Someone’s trying to confuse the issue, but it’s not the feminists. Here’s the story from the Post.

Because we should always prefer a news report over an authoritative court document.

Having said that, the report is fairly accurate and complete. Contrast with Marcotte’s version.

Baby and Wilson were charged as adults with first-degree rape, among other charges. Wilson pleaded guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to 18 months. Baby’s first trial before a jury of 11 men and one woman ended in a mistrial. In his second trial, Baby was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual offense and third-degree sexual offense.

Which convictions have now been overturned. In any case, that’s a summary of the judicial process. We’ve talking about the factual background to the case, so I don’t see the relevance.

For those who didn’t read the case, which appears to be everyone defending the rapist in this thread,…

That’s “alleged rapist”, now, because his conviction has been overturned. So he’s presumed innocent again.

Who are the people who have been defending him? Name them, and cite the posts where they did this. Because all I’ve been doing is defending the factual record. May I remind you of the rules that apply here, particularly rule 1 and rule 3. In practice, where non-feminists critics have cast similar aspersions against feminists, Barry tends to demand that they substantiate their allegations, or retract. Or face a ban. Barry is much slower to ban feminists who abuse non-feminists, but I understand this to be double-standard in enforcement, not in the rules per se.

Note that I have done this, with respect to Marcotte. I named her, pointed to her falsehoods, and showed that they so distorted the facts so as to amount to a reckless disregard for the truth. And I name you, Patsy, as someone who is defending lies, in the sentence quoted top. No sneery “those who…” innuendo from me.

And yes, I read the ruling from beginning to end. Did you?

the circumstances of the “consent” were that it was feebly offered in the middle of a gang rape.

That’s one possible interpretation of the facts.

Why would someone consent to be raped?

Begs the question.

Odds are they are scared of being hurt worse.

Again, that’s one possible interpretation. I’m not complaining about your or Marcotte’s or anyone else’s interpretations (although I see little evidence of anyone besides myself being prepared to give the defendant any benefit of the doubt). I haven’t even disagreed with them. All I’ve done is point out other possible interpretations.

What I’m complaining about, is Marcotte’s distortion of the factual record to such a degree that it rises to the level of lying. And I’m complaining about you, and bf defending her lies.

So, rape defenders, answer this: If a woman consents to sex with a man threatening to shoot her if she doesn’t, was it rape?

Do you mean me? Well of course you do in your sneery unsubstantiated and false manner. I’ll take the question, though. Of course it’s rape under those circumstances. In the case we’re talking about, though, there was no weapon, no explicit threat was alleged, and, depending upon how you interpret “I don’t want to rape you”, quite possibly no threat at all.

Baby and Wilson were charged as adults with first-degree rape, among other charges. Wilson pleaded guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to 18 months. Baby’s first trial before a jury of 11 men and one woman ended in a mistrial. In his second trial, Baby was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual offense and third-degree sexual offense.

For those who didn’t read the case, which appears to be everyone defending the rapist in this thread, the circumstances of the “consent” were that it was feebly offered in the middle of a gang rape. Why would someone consent to be raped? Odds are they are scared of being hurt worse.

So, rape defenders, answer this: If a woman consents to sex with a man threatening to shoot her if she doesn’t, was it rape?

Daran, if you missed my last comment: you misrepresent the appellant’s testimony yourself. It says she told them to stop, after which they continued acting as a team and one of them penetrated her.

Where did I misrepresent this? Which post? Precisely what have I said which was a misrepresentation?

I don’t know where the imaginary Marcotte-staffed jury came from.

Here’s what you said earlier: “Your objection appears to come from a different universe, one filled with radical feminist juries who place the burden of proof on the accused.”

How many Marcottes do there need to be, for there to be a significant risk that some of them are going to end up on rape juries?

As for the charges against Marcotte: dear me, she confuses the two merely because (in the version she and the court believed) the appellant fondled the complainant’s breasts after she refused to expose them, helped insist that she stay ten more minutes, then removed her pants while the other guy tried to put his penis in her mouth. “After she told them to stop, the pair moved her around so that her body was in appellant’s lap as he held her arms and Mike tried to insert his penis in her, but briefly inserted it into her rectum by mistake.”

What I said to Marcella. We don’t know what the jury believed, other than that they were concerned about the law regarding withdrawl of consent, and they convicted the appellant.

When the appellant got his turn, he allegedly ignored her (second) request to stop at first. The testimony makes it sound like he actively continued to push his penis into her vagina for “five or ten seconds”.

The testimony does not make it sound like “continue to offer resistance ” or that “she resisted again and he wouldn’t stop.” These are fabrications. And they’re not accidental. They’re not random. The falsehoods and omissions have bee specifically crafted to present a false picture of a violent rape, and to suppress any and all indications that support other interpretation.

When antifeminists do this kind of thing, I call them liars. When other antifeminists defend those lies, I call them on it too. Why should I treat feminists any different?

-morally repugnant and horrible. Whether or not what the kid did was technically rape under the existing legal descriptions, it was wrong.

If you accept appellant’s version of event, then the entire event could have been fully consensual from beginning to end. There is no indication according to his version that she was in any way coerced. The only thing she refused to do was expose her breasts. I’m sure a lot of fully consensual sex begins with similar expressions of coyness.

I’m not saying that this is what happened. It’s one way his version of events could be construed.

-legally sound. It pains me to say it. but we have to read criminal statutes for the benefit of the accused. And the appellate court can’t overturn the supremes. I think the supremes may overrule it; I am hopeful the legislature will rewrite it… but sadly this may slip through the cracks.

They were interpretting common, not statutory law. In any case, I thought statutory law was to read according to the intent of the legestature, while case law was to be read with a view to consistency between rulings.

The “benefit of the accused” only applies to findings of fact. Am I wrong?

-this seems like cause, yet again, to educate women about the specifics of rape laws. No, they shouldn’t need to know. No, it’s not their fault. But christ, it’s bad enough being raped, it’s gotta DOUBLY suck if you “fail” (quotes intentional) to do what the (usually bad) law requires to get the incident legally categorized as a “rape”.

With the greatest of respect, Sailorman, this is the silliest thing I have read in a long time. If a woman (or anyone else) is in a situation where she is being raped, is about to be raped, or is threatened or fearful of being raped, the only things that are going to be in her mind are “How do I avoid this? How do I escape? How do I survive?” However well-educated she might be about rape law, establishing all the legal elements of the crime of rape will be the last thing on her mind.

A2h seems to be saying “this is horrible behavior” and it’s pretty clear she’s right. In fact, IMO she’s right WHETHER OR NOT this happens to meet the technical definition under the applicable state law and supreme court precedent of what constitutes a rape.

I’m not convinced. I can think of various scenarios, some more horrible than others, depending upon which version of events I judged to be more reliable, and depending upon how I interpret those events. For example, his saying “I don’t want to rape you” could be construed as an attempt to reassure her that he would comply if she asked him to stop. Or it could be construed as a threat: “Nice restaurant. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”

When the appellant got his turn, he allegedly ignored her (second) request to stop at first. The testimony makes it sound like he actively continued to push his penis into her vagina for “five or ten seconds”.

Daran, even in appellant’s version the girl was forced (hand put down boy’s pants) and said no to appellant’s first sexual request. But somehow magically she went went from unwilling to fully, legally willing in a matter of moments.

As an initial matter, he does not say she was “forced” to put her hand down his pants. It’s a perfectly normal manouver in consensual sex to place your partners hands where you want them.

But really you’re missing the point. I’m not saying he was innocent or that he wasn’t. I’m saying that Marcotte’s account of the events was an outrageous distortion.

Sorry, between what’s contained in the ruling and the fact that there was a conviction, I don’t believe his glossing over of events.

We don’t know what was in the jury’s mind when they convicted him, other than that they were concerned about the law with respect to withdrawl of consent. Nor do we have all the facts of the case available to us. The opinion addressed three quite specific areas of law, so the factual background summarised the evidence in so far is it was not specifically relevant to those questions. The jury will have seen and heard the admissible evidence in full.

What’s he going to say? Yeah, I helped my friend rape her and when he was done it was my turn, but I wanted something I could rationalize as being consensual, and I wanted a defense if she went to the cops, so I tried to get her to cooperate before raping her.

That’s your interpretation. Another might be that he really wanted it to be consensual, so he went the extra mile to ensure that it was, both by obtaining her explicit, verbal assent, by assuring her that he wasn’t going to force her, and finally, when she did withdraw consent, he stopped.

Regardless of how you interpret it, the version given at Pandagon was a gross distortion. At best, Marcotte was reckless with the truth. At worst, she’s an outright barefaced liar.

-morally repugnant and horrible. Whether or not what the kid did was technically rape under the existing legal descriptions, it was wrong.

-legally sound. It pains me to say it. but we have to read criminal statutes for the benefit of the accused. And the appellate court can’t overturn the supremes. I think the supremes may overrule it; I am hopeful the legislature will rewrite it… but sadly this may slip through the cracks.

-this seems like cause, yet again, to educate women about the specifics of rape laws. No, they shouldn’t need to know. No, it’s not their fault. But christ, it’s bad enough being raped, it’s gotta DOUBLY suck if you “fail” (quotes intentional) to do what the (usually bad) law requires to get the incident legally categorized as a “rape”.

anyway perhaps you are arguing about 2 different things?

A2h seems to be saying “this is horrible behavior” and it’s pretty clear she’s right. In fact, IMO she’s right WHETHER OR NOT this happens to meet the technical definition under the applicable state law and supreme court precedent of what constitutes a rape.

Sorry, between what’s contained in the ruling and the fact that there was a conviction, I don’t believe his glossing over of events.

What’s he going to say? Yeah, I helped my friend rape her and when he was done it was my turn, but I wanted something I could rationalize as being consensual, and I wanted a defense if she went to the cops, so I tried to get her to cooperate before raping her.

From the text of the opinion, a description of events before the so-called consent was given:

she found herself on her back with appellant removing her jeans and Mike sitting on her chest, attempting to place his penis in her mouth. After she told them to stop, the pair moved her around so that her body was up in appellant’s lap as he held her arms and Mike tried to insert his penis in her, but briefly inserted it into her rectum by mistake. After Mike again tried to insert his penis in the complainant’s vagina, appellant inserted his fingers in her vagina.

So what is not in question is that the appellant (defendant) assisted in the commission of a rape by holding her arms as his friend raped her.

It’s very much in question. The section you quoted was from the part of the Factual Background which began “At trial, the compaining witness, Jewel L., testified that…” It’s her version of event. His version of that part of the incident is given later on:

Jewel climbed into the back seat between appellant and Mike, whereupon the latter put the complainant’s hand in his pants. After the complainant refused appellant’s request to expose her breasts, Mike asked appellant for a condom and told him to get out of the car.

The appellate court made no findings of fact, their sole task was to rule on the law.

Here’s Marcotte’s version of the entire incident:

The assailant had already held her down and tried to shove his penis in her mouth, had already tried to forcibly penetrate her, and when he realized she was going to continue to offer resistance he said that he didn’t want to rape her, so she gave in and right after he started to penetrate her, she resisted again and he wouldn’t stop.

1. Marcotte presents only the complainant’s version of events.

2. She conflates the actions of two different people: “Mike”, and the appellant.

3. She desribes the event as one continuous incident, ignoring the fact that appellant left the car for a period of time (15 to twenty minutes according to appellant.)

4. She describes complainant as “continu[ing] to offer resistence”. But according to complainant’s testimony she did not resist.

5. She says he didn’t stop when she asked him to, which is another outright falsehood.

3. She ignores testimony from the complainant which might indicate that she was capable of consent, that she consented, and/or that appellant might reasonably have believed that she consented.

He sexually assaulted her before telling her it was his turn. For anyone to be able to read the description of what happened and be able to say that someone who has just been raped is any condition to give legal consent frankly is nearly as frightening as what happened to this girl.

Well they certainly won’t be able to read a description of what happened if they only read Marcotte’s blog. What they’ll read there is a distorted parody of the alleged events, one constructed to be as prejudicial as possible.

Here’s the comment hf made when he cited Pandagon: “Your objection appears to come from a different universe, one filled with radical feminist juries who place the burden of proof on the accused.” It’s unfortunate that people like Marcotte end up juries in this universe.

she found herself on her back with appellant removing her jeans and Mike sitting on her chest, attempting to place his penis in her mouth. After she told them to stop, the pair moved her around so that her body was up in appellant’s lap as he held her arms and Mike tried to insert his penis in her, but briefly inserted it into her rectum by mistake. After Mike again tried to insert his penis in the complainant’s vagina, appellant inserted his fingers in her vagina.

So what is not in question is that the appellant (defendant) assisted in the commission of a rape by holding her arms as his friend raped her. He sexually assaulted her before telling her it was his turn. For anyone to be able to read the description of what happened and be able to say that someone who has just been raped is any condition to give legal consent frankly is nearly as frightening as what happened to this girl.

For context, Sailorman, see this story. Your objection appears to
come from a different universe, one filled with radical feminist juries who place the burden of proof on the accused.

Hmm, lemme see.

From the Text of the opinion:

Defendant’s testimony:

According to the appellant, he stopped immediately…

Complainent’s testimony:

Q. For how long [after you said ’stop’] did he continue to put his penis in your vagina?

A. About 5 or so seconds.

Q. And then what happened

A. And that’s when he just got off me…

Marcotte’s “finding of fact”:

she resisted again and he wouldn’t stop.

God help any defendant who has Marcotte on the jury.

See, you’re misreading me again. (Not taht i’m not used to this in general, but I have to say that given your professed attention to detail i’m a bit surprised

“Attention to detail” is indeed my petard, so I am at ever-present risk of finding myself hoist thereon. However in this case I think I am OK. If I misinterpretted your words, it was not though lack of attention.

Here’s the opening sentence of your earlier post (my italics): “The “false accusation” bit comes into play not for patriarchal reasons i think but from our general stance on criminal justice.”

I interpretted “comes into play” as referring to the way the subject is generally introduced, so the implied agents are “people who bring the topic into play”. I understood “our” to refer to those same people, indicating that you include yourself among their number. An implication of that interpretation is that the “general stance” is not necessarily shared by others who take part in the discourse, but who are not the ones who bring it “into play”. An alternative interpretation of “our” is that it was an “appeal to common ground”, refering to the three of us currently taking part in the conversation.

So if I rewrite your sentence to render this interpretation explicit, it might be as follows:

People who raise the subject of false accusations do so, not for patriarchal reasons, but because of their general stance on criminal justice, which I (alternatively: we) share

I therefore interpretted the rest of your post as asserting that the reasoning described was the motivation of “People who raise the subject”, hence my repeated reference to Antifeminists and MRAs who represent the dominant discoursive framework of those people.

I do not think this was an unreasonable or unfair interpretation of your words. If it was a misinterprettation, then I apologise.

You are misreading. Obviously there are other benefits to SOCIETY–being a lawyer, I am aware of them. But the primary benefits to the ACCUSER are found in the civil system, not the criminal system. this is one reason why, for example, moves towards things like “restorative justice”, which mimic remedies normally found in the civil system, are becoming more popular.

I’m not misreading. I can see how a cost-benefit analysis of criminal justice is relevent to the discussion, but I can see no reason to limit consideration of of the benefits solely to restoration. The restriction bears some resemblence to the typically feminist technique of restricting discussion of violence to sexual violence, domestic violence, and now sex-selective school shootings. It looks like an attempt to stack the discoursive deck. I’m not saying that this is what you are doing, just that this is what it looks like. I called it “strange” because I don’t think I have ever encountered this precise argument before, and I don’t understand it.

OK. Let’s start with the process. Forgive me, i don’t know your background: Are you familiar with type 1 and type II error?

Yes, though I can never remember which one is which. And in the case of a criminal trial that’s a matter of framing anyway. Is the purpose of a trial to test for guilt, to test for innocence, or to test for provability?

I’ll walk you through the argument once I get an idea of how much background knowledge I need to include.

By all means go though the argument, but understand that this is not what I asked for. I asked for evidence. Here’s the claim again (my italics):

“because of the evidentiary standards for rape; because of the special rules which benefit (protect) the primary witness at the expense of the accused; and because of the unusual nature of the crime: it is much more likely that a false conviction will occur for a rape than for any other crime with similar punishment levels.”

I am asking for evidence that the italiced part of the claim is true. How much more likely is it? Why that figure, and not some other? What data is this based on? What is the confidence interval? What methodology was used to obtain the data? I want facts. I want data. I don’t want some handwavy argument as to why it is reasonable to believe that the rate is higher than for other crimes. It may be reasonable to believe this, but it is still only a belief.

Now if you can provide this, I’m all ears.

See, you’re misreading me again. (Not taht i’m not used to this in general, but I have to say that given your professed attention to detail i’m a bit surprised). I never said, nor do i think, that there are “large numbers” of false accusations and/or convictions. (I wouldn’t use such an undefined term anyway). i made a statement which was relative in regard to their frequency.
“X is more common than Y” \= “There are lots of X”.

See, you’re misreading me again. I never said that you were making this claim. I was pointing out that “people who raise the subject of false rape accusations” make this claim, which is relevent to the question of their motivation, which is what I thought your post was about. It is also intended to give you an “idea of how much background knowledge [you] need to include”. I’m well past “False Rape Accusations controversy 101″, thank you.

I might also note that if it’s TRUE, it’s not “antifeminist”. I’d appreciate it if you could reply to me without the constant snipes and/or implication that this is a MRA-only viewpoint.

If it cannot be shown to be true, then it is speculation. It is a common MRA-viewpoint to present this speculation as though it were established fact. That observation is not intended as a snipe at you. I never said that MRAs were the only people with this viewpoint, or that any person who expresses such a view must be MRA. Believe me, I get these labels pinned on me enough that I don’t go around willy-nilly pinning them on other people.

I even posted an open challenge on usenet for them to prove that there had been even 100 in the US. (At that time the Innocence Project listed about 80.) Ironically the challenge was eventually met by Barry, a feminist who was almost certainly unaware of it.)

Leaving out the obvious issue… oh hell, i’ll point out the obvious issues. Or at least a few of them. because if this is what you’re basing your argument on, I fear you are misguided.
1) It’s much harder to meet the standards of disproof for rape. It is very difficult, legally, to get a conviction overturned. Absent a recantation from the accuser…

Or even with one, Garry Dotson, for example.

…or a proof that he wasn’t in the state or someting else, this standard isn’t going to be met in most cases. So anything which was actually consensual sex but resulted in a rape conviction will be nigh-impossible to disprove.

I appreciate this difficulty, but that’s your problem. You made the empirical claim; the burden of showing evidence for it lies with you.

So it’s a typical antifeminist claim–so what? I didn’t make the claim (in fact, I just disavowed it) so why bring it up at all?

So I thought you were explaining the motivation of “people who bring this topic into play”

Look, I understand your frustration. It happens to me all to time. I post a criticism of feminism. A defender of feminism responds by criticising MRAs. I respond ” So what?” I would not have done this to you if you hadn’t written your opening paragraph the way you did.

Daran, please. Do you really want to argue about the “unsupported empirical claim” that “the penalties for fraud are less than those for rape”? You’re dodging. Not every discussion needs to begin with a fulllblown presentation of data.

No of course, not. I meant the unsupported empirical claim that “the court process makes it less likely that a false conviction of murder will happen [than of rape”. It is an empirical claim, and one neither you, nor, dare I say it, MRAs, have ever supported.