Alex Salmond cleared of all sexual assault charges

Watch
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 days ago
#41
(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
I specifically quoted a short segment from the post, and made part of it bold. I thought putting that bit in bold highlighted that I was wanting to specifically disagree with that bit.
Oh I see, I apologise
0
reply
Advertisement
K689
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 days ago
#42
(Original post by Pinkisk)
Nothing.

Thanks to feminist inspired laws that protect false rape accusers, his accusers will remain anonymous, protected from any consequence, encouraging more to do the same.

Their victim, Mr Salmond, on the other hand, even though he's been found innocent, he will carry on walking around with a question mark on top of his head. His career will be severely hurt. His personal life will be severely hurt. His life will be destroyed in so many different ways.

That's British justice for you.

The funniest thing about this story is that feminists like always claim that women don't lie about rape...yet here we have 9 women all lying about being raped by the same man at the same time...Feminists also always say that when there are so many women claiming that a man raped them that they can't be lying ...yet, here the courts have ruled that all 9 lied about being raped. Hence, the courts have totally cleared him of any wrongdoing against any of these 9 women.

Feminism has made false rape accusations highly rewarding. It's time this country put an end to this by implementing laws that seriously punish false rape accusers and feminist groups that promote and protect their interests.
How do you know they are lying?

He was aquitted because the evidence provided was not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt the he in fact did was he was accused of.

Or is there something I have missed?

i am genuinely curious about your thought process, please don't think I am criticising.
0
reply
Koalifications
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 days ago
#43
(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
"A not guilty vote is not innocence" - Garbage like this is precisely why we need anonymity.
It is true that morally, a not guilty vote is not innocence. This is because the jury must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that even if the jury believe the defendant is guilty but there is some doubt, such as the defence poking a hole or question mark into a statement of the prosecution, the charges are dropped. This measure is to essentially protect completely morally innocent people put on trial, so that they don't end up doing time in prison for a crime they didn't commit. However, a 'not guilty' verdict still isn't innocence morally (although it is obviously legally), with Salmond apologising for his misconduct in the past. Therefore, whilst it would be unfortunate that Salmond may walk around with this stain on his name if he didn't commit any misdemeanours, I would question whether these nine women are ALL lying... hmm....

(Original post by Pinkisk)
This would only dissuade false accusers.
(Original post by Pinkisk)
Now, we do the same to those women, investigate them and take them to trial. We expose their identity if they are proven to have lied we punish them and if not we let them go free...and yeah if they suffer any form of social abuse then yeah its a shame but what can you do about it right?... Equality right?

The argument that this would only dissuade false accusers is entirely implausible for a number of reasons. First, as I have highlighted, rape and sexual assault are very difficult to prove because you are not providing evidence for sexual interaction, but rather, consent. How can consent be proven? It is incredibly difficult because there is often little evidence for consent, and therefore the principle of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means that the prosecution may often have even a glimmer of doubt that the defendant is guilty as a result of this lack of evidence. As a corollary from this, because rape can be difficult to prove, there is a disincentive for women to report it at all if there is a fear that they could be put on the stand for potentially lying when all they seek is justice. The negative harm to them of potentially standing trial and imprisonment would likely outweigh the positive benefit of getting justice when their rapist is locked inside. As a result, we'd see fewer women reporting crimes - crimes that are so viscerally, mentally and emotionally painful for them to reveal often - and thus rapists would be able to "get away with it". So, we shouldn't be putting women on trial for lying UNLESS there is clear and obvious evidence that no rape occurred, such as CCTV footage showing her in a completely different place than she claimed and so forth. This would be perjury and yes, they should stand trial for that. But I think most women don't report rape fallaciously and therefore putting all women on trial for potential lying would result in rapists being left on our streets as crimes go unreported.

I do agree that it's a shame that men are being "punished" in this way even if they are found not guilty and I would agree with the argument for anonymity of defendants unless they are found guilty. However, despite this, I still feel that women shouldn't be put on trial for lying unless there is evidence to suggest that they are lying to the police.

(Original post by Pinkisk)
EDIT: I just had a thought...if a not guilty verdict does not mean innocence, what does that make of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Is your comment not evidence of men being guilty until proven innocent in cases of rape, at least on a cultural level?
Again, this comes back to the principle of a jury believing in guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. We can't equate 'not guilty' with entirely morally innocent because even if the jury believe that the defendant is guilty but they have some doubt, they must find the defendant not guilty. I feel anonymity of defendants in these cases should be introduced tho.
0
reply
Advertisement
Pinkisk
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 days ago
#44
(Original post by Koalifications)
The argument that this would only dissuade false accusers is entirely implausible for a number of reasons. First, as I have highlighted, rape and sexual assault are very difficult to prove because you are not providing evidence for sexual interaction, but rather, consent. How can consent be proven? It is incredibly difficult because there is often little evidence for consent, and therefore the principle of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means that the prosecution may often have even a glimmer of doubt that the defendant is guilty as a result of this lack of evidence.
(Original post by Koalifications)
As a corollary from this, because rape can be difficult to prove, there is a disincentive for women to report it at all if there is a fear that they could be put on the stand for potentially lying when all they seek is justice.
Even if we assume that it is difficult to prove rape, the burden of proof in false accusations lies with the state whose standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Women would not be dissuaded from reporting rape because the standard for proving a false accusation is incredibly high and so only those proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have made a false allegation would be found guilty. Only those truly guilty have something to fear from the prosecution of false rape accusations and so only those who falsely accuse others of rape would be dissuaded from making rape claims.

I think it is also worth noting that your claim here rests on a flawed premise. Namely, that all women who report a rape are seeking justice. This carries a false, biased assumption that all women reporting rape have actually been raped, which is clearly not true, but also biased in favour of the claimant in such cases, undermining two fundamental principles of the judiciary. Namely, equality and impartiality. Your argument here is evidently unequal and partial in favour of women and against men.

(Original post by Koalifications)
The negative harm to them of potentially standing trial and imprisonment would likely outweigh the positive benefit of getting justice when their rapist is locked inside. As a result, we'd see fewer women reporting crimes - crimes that are so viscerally, mentally and emotionally painful for them to reveal often - and thus rapists would be able to "get away with it".
Rape is incredibly damaging particularly to those falsely accused of this crime, where in many countries they stand to loose their lives at the hands of the state through capital punishment or worse still at the hands of lynch mobs. Many thousands of men have been murdered, torn limb from limb, following false accusations of rape. Many tens of thousands of people have been killed in conflicts prompted by rape. Many men have had their careers, their lives and those of their families completely destroyed by false accusations. Many men have committed suicide following false rape accusations. The damage to society of false accusations is IMMENSE. Yet you argue that the benefits of protecting false accusers from prosecution for this crime outweigh its risks to society. I'm sorry but your argument here is incredibly flawed. It is an example of your gynocentrism. In determining what benefits society, the welfare of women is of greater importance to you than everyone else.

(Original post by Koalifications)
We shouldn't be putting women on trial for lying UNLESS there is clear and obvious evidence that no rape occurred
This would already be the case in a criminal trial, where such a woman would not be found guilty unless her guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Original post by Koalifications)
But I think most women don't report rape fallaciously
This is an unsubstantiated claim that is further evidence of nothing but your gynocentric bias. False rape accusations are the highest of all types of false accusations of any and all crimes. In the US they are 300% higher than the national average! (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf). In India they were recently exposed as accounting for upwards of 50% of all claims reported to the police (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report...-women-2023334). These are only official figures. Actual figures of false rape accusations are thought to be much, much higher because these statistics only include those cases prosecuted by the state and states thanks to institutionalised feminism and people like you rarely prosecute false rape accusations.

Accusations of rape are extremely powerful. These accusations have been weaponised by feminism against society and men. 'If you anger me, I will falsely accuse you of rape. Even if you are found innocent, your life will be destroyed and even if I lie nothing will happen to me. The state will protect me.'

Women are prone to falsely accusing men of rape. Here's an example of one such woman, a thief, a scammer trying to get away with her crime and the first tactic to which she resorts is a false rape accusation:



This is one great example of the flaws, corruption and sexism of feminism and its proponents who claim that women don't lie about rape.

(Original post by Koalifications)
putting all women on trial for potential lying would result in rapists being left on our streets as crimes go unreported.
Nobody said that all women who accuse men of rape should be put on trial for potentially lying about said rape. In cases where men are found innocent of the accusations women should be investigated and if there is enough evidence prosecuted for falsifying the claim.

(Original post by Koalifications)
I do agree that it's a shame that men are being "punished" in this way even if they are found not guilty and I would agree with the argument for anonymity of defendants unless they are found guilty. However, despite this, I still feel that women shouldn't be put on trial for lying unless there is evidence to suggest that they are lying to the police.
Interesting how you hyphenate the word punish. Your gynocentrism is truly insulting. Men having their lives and those of their families destroyed for perpetuity, men becoming psychologically destroyed, men being burned alive, torn limb from limb, men being killed in their thousands is abuse not worthy of being called a punishment in your eyes. I'd hate to live in a world where people like you reside over justice. Your sexism and your bias are so bad.

Finally, I just want to emphasise this following point:

Rape and its false accusations are a HUGE problem that is steeped in many myths. It is used by many women as a means to an end. Feminism always endeavours to play down false rape accusations and their always devastating impact on men, as well as protect women who make such false claims. This encourages and promotes a false rape claim culture in societies across the globe.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 2 days ago
0
reply
Koalifications
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 day ago
#45
(Original post by Pinkisk)
Even if we assume that it is difficult to prove rape, the burden of proof in false accusations lies with the state whose standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Women would not be dissuaded from reporting rape because the standard for proving a false accusation is incredibly high and so only those proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have made a false allegation would be found guilty. Only those truly guilty have something to fear from the prosecution of false rape accusations and so only those who falsely accuse others of rape would be dissuaded from making rape claims.
Your first argument here fails to factor in social interaction. You may be correct from a legalistic judgement that women (or men) should not be dissuaded from reporting sexual assaults or rapes. However, as a result of the media and already tough pressure on victims, it is likely that further women would be dissuaded. First, it has been argued that nearly 80% of sexual assaults and rapes go unreported, according to a Justice Department analysis of violent crime in 2016 (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf). This has been further reinforced by analysis from the organisation RAINN that about 3 out of 4 sexual assaults go unreported (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/cri...justice-system). This is for a number of reasons, such as the societal stigma or fear. Considering that sexual assaults are dramatically unreported to the police, imagine how media headlines of rape victims being put on trial for false accusations would deter victims. Whilst the media unfortunately may spin the story or sensationalise it in a way that misses the premises of impartiality behind the legal action, it is important to remember that this would have a direct impact on the already stigmatised view of rape victims. Therefore, it is likely that this would dissuade victims due to the increased perception of rape victims lying as a result of the media's coverage of false accusations. This of course has societal impacts such as leaving true rapists going unpunished (as we see to some extent, as outlined, already) and rape victims being shunned.


However, your argument would still stand if it were true that false accusations were the main, or even a large proportion, of rape claims. I will argue in the next paragraphs that not only are false rape claims a small proportion of accusations, but also that (assuming we had anonymity of defendants, which we both have agreed on), even if false rape claims were significant in number (which they aren't), the consequences for men aren't as bad as you have characterised.

So I argued at the start of this post why investigating all women for false accusations would be a disincentive to report rape and sexual assault. It is important to note, however, that this is already a crime. Both perjury and wasting police time can be invoked if a claimant is found to have lied. Whilst I agree that, as a result of the stigma on men, women who have been found to have lied should be punished, I think it is perverse to investigate them all.


(Original post by Pinkisk)
I think it is also worth noting that your claim here rests on a flawed premise. Namely, that all women who report a rape are seeking justice. This carries a false, biased assumption that all women reporting rape have actually been raped, which is clearly not true, but also biased in favour of the claimant in such cases, undermining two fundamental principles of the judiciary. Namely, equality and impartiality. Your argument here is evidently unequal and partial in favour of women and against men.
(Original post by Pinkisk)
This is an unsubstantiated claim that is further evidence of nothing but your gynocentric bias. False rape accusations are the highest of all types of false accusations of any and all crimes. In the US they are 300% higher than the national average! (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf). In India they were recently exposed as accounting for upwards of 50% of all claims reported to the police (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report...-women-2023334). These are only official figures. Actual figures of false rape accusations are thought to be much, much higher because these statistics only include those cases prosecuted by the state and states thanks to institutionalised feminism and people like you rarely prosecute false rape accusations.
Unfortunately, these statistics are heavily cherrypicked and fail to represent the truth regarding false accusations of rape. A US study found that only 2-10% of rape accusations were fake (https://web.archive.org/web/20180101...llegations.pdf). Indeed, this conversation has been very much focused on women lying about men, emphasising the stereotype that men are rarely the victims of rape and sexual assault. However, men are statistically more likely to be raped than be the victim of a false accusation of rape (https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...ccused-of-rape). Therefore, the idea that all these men are being falsely accused of rape and the women are getting away with it is absurd and a sweeping generalisation as to who is falsely reporting these crimes and to how the defendants are being treated.

These false accusations tend to be reported on average by teenage girls to avoid facing trouble from their parents if the parents are likely to find out (https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-abou...e-accusations/). When these false accusations occur, however, innocent men rarely face criminal charges. 'In the most detailed study ever conducted of sexual assault reports to police, undertaken for the British Home Office in the early 2000s, out of 216 complaints that were classified as false, only 126 had even gotten to the stage where the accuser lodged a formal complaint. Only 39 complainants named a suspect. Only six cases led to an arrest, and only two led to charges being brought before they were ultimately deemed false.' Therefore, this is legally not a huge problem regarding false accusations, with men rarely being found guilty on such charges. However, your argument is about the social disdain for men like Salmond if they are falsely accused. If we had anonymity for defendants prior to being found guilty, as we both believe should occur, this would not be an issue. If women were obviously lying (eg evidence highlighting them lying blatantly), women should be put on trial for perjury, in the same way one may lie about a murder, for example. However, I do not think it is absurd to be biased towards the claimant based on the fact that so few sexual assaults are false. Of course we should give the defendant a fair trial, but I don't think the defendant should be criminalised unless they are obviously lying (because either the victim or the defendant must be). If we risk putting the victim on trial and forcing them to feel like a criminal, it is unlikely they'd wish to report the crimes, even if they weren't found guilty.

You may choose to resort to ad hominem attacks. However, this argument has proven that if we had anonymity for defendants, the legal and social consequences would not be as catastrophic as you claim, whilst also ensuring a fair trial that allows women to not fear social stigma and thus perpetuate the current underreporting of sexual assaults. Unfortunately, attacking "people like me" doesn't strengthen your veneered argument.
1
reply
Advertisement
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (42)
60%
No (28)
40%

Watched Threads

View All