The Mens Rights /Issues "debate"?

[lewisnotmiller]

I would prefer the right to privacy be extended into law enforcement. It would be ridiculously difficult for high-profile people simply because of their existing media presence. But when somebody is charged with rape, murder, arson, etc., media will protect the identity of minors but not legal adults.

I have a half-arsed hypothesis in mind that runs something like this... (so, half-arsed is okay, but spelt with no r and an extra s the auto-censor kicks in. I guess we know old Mr auto-censor is an American, then.)
If I am charged with arson, but the case against me is thrown out, there will be less stigma attached to me than if I am charged with rape and the case is thrown out.

Partially, this would be due to rape being a more heinous crime. So, the stigma increases where a crime is more despicable, regardless of the normal presumption of innocence.

However I am thinking that the low conviction rates associated with rape play a part here as well. If I am charged with rape, but the case is thrown out, there is a higher than normal chance of people figuring 'where there's smoke there's fire' precisely BECAUSE of the low conviction rates. Everyone knows a lot of rapists get away with it.

I see the struggle to convict rapists as harming both victims of rape, and victims of rape accusation who did not actually commit the crime.

Sadly, whilst anonymity is a sensible step (in my opinion) to protect the latter, it does two fifths of bugger all to protect the former (as my dad would say).

Anyways, that was a tangent. And I did admit, it's a half-arsed semi-coherent thought at the moment. But anyways...
I think anonymity of accused, in so much as that is possible, should occur in all cases. Innocent until proven guilty is a key tenet of our justice system, and whilst that remains, I think anonymity of the accused aligns better with the general philosophy.

PS. Just in case that clouded anything, 'victims' of rape accusation who did the crime but are not convicted can...I dunno. I want to go with 'burn in hell', so perhaps religious studies when I was a kid had some impact after all. Suffice to say I wouldn't **** on them if they were on fire, unless I magically grew the ability to **** kerosene.

 

[Alceste]

Hmm..I wonder.
But for the sake of argument, would you go along with anonymity for everybody until conviction for every crime?

Yes, I think I would. Tough to say. Quite a lot of guilty people seem to get acquitted though. For example, police officers almost never get convicted, even when they have beaten someone to death. Personally I would want to know if the officer who has pulled me over has ever beaten someone to death, regardless of whether it resulted in a conviction. Or if someone like Dominic Strauss-Kahn came to stay at my bed and breakfast - I'd want to have my husband do the housekeeping, just to be on the safe side. Much of the time the facts are not disputed, but the prosecution simply fails to build a case beyond "reasonable doubt", or the case is thrown out on a technicality.

When it comes to rape, it hardly ever even goes to court, and the conviction rate is incredibly low. Sometimes the only consolation a victim has for being put in the spotlight, grilled and scrutinized by the public, repeating a traumatic story, is that at least the story is public, even though the rapist was not convicted, so there is a hope that others will be cautious in dealing with the attacker.

Keep in mind that in a world where we only knew the names of people who are found guilty of a crime, nobody would know who chopped off John Wayne Bobbitt's penis. Wouldn't you want to know that if you were thinking of dating Lorena?

On the other hand, I do believe in the general concept of innocent until proven guilty. I still think it's in the public interest to know there has been an accusation.

There are no more false rape accusations that for any other crime, so it makes no sense to single that out for special treatment. Since prosecutors almost never file charges stemming from rape accusations because it is so difficult to prove, there's a very high probability of any accusation that ends up in a trial being honest.

I guess I would need to see the evidence that false rape accusations "ruin lives" any more than any other kind of false accusations.

 

[Alceste]

I have a half-arsed hypothesis in mind that runs something like this... (so, half-arsed is okay, but spelt with no r and an extra s the auto-censor kicks in. I guess we know old Mr auto-censor is an American, then.)
If I am charged with arson, but the case against me is thrown out, there will be less stigma attached to me than if I am charged with rape and the case is thrown out.

Partially, this would be due to rape being a more heinous crime. So, the stigma increases where a crime is more despicable, regardless of the normal presumption of innocence.

However I am thinking that the low conviction rates associated with rape play a part here as well. If I am charged with rape, but the case is thrown out, there is a higher than normal chance of people figuring 'where there's smoke there's fire' precisely BECAUSE of the low conviction rates. Everyone knows a lot of rapists get away with it.

I see the struggle to convict rapists as harming both victims of rape, and victims of rape accusation who did not actually commit the crime.

Sadly, whilst anonymity is a sensible step (in my opinion) to protect the latter, it does two fifths of bugger all to protect the former (as my dad would say).

Anyways, that was a tangent. And I did admit, it's a half-arsed semi-coherent thought at the moment. But anyways...
I think anonymity of accused, in so much as that is possible, should occur in all cases. Innocent until proven guilty is a key tenet of our justice system, and whilst that remains, I think anonymity of the accused aligns better with the general philosophy.

PS. Just in case that clouded anything, 'victims' of rape accusation who did the crime but are not convicted can...I dunno. I want to go with 'burn in hell', so perhaps religious studies when I was a kid had some impact after all. Suffice to say I wouldn't **** on them if they were on fire, unless I magically grew the ability to **** kerosene.

What guilty people who were not convicted are going to do is keep on doing whatever it is they were not convicted of, with nobody being the wiser.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, I think I would. Tough to say. Quite a lot of guilty people seem to get acquitted though. For example, police officers almost never get convicted, even when they have beaten someone to death. Personally I would want to know if the officer who has pulled me over has ever beaten someone to death, regardless of whether it resulted in a conviction. Or if someone like Dominic Strauss-Kahn came to stay at my bed and breakfast - I'd want to have my husband do the housekeeping, just to be on the safe side. Much of the time the facts are not disputed, but the prosecution simply fails to build a case beyond "reasonable doubt", or the case is thrown out on a technicality.

No doubt.

When it comes to rape, it hardly ever even goes to court, and the conviction rate is incredibly low. Sometimes the only consolation a victim has for being put in the spotlight, grilled and scrutinized by the public, repeating a traumatic story, is that at least the story is public, even though the rapist was not convicted, so there is a hope that others will be cautious in dealing with the attacker.

Rape conviction rates are horribly low. Honest question, does the victim get any consolation from a day in court where the attacker walks? I haven't got enough experience in the area to have any idea. My assumption would be no. Zero.

Keep in mind that in a world where we only knew the names of people who are found guilty of a crime, nobody would know who chopped off John Wayne Bobbitt's penis. Wouldn't you want to know that if you were thinking of dating Lorena?

Yep. I would. That doesn't mean it's in the greater interest, though. Just my interest, and the interest of my most treasured body part.

On the other hand, I do believe in the general concept of innocent until proven guilty. I still think it's in the public interest to know there has been an accusation.

That sounds like a bet each way. The basic premise of innocent until proven guilty is that the accused is innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty.
What you seem to be suggesting is that there's a middle ground, where we let people know about accusations, and they can be wary of the accused. That's not innocent until proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong, if you're arguing for a fundamental change to the manner in which the courts work, I'm listening. Plenty of flaws in the current model. But the only way to truly protect the right of the accused to be judged innocent until proven guilty is to protect their identity, I think.

There are no more false rape accusations that for any other crime, so it makes no sense to single that out for special treatment. Since prosecutors almost never file charges stemming from rape accusations because it is so difficult to prove, there's a very high probability of any accusation that ends up in a trial being honest.

I didn't argue for it to be treated differently. I was arguing for the accused to be unidentified in all cases. It is treated differently, though, at least in Australia. You can end up on a sex offenders register, but not a murderers register.
As for most accused rapists who get to trial being guilty...well, it gets back to my last point. If there's a presumption of innocence, it can't work like that. Or what we're really talking about is changing the system. If so, let's have that conversation.

Figures I've seen indicate that about 2/3 of accused rapists who go to trial are acquitted. Should we assume they're all guilty? Would you make the same assumption with murderers?

I guess I would need to see the evidence that false rape accusations "ruin lives" any more than any other kind of false accusations.

Meh...I don't even know if such evidence exists. Like I said, I'm not arguing for treating these cases differently.
For myself, I'd rather be accused of murder. It's a justifiable crime. There can be circumstances where I could envisage myself killing someone. Self-defence, or defence of a loved one (and yeah, I know that's not murder), or flat out revenge in extreme cases.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What guilty people who were not convicted are going to do is keep on doing whatever it is they were not convicted of, with nobody being the wiser.

Mostly, yup.

 

[DallasApple]

But wait, there's more!

Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men. Feminists fought against this arguing that no woman should be sent to jail.

I'm trying to weed through some of these.This article said nothing whatsoever about feminist fighting AGAINST an end to a justice system favouring women giving men harsher sentences.Let alone that NO WOMAN should be sent to jail.

Its specifically a group called Women's Justice Task force it looks like in England working towards keeping LOW level offenders mainly addicts out of jail and into rehabilitation instead.Nothing in the link said a word about fighting AGAINST equal justice for men .

Not only that I have been hearing quite a bit lately about movements here as well on prison reform.For men AND women. Specifically not locking people up in prison for the "crime" of being a drug addict.Keeping them OUT of prison /putting them in rehab programs.There is research going on now. Pilot programs so to speak and the results are very promising.Including the reoffending rate is significantly lower than just throwing them in jail and releasing them.

Anyway that seems to be what that's about but its a group focussing on women's prisons specifically proposing this to their already set up prison reform task force .

 

[Revoltingest]

This article said nothing whatsoever about feminist fighting AGAINST an end to a justice system favouring women giving men harsher sentences.Let alone that NO WOMAN should be sent to jail.

An issue I see is disparate prosecution, sentencing, & punishment.
Certainly, justice & jail have issues which affect men, women & children somewhat separately, & some of which affect them all similarly.

 

[Alceste]

No doubt.



Rape conviction rates are horribly low. Honest question, does the victim get any consolation from a day in court where the attacker walks? I haven't got enough experience in the area to have any idea. My assumption would be no. Zero.



Yep. I would. That doesn't mean it's in the greater interest, though. Just my interest, and the interest of my most treasured body part.



That sounds like a bet each way. The basic premise of innocent until proven guilty is that the accused is innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty.
What you seem to be suggesting is that there's a middle ground, where we let people know about accusations, and they can be wary of the accused. That's not innocent until proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong, if you're arguing for a fundamental change to the manner in which the courts work, I'm listening. Plenty of flaws in the current model. But the only way to truly protect the right of the accused to be judged innocent until proven guilty is to protect their identity, I think.



I didn't argue for it to be treated differently. I was arguing for the accused to be unidentified in all cases. It is treated differently, though, at least in Australia. You can end up on a sex offenders register, but not a murderers register.
As for most accused rapists who get to trial being guilty...well, it gets back to my last point. If there's a presumption of innocence, it can't work like that. Or what we're really talking about is changing the system. If so, let's have that conversation.

Figures I've seen indicate that about 2/3 of accused rapists who go to trial are acquitted. Should we assume they're all guilty? Would you make the same assumption with murderers?



Meh...I don't even know if such evidence exists. Like I said, I'm not arguing for treating these cases differently.
For myself, I'd rather be accused of murder. It's a justifiable crime. There can be circumstances where I could envisage myself killing someone. Self-defence, or defence of a loved one (and yeah, I know that's not murder), or flat out revenge in extreme cases.

As I said, the cases I'm most concerned about are those where the facts are not in dispute but the accused is still acquitted. So a person can be legally not guilty but still have done exactly what they are accused of.

But as I say, I can see the reasons to oppose anonymity until conviction across the board, but I could potentially still support it depending on how it was enforced. For example, would a victim of assault be able to talk about it openly and warn others of specific dangers (regardless of police involvement) or would that be a violation of the attacker's right to anonymity until conviction?

If the anonymity requirement applies only to the courts and the media I have no problem with it. If it would be imposed on victims of violence I'd have a huge problem with it. Talking openly about a traumatic experience is fundamental to the healing process.

I think sex offender lists are appalling. Anyone dealing with vulnerable people here has to have a criminal record check done. I think that is protection enough.

 

[DallasApple]

Oh and for the record.I think its outrageous how many people we throw in jail and especially drug addicts .Or not even addicts just drug "users".

Don't quote me exactly but I heard we hold something like 25% of all people in the world in prison though we are only 10% of the world population.And the majority by far something like 80% are for non violent crimes.

I know here if I was caught with a joint in my pocket 3 separate times? I would go to prison.

 

[Alceste]

I'm trying to weed through some of these.This article said nothing whatsoever about feminist fighting AGAINST an end to a justice system favouring women giving men harsher sentences.Let alone that NO WOMAN should be sent to jail.

Its specifically a group called Women's Justice Task force it looks like in England working towards keeping LOW level offenders mainly addicts out of jail and into rehabilitation instead.Nothing in the link said a word about fighting AGAINST equal justice for men .

Not only that I have been hearing quite a bit lately about movements here as well on prison reform.For men AND women. Specifically not locking people up in prison for the "crime" of being a drug addict.Keeping them OUT of prison /putting them in rehab programs.There is research going on now. Pilot programs so to speak and the results are very promising.Including the reoffending rate is significantly lower than just throwing them in jail and releasing them.

Anyway that seems to be what that's about but its a group focussing on women's prisons specifically proposing this to their already set up prison reform task force .

That's what I gathered. The government in the UK is broke, basically. They're trying to cut costs all over the place. Letting people out of jail saves a tonne of money. They're reducing sentences for men as well, provided they plead out early.

Personally, I'm completely opposed to prison for any offense short of violence toward others, and in that case it's for public safety rather than punishment.

 

[Alceste]

Oh and for the record.I think its outrageous how many people we throw in jail and especially drug addicts .Or not even addicts just drug "users".

Don't quote me exactly but I heard we hold something like 25% of all people in the world in prison though we are only 10% of the world population.And the majority by far something like 80% are for non violent crimes.

I know here if I was caught with a joint in my pocket 3 separate times? I would go to prison.

That's crazy. Here I think it becomes a criminal offense when you grow more than five plants. Otherwise it's not worth their time. Otherwise they'd have to arrest half the population of BC. Lol.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's crazy. Here I think it becomes a criminal offense when you grow more than five plants. Otherwise it's not worth their time. Otherwise they'd have to arrest half the population of BC. Lol.

5 huh? I know a guy whose wife limited him to 1, as a means of him cutting back his habit. I have NEVER seen a bigger plant. If he was allowed 5, he could supply the whole eastern seaboard.

Heat lamps, it's own shipping crate, and aluminium foil. Amazing. Needed a damn hatchet to chop it down.

 

[DallasApple]

That's crazy. Here I think it becomes a criminal offense when you grow more than five plants. Otherwise it's not worth their time. Otherwise they'd have to arrest half the population of BC. Lol.

Our police are bored. If I had 5 pot plants growing in my back yard there would be 40 police surrounding my house with bullet proof vest and there guns drawn/police dogs and a police helicopter circling my house.

 

[DallasApple]

Otherwise they'd have to arrest half the population of BC. Lol.

I cant remember his name right now but an actor who just made a movie on this topic actually quoted that #.Like here 51% of the population has used some sort of illegal drug in their lifetime.

 

[Curious George]

I agree, I don't think the patriarchy route is as researched as the gender one. I definitely think that the anthropological research going on today regarding tribal hunter/gatherers is vital to understanding the origin of our own societies.

I haven't gone through all of you posts but I am quite happy you joined rf.

I am not sure what you mean when discussing feminism,.gender, and patriarchy. While I know many feminists do acknowledge evolutionary genetics in aspects of gender (one only need to look at collaborative work with the transgendered community to find evidence of such) the idea that socialization does not highly impact our concept of gender is certainly foreign to most if not all feminist ideology. But here we are not talking about whether a person is born with more nurturing characteristics, here we are talking about assumptions of what it means to be a man or what it means to be a woman. And, the fact that we place value on these gender qualities that are assumed inherent to sex(male/female) does subordinate women in many spheres. So, when you have a society which offers male advantage in many spheres a patriarchy is formed. I have found very few modern feminists who deny genetic factors involved in gender. In fact I have met very few feminists who will overlook scientific data or statistics which discuss differences between the sexes. However, statistically having more muscle.mass or more cross hemisphere communication hardly necessitates the sexism in our current.society.

Furthermore, a notion that the patriarchy evolved is a little misleading. Because we are not talking about a system which we cannot correct or adjust. we cannot change the fact that our children do not grow wings, we can change the perceptions of gender.

 

[Alceste]

Our police are bored. If I had 5 pot plants growing in my back yard there would be 40 police surrounding my house with bullet proof vest and there guns drawn/police dogs and a police helicopter circling my house.

Then you've got too many damn police, IMO.

 

[Alceste]

I cant remember his name right now but an actor who just made a movie on this topic actually quoted that #.Like here 51% of the population has used some sort of illegal drug in their lifetime.

Canada tokes at 4 times world average: UN - Health - CBC News

Canadians use marijuana at four times the world average, making Canada the leader of the industrialized world in cannabis consumption, a recent United Nations report found.

We're number one! :takeabow:

 

[DallasApple]

Then you've got too many damn police, IMO.

Our population is 250,000 with incredibly low viiolent crime rates.Some of the lowest in the country.So we need all those police to give us speeding tickets for going 5 miles over the speed limit..talking on your cell phone in a school zone and letting your cats outside without a leash.

 

[DallasApple]

We're number one!

:clap

 

[Alceste]

Our population is 250,000 with incredibly low viiolent crime rates.Some of the lowest in the country.So we need all those police to give us speeding tickets for going 5 miles over the speed limit..talking on your cell phone in a school zone and letting your cats outside without a leash.

Ours seem to hibernate during the day and only come out at night to prey on drunk drivers. That's pretty much OK with me. I don't want to be sharing the road with any drunk drivers. I don't really want to see them any other time unless I ask for them.

Funny story about one of the local islands around here - it's small and only accessible by foot ferry, but populated by off-grid anarchist hippie types. At one point, the RCMP shipped a police trailer over on a barge to set up shop for an officer to be stationed there. The islanders got together and shipped it back.