Feminist reaction to kesha contract trial shows why it's scary to be accused of rape.

Ke$ha's lawyer is also irrelevant. He's working with her; they're her claims, not his. Motives, motives; I don't know anyone who does things without motives. Their motives are also irrelevant. Because that's just opinionated accusations that their motives are manipulative. The possibility that a young woman, who was probably stupid and probably nonvirgin and probably desperate for fame, was sexually bribed by a powerful music exec is...so credible. Now it being date rape and not just a sexual favour by a drunk chick at a party, or drugged in private to make it easier, is a different story, if you want to go there. Is he denying sex or the rape?

Hmm the only issue I have is that didn't Kesha say a few years back that she wasn't sexually assaulted by him under oath???

Rape is on par with other serious crimes, such as burglary, with 6% of reports leading to a conviction and about 50 or 60% of cases brought before the court leading to conviction.

We must look at what statistics you are seeing reported: you see the first a lot, rather less of the second.

Courtesy of "Moog" in the Guardian comments:

"...and only 5.7% end in convictions, no other crime’s as low as this..."

You know why Sarah? Because rape stats are treated differently to all other crimes (BBC's Ruth Alexander of More or Less dealt with this comprehensively a few years back). Rape % is number of convictions compared to cases reported. All other crimes % = convictions compared with number of cases brought to court. Of course, many reported cases of rape are not brought to court because lack of evidence/falsely reported/defendant withdraw/patriarchy/women not believed etc. Fill in your reasons according to your prejudices. If burglary was reported the same way, the conviction rate would be below 1% and that includes TICs (although they've stopped doing that now.)

The issue with rape stats is that NO ONE KNOWS. They vary hugely in all respects. Certainly a percentage are not reported. This is the same with all crimes. It seems very likely that with rape, the rate of non reporting could be high.

One key consideration is that it's assumed by many that all rapes are rapes. They deny that some will be malicious and/or false reports. NO ONE knows what this figure is.

This ones often brought up by those who seek to belittle rape statistics. Yes burglary has a similar rate but the key difficulty with burglary is finding the culprit, unlike rape. But even besides that what relevance does your point have? That because other crimes are poorly dealt with that we shouldn't complain about rape? What type of race to the bottom is that?


No, it isn't. All crimes judged by percentage reported to police compared with total convictions. Once again the problems with burglary are nearly always to do with identifying the subject, the problems with rape are far more varied and serious, have far more psychologically damaging effects and cause a far higher level of victim withdrawal.






The rate of non-reporting is very high given that up to 97000 women report on the survey to being raped every year and then give reasons why they don't report it. Very often they want to forget about it and move on, often they still care for the perpetrator, often they don't want to be called a liar and have their credibility ripped to pieces etc.



No one says that, no one says none are false or malicious. By the same token plenty of MRA and anti-feminsits argue that vast vast numbers are false with no proof whatsoever. They go on about innocent until proven guilty with rape claims, but with false allegations they adopt a guilty until proven innocent approach.

There is next to no evidence of widespread false allegations and a CPS report found that cases of false allegations are very, very rare.

It really seems like you have an aversion toward providing evidence for the claims you make



Posted from TSR Mobile

Everything is on EWCS/ bcs and the 2013 government report which ive posted numerous links for. Including why claims drop out and why victim's dont report. I've provided the link numerous times.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well the figure of 97,000 rapes isn't just women, it includes men.
You haven't given any evidence to support how you say conviction rates are determined

And on top of that you say things that are subjective as though they are facts like rape having more psychological consequences than burglary.

Oh yeah you still haven't quoted me as using figures from the CSEW.


Posted from TSR Mobile

L



Posted from TSR Mobile
Oh come on. How do you know the figure includes men? You used the survey!! around 97000, predominantly women, doesn't detract from the point.

Have you any evidence about how conviction rates are calculated?

And rape not more psychologically damaging than burglary?
Seriously wow, the lengths you'll go to to belittle rape. So being penetrated against your will is no worse than being burgled? Can one not say therefor that having a family member murdered is no no worse than having someone steal a phone from your house?
You also claimed other crimes are underreported, using the survey to support that point. You then made up a figure for rape to make it seems as unserious as possible.

So you use the survey when it suits you, like saying other crimes are underreported yet when it doesn't you claim its invalid with no PROOF that it is. Your double standards are astonishing.
Use a bit of logic ffs. You claimed that allegations are made up with no proof, yet I cant say logic to saying being sexually penetrated against your will is worse than having a material object nicked?
you ask for proof for everything yet never provide it. You use logic when it suits you but I cant do the same. Now you're seriously saying rape is no worse than burglary, deary me.
What a dangerous and disturbing individual you are.

So I guess we also can't say that being waterboarded is more psychologically damaging than someone pissing on your lawn? We can't use logic right? Apart from when you argue based on 'logic' of course.

.

-.

Will be my last post because you are absolutely determined to minimise the impact of rape anyway you can.

You are the king of double standards.
You doubt the survey for no reason, claiming that it is invalid - primarily because it disagrees with your point. Yet you yourself used the survey to claim that other crimes are also underreported. So the survey is valid when you use it but not when I do?

As for 'proof', well you argued that it is 'logical' that some women lie on the survey, offering no proof they do. Yet I can't logically argue something else?

The crime of burglary does not involve violence on people- that would be aggravated robbery. So you are saying that I cannot logically say that sexually penetrating someone against their will causes more psychological damage to the victim than nicking some sweets from tescos? Deep down you agree with this, but you're trying whatever you can to make your point.

Why is it okay for you to use 'logic' but not me? Why is it okay for you to use the survey (to claim other crimes are underreported) but not me?

Now you are seriosuly questioning whether rape is worse than burglary because it is subjective? Well it's also subjective that 9/11 is worse than letting your dog defecate on someone elses lawn. Would you genuinely ask for proof that one is worse? Why can you 'logically' assume something but not me? Double standards.

Given that burglary does not involve violence to the person and rape involves sexually penetrating someone against their will, I think we can say for sure the second one is worse, however 'subjective' you think it is.
Given that rape always happens to an identifiable person, whereas burglary does not, we can say the former is worse. Unless you think someone taking rice from morrisions is worse than rape?

-


Posted from TSR Mobile

You've done nothing but argue on insignificant points. Does the fact that you would have to take sweets from the stock room make a difference to the argument? Does that make burglarly worse than rape? It's a completely insignificant point to the topic at hand.
But if we're going to nitpick as you, then no you don't have to take them from the stock room, you could take them from the shelf if you brake in after hours/ when the store is closed. Not so clever now are you?


We weren't talking about aggravated burglary, which is a separate offense, if we want to nit pick like you do.
Also bear in mind aggravated burglary does not involve USING the weapon, just having possession of one...
The fact I used an 'extreme' example is irrelevant, the point was one of subjectivity. Yes it is a subjective view that rape is worse than burglary, but it's also a subjective view that 9/11 is worse than littering. The extremity is irrelevant. The sentencing guidelines for both rape on a male and female regard it as worse than burglary, most people do. Of course its subjective, but generally attacks on a person, are regarded as worse than property offences, not always but as a general principle.

There are huge psychological drawbacks and consequences of rape; have a look here: https://rainn.org/get-information/effects-of-sexual-assault
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/lifelong-consequences-rape-96056
http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/learn/sexual-assault-rape/effects-sexual-assault-and-rape


Now I don't doubt burglary can have sever effects but there is no evidence or logic to suggest the effects are as bad. Now are you really going to claim they are?

Do you really not think that rape is worse than burglary?
If not then you are nitpicking.


And what's your overall point anyway?


You said that women will be lying in the survey, have you any proof? No, you do not. You used 'logic', yet you are saying that I can't use logic for something else?

This whole thread you really have taken every opportunity to make the crime of rape and how it is handled seem less serious. You initally claimed the convcition rate was 57% which was both wrong and deliberately misleading.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf
Page 7, for 2910 rapes, there are 1070 convcitions - that's not 57% and that was from 2013. Will you please now admit your 57% figure is wrong.

But the conviction rate is a total of all reports that end in a conviction, not just cases that get to court. The figure for rape is about 6%.

6% of cases reported end in a conviction, and only around an estimated 15-20% of cases are reported in the first place.

Now i'm really perplexed as why you want to make the problem seem as minimal as possible by lying about figures (as with the 57%) and claiming that I can't say rape is worse than burglary.
You also chose to give an (incorrect) figure to make rape seem less serious. Why did you use 57% (which is wrong) rather than 6%, the actual figure?


Please, just stop nitpicking.

Let's be honest here, this is an incredibly difficult situation and the unfortunate truth is that letting her out of her contract is something that the court can't really do.

I don't doubt that she is telling the truth to be honest but the situation the courts are in is one where, even with that as a given there is nothing they can do, and there is no really reasonable way to change the system so that they could. The courts position is simple, we don't have sufficient proof (even for a civil case) that she was raped so the contract has got to stay in place, there is no legal justification to get rid of it (at least that's my understanding).

It's unfortunate, but it's reality.

Let's be honest here, this is an incredibly difficult situation and the unfortunate truth is that letting her out of her contract is something that the court can't really do.

I don't doubt that she is telling the truth to be honest but the situation the courts are in is one where, even with that as a given there is nothing they can do, and there is no really reasonable way to change the system so that they could. The courts position is simple, we don't have sufficient proof (even for a civil case) that she was raped so the contract has got to stay in place, there is no legal justification to get rid of it (at least that's my understanding).

It's unfortunate, but it's reality.

You must know something the court doesn't, please feel free to share it with us.

She can't, she knows she can't, and you know she can't. And if everything she said were 100% true, she still couldn't. People like you think this means it is "reasonable" to accuse her of lying.

They are so low, said to be 5% or less.