you had to tell Deo how you are so much smarter than he is, so I had to work something in somewhere.
I'm sorry, why? Have I hurt your feelings by proxy? Do you feel that because I said Deogol wasn't smart that I said men weren't smart? Are you good friends and feel I've impugned his honour? Sorry, but it's not my fault that he is not very bright.
And the fact that you think you're in ANY position to judge MY intelligence - well, gosh, that such so darn cute. Just, aww. Now I just want to pat your head and give you a cookie.

Tara Nicole
12-20-2006, 03:12 PM
The point of the all the numbers to begin with was to refute the position that women falsely accuse men of rape; nobody has suggested that such statistics would be relevant in a trial - just to discussion on whether or not hoards of women are making up rape claims.

EXACTLY. We have had several male posters demanding that the majority of rape reports are false claims, which is ABSURD. Even some of their own flawed info disproves their position.


It would seem you and pretty much any other women in this thread have no problem with putting three men on trial, based on the simple fact that some men rape women. Obviously evidence, spectacular or not, isn't required when throwing rocks...

Speaking just for myself that is not true. I have pointed out that judgement on the Duke case (and for that matter any specfic case) should be reserved for during or after a trial- i.e. after evidence has been presented in a court of law. Judgements should not be based on what is presented by the media BEFORE a trial even begins.

I am very opposed to trying ANY court case in the media, regardless of the crime or who is the victim or accused.

As for Lunchbox's position that the CDC "just makes up numbers" - I have to ask Why would they do so? For what purpose?

lunchbox
12-20-2006, 04:45 PM
You wouldn't call it an error? What would you call it?
Again - I'm okay with questioning statistics - but your hypothesis just seems kind of out there to me. The CDC is just inventing numbers - particularly when the "real" ones are perfectly consistent with their theories... you don't think multiple reports, incident reports, or even simple human error is more likely? I mean essentially you are claiming that the CDC is making up numbers, more or less, for fun, not to promote any agenda.
Fine they're promoting an agenda. Why do you think they are doing it?

Again - I didn't get a comprehensive bibliography, and there was nowhere to scroll up to. Lunchbox - are you just making things up to make a point? If you are, you can just own up now.
Stop playing dense, it doesn't suit you. You just got done with how irrelevant you think it is anyways, so why keep ask for it, again?

Tara Nicole's CDC fact sheet:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
Rape is one of the most underreported crimes. In 2002, only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials (DOJ 2003).
Go to the DOJ report the CDC is sourcing, (DOJ 2003):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv02.pdf page 11
It's a PDF so I can't quote it, but it clearly states the rate to be 53.7% in 2002.

Off topic from what? From the random blog and statistics that the tools I've lumped you in with think "prove" that allegations of rape are a war against men? I think that it seems pretty on point.
Thank you for only lumping me in with the tools and not calling me one explicitly.

I don't understand what you are getting at here - are you saying that they should or should not be trying the case in the media? Like they started it (if you call making one statement starting it) and now should sling mud until the conclusion of the trial (if there is one)? I maintain that if they are going ahead with the case they likely have evidence that supports the position, otherwise, it wouldn't get past the prelim. As I said - the reason the government wins most of its cases is because it gets to choose which cases to try, and it doesn't generally pick hopeless ones. Note - because you guys aren't very good at nuance and you are excellent at attributing statements to me and women in general that have nothing to do with anything I've said - this is not the same as asserting that they must be guilty because they were charged.
EDIT (missed the block):
It's to late. You think Nifong only made one statement? Indictments happen nearly overnight, and do not mean that a case should proceed to trial. Given the momentum Nifong generated early on, there was no need to wait for evidence to get to trial. It's true, I am only good at a few things nuance, masturbation, computers, and movie quotes to be precise.


Entirely different? Are you sure? What are your viewpoints?
Am I supposed to believe, that now you are actually care what my viewpoint is?

And I don't lump all guys together - just those that use errors in statistics in ancillary reports to bolster a position that is only marginally relevant to it (I did go into details on this above. If you were unable to comprehend it before, I doubt you'll manage this time, so I won't bother repeating). So not guys; just you.
I didn't get it before, but I do now. Because I question statistics, and those guys questioned statistics, I must be as misogynistic as they are. That is so much more logical... somewhere I'm sure it must be... I'm just not sure where that is.

Although another typical manisfestation: I say something that criticizes you and you inflate to a criticism of all men; just a convenient way of dismissing me as a man hater. Why yes, I HAVE talked to people like you before.
what are we up to know, 4 times in 3 posts? I'm having trouble keeping up. Where did I dismiss you or label you a man hater? What would you call patting someone on the head and giving them a cookie, other than a canned comment I've seen you make before? That wouldn't be dismissive would it?


I have? When did I say that? Oh - that's another one of those things that you guys like to do with giving me a position and telling me to defend it even thought it bears no resemblance to anything I've said.
Your laundry list about the case totally ignores the first 5-6 months. Everything you said in your little tirade was absolute bullshit. I'm not telling you to defend it, it's so far from the truth, you might as well take up the position that grass isn't green. I've followed the case's media coverage passively since it came out, so I know what you said was incorrect, and I don't see it as any stretch of the imagination that anyone else who has done the same would see that as well. I'm referring to this (to be clear):

...
Shouldn't all of you people who think prosecuting men for rape is a crime be HAPPY that the prosecution is not trying a case in the media? That they are not besmirching the reputation of these upstanding lacrosse players? Isn't that how you guys think these things should be run? With the reputation of the complainant on public display and that of the accused closely and carefully guarded? To tell you the truth, I have no idea why you guys are so contentious about this. It seems like it should please you.
...


I'm sorry, why? Have I hurt your feelings by proxy? Do you feel that because I said Deogol wasn't smart that I said men weren't smart? Are you good friends and feel I've impugned his honour? Sorry, but it's not my fault that he is not very bright.
Personally, I don't like Deogol. I rank my level of dislike somewhere between the contempt I have for Djoser and the downright disgust I have for Madcap. Closer to just mild contempt.

And the fact that you think you're in ANY position to judge MY intelligence - well, gosh, that such so darn cute. Just, aww. Now I just want to pat your head and give you a cookie.
Sorry if you have trouble remembering more than the last 2 months worth of current events. You're right you could be intelligent, with a bad memory. If you want to patronize me, go ahead. I'm a custy, is it not my reason for being?

Jenny
12-20-2006, 05:00 PM
Stop playing dense, it doesn't suit you. You just got done with how irrelevant you think it is anyways, so why keep ask for it, again?

Tara Nicole's CDC fact sheet:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
Rape is one of the most underreported crimes. In 2002, only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials (DOJ 2003).
Go to the DOJ report the CDC is sourcing, (DOJ 2003):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv02.pdf page 11
It's a PDF so I can't quote it, but it clearly states the rate to be 53.7% in 2002.
Jeez, hon - I'm not reading any further because I really want to go to work, but my precise question was how do you know that they referenced that report, as opposed to another report or their own collection of incident reporting? All I can see is that they got the information from the Department of Justice in 2003. That does not mean (to me) that they used the same report you are referencing because it was also published in 2003. I posited that perhaps the DOJ could have had MORE THAN ONE report on incidences of sexual assault, OR that they collected incidences (that is the raw data) from the DOJ and interpreted according to their standards of sexual assault OR that it could have been human error.

lunchbox
12-20-2006, 05:38 PM
Jeez, hon - I'm not reading any further because I really want to go to work, but my precise question was how do you know that they referenced that report, as opposed to another report or their own collection of incident reporting? All I can see is that they got the information from the Department of Justice in 2003. That does not mean (to me) that they used the same report you are referencing because it was also published in 2003. I posited that perhaps the DOJ could have had MORE THAN ONE report on incidences of sexual assault, OR that they collected incidences (that is the raw data) from the DOJ and interpreted according to their standards of sexual assault OR that it could have been human error.

I thought you were asking me to spell it out, repeatedly, to be annoying.

The CDC fact page has a bibliography at the bottom of the page. Just to be clear, (DOJ 2003) refrences that bibliography, and that is where I got the link to the specific report.

Tara Nicole
12-21-2006, 01:25 AM
I saw the following post today on another website and thought how well it applied to recent discussions in this thread topic:


Yeah, people despise rape in the abstract, but it's simply not true that raped women aren't the butt of jokes. To add to the insult, the rape of women is eroticized in movies, TV, and porn, and we're bludgeoned by pro-status quo meatheads who masquerade as sex-positive libertines with accusations of frigidity and facism if we dare say anything. We are anti-sex, we have hangups, we want to censor and oppress people because we didn't have the courtesy to censor ourselves.

Women are constantly threatened with rape. It's not always explicit, but it's there. We all know the rules. You don't go out alone at night. You don't go to a bar alone. You don't invite your date up for a drink at the end of the night. You don't allow a stranger to buy you a drink and you don't let your drink out of your sight. You don't tease anyone. You don't show you are sexual in any way. You don't dress "provocatively." You don't. You don't. You don't. And if you do, you were asking for it. And if you don't, you're paranoid, a perpetual victim (which again, is bad, but it's also what we are supposed to be, apparently).

Women who are raped are second-guessed, lectured and hectored, and judged for making bad choices that led to their rape, all done with the caveat Of course I would never blame the victim, but I think we should see where you went wrong so it won't happen again. They are lectured to not hate men, which is really helpful when they're dealing with being violated, disbelieved, and dismissed. They are told that there are gosh just so many false accusations against men (which isn't true, but even if you believe that, it isn't an individual woman's fault).

[...] Mugging victims don't get people demanding to know what they were doing in that neighborhood, dressed so expensively, driving such a rich-looking car, flashing their money around, damn, didn't you know you were asking for it? They and their families aren't harassed and stalked, their medical records aren't opened (and sometimes leaked) all in the name of providing a vigorous defense.[...]

The raped woman has people demanding to know what she was doing there, why didn't she drink less, or watch her drink, or not trust him, or dress a little more modestly. Are you sure you weren't leading him on? Being a tease? Are you sure he just couldn't stop? Men can't help it, you know. And there are women who lie, like this case I heard about from a friend of mine who saw John Stossel on TV, are you sure you're not like her?

In her excellent post about the way fear is used to control women, Bitch, Ph.D. points out that men don't feel the need to follow the litany of don'ts that women do and often end up the worse for it--they are likely to be assaulted, robbed, and murdered. It's true. However, men are not hectored the way raped women are. The crime is treated as a crime, people shake their heads in outrage over the fact that such animals exist, and they decry the fact that it's not as safe to walk alone at night anymore. But never do you hear anyone go off on how stupid a guy was for walking alone.

And it's a continuum. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that it's not. The groping of women on subways, the harassment of women on the streets, the guys who think they are entitled to relationships with certain women (also known as the whine of the "Nice Guy"), it's all crap that we have to put up with, are expected to put up with, and that men don't.

Sometimes, the threat of rape is used to justify sexism. Either the way we experience it here in North America--the litany of don'ts--or other ways. The old excuse I often hear is, "Yeah, the men are really sexist and will grab your ass and say that women belong in the kitchen, but there is no rape there." This is often put forth by entitled closet misogynists who'd much rather bask in their privilege than actually look at reality. I've been to and lived in places where this myth existed, and let me tell you, it isn't true. Any place where the men feel entitled to women's bodies and labor is a place where they feel entitled to take whatever they want from women--including sex. And the women aren't exactly believed, so the rate of reporting is abysmal.

Besides, what does that mean, exactly? Put up with "minor" assaults and outright discrimination or you'll get raped? Not too much of a threat there.

But that's what it's about for women--threats. Keeping us in line. We cannot win. And Hades help the uppity bitch who doesn't accept it.

Bridgette
12-21-2006, 08:20 AM
OMG. Lunchbox you're a fucking mysoginist moron. Ugh. Why don't you just get the fuck off this site? Clearly you have nothing to contribute here.

Tart
12-21-2006, 08:48 AM
Although I can see where because of ones life issues with someone who cried wolf would make them uneasy to believe anyone further down the road that says the same

in this case rape.

it doesnt mean everyone is bullshitting and it doesnt mean that every fucking woman lies about it either.

For someone to say that is like saying " oh well a black man robbed me 20 years ago and i live in an area that is mostly of another color and there is always drama .." doesnt mean you should go around hating all non-anglo saxons. Seriously. Its a stereotype that wouldnt be tolerated, so why should this one? its also very close minded and not to mention fucking stupid.

thats right fucking stupid

to base an entire sex or race from own personal experiences doesn't make sense.

I have only this to offer. If you keep finding yourself in situations that make you capable of stereotyping., maybe you should look at the bigger picture

what do all of these people have in common? take away whatever box you are putting them in

be it race or sex.

they have you in common, so what is it about YOU that attracts these people?

I will always maintain, shitty people hang with other shitty people and its never easy to admit and change ones faults.

But your friends and lovers are direct reflections of you.

I myself have been raped. I didnt press charges because I knew there would be someone out there that would say " oh look at her lifestyle shes lying ". It wasnt worth the headache to me at the time .

Although now 10 years later I wish I had, because im sure this person didnt stop raping women.

Do people lie about being raped ? the answer is yes. yes there are girls that are 17 and in a relationship with some guy their parents hate, their parents later catch the two going at it and the girl cries rape to get out of it.

I had an ex whom this happened to in school. and it didnt help the girls' father was a cop either.

Then there are women who are fucking crazy and because their ex is off sleeping withs omeone else will literally have sex with them again and go to the ER claiming they were raped just to get back to them

Then there are those that totally just make the shit up , because they are sociopaths to the fullest and any attention to them is good.

but there are always twice as many that dont say anything at all.

the point is we cant close off our minds to something like this. If you had a daugther or a sister that was raped, would that change it?

Id hate to think it would take something like that to make people realize it does go on and its very real.

and wouldnt you want them to seek justice in the matter? Or would it be okay if they didnt since no one would believe them anyways ?

there is honestly no telling if this woman in the duke case is bsing or not. and we wont know for awhile

If she is lying it will set back women, dancers and women of color some years. and that is the rather unfortunate.

I just hope everyone can keep an open mind in situations like these.

Obviously though this thread has proven to be a rather big eye opener.

and the moral of this entire shit is

" there are some fucked up people out there, and you never know what they are going to do "

which is why I do NOT have addicts or drunks as friends, liars or theives. Not that others cant or arent capable of insane shit. But it at least lessens the chances of me having to have a bad situation come up .

lunchbox
12-21-2006, 08:49 AM
Do we trust these DNA results? How do we know they weren't falsified? After all, money like these kids' families have will buy such results...

This is a contribution?

kittygirl
12-21-2006, 09:18 AM
Boxed lunchbag

I still marvel that you claim you're married - poor bitch.

Bridgette
12-21-2006, 09:50 AM
This is a contribution?More of a contribution than the shit you spew.

lunchbox
12-21-2006, 09:57 AM
Boxed lunchbag

I still marvel that you claim you're married - poor bitch.

Hung up on my personal life much? Of all the married custies here, why ride the ass of one who has never cheated on his wife?

maxim1729
12-22-2006, 11:33 AM
Rape charges dropped -

The men still face kidnapping and sexual offense charges.

I hope these guys go after her, and go after her hard. She is pathetic.

evan_essence
12-22-2006, 03:15 PM
The Raleigh News Observer has better coverage than the Associated Press.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/524340.html
(See also the related story links in the margins.)

I'm still reserving judgment until trial or total dismissal, given that they continue to be charged with sexual contact other than penis-in-vagina, but the more I learn, the more I question the prosecutor's judgment. Speaking of which, I've seen a couple news stories incorrectly characterize the nature of the exculpatory DNA evidence that the prosecutor tried to hide, so I remain skeptical of the accuracy of details within the media's reports on this case.

-Ev

Edit: Ack, viewing that link may require registration. It didn't for me the first time I looked, but did on followup visits. Sorry bout that.

Jenny
12-22-2006, 05:41 PM
Rape charges dropped - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/12/22/ap.dukelacrosseurgent.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

The men still face kidnapping and sexual offense charges.

I hope these guys go after her, and go after her hard. She is pathetic.
While I approve of dropping charge on which they cannot meet the burden of proof (like I said - they don't tend to try cases they are unlikely to win), "go after her hard" based on what? And what positive social impact will "going after her hard" serve? You can't - I repeat - CAN'T "go after people" because their cases cannot be proved, and that is not limited to rape or any male/female dynamic. If you are liable, criminally or otherwise because your case cannot be proven, because you were wrong or because someone made a mistkae, that means BEFORE people make complaints or investigate you need to know that you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the claim is supportable. That is obviously not sensible.

forcefit
12-23-2006, 10:03 AM
"go after her hard" based on what? And what positive social impact will "going after her hard" serve? You can't - I repeat - CAN'T "go after people" because their cases cannot be proved, and that is not limited to rape or any male/female dynamic.Well, you can apparently "GO DAMNED HARD" against guys you falsely accuse of rape with absolutely no evidence...(while any actual evidence against it is intentionally kept suppressed).

But, once the DNA evidence was finally released (months too late)...Crystal suddenly couldn't testify anymore that she had been penetrated by their penii. Gee, what a coinkydink. Sorry you lying tramp, no Hollywood book deal now... ::)

"We understand that the legal system is that you are innocent until proven guilty," said sophomore Kristin High. "But people are nervous and afraid that these people are going to get away with what they did because of a wealthy privilege, or male privilege, or a white privilege (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2387151)."Uh, sounds more like BLACK & FEMALE privilege in this case, hun. "Innocent until proven" guilty MY AZZ.
http://espn-ak.starwave.com/media/ncaa/2006/0329/photo/a_protest_275.jpg
TOLD Y'ALL SO! ;D

PS - As far as the oddball face-value FBI unfounded rape stats...I think there's been sufficient independent debunking studies now over a long span of time to cast legit doubt on their lowballed numbers. With rape reports, the cracks simply don't appear until you dig a bit deeper - as with the FBI's own 1983 study - which confirmed the results of every other study placing the number of false reports at 25%-30%-40% or so.

Well, add another one to that pile, now! :D

Melonie
01-13-2007, 07:11 PM
it now appears that the serious shit is going to start flying in the opposite direction ...



(snip)"The fact that Nifong withheld the information and knew it before he indicted their sons has outraged the parents of the accused. "You felt like someone hit you with a baseball bat. … It was almost too much to bear, as we sat there," says Kathy Seligmann, whose son, Reade, is among the three indicted players. "And [Nifong is] sitting 10 feet away from us."

It enraged Mary Ellen Finnerty, mother of Collin Finnerty, another indicted player. "I think [I felt] one of the strongest feelings of rage that I've had … I literally had to turn to my husband, because I was shaking from my head to my toe, and say, 'Hold me down,'" recalls Finnerty. Adds Seligmann, "And we had to hold on to each other because when you sit there and put two and two together and realize that it was calculated … set up to make these boys appear to be guilty of something they didn't do."

When asked what they would say to Nifong if he were in the room, Rae Evans, the mother of indicted player David Evans, says, "I would say with a smile on my face, 'Mr. Nifong, you've picked on the wrong families … and you will pay every day for the rest of your life.'"(snip)

Mr Hyde
01-13-2007, 08:54 PM
Yet there are still people who think this deserves to go to court.

Deogol
01-14-2007, 12:13 AM
More of a contribution than the shit you spew.

Nah - this is one of the few times I will agree with Lunchbox - falsifying DNA tests because the upper class requested it via a "donation" is very unlikely.

Deogol
01-14-2007, 12:26 AM
Uh, sounds more like BLACK & FEMALE privilege in this case, hun. "Innocent until proven" guilty MY AZZ.

Some interesting quotes floating around:

Duke University President , [send him mail ([email protected])] to let the trial be held and the players have the chance to be "proved innocent." As K.C. Johnson, the CUNY Brooklyn College historian who has been the of the Duke Rape Hoax , Brodhead et al., were "turning on its head 220 years of "

...

[send him mail ([email protected])] a leading professor of law at accuser Crystal Gail Mangum's school, black North Carolina Central University (NCCU), in Durham. Joyner serves as the which has continuously supported the railroading of the white victims. In June, over two months after the prosecution's case had been publicly exposed as non-existent, Joyner told , "[Nifong] still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham." When K.C. Johnson e-mailed Joyner, asking him why he had emphasized a jury in Durham, :
"A Durham jury may see things differently than would an Orange or Wake County jury because the Durham jury will probably have more on it than would be involved in most other counties in North Carolina…. This case originated in Durham and should be tried here."

...

As pointed out on August 16, the NAACP has in the case of the Duke Three contradicted every position it had taken in recent years in defense of defendants' rights, including its support of a gag order, in order to stop the victims' attorneys from defending their clients in the face of Nifong's defamatory media campaign; in supporting Nifong's use of ; and in opposing a change of venue, despite the jury pool having been hopelessly contaminated.

...

Munson's psychological trump card is the "something unsavory happened" line. There is no crime on federal or North Carolina law books against committing "something unsavory." and their white allies who want convictions, the law be damned, have favored variations on that vague phrase. When Munson used it, he was reaching out to racist, potential black jurors to convict men who have not committed any of the crimes they are charged with. And, as Munson is likely aware, is also one of the lines that black supremacist supporters on behalf of racial rape hoaxer Tawana Brawley

...

When, for instance, the NAACP has passionately supported proposed laws protecting defendants' rights, it did so because it believed that such laws would benefit black defendants. Since the Duke Three are all white,


Blacks are gaining enough power to be racist (because I guess some say one cannot be racist for calling someone a cracker in their living room.)

Deogol
01-14-2007, 12:28 AM
Yet there are still people who think this deserves to go to court.

Something certainly deserves going to court - who the defendant should be is another matter.

Melonie
01-14-2007, 06:13 AM
again, from the standpoint of 'real world' aftereffects on the exotic dancing industry, the publicity from the Duke Rape Case is very likely to make upscale white club customers much more wary of spending money on black dancers everywhere - based on a potential fear that some sort of charges could be made against them ... with those charges being believed by a local DA who is also 'afraid' to simply ignore a charge made by a poor black girl against a rich white man !

In terms of legal reality, the publicity from the Duke Rape Case is very likely to cause ALL DA's to discount the credibility of future charges brought by ALL dancers, black, white, hispanic and asian alike !

Thus the Duke Rape Case publicity has done harm to all exotic dancers, and has probably done double harm to black dancers.

MeganR
04-11-2007, 12:39 PM
Duke Lacrosse Case Charges Dropped (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3028515&page=1)

Melonie
04-11-2007, 02:56 PM
^^^ yes, charges formally dropped by the state Attorney General across the board. In addition the state Attorney General's comments would tend to indicate that the case may not be over re DA Mike Nifong, let alone the potential civil lawsuits claiming that the 'false' charges have permanently damaged the career / earnings potential of these rich young white men. Unfortunately, there will be no civil lawsuits regarding the additional loss of credibility to dancers of any race / creed / color who claim to have been raped / claim to be innocent of prostitution charges in the future.

At any rate, the focus of the 'black women being falsely characterized' crowd has now officially shifted to Don Imus, so this is likely the last we will hear about this case (other than perhaps the indibtment / disbarrment of Mike Nifong).

salsa4ever
04-11-2007, 11:05 PM
^^^

I'm not quite clear on what you mean when you say "there will be no civil lawsuits regarding the additional loss of credibility to dancers of any race / creed / color who claim to have been raped / claim to be innocent of prostitution charges in the future". My interpretation is you're making a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that other dancers should be able to sue this bitch for making dancers on a whole less credible?

Regarding the civil action you're talking about it's actually very, very difficult to make a successful defamation case against a purported victim of a crime for making a false allegation. There are policy reasons for this that Jenny gave - you can't just "go after the bitch" for filing a claim of rape unless you've got reasonable evidence of perjury. Here there's just not enough evidence. The DNA test can't prove she was lying. Generally, (I speak for Australia but I think this is true in the US) if the victim cannot be proven by the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt as having committed perjury, the courts are *very* reluctant to make a quasi-conviction (think OJ simpson) of perjury by awarding damages for defamation. Kirby J of the high court of australia held such cases required "clear and convincing evidence" mainly on policy grounds.

So one of my problems with the criminal system is that the cost to an alleged victim of reporting rape is low compared to the victim - at least on a legal/financial sense. What Jenny dismisses as "administrative hassle" is of real inconvenience and does make a difference to the affected men. Now, I understand it's a delicate balance. On one hand, you need to have a hospitable environment for victims of rape. On the other hand, you don't want to compromise procedural fairness for the men involved. If you make it to "easy" to allege rape, it encourages strategic allegations of rape or family violence in divorce proceedings, and you also increases the rate of "blackmail" allegations. I'm with Melonie here; i think this was a hush-money extortion attempt. If it's too difficult, you encourage men to be reckless as to enquiring re: consent, and you get more rapes in general because they think they're unlikely to be convicted.

As for studies, I've read so many and they all seem to come to different conclusions based on their agenda - I think this is a topic where research just isn't ever going to be reliable. All I'm sure of is that real rapes do go unreported and false allegations are made. I think it's meaningless to argue over the proportion of false allegations to unreported cases, and the harm of letting a rapist go free vis-a-vis the harm of inconveniencing and disreputing an innocent person vis-a-vis the risk of wrongful conviction.

I think ultimately the argument is about who should bear most of the responsibility in what's reallly a social issue. Should it be up to men to act prudently, avoid situations where there is ambiguity over consent, control their sex urge, dutifully do whatever tests required to confirm their innocence where required, avoid situations where they could get accused of rape? Or is it up to the woman to act prudently, protect herself, avoid situations where she gets too smashed up around men, and not to go wandering around at night on her own in a miniskirt?

All I can say is this: if we accept for now the contention that men get more utility out of casual sex than women, and that women alone can become pregnant, the onus of the associated social problem of rape and rape allegations should fall mainly upon the men. I'm still not comfortable with the idea of how easy it is to make unsubstantiated rape allegations, but then i'm no more comfortable with how often men *do* get away with rape.

Melonie
04-12-2007, 09:34 AM
^^^
I'm not quite clear on what you mean when you say "there will be no civil lawsuits regarding the additional loss of credibility to dancers of any race / creed / color who claim to have been raped / claim to be innocent of prostitution charges in the future". My interpretation is you're making a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that other dancers should be able to sue this bitch for making dancers on a whole less credible?

obviously there will be no such lawsuits. My tongue in cheek point was that Crystal Gail Mangum and the mainstream media publicity given to the Duke Rape Case has managed to destroy just about every shred of credibility that US 'strippers' might have had in any matter which involves law enforcement ... either in terms of being 'believed' when they report a crime having been committed against them, or in terms of being accused of a crime themselves and being 'believed' when they attempt to plead innocence given a lack of 'hard' exculpatory evidence to positively prove their innocence. There is no remedy for this, pure and simple.

It's highly probable that, in the future, if a 'stripper' is raped and reports it that DA's are going to refuse to prosecute. On top of that, if a 'stripper' is raped, reports it, and the DA agrees to prosecute, jury members are very probably not going to go along with a he said / she said conviction. On top of that, if a 'stripper' is raped, reports it, a prosecution takes place, and the rapist is found innocent by the jury, the rapist will now be in a position to sue the 'stripper' for damages to his reputation / earnings potential by having brought charges.


Have a look at to see the reaction that is already forming !

Jenny
04-12-2007, 11:07 AM
So one of my problems with the criminal system is that the cost to an alleged victim of reporting rape is low compared to the victim - at least on a legal/financial sense. What Jenny dismisses as "administrative hassle" is of real inconvenience and does make a difference to the affected men.
I'm sure. May I point out that I was referring to specific stories - one of which involved a man having to get three blood tests to disprove paternity and one of which involved police being concerned about a vulnerable woman (an alcoholic) who was confused, and discussing moderately violent sex. That does not add up to anything more than administrative inconvenience.


Now, I understand it's a delicate balance. On one hand, you need to have a hospitable environment for victims of rape. On the other hand, you don't want to compromise procedural fairness for the men involved.
I agree that procedural fairness is necessary for all investigated and accused persons - have we undermined it? I mean - the entire point was that charges were dropped. Something is not procedurally unfair simply because the procedure is gone through; an investigation is not procedurally unfair simply because there is an investigation. You're talking nonsense. Police are meant to take all viable complaints seriously - particularly all viable complaints of physical assault. There is no cost benefit analysis to that. Police don't say "we don't want to make it too easy to report simple assault, because some people will then fight more." They don't say "we don't want to make to easy to report robbery or else people will make false insurance claims." You're just perverting the criminal law system. Just out of curiosity - wasn't this kind of law/economic analysis kind of dated in 1986?


If you make it to "easy" to allege rape, it encourages strategic allegations of rape or family violence in divorce proceedings, and you also increases the rate of "blackmail" allegations. I'm with Melonie here; i think this was a hush-money extortion attempt.
Except that is sheer conjecture. It is no easier to make a false allegation of rape than it is to make a false allegation of anything else. And there is no compelling evidence that false allegations of rape are a big social problem.



I think it's meaningless to argue over the proportion of false allegations to unreported cases, and the harm of letting a rapist go free vis-a-vis the harm of inconveniencing and disreputing an innocent person vis-a-vis the risk of wrongful conviction.
I agree those are the wrong comparators, but the issue is not between a falsely convicted person and non-reporting. It's between reporting and non-reporting; investigation and no investigation. Criminal law is not meant to regulate itself like a market. Who teaches you this crap? Seriously - I thought it was pretty effectively debunked 20 years ago.

Jenny
04-12-2007, 11:14 AM
It's highly probable that, in the future, if a 'stripper' is raped and reports it that DA's are going to refuse to prosecute. On top of that, if a 'stripper' is raped, reports it, and the DA agrees to prosecute, jury members are very probably not going to go along with a he said / she said conviction. On top of that, if a 'stripper' is raped, reports it, a prosecution takes place, and the rapist is found innocent by the jury, the rapist will now be in a position to sue the 'stripper' for damages to his reputation / earnings potential by having brought charges.
That's not the way it works Melonie. A) People aren't found innocent. They are found not guilty. It is not the same thing. Courtrooms aren't in the innocence business. Being found not guilty SPECIFICALLY doesn't prove that you are innocent. You cannot sue someone because you are found not guilty.

Second - can we maybe acknowledge, rather than browbeating the stripper, that the problem with "credibility" lies with those who are looking for reasons to discredit rape victims. That the stripper is responsible for her own actions and DA's, juries and the general public are not relieved of being responsible for their own thoughts and feelings because of this? If it was a deliberate false allegation, it was done to the boys, not strippers everywhere in the world.

Melonie
04-12-2007, 03:12 PM
You cannot sue someone because you are found not guilty.

I beg to differ. The young men involved in the Duke Rape Case will very probably bring civil suits for damages against DA Nifong. They could also bring such a civil suit against Crystal Mangum if she had any assets worth taking ! Such civil lawsuits have arisen in a large number of cases where the defendant was found not guilty i.e. OJ


That the stripper is responsible for her own actions and DA's, juries and the general public are not relieved of being responsible for their own thoughts and feelings because of this? If it was a deliberate false allegation, it was done to the boys, not strippers everywhere in the world.

the relevant point is not that something was done to the stripper, but that something was done BY the stripper ... in this case reporting bogus rape charges. Juries and the general public are undoubtedly viewing the aftermath of this case as a de-facto 'extortion' attempt by a 'stripper' against some very rich 'customers'. Thus any 'stripper' who runs across law enforcement in the future is likely to be prejudged as being capable of such an 'extortion' motive, or at least capable of lying to the authorities - which I referred to earlier as a loss of 'credibility'.

Eric Stoner
04-12-2007, 05:13 PM
I beg to differ. The young men involved in the Duke Rape Case will very probably bring civil suits for damages against DA Nifong. They could also bring such a civil suit against Crystal Mangum if she had any assets worth taking ! Such civil lawsuits have arisen in a large number of cases where the defendant was found not guilty i.e. OJ



the relevant point is not that something was done to the stripper, but that something was done BY the stripper ... in this case reporting bogus rape charges. Juries and the general public are undoubtedly viewing the aftermath of this case as a de-facto 'extortion' attempt by a 'stripper' against some very rich 'customers'. Thus any 'stripper' who runs across law enforcement in the future is likely to be prejudged as being capable of such an 'extortion' motive, or at least capable of lying to the authorities - which I referred to earlier as a loss of 'credibility'.

An acquittal alone generally does NOT entitle the former defendant to bring suit. Suits for malicious prosecution must show just that: MALICE. That the prosecutor knew or should have known the charges lacked merit and proceeded anyway. As Mr. Nifong clearly did in this case. Hiding or failing to disclose exculpatory evidence as Nifong also did also can give rise to legal action is some jurisdictions
but believe it or not; generally not against U.S. Attorneys in Federal prosecutions. Federal judges are SUPPOSED to police prosecutorial wrongdoing in Federal Court and refer such cases to the local Disciplinary body for proceedings based on violations of the Canons of Ethics and NEVER do. At most they just dismiss the charges and tell the defendant to: " have a nice day".

Any stripper as accuser starts with one strike against her from a credibility standpoint. Right, wrong, fair or unfair. This case might have a chilling effect on other stripper/victims coming forward and on the police and prosecutors otheerwise doing their jobs. I hope not but it probably will and that is genuinely sad and too bad for ALL of us.

I honestly hadn't thought of the extortion angle from Ms. Mangum's point of view BUT had they been convicted, a civil suit by her against them would have been a slam dunk on liability and damages could have been awarded in the millions. It certainly won't help the next gal who happens to work as a stripper.

sixelayvi
04-12-2007, 05:31 PM
this case proves one thing: race and sex is still an issuse in the united states. would there have been such a furor if the tables were turned? if the accuser was a white woman with a group of black atheletes? what i think would happen in that situation is the young men would: A be in jail regardless if the accuser remembered what happened or not or B found swinging from the nearest tall tree (like the billy holliday song strange fruit).
*i really dont like the term accuser*

MeganR
04-12-2007, 05:36 PM
The young men involved in the Duke Rape Case will very probably bring civil suits for damages against DA Nifong.
Yes. Not because the young men were not found guilty, but because the prosecutor abused his office by ignoring evidence that they were innocent and maintaining the charges against them anyway.

MeganR
04-12-2007, 05:38 PM
would there have been such a furor if the tables were turned? if the accuser was a white woman with a group of black atheletes?

Yes, I think the furor would have been the same if the facts were otherwise similar.