ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th November 2017, 04:23 AM   #81
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,986
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The criminal justice system seems to have this crazy notion that there is limited value to chasing down a man who stole a loaf of bread years ago, but on the other hand someone guilty of murder should be locked up even if it is decades later. I cannot figure out whence these bizarre ideas have arisen. It's almost like the entire system went out to see Les Mis one night and came back with this idea that maybe some crimes didn't deserve a life on the run.
It's even worse than that, the system actually evaluates crimes on a case-by-case basis when it's time to decide guilt and punishment! For the same crimes!
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 04:28 AM   #82
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,874
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
You really seem to have grasped the whole concept of a statute of limitations.



And which is more likely, that key witnesses have died in the last 30+ years or in the last week?



Yes, absolutely. The criminal justice system seems to have this crazy notion that there is limited value to chasing down a man who stole a loaf of bread years ago, but on the other hand someone guilty of murder should be locked up even if it is decades later. I cannot figure out whence these bizarre ideas have arisen. It's almost like the entire system went out to see Les Mis one night and came back with this idea that maybe some crimes didn't deserve a life on the run.
Your analogy would work if you accept that your "stole a loaf of bread" equates to crimes such as rape and sexual abuse of children otherwise it fails.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 09:58 AM   #83
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,569
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Your analogy would work if you accept that your "stole a loaf of bread" equates to crimes such as rape and sexual abuse of children otherwise it fails.
I am not entirely sure which crimes have a statute of limitations and which don't. If you feel that rape and sexual abuse of children are ones that should not, I don't disagree with you. But in general I feel a statute of limitations is appropriate for all but the most heinous crimes.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 12:48 AM   #84
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,137
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
There's a "power plus" definition for rape, now?
Possibly, there is certainly an element of 'accusation = automatically guilty' creeping into the narrative, along with the kind of 'believe the victims' rhetoric that surfaced during the Satanic Panic in the 1990s, as this quotation from Lena Dunham indicates:

Quote:
As feminists, we live and die by our politics, and believing women is the first choice we make every single day when we wake up. Therefore I never thought I would issue a statement publically (sic) supporting someone accused of sexual assault, but I naively believed it was important to share my perspective on my friend's situation as it has transpired behind the scenes over the last few months. I now understand that it was absolutely the wrong time to come forward with such a statement and I am so sorry. We have been given the gift of powerful voices and by speaking out we were putting our thumb on the scale and it was wrong. We regret this decision with every fiber of our being.




Every woman who comes forward deserves to be heard, fully and completely, and our relationship to the accused should not be part of the calculation anyone makes when examining her case. Every person and every feminist should be required to hear her. Under patriarchy, "I believe you" is essential. Until we are all believed, none of us will be believed. We apologize to any women who have been disappointed.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/entertainm...id=mailsignout
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 01:44 AM   #85
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,622
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
And that's the worst part of it. Lives can be utterly and completely ruined even if the allegations are demonstrated conclusively and comprehensively to be false. Jobs can be lost, friends and family can be lost, and so on. We've seen it happen to celebrities, I've seen it happen to members of my own family.
Let me tell you an absolutely true story (no names or places, and this was in the late 1980s, so no DNA)

A colleague of mine (I'll call him Mike) with whom I was in the RNZAF was accused of abducting and sexually assaulting a teenage schoolgirl while he was on leave in his home town. Mike strenuously denied the allegations, but as his description matched that of the attacker, the victim picked him from a line-up, and his car was also similar to the victim's description he was arrested and charged. Mike was allowed bail under restrictions but was not allowed to leave the area to go back to work so the RNZAF put him on Administrative Leave on full pay. Things got really difficult for him - lifelong friends stopped talking to him, his wife was harassed at work and eventually had to leave her employment. His kids had a really difficult time at school, harassed and spat at by other kids. His house was paint-bombed and had graffiti sprayed on it, His letter box was smashed a couple of times.

A couple of days before he was due to appear in court, another teenage schoolgirl was abducted and assaulted in the town, but this time Mike had a cast-iron alibi, he was in the Police Station reporting to the Police as required by the conditions of his bail. Long story short, the description of the car and the man was the same, and when they put the second man in a line up both the first and second victims picked him out. Confronted with the two witnesses, the man confessed to both assaults (and another unsolved assault in a nearby town)

To this day, very few people came back to Mike and apologised for their behaviour (one of the them was the girl who misidentified him. She was very upset about the mistake she made). However, there are people in that town who won't talk to him, some even who still think he did it.

All it takes is one false allegation to turn your life upside down.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 19th November 2017 at 02:20 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 08:54 AM   #86
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
Possibly, there is certainly an element of 'accusation = automatically guilty' creeping into the narrative, along with the kind of 'believe the victims' rhetoric that surfaced during the Satanic Panic in the 1990s, as this quotation from Lena Dunham indicates:



https://www.msn.com/en-au/entertainm...id=mailsignout

What did I just read there ?

Was that Lena Dunham expressing regret for defending someone she believed to be innocent because the timing was off. That she wishes she'd kept her mouth shut because her tribalism is more important than any actual, real justice ?
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 08:56 AM   #87
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,229
It's Lena Dunham, so probably yes.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 09:32 AM   #88
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,204
My god, that's greasy

/Bubbles
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 12:24 PM   #89
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,908
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
What did I just read there ?

Was that Lena Dunham expressing regret for defending someone she believed to be innocent because the timing was off. That she wishes she'd kept her mouth shut because her tribalism is more important than any actual, real justice ?

That's certainly what I took from her comments, and it showcases the profound weakness in the "always believe" rhetoric. It is too easy to throw innocent people under the bus in the name of ideology, and this is a profound example of that fact. It's no different from the "always believe the children" rhetoric of the Satanic Panic of the '80s, which resulted in so many innocent people ending up jailed or otherwise having their lives ruined based on evidence that ranged from sketchy, to non-existent, to outright fantastical.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 19th November 2017 at 12:25 PM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 01:43 PM   #90
deadrose
Master Poster
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 2,598
And many women are now throwing Lena Durham under the bus for daring to suggest that "always believe" might not always be right.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 03:02 PM   #91
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,024
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
And many women are now throwing Lena Durham under the bus for daring to suggest that "always believe" might not always be right.
And perhaps also for believing that a five-year working relationship is enough to be certain someone isn't a sexual predator.

It's not.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 03:52 PM   #92
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,132
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
And perhaps also for believing that a five-year working relationship is enough to be certain someone isn't a sexual predator.

It's not.
Well hey, a lot of people are certain George Takei could never have done what he was accused of because they liked some movies that he was in and have generally agreed with his tweets.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 04:09 PM   #93
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,024
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Well hey, a lot of people are certain George Takei could never have done what he was accused of because they liked some movies that he was in and have generally agreed with his tweets.
Then they're fools, too.

The big problem with Dunham in this case, though, is that she was preaching to believe accusers no matter what...right up until someone she likes was accused, at which point she couldn't defend her buddy fast enough. That kind of behavior is understandable from an accused person's close relatives, but not from coworkers. It's particularly objectionable coming from an employer who could potentially be sued in a situation where one employee has accused another of sexual harassment/assault.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 06:34 PM   #94
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,307
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Then they're fools, too.

The big problem with Dunham in this case, though, is that she was preaching to believe accusers no matter what...right up until someone she likes was accused, at which point she couldn't defend her buddy fast enough. That kind of behavior is understandable from an accused person's close relatives, but not from coworkers. It's particularly objectionable coming from an employer who could potentially be sued in a situation where one employee has accused another of sexual harassment/assault.
Sjw hardine morals, except when it would mean ire toward someone you like. Then the "except" starts getting thrown about.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 07:14 PM   #95
TheGoldcountry
Illuminator
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,766
One good reason for statute of limitation is that a prosecutor and/or LEO can persecute someone for years.

Statutes of limitations requires the court system to either pursue an indictment and conviction, or leave someone alone.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 07:59 PM   #96
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
What did I just read there ?

Was that Lena Dunham expressing regret for defending someone she believed to be innocent because the timing was off. That she wishes she'd kept her mouth shut because her tribalism is more important than any actual, real justice ?
I would have thought that Lena Dunham would be a pretty good judge of whether someone is a sex predator, considering what she did to her sister.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 08:00 PM   #97
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,024
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Sjw hardine morals, except when it would mean ire toward someone you like. Then the "except" starts getting thrown about.
In the absence of other evidence, I'd believe any friend I have if they told me they were accused of sexual assault and they denied it. They wouldn't be my friends if I had reason to think they were likely to be rapists. However, I wouldn't go looking to paint their accuser as a liar because, at the end of the day, the only person I know that well and trust that much is myself.

It's the same for George Takei. I've enjoyed and respected him over the years, so I would hope that he's never sexually assaulted anyone. But I'd never defend him because I only know the bits of him he's presented to the public, and that represents only a tiny amount of his life. And if there were a bunch of people coming forward with accusations against him? I'd begin to assume his guilt...mainly because I have yet to see the advantages accruing to rape accusers that some people always speculate about. They just don't seem to be getting rich and famous that way.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 08:26 PM   #98
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
I would have thought that Lena Dunham would be a pretty good judge of whether someone is a sex predator, considering what she did to her sister.
Ummm

Yea

I didn't know who she was, save one of those actors who was going to move to Canada if Trump won so I did a little reading...

Rich white girl playing at being oppressed and trolling the world.

NEXT !
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 09:57 PM   #99
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,503
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Then they're fools, too.

The big problem with Dunham in this case, though, is that she was preaching to believe accusers no matter what...right up until someone she likes was accused, at which point she couldn't defend her buddy fast enough. That kind of behavior is understandable from an accused person's close relatives, but not from coworkers. It's particularly objectionable coming from an employer who could potentially be sued in a situation where one employee has accused another of sexual harassment/assault.
Well, she said that she had some "inside knowledge" of the situation, so maybe she knew about some actual exculpatory evidence. We'll see what the investigation reveals.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 10:30 PM   #100
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,024
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Well, she said that she had some "inside knowledge" of the situation, so maybe she knew about some actual exculpatory evidence. We'll see what the investigation reveals.
She's also already walked back her defense, so maybe she was just talking out her ass.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 03:42 AM   #101
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,137
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Ummm

Yea

I didn't know who she was, save one of those actors who was going to move to Canada if Trump won so I did a little reading...

Rich white girl playing at being oppressed and trolling the world.

NEXT !
Indeed if this article is to be believed...

Quote:
Writer Zinzi Clemmons, author of What We Lose, has announced that she will no longer be writing for Lena Dunham and Jenni Konner’s online feminist weekly newsletter Lenny Letter because, she says, of Dunham and her friends’ racism which was “well-known” prior to their fame. “She cannot have our words if she cannot respect us,” she writes.
https://jezebel.com/zinzi-clemmons-i...est-1820587768

But what happened does not surprise me, when the first allegations came out I remember seeing an online article in which a feminist was asked if they were afraid it would turn into a witch-hunt (As did the 'Satanic Panic' allegations in the 80s & 90s) the response was along the lines (I cannot relocate the article, so this is from memory, not a direct quote.) of 'It already is, we are witches and we are hunting.'
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.