h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I take it that unlike scientists you're an expert on the laws of known science then, Justin.

I must not feed the troll.
I must not feed the troll.
I must not...


Noggin

The topic is drifting, and since the troll has had my perfectly reasonable reply to him hidden, I shall ignore him for now.

Northern Boy:

"If you think that a rape victim should be subjected to question by the man accused of her crime, given the already traumatic nature of the crime"

...I think you mean alledged crime...

"then i feel you may need to seriously reconsider this. Given the nature of the alledged crime i feel this to be a highly sensible approach."

The problem here is one you tacitly acknowledge by your careful use of the word "accused" and "alledged".

Consider: we have a principle in law called "innocent until PROVEN guilty". There is also a principle that if someone accuses you of a crime, you have a right to question them about their accusation.

To my mind, that right is, or should be, absolute. It should not depend on what crime some woman may choose to accuse me of. The crime of rape is already one in which there is a great deal of scope for abuse by malicious fantasists, and this scope is widened when such fantasists know that even when a judge finds them to be evil liars, their anonymity is STILL guaranteed, unlike their victim.

There's a saying - "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". There's also another - "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Women who do not wish to face up to their responsibilities have an alternative course - not to press charges.

EVERYONE, male or female, should be of equal standing before the law, and that includes having the right to face their accuser and know the evidence against them, and challenge it, personally, in a court of law. It is the removal of this right in Guantanamo Bay that so many around the world are decrying, and yet it is tolerated in our own land - so long as it benefits women.

Re: pensions - it may be "under review". It is definitely still the case, and has been for decades.

"Two different points surely the women is the victim not the accused"

The woman is the ALLEGED victim, unless and until the accused is found guilty. Until a trial is complete, all you've got is a woman with a story, and an innocent man.

As far as healthcare spending vs. deaths is concerned, I don't have the figures. I'm tempted to go get them, but it's off topic for the thread, so I'll leave it unless you really really want me to.

So Member would you advocate that in a criminal trial of say... someone accused of abusing and raping several children. A trial in which the prosecution case was based in no small part on the testimony of the allegidly abused children. The the person accused of raping and abusing the children should be allowed to question them about the act?

Member

<Consider: we have a principle in law called "innocent until PROVEN guilty". There is also a principle that if someone accuses you of a crime, you have a right to question them about their accusation.


A fair point and an unfortunate ommission on my point.




I concede that their may be some rare occasions when the story is a fantasy however even if on only case in a thousand were to be genuine then i feel that exposing women to the trauma of cross examination by their attacker (and as i am talking about a valid case here i feel comfortably to use that term) is untenable. I accept that the current system is not ideal but i think it is far preferable to what you seem ot be suggesting.

In terms of rape cases and men and women having the same standing under the law in the case of a women raping a man they positions would be surely reversed (i can't state for definite as this is a somewhat unlikely occurence)surely what we are talking aobut ids the differing rights of accused and accuser not men and women.

As for the pension matter, after a little research (not much as i work in financial services) The government has passed legislation to equalise the state pension age for both men and women at 65 by 2020 (okay a bit far off but the action has been taken)

Anyway as this thread appears to be veering dramatically of topic i will say only this, the above are of course my opinions and what you have stated are yours. We are both entitled to hold our own opinions on any matter but if you wish to debate this further feel free to leave a message on my personal space.

Member you are being a t**t now and whats worse is I think you fully know you are.

one love

I believe someone suggested there was no need to teach atheism to children. I have to agree with this - it is akin to teaching children not to steal cars or not to take drugs. These are negative messages which don't really work.

Instead we should be teaching children about the inherent dangers of religion. We should warn them about the seductive promises of eternal life and of the imaginary parent figure. We should explain that falling for these false promises will cost them time, money and self-esteem. That they will entrust large, important parts of their lives to people with no democratically elected authority, no proper supervision or monitoring and very often no recognised qualifications.

Of course society tolerates religion and many people seem to derive some comfort from it - in the same way others do from cigarettes, alcohol or cocaine. These users of religion need to be warned that, while talking to God is a relatively harmless fantasy, when God talks to you it's probably paranoid schizophrenia.

F

Ferretbadger:

Thank you. I was going to make the point about the law treating women as though they were irresponsible infants, and the women - far from being insulted - lapping it up as long as it suited them. But you've made the point for me.

I never mentioned child abuse. It is, I would have thought, self-evident, that where a witness (victim or not) in a criminal case is a child, different rules should apply regarding how and by whom they are questioned. No responsible adult should think otherwise, surely?

But that wasn't what I was talking about, was it? And you know that. *I* was talking about accusations made by ADULTS - those old enough to know what it is they're accusing someone of, old enough to know the effect it will have on the accused, and old enough to know the effect it will have on them.

Now, if YOU want to put all so-called adult women on the level of non-legally responsible children - be my guest. But please don't accuse ME of misogyny while you do it. Thank you.

NB:

"I concede that their may be some rare occasions when the story is a fantasy"

You'd be surprised, I think.

http://www.jokesgonewild.com/product_info.php/products_id/129
http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/kanin.html

41% are false, or 60% plus are false. Neither of these are small numbers. Small sample sizes, admittedly, but there are persuasive reasons to believe they are reasonably representative.

"however even if on only case in a thousand were to be genuine then i feel that exposing women to the trauma of cross examination by their attacker (and as i am talking about a valid case here i feel comfortably to use that term) is untenable."

You'd happily deny the rights of a thousand innocent men in favour of the sensibilities of a single woman? Wow. Glad you're not running the country...

"I accept that the current system is not ideal but i think it is far preferable to what you seem ot be suggesting."

All I'm suggesting is that everyone is treated equally under the law. If you disagree with that, I have to wonder why, and where you draw the line. Would you extend special protection to Jews? Gypsies? Homosexuals? Landed gentry? Left-handed people? Spectacle wearers?

"In terms of rape cases and men and women having the same standing under the law"

They do not.

"in the case of a women raping a man they positions would be surely reversed (i can't state for definite as this is a somewhat unlikely occurence)"

It's not merely unlikely. As far as I'm aware it's a legal impossibility. Similarly, it is impossible for a woman to be charge with "indecent exposure", as the law does not recognise the unclothed female form as "indecent".

"surely what we are talking aobut ids the differing rights of accused and accuser not men and women."

If only that were true...

"legislation to equalise the state pension age for both men and women at 65 by 2020 (okay a bit far off but the action has been taken)"

So the question is - why 2020? Why not now, or ten or twenty or fifty years ago? We've another sixteen years of inequality to go through. You can bet anything you like that if the positions were reversed, women wouldn't have to wait 16 years for their pension rights. Chances are they wouldn't have to wait sixteen MONTHS - or all the legislators in the country would be sleeping on the couch doing the five finger shuffle until the little woman got her way. You know what they say - behind every powerful man, there's a beautiful woman, and behind her there's his wife...

for Fathom!

For those who can't follow the link, here's one of the concluding statements from the latter, a precis of a paper by Dr. Eugene Kanin of Purdue University Indiana.

"those who question the need for thorough cross-examination of alleged rape victims should consider the fact that statistically, this study suggest that there is about a 50% chance they're lying"

Might there be a difference between a 'thorough' cross-examination of the accuser (whether male or female) by a lawyer and a 'thorough' cross-examination by the defendant if he chooses to defend himself? It seems clear that justice requires the former (subject to certain safeguards), but I'm not so sure about the latter.

Member



Yes these are very small sample sizes and i personally do not see how they can be representative of the overall situation.



No as has been stated the men concerned will have the accuser cross examined by a laywer which will reach the truth of the matter far better (in my opinion) than the accused cross examining and cause far less trauma to the alledged victim than having to face questioning by their alledged attacker.

I agree that 2020 is a very long time scale however it is clear that the matter has at least been addressed.

Again this is all my opinion and nothing more.

Ferrettbadger!!!

See what you did? I knew asking Member that question was a mistake!



Member,

You appear to have hijacked the thread. Can we have it back please?

az

Az

Sorry i think i've helped the hi-jacking along by responding

Sorry about that now where were we.

Well, I quite liked Fathom's posting 166 - perhaps someone could take it from there? I have to get back to work now but will be back later!

az

You'd happily deny the rights of a thousand innocent men in favour of the sensibilities of a single woman?

Member Ive read some hateful tripe in the past, but this is down there with the worst. Reducing the mental state of real victims to the word "sensibilities" is like saying "Terry Waites liberties were briefly abridged".

If you have any idea of the mental stress that women go through during and after a rape, (and despite your stats they actuall happen far more than we can really know from crime stats) as I would expect someone who normally displays a decent standard of understnding, to have. Then I can only assume you are deliberatley being a cold hearted mysonginist on this subject. As such if you continue to post in this vane I will regard you as a troll in regard to this subject.

one love

blicky,

Please read the subject line.

Aren't you two continuing this discussion elsewhere anyhow?

az

Still here to talk about atheism/humanism in schools. Taking the rights/responsibilities debate elsewhere.

Member I only meant to point out that there are examples where people cannot always be equal in the eyes of the law. My example was just to illustrate that there are always going to be examples of where rules cannot be universally applied.

OK. Fine. Treat women as though they're children, great. Until it comes time to divvy up at the divorce, then suddenly they want to be grownups again...

And breathe, everyone...

I meant to post this earlier, and sorry to continue to drift.

I think that whilst justice and equality before the law are things to be fought for, the law is also there to protect the vunerable, of all ages and genders. The law should protect children from abuse, protect men and women from each other as the occasion demands.

Also worth remembering that the 'rights' and 'laws' which we are debating here are part of an ongoing process of development stretching back to ancient Greece. They weren't bang on then and they're not now. They are constantly being re-interpreted and revised. Above all they are human inventions, not semi-divine instructions, and should be recognised as being as flawed as the people that created them. People used to passionately argue that women were biologically unfit to hold judical office. Nobody argues that anymore. In 20 years it may be that the concept of a jury trial passes into history. It isn't a perfect system yet, and probably won't be. So let's chill.

Peace