B Kavanough and MeToo

[Airbrush]

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 4:35 PM, MigL said:

"The fact that a woman, with dubious recollection ( self admitted ) of events that happened over 30 yrs ago, is to be believed beyond doubt, and could potentially ruin a man's life, unless he can prove himself innocent ( and even then, there will always be suspicions ), seems more than a little skewed.

Is this the kind of 'new justice'  system we  need/want ?

And I realize the problems with getting women to report abuse, but surely there has to be a better way than demonizing all men.
Men are human and a certain number of them will do vile things.
But women are only human too and a certain number of them will use this 'new justice' for their own vile ends.

Statistically false accusations of sexual assault from reputable victims are rare.

"...When a woman says she’s been brutally raped by seven men at a public party on a bed of broken glass, as the UVA accuser did, and when that woman has a history of strange lies, as the UVA accuser also did, there’s nothing wrong with being skeptical. But if a woman without any history of dramatic falsehoods says she went home with a man and, after they’d kissed a while consensually, he held her down and forced her into sex—in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, you can just assume it’s true. This is not because of any political dictum like “Believe women.” It’s because this story looks exactly like tens of thousands of date rapes that happen every year, and nothing at all like a false rape accusation."

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

Also, when a man is merely suspected of a serious crime he may be rightfully arrested, handcuffed, read his Miranda Rights, taken away in the back seat of a police car, and confined until facts emerge that exonerate him, either during questioning or during a trial, that is perfectly consistent with the dictum "innocent until proven guilty."

Brett Kavanaugh is simply suspected of a serious crime, but he is not on trial, he is merely being considered for an extraordinary, life-long job, supreme court justice.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Airbrush

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

 Also, when a man is merely suspected of a serious crime he may be rightfully arrested, handcuffed, read his Miranda Rights, taken away in the back seat of a police car, and confined until facts emerge that exonerate him, either during questioning or during a trial, that is perfectly consistent with the dictum "innocent until proven guilty."

Brett Kavanaugh is simply suspected of a serious crime, but he is not on trial, he is merely being considered for an extraordinary, life-long job, supreme court justice.

Part of the ongoing recent events involving former members of the Trump crew is that people are outraged about actions involving prominent white men, but the fact of the matter is that poorer people, often minorities, are treated the same or worse in their interactions with the law.

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Part of the ongoing recent events involving former members of the Trump crew is that people are outraged about actions involving prominent white men, but the fact of the matter is that poorer people, often minorities, are treated the same or worse in their interactions with the law.

Right when minorities are pepper sprayed, tased, shot and so on without being guilt of any crime the many argue they didn't follow commands well enough. When wealth white men are approached regarding legal issues the cases must be air tight and proved in advance or else they are being mistreated. Sometimes even after they are proved (Manafort comes to mind) people claim it is unfair.  

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right when minorities are pepper sprayed, tased, shot and so on without being guilt of any crime the many argue they didn't follow commands well enough. When wealth white men are approached regarding legal issues the cases must be air tight and proved in advance or else they are being mistreated. Sometimes even after they are proved (Manafort comes to mind) people claim it is unfair.  

Simple things like pre-trial detainment — people screamed how Manafort was being treated unfairly, but that's standard treatment for most people. And as for Kavanaugh, I'd wager that people have been told "no, thanks" at job interviews for far less egregious circumstances. If it even got to an interview stage, because I'd think at least some companies would do their due diligence and just never invite such a candidate in in the first place. (and it may be the GOP did their HW, and just wanted to confirm him quickly, before all the dirt came to light)

[MigL]

Getting back to the OP...

"Statistically false accusations of sexual assault from reputable victims are rare."

What about disreputable victims, Airbrush ?
( since you made a valid distinction )

One of the B Kavanough accusers comes to mind ( the third, I believe ), being represented by M Avenatti ( also representing Stormy Daniels the porn star ). One of the claims she makes is that she attended several parties, while she was a college sophomore thrown by B Kavanough and his 'high school' friends where girls were gang-raped. She has no recollection if it was the first party she attended or the tenth where she was raped. Now it is certainly conceivable that a college girl would attend a high school party, but it stretches credibility that she would go back to these parties on multiple occasions.

So, again, should ALL victims be believed ?
If the accusations are disproved in a court of law, should charges ( certainly more than a misdemeanor ) be brought against the accuser ?
( this would also have a detrimental effect on reporting )
Can there be any compromise between the rights of the accused, and encouraging the accusers ( victims ) to report ?

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Getting back to the OP...

"Statistically false accusations of sexual assault from reputable victims are rare."

What about disreputable victims, Airbrush ?
( since you made a valid distinction )

One of the B Kavanough accusers comes to mind ( the third, I believe ), being represented by M Avenatti ( also representing Stormy Daniels the porn star ). One of the claims she makes is that she attended several parties, while she was a college sophomore thrown by B Kavanough and his 'high school' friends where girls were gang-raped. She has no recollection if it was the first party she attended or the tenth where she was raped. Now it is certainly conceivable that a college girl would attend a high school party, but it stretches credibility that she would go back to these parties on multiple occasions.

 1 - So, again, should ALL victims be believed ?
 2 - If the accusations are disproved in a court of law, should charges ( certainly more than a misdemeanor ) be brought against the accuser ?
( this would also have a detrimental effect on reporting )
3 - Can there be any compromise between the rights of the accused, and encouraging the accusers ( victims ) to report ?

1 - The claims should be investigated. Unfortunately it is Kavanough's supporters who do not want the FBI to get involved. 

2 - Perjury is already against the law. Ford has sent 4 sworn affidavits to the Senate.  If the FBI were to get involved and Ford or those who provided sworn affidavits were found to be lying they could face criminal charges.

3 - As mentioned in #2 Ford could be charged with a crime and as mentioned in #1 the FBI could investigate this. That seems like a perfectly fair situation to me. 

 

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

What about disreputable victims, Airbrush ?
( since you made a valid distinction )

The statistics are over all accusers, at least I am not aware of any study using reputation as a criterion. 

 

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Now it is certainly conceivable that a college girl would attend a high school party, but it stretches credibility that she would go back to these parties on multiple occasions.

According to the affidavit I cannot find anything that would indicate her attending those parties after her alleged rape. 

 

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

If the accusations are disproved in a court of law, should charges ( certainly more than a misdemeanor ) be brought against the accuser ?
( this would also have a detrimental effect on reporting )

That would a second aspect. However false accusations (which are not the same as non-proven ones, btw.). From what I understand those charges would typically include false reporting and interfering with police work (or something to that extent). However, in this case it is important to note that there is a sworn affidavit. This would add perjury and possible obstruction of justice. 

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Can there be any compromise between the rights of the accused, and encouraging the accusers ( victims ) to report ?

Well, as the current laws are, there are huge barriers for reporting, including the fact that at point of reporting certain demographics (especially young women or women with lower social standing) are often pressured or simply not believed by law enforcement. As mentioned earlier, even among those that decide to report, there is a huge attrition rate. Coupled with extremely low likelihood to actual achieve conviction, as well as attached social stigma, many consider it their best option not to pursue the case. And this is pretty much where the current "compromise" is and why often women only come forward when they realize that others were victims to the same perpetrator. 

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

According to the affidavit I cannot find anything that would indicate her attending those parties after her alleged rape. 

I think he's referring to Sweetnick

Quote

Swetnick said she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and others to get girls drunk at parties so they could be raped. She said Kavanaugh was present at a 1982 party where she was raped.  

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-court-kavanaugh/trumps-supreme-court-nominee-accuser-face-scrutiny-at-senate-hearing-idUKKCN1M70CV

 

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think he's referring to Sweetnick

Me too (well, Swetnick). I glimpsed through her affidavit and she mentioned that 81-82 she became aware of Kavanaugh's and Judge's efforts to get girls drunk. She alleged her rape happened in 82. That being said, I looked through it once more and noticed that in an earlier line she noted that she attended house parties up to 83. The affidavit is a bit vague on overall timelines though. It should be noted that Swetnick's accusations are on quite a different level than the other ones. 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Me too (well, Swetnick). I glimpsed through her affidavit and she mentioned that 81-82 she became aware of Kavanaugh's and Judge's efforts to get girls drunk. She alleged her rape happened in 82. That being said, I looked through it once more and noticed that in an earlier line she noted that she attended house parties up to 83. The affidavit is a bit vague on overall timelines though. It should be noted that Swetnick's accusations are on quite a different level than the other ones. 

She gets "raped" and was still attending parties in the same social scene?  Whatever the case may be, every position, regardless of the prevailing fashionable sentiments for the MeToo movement, must be viewed dispassionately... just as they would be in a court of law. This is not a court case but the bar should be set the same in this case. 

[CharonY]

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

She gets "raped" and was still attending parties in the same social scene?

Well as I said, the timeline are fuzzy enough not to be certain whether she attended the same parties post-rape. One statement indicates that it may have been the case (where she indicates 83 as the latest date) in another line she indicated 82, which could coincide with her alleged rape. Unless there are additional statements I am not clear whether she continued to attend or not. This could be part of further inquiry.

I would agree that the timeline itself is not very clear and her overall statement seems to be less solid than Blasey Ford's statement. On the other hand, she was willing to submit an affidavit of her account. 

Edit: While it may not apply in this case,  it should also be noted that there are reasons why rape victims at least initially downplay rape accounts and there are cases where there is continued social contact with perpetrators. This is more likely in non-violent cases, especially involving drugs or alcohol. Nowadays non-consensual sex while inebriated would be more likely considered rape, whereas a few decades ago it would not been seen as such or at least the victim would take a significant part of the blame (i.e. they should not have been drunk in the first place). Not saying that it is what is happening here, but especially in fraternities, party scenes and similar context acquitance rape is shockingly common and only fairly recently perceived as a real problem. Of course there are also potential issues with mistaken identities and so on. However, Kavanaugh managed to paint himself in the corner with regards to these allegations.

However, now that Kavanaugh also testified under oath, there is a decent chance that someone has conducted perjury. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by CharonY

[koti]

Injustice cooked by a deliberate woman with an obvious agenda leading an innocent guy into mayhem. It happens all the time, nothing new. The sad thing is that people buy into into this crap.

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

by a deliberate woman

Women. With obvious agendas reaching back at least six years. Rather masterful planning, I must say. 

6 minutes ago, koti said:

It happens all the time, nothing new. The sad thing is that people buy into into this crap.

Possibly because actual numbers indicate how rare these false accusations are. Perpetuating the myth that it is commonplace does not make it true.

[koti]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Women. With obvious agendas reaching back at least six years. Rather masterful planning, I must say. 

Possibly because actual numbers indicate how rare these false accusations are. Perpetuating the myth that it is commonplace does not make it true.

I’m curious after the encounter with you in the other thread where I refused to talk due to my personal baggage...about the actual numbers of men getting screwed in family courts all over the world, about child alienation and men suicide related to those and the advantage that women have. I’m pretty close to having a scientifically viable debate on these things.  

[iNow]

Koti- We all know that women lie, too. We all know that otherwise good men often get screwed. 

That doesn’t seem to be the case here, tho. Suggesting it is suggests in parallel that you’re not as familiar with the details of the situation. 

I trust you know many, but your comments suggest you don’t know all. 

[MigL]

To suggest that B Kavanough's supporters don't want a lengthy investigation because they fear the results is not quite accurate.
They realize there is a limited window of opportunity to get this nomination passed, and for those opposing his nomination, a stall is as good as a win.

A bigger factor is the fact that he's not a very likeable person, whereas C Blasey-Ford comes across as more sincere ( and vulnerable ? ).
I get the impression that even some members of this forum have him already convicted ( Evidence ? Who needs evidence ? ).

If the allegations are true, then obviously this is a good thing, and will keep him off the Supreme Court.
If they are false, and politically motivated, I feel a great sadness for the American Political system, and that it has descended to such depths.

Roll the dice !

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

To suggest that B Kavanough's supporters don't want a lengthy investigation because they fear the results is not quite accurate.
They realize there is a limited window of opportunity to get this nomination passed, and for those opposing his nomination, a stall is as good as a win.

A bigger factor is the fact that he's not a very likeable person, whereas C Blasey-Ford comes across as more sincere ( and vulnerable ? ).
I get the impression that even some members of this forum have him already convicted ( Evidence ? Who needs evidence ? ).

If the allegations are true, then obviously this is a good thing, and will keep him off the Supreme Court.
If they are false, and politically motivated, I feel a great sadness for the American Political system, and that it has descended to such depths.

Roll the dice !

 

 

Both Ford and Kavanaugh seemed credible. I don't know how Kavanaugh could have done better, and I don't know how Ford could have appeared more honest. She just lacked any corroborating evidence, and admitted to gaps in memory.

I suspect they will either delay, not for an FBI investigation but to subpoena Mark Judge (I would do this immediately, and if it held up proceed with the vote), or go through with the nomination tomorrow based on the lack of evidence. They are after all Lawyers and Politicians.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

Now it is certainly conceivable that a college girl would attend a high school party, but it stretches credibility that she would go back to these parties on multiple occasions.

And yet such parties (and similar ones, like at fraternities) are well-attended.

It's almost like people (especially high-school and college kids) will go places and do things to be popular or be with the popular crowd. It's almost like some people adopt an "It won't happen to me" attitude. Nah, that would strain credulity.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

 I get the impression that even some members of this forum have him already convicted ( Evidence ? Who needs evidence ? ).

This isn't a trial. It's a job interview. Not getting to 51 votes will not result in jail time for him.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

 If the allegations are true, then obviously this is a good thing, and will keep him off the Supreme Court.

If they are false, and politically motivated, I feel a great sadness for the American Political system, and that it has descended to such depths.

Funny how accusations of the allegations being politically motivated don't seem to require any evidence.

[Ten oz]

47 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

She gets "raped" and was still attending parties in the same social scene?  Whatever the case may be, every position, regardless of the prevailing fashionable sentiments for the MeToo movement, must be viewed dispassionately... just as they would be in a court of law. This is not a court case but the bar should be set the same in this case. 

Humans are not inherently logical or rational creatures. What you or I may assume someone would do in a given situation has no baring over what they do. It is not uncommon for a victim of rape to engage in riskier behavior afterward. Alcohol, drugs, become more promiscuous. It is also common for a victim to become more shy and isolated. There is not a one size fits all. So arguments about why a did X,Y, or Z in the weeks, months, and years following are not necessarily good arguments because we are talking about individuals who have been traumatized.  

Quote

 

Rape survivors often engage in risky sexual behaviors such as not using protection or having a greater number of sexual partners. In addition, in an attempt to cope with the intense unpleasant emotions that come from being raped, many people will develop substance use problems or other unhealthy behaviors (such as self-injury). They may go to great lengths to avoid situations that feel potentially dangerous, and may shy away from television shows, newspaper articles, or conversations that discuss sexual assault.

https://www.verywellmind.com/symptoms-of-ptsd-after-a-rape-2797203

 

 

Quote

 

Up to 38 percent of women engage in more sexually risky behaviors after experiencing a sexual assault than they did before the attack, while 48 percent significantly reduce their risky behavior, according to a new study in January's Health Psychology (Vol. 23, No. 1).

Sexually risky behavior can include sex with multiple partners, without contraception and while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, notes researcher Rebecca Campbell, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb04/rape.aspx

 

 

6 hours ago, MigL said:

To suggest that B Kavanough's supporters don't want a lengthy investigation because they fear the results is not quite accurate.
They realize there is a limited window of opportunity to get this nomination passed, and for those opposing his nomination, a stall is as good as a win.

Who suggested that? You asking about due process. Wouldn't due process include a formal legal investigation? You said this thread wasn't about Kavanough's fitness for the bench but rather was about due process. Can you name another way for this situation to receive fair due process for all parties without a legal investigation?

6 hours ago, MigL said:

A bigger factor is the fact that he's not a very likeable person, whereas C Blasey-Ford comes across as more sincere ( and vulnerable ? ).
I get the impression that even some members of this forum have him already convicted ( Evidence ? Who needs evidence ? ).

Isn't this just empty speculation. Plenty of people have Kavanough's back. Plenty of people like him. On the macro level those managing the Senate hearings have his back and the President himself is on TV defending the guy. Republicans, who make up a significant portion of the population, seem to like Kavanough plenty. On the micro level even here on this forum the only thread on the topic is this one (yours) and it errors on the sympathetic side for Kavanough. 

6 hours ago, MigL said:

If the allegations are true, then obviously this is a good thing, and will keep him off the Supreme Court.
If they are false, and politically motivated, I feel a great sadness for the American Political system, and that it has descended to such depths.

If they are false Ford can be charged with perjury. All the more reason to get that investigation rolling. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

47 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Humans are not inherently logical or rational creatures. What you or I may assume someone would do in a given situation has no baring over what they do. It is not uncommon for a victim of rape to engage in riskier behavior afterward. Alcohol, drugs, become more promiscuous. It is also common for a victim to become more shy and isolated. There is not a one size fits all. So arguments about why a did X,Y, or Z in the weeks, months, and years following are not necessarily good arguments because we are talking about individuals who have been traumatized.  

 

 

Who suggested that? You asking about due process. Wouldn't due process include a formal legal investigation? You said this thread wasn't about Kavanough's fitness for the bench but rather was about due process. Can you name another way for this situation to receive fair due process for all parties without a legal investigation?

Isn't this just empty speculation. Plenty of people have Kavanough's back. Plenty of people like him. On the macro level those managing the Senate hearings have his back and the President himself is on TV defending the guy. Republicans, who make up a significant portion of the population, seem to like Kavanough plenty. On the micro level even here on this forum the only thread on the topic is this one (yours) and it errors on the sympathetic side for Kavanough. 

If they are false Ford can be charged with perjury. All the more reason to get that investigation rolling. 

That is a ridiculous reason to get an investigation rolling. She would essentially have to admit she intentionally lied to get charged with perjury. If it is proven 100% that she made a false statement there is still a burden of proof that she made it intentionally. 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That is a ridiculous reason to get an investigation rolling.

Good thing then that it’s not the only reason to 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That is a ridiculous reason to get an investigation rolling. She would essentially have to admit she intentionally lied to get charged with perjury. If it is proven 100% that she made a false statement there is still a burden of proof that she made it intentionally. 

So what are you suggesting should happen? I cannot think of anything more fair to all parties than an investigation which scrutinizes the claims on both sides. Regardless of how high the burden of proof might be it is better than doing nothing. Imagine if the FBI could uncover an email or text from one of the now Three accusers were they mention wanting to sink Kavanough to help Democrats. That would be a massive bombshell that would secure Kavanough's seat on the bench and provide Republicans a massive stimulus at polls.  

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Good thing then that it’s not the only reason to 

Right, not for nothing I had posted "all the more".

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I get the impression that even some members of this forum have him already convicted ( Evidence ? Who needs evidence ? ).

 

Don't leave us in suspense. Please tell us who you are talking about.

If you have someone in mind it is not really fair to splatter others with the stink of not supporting the need for evidence. And I'm sure the person you do have in mind would like the opportunity to respond.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So what are you suggesting should happen? I cannot think of anything more fair to all parties than an investigation which scrutinizes the claims on both sides. Regardless of how high the burden of proof might be it is better than doing nothing. Imagine if the FBI could uncover an email or text from one of the now Three accusers were they mention wanting to sink Kavanough to help Democrats. That would be a massive bombshell that would secure Kavanough's seat on the bench and provide Republicans a massive stimulus at polls.  

Right, not for nothing I had posted "all the more".

 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Both Ford and Kavanaugh seemed credible. I don't know how Kavanaugh could have done better, and I don't know how Ford could have appeared more honest. She just lacked any corroborating evidence, and admitted to gaps in memory.

I suspect they will either delay, not for an FBI investigation but to subpoena Mark Judge (I would do this immediately, and if it held up proceed with the vote), or go through with the nomination tomorrow based on the lack of evidence. They are after all Lawyers and Politicians.

I might consider subpoenaing the other two Ford alleged to be at the party as well.

Edited September 28, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

I might consider subpoenaing the other two Ford alleged to be at the party as well.

That is an okay start but to a large extend are the Senate hearings rife with political bias? I think professional investigators rather than Senators in the middle of election season would be a superior group to get to the bottom of this.