roger that
Rape and the "Civilized" World
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
roger that
Lex parsimonae, and other notes
Let us play a little bit of lex parsimoneae (Ockham's Razor) at the outset: What do you think is the more likely explanation?
Now, as to what that means: It is true that statistics like these are complicated, and understanding how they are built requires a certain amount of specialization. To the other, though, few could explain what Nate Silver did mathematically without someone putting the formula in front of them. Nonetheless, it is empirically unquestionable that he was the best forecaster these last couple election cycles.
Now, I'm not a statistics specialist, so I cannot give you a direct answer to how any complex statistic is derived. But you also need to consider the fact of history.
We know, from investigating reported sex crimes, interviewing confessed offenders, and tracking behavioral patterns, that sex offenders usually aren't caught their first time out. Indeed, I have no idea how the state of Washington derives its number asserting that by the time one is arrested for their first DUI offense, they have driven under the influence, on average, at least eighty-some times before. The number isn't accurate, in this case, but the one thing it is not is high. This, to me, is observable by dint of actually paying attention to how much my associates drink when they're out. And, it is true, this notion becomes evident generally after the fact.
With the sex offenses, though, it is a combination of statistical analysis and extrapolation. And we've been at this long enough that we can expect the analysts to have refined their calculations reasonably well.
But I would ask you to think about this:
What ends up happening is that the analysts look through the accrued data and extrapolate with what they hope is ever-increasing reliability as their data set grows. Projections of unreported rapes are derived and extrapolated from data gathered from sex crime survivors, perpetrators, and even everyday people. Most folks understand that when Mary from down the street lands in the hospital with bruising at the face, neck, and thighs, claiming with substantial physical evidence that her husband raped her, we ought not presume this is the first time it happened. This itself is a tacit statistical extrapolation, but it's also fairly reliable.
The methods for collecting data are straightforward enough; survey the established record, interview for self-reporting studies, and so on. How to process that data is, of course, a reasonable question, but this is a statistic with so much practice and such a large data set that, while one is welcome to doubt or even disbelieve it, that scrutiny should be given to most projection and extrapolation statistics they encounter—these are, after all, peer-reviewed research papers. In the end, the doubters' opinions are more persuasive to them than any semblance of fact.
If anything, the projections are low. You find out about this stuff by asking people, and the influential factors speak toward understatement.
I have, for instance, known people who doubt certain statistics about rape, such as the classic slogan, "One in four women you know will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. Your mother? Your daughter? Your wife? Your sister? Which one will it be?"
And not invariably, but with great consistency, I've found that the men in my association who doubt the situation generally have no idea how this statistic applies to them. To a certain degree, I don't blame them for their ignorance, which is explicitly or neurotically deliberate in most cases. It's one thing in your twenties to have a girlfriend tell you about the cousin who tried to rape her when she was twelve, but I can also say that there is nothing on the planet that prepares you, at any age, for having a discussion with your mother about the doctor who sexually accosted her in his office when she was in her fifties.
And here's a scary thing: With my daughter, I don't look at it as a matter ofif. Rather, it is a matter of when. And by the time I find out?
Well, for most women, the reported rape is not the first they survived.
While it is not true that I know no women who have never been sexually assaulted, the reason I can't give you an accurate number is not because alleged sex crime survivors are lying, but because others aren't saying anything about what they have survived. Again, the number—that in my life is truly horrifying—is low.
Let us come back to Ockham: If, next year, we saw a dramatic reduction in the number of projected unreported rapes while the number of rape reports, arrests, and convictions remains stable or increases, what do you think is the most likely explanation?
Are decades worth of data and previously reliable analyses suddenly invalid? That is, did the formula just break?
Did men stop raping?
Or is it more likely that various factors influencing rape reporting have changed?
Lex parsimonae points toward the latter. For instance, if courts follow the lead set in Arlington County, Virginia, we should start seeing in the near term a dramatic reduction in rape prosecutions and concomitant increase in assault and battery charges.
That is to say, the statistics will change, but not the reality.
As to slippery slopes? Well, I'll tell you a quick story.
Several years ago I found myself in the hellish paradise known as Irvine, California. What a city. If terrorists nuked it off the face of the Earth tomorrow, they would be doing us a favor. Of course, I saw only a small part of Irvine, in the shadow of the Taco Bell building. But none of the locals I talked to had anything nice to say about the place, either. Indeed, the bartender I would have one-nighted if he'd been interested, a guy who reminded me of Keifer Sutherland except he was attractive, recounted for me the local legend of why Irvine has no real downtown. Essentially, the story says the city leaders couldn't stop fighting amongst themselves long enough to decide where downtown should be. As a result, the parts of Irvine I saw all look like massive office parks. It's a hideously ugly place.
At any rate, walking back to the hotel from the bar, I approached on the wrong street, coming in the back side. Rather than walking two blocks up, one over, and two blocks back, I decided to simply go down the slope to the parking lot and enter the hotel through the garage.
I'm told the stuff is called "iceweed", though I'm not certain that's what it was. At any rate, I never did find my glasses after my feet went skyward and I rolled all the way down to the retaining wall.
Bottom line, the best way to avoid the dangers of a perceived slippery slope is to stay the hell off it.
One last note: At Sciforums, as in life, we frequently encounter people who purport to be undertaking some middle road between two controversial assertions. And in many cases, they're not actually taking a middle road.
To recall a couple of recent events involving members I actually have great respect for: One of our neighbors walked into a rape argument, picked a side, and had a bit of difficulty comprehending why people came crashing down on him. It was a contextual error, I think; he walked into the middle of the discussion and offered up his opinion, seemingly, before he knew what people were actually talking about. The result is that he was perceived on the exact opposite side of the discussion than he wants to be.
Or last year, I think, one of our neighbors brought a certain argument to a political discussion and was frustrated when people started calling him conservative. It took a little while, but what we were able to resolve was the fact that his contribution to the discussion leaned heavily on a right-wing talking point that people perceived as long discredited.
Giving folks in this thread the benefit of the doubt, I have no idea what people think they're doing when they try to tread a fine, perhaps imagined, line between right and wrong.
If you want the methodology of these studies, go read them. Most of our members cannot offer you a detailed technical study of how those methods work; it's a very specialized facet of statistics, not something a STAT101 student would be expected to comprehend. We're talking graduate and post-grad work.
The reason I make this point is that certain suspect statements, e.g.—
In the end, there is a reason why people are eyeing your posts suspiciously.
Because you challenge such claims does not make you a supporter of rape culture, true. But the lack of any affirmative basis for the challenge doesn't help your appearance. And the coincidence of your argument with aspects of rape advocacy sure as hell ain't helping, either.
Schema said:
Let us play a little bit of lex parsimoneae (Ockham's Razor) at the outset: What do you think is the more likely explanation?
Now, as to what that means: It is true that statistics like these are complicated, and understanding how they are built requires a certain amount of specialization. To the other, though, few could explain what Nate Silver did mathematically without someone putting the formula in front of them. Nonetheless, it is empirically unquestionable that he was the best forecaster these last couple election cycles.
Now, I'm not a statistics specialist, so I cannot give you a direct answer to how any complex statistic is derived. But you also need to consider the fact of history.
We know, from investigating reported sex crimes, interviewing confessed offenders, and tracking behavioral patterns, that sex offenders usually aren't caught their first time out. Indeed, I have no idea how the state of Washington derives its number asserting that by the time one is arrested for their first DUI offense, they have driven under the influence, on average, at least eighty-some times before. The number isn't accurate, in this case, but the one thing it is not is high. This, to me, is observable by dint of actually paying attention to how much my associates drink when they're out. And, it is true, this notion becomes evident generally after the fact.
With the sex offenses, though, it is a combination of statistical analysis and extrapolation. And we've been at this long enough that we can expect the analysts to have refined their calculations reasonably well.
But I would ask you to think about this:
• With allegations of sexual abuse over the course of eight years, the parental child molester was charged with one sex crime, and acquitted because he waived his right to jury trial, and the old man judging the case could not understand how nobody heard a young child screaming while her father forced his erect penis down her throat. I've witnessed this outcome, sat in disbelief through Judge Chan's decision. Statistically, though, if the man is guilty—and I believe he is—he committed considerably more than one sex crime, as he is accused by at least two of his four daughters, and a third simply refuses to talk about it or believe that her father hurt anyone. (By grooming patterns, P was first, T was too old to start when P was too old to continue abusing; C was second, then, and J was too old to start when C was too old to continue abusing.) To suggest that this man only ever committed one offense for which he was acquitted is obscene.
• Listen to your male friends. Eventually, one of them will brag about a rape. Except he won't call it a rape. Which leads to another point ....
• Some people have a problem comprehending what is or isn't a sex offense in general or rape in particular. Recently, a judge came under fire because he was so annoyed that the jury convicted the defendant; in handing down a light sentence, the judge noted that he has seen real rapes before, and this victim's genitals weren't "shredded". No, really, that's the word he used. Indeed, the California Commission on Judicial Performance issued a public denouncement of Judge Derek Johnson's words. And as we see in the U.S. military, the way around charging sex crimes is to simply charge them as something else, with the result that we have another reported rape with no conviction, because sexually molesting a woman isn't a sexual assault. Such notions do confound some people's perceptions of the rape phenomenon.
• Have you ever had a conversation about these issues with a known sex offender? Have you ever actually listened to a male associate boasting of his sexual adventures and thought, "Dude, that's rape!" I mean, really, we're talking about a range in which one can go out, pick up an underage girl, drug her, bang the hell out of her with your best friend, steal from her, and then ditch her, and it's not rape because she wasn't cognizant enough to say no.
• Listen to your male friends. Eventually, one of them will brag about a rape. Except he won't call it a rape. Which leads to another point ....
• Some people have a problem comprehending what is or isn't a sex offense in general or rape in particular. Recently, a judge came under fire because he was so annoyed that the jury convicted the defendant; in handing down a light sentence, the judge noted that he has seen real rapes before, and this victim's genitals weren't "shredded". No, really, that's the word he used. Indeed, the California Commission on Judicial Performance issued a public denouncement of Judge Derek Johnson's words. And as we see in the U.S. military, the way around charging sex crimes is to simply charge them as something else, with the result that we have another reported rape with no conviction, because sexually molesting a woman isn't a sexual assault. Such notions do confound some people's perceptions of the rape phenomenon.
• Have you ever had a conversation about these issues with a known sex offender? Have you ever actually listened to a male associate boasting of his sexual adventures and thought, "Dude, that's rape!" I mean, really, we're talking about a range in which one can go out, pick up an underage girl, drug her, bang the hell out of her with your best friend, steal from her, and then ditch her, and it's not rape because she wasn't cognizant enough to say no.
What ends up happening is that the analysts look through the accrued data and extrapolate with what they hope is ever-increasing reliability as their data set grows. Projections of unreported rapes are derived and extrapolated from data gathered from sex crime survivors, perpetrators, and even everyday people. Most folks understand that when Mary from down the street lands in the hospital with bruising at the face, neck, and thighs, claiming with substantial physical evidence that her husband raped her, we ought not presume this is the first time it happened. This itself is a tacit statistical extrapolation, but it's also fairly reliable.
The methods for collecting data are straightforward enough; survey the established record, interview for self-reporting studies, and so on. How to process that data is, of course, a reasonable question, but this is a statistic with so much practice and such a large data set that, while one is welcome to doubt or even disbelieve it, that scrutiny should be given to most projection and extrapolation statistics they encounter—these are, after all, peer-reviewed research papers. In the end, the doubters' opinions are more persuasive to them than any semblance of fact.
If anything, the projections are low. You find out about this stuff by asking people, and the influential factors speak toward understatement.
I have, for instance, known people who doubt certain statistics about rape, such as the classic slogan, "One in four women you know will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. Your mother? Your daughter? Your wife? Your sister? Which one will it be?"
And not invariably, but with great consistency, I've found that the men in my association who doubt the situation generally have no idea how this statistic applies to them. To a certain degree, I don't blame them for their ignorance, which is explicitly or neurotically deliberate in most cases. It's one thing in your twenties to have a girlfriend tell you about the cousin who tried to rape her when she was twelve, but I can also say that there is nothing on the planet that prepares you, at any age, for having a discussion with your mother about the doctor who sexually accosted her in his office when she was in her fifties.
And here's a scary thing: With my daughter, I don't look at it as a matter ofif. Rather, it is a matter of when. And by the time I find out?
Well, for most women, the reported rape is not the first they survived.
While it is not true that I know no women who have never been sexually assaulted, the reason I can't give you an accurate number is not because alleged sex crime survivors are lying, but because others aren't saying anything about what they have survived. Again, the number—that in my life is truly horrifying—is low.
Let us come back to Ockham: If, next year, we saw a dramatic reduction in the number of projected unreported rapes while the number of rape reports, arrests, and convictions remains stable or increases, what do you think is the most likely explanation?
Are decades worth of data and previously reliable analyses suddenly invalid? That is, did the formula just break?
Did men stop raping?
Or is it more likely that various factors influencing rape reporting have changed?
Lex parsimonae points toward the latter. For instance, if courts follow the lead set in Arlington County, Virginia, we should start seeing in the near term a dramatic reduction in rape prosecutions and concomitant increase in assault and battery charges.
That is to say, the statistics will change, but not the reality.
As to slippery slopes? Well, I'll tell you a quick story.
Several years ago I found myself in the hellish paradise known as Irvine, California. What a city. If terrorists nuked it off the face of the Earth tomorrow, they would be doing us a favor. Of course, I saw only a small part of Irvine, in the shadow of the Taco Bell building. But none of the locals I talked to had anything nice to say about the place, either. Indeed, the bartender I would have one-nighted if he'd been interested, a guy who reminded me of Keifer Sutherland except he was attractive, recounted for me the local legend of why Irvine has no real downtown. Essentially, the story says the city leaders couldn't stop fighting amongst themselves long enough to decide where downtown should be. As a result, the parts of Irvine I saw all look like massive office parks. It's a hideously ugly place.
At any rate, walking back to the hotel from the bar, I approached on the wrong street, coming in the back side. Rather than walking two blocks up, one over, and two blocks back, I decided to simply go down the slope to the parking lot and enter the hotel through the garage.
I'm told the stuff is called "iceweed", though I'm not certain that's what it was. At any rate, I never did find my glasses after my feet went skyward and I rolled all the way down to the retaining wall.
Bottom line, the best way to avoid the dangers of a perceived slippery slope is to stay the hell off it.
One last note: At Sciforums, as in life, we frequently encounter people who purport to be undertaking some middle road between two controversial assertions. And in many cases, they're not actually taking a middle road.
To recall a couple of recent events involving members I actually have great respect for: One of our neighbors walked into a rape argument, picked a side, and had a bit of difficulty comprehending why people came crashing down on him. It was a contextual error, I think; he walked into the middle of the discussion and offered up his opinion, seemingly, before he knew what people were actually talking about. The result is that he was perceived on the exact opposite side of the discussion than he wants to be.
Or last year, I think, one of our neighbors brought a certain argument to a political discussion and was frustrated when people started calling him conservative. It took a little while, but what we were able to resolve was the fact that his contribution to the discussion leaned heavily on a right-wing talking point that people perceived as long discredited.
Giving folks in this thread the benefit of the doubt, I have no idea what people think they're doing when they try to tread a fine, perhaps imagined, line between right and wrong.
If you want the methodology of these studies, go read them. Most of our members cannot offer you a detailed technical study of how those methods work; it's a very specialized facet of statistics, not something a STAT101 student would be expected to comprehend. We're talking graduate and post-grad work.
The reason I make this point is that certain suspect statements, e.g.—
• "it is a slippery slope because it is one biased opinion against another" — This is the sort of rhetoric we see from people who don't like statistical reality, kind of like people who think valid, reliable, peer-reviewed science is a "biased opinion". Politically, it's a very conservative outlook that we see in all sorts of issues. Valid, reliable climate data are a biased opinion. Valid, reliable firearm injury statistics are a biased opinion. The observable, recordable fact that female rape survivors can become pregnant by rape is a biased opinion. Politically, we can look to Stephen Colbert, who reminded that reality has a well-known liberal bias. Stripping out the partisan notions, though, it's true, reality is biased in its own favor.
• Can you site scientific references that back up your claim as to why people rape? Because I have no idea why people rape, so i can't look at anything but my own opinion. — There is actually a considerable body of literature on this subject, but it requires annoying things like effort to find. You know, like entering reasons for rape in a search engine. Admittedly, reading through the data that comes up in the search return requires a little more effort, but a comprehensive bibliography would require hundreds of entries listing peer-reviewed medical, psychological, and sociological articles—which, of course, you can denounce as pseudo-scientific if you really want—identifying the relevant portions, and then finding a way to explain it to another person in terms they understand.
• How do you go about providing evidence for this; evidence that doesn't merely exist in a pseudo-science journal? — While there are some fraudulent peer-reviewed journals, they are relatively few, and fairly well known in scientific circles, as they tend to publish crackpot theories. Meanwhile, I would remind that there are many people here who have had a version of a certain conversation before, that leads to an incredulous question: You're calling _____ pseudoscience? And fill in the blank. Lancet? British Journal of Medicine? And so on. To that end, we might wonder which pseudo-science journal(s) you're referring to.
• Because I challenge these claims does not make me a supporter of rape culture. I simply want to remand a debate over statistics and claims to simple, universally accepted facts. — As with most skeptics of this sort, you offer nothing but skepticism.
• Since we can only estimate the number of cases that have gone unreported, we can't provide an accurate statistic. This makes generalized statistics misleading, in my opinion. It also makes it a slippery slope because it can be aruged both ways. — You do realize what you're doing here, right? You cannot simply reserve this doubt to sexual violence studies insofar as it must, in order to be a valid and reliable skepticism, be applied to any statistical projection. And perhaps you haven't noticed how good our society's specialists have gotten at statistical projection, but your argument screws with everything from hunger and poverty policy to budget and taxation to crime and justice, and even your insurance rates. Strangely, though, I never hear people complaining about the unreliability of that nefarious (ahem!) "pseudoscience" more widely known by the name actuarial science. Good luck. You're setting an insane bar for yourself.
• Can you site scientific references that back up your claim as to why people rape? Because I have no idea why people rape, so i can't look at anything but my own opinion. — There is actually a considerable body of literature on this subject, but it requires annoying things like effort to find. You know, like entering reasons for rape in a search engine. Admittedly, reading through the data that comes up in the search return requires a little more effort, but a comprehensive bibliography would require hundreds of entries listing peer-reviewed medical, psychological, and sociological articles—which, of course, you can denounce as pseudo-scientific if you really want—identifying the relevant portions, and then finding a way to explain it to another person in terms they understand.
• How do you go about providing evidence for this; evidence that doesn't merely exist in a pseudo-science journal? — While there are some fraudulent peer-reviewed journals, they are relatively few, and fairly well known in scientific circles, as they tend to publish crackpot theories. Meanwhile, I would remind that there are many people here who have had a version of a certain conversation before, that leads to an incredulous question: You're calling _____ pseudoscience? And fill in the blank. Lancet? British Journal of Medicine? And so on. To that end, we might wonder which pseudo-science journal(s) you're referring to.
• Because I challenge these claims does not make me a supporter of rape culture. I simply want to remand a debate over statistics and claims to simple, universally accepted facts. — As with most skeptics of this sort, you offer nothing but skepticism.
• Since we can only estimate the number of cases that have gone unreported, we can't provide an accurate statistic. This makes generalized statistics misleading, in my opinion. It also makes it a slippery slope because it can be aruged both ways. — You do realize what you're doing here, right? You cannot simply reserve this doubt to sexual violence studies insofar as it must, in order to be a valid and reliable skepticism, be applied to any statistical projection. And perhaps you haven't noticed how good our society's specialists have gotten at statistical projection, but your argument screws with everything from hunger and poverty policy to budget and taxation to crime and justice, and even your insurance rates. Strangely, though, I never hear people complaining about the unreliability of that nefarious (ahem!) "pseudoscience" more widely known by the name actuarial science. Good luck. You're setting an insane bar for yourself.
In the end, there is a reason why people are eyeing your posts suspiciously.
Because you challenge such claims does not make you a supporter of rape culture, true. But the lack of any affirmative basis for the challenge doesn't help your appearance. And the coincidence of your argument with aspects of rape advocacy sure as hell ain't helping, either.
"And perhaps you haven't noticed how good our society's specialists have gotten at statistical projection,"
The problem with this is conflicting statistics. we can back and forth all day with difference sources, but I can tell you that every source will conflict. There is one statistic, however, that will hold true from any source- including the FBI.
20% of men that have served time for rape have been exonerated due to DNA testing. Another 20% of rape cases have been overturned due to lack of sufficient evidence. This puts the statistic of wrongful conviction (or lake there of) at 40%. That can be translated as a 40% rate of false accusation. When we argue if these women were actually raped despite the ruling from the legal system, we approach straw man arguments.
So I challenge the statistic of 1 out of 5 because it seems a little bit too high; a little bit too extreme. I read a statistic that 1 in 4 women WILL be raped. Do you not yourself question these statistics?
"doesn't help your appearance"
I am not sure what my appearance is. and I am not bothered by it. I don't much mind personal attacks, and I will never respond to them or reciprocate them. My only intent is to hold intelligent conversations regarding the subject. I would like to think that I approach subjects with logical thinking. I would hope that I am free to disagree as long as I do so respectfully without repercussion. This conversation is escalating rapidly and I don't wish to offend anyone.
I am not trying to suggest that one sex has been anymore victimized that the other. I whole heartedly believe that women have been victimized all through civilization. But I am troubled by the fact that 20% of men convicted of rape have served time without receiving a fair trial. That bothers me just as much as the 1 in 5 statistic bothers you.
The problem with this is conflicting statistics. we can back and forth all day with difference sources, but I can tell you that every source will conflict. There is one statistic, however, that will hold true from any source- including the FBI.
20% of men that have served time for rape have been exonerated due to DNA testing. Another 20% of rape cases have been overturned due to lack of sufficient evidence. This puts the statistic of wrongful conviction (or lake there of) at 40%. That can be translated as a 40% rate of false accusation. When we argue if these women were actually raped despite the ruling from the legal system, we approach straw man arguments.
So I challenge the statistic of 1 out of 5 because it seems a little bit too high; a little bit too extreme. I read a statistic that 1 in 4 women WILL be raped. Do you not yourself question these statistics?
"doesn't help your appearance"
I am not sure what my appearance is. and I am not bothered by it. I don't much mind personal attacks, and I will never respond to them or reciprocate them. My only intent is to hold intelligent conversations regarding the subject. I would like to think that I approach subjects with logical thinking. I would hope that I am free to disagree as long as I do so respectfully without repercussion. This conversation is escalating rapidly and I don't wish to offend anyone.
I am not trying to suggest that one sex has been anymore victimized that the other. I whole heartedly believe that women have been victimized all through civilization. But I am troubled by the fact that 20% of men convicted of rape have served time without receiving a fair trial. That bothers me just as much as the 1 in 5 statistic bothers you.
Last edited:
Problematic Playbook
Please do provide your source. And remember, no "pseudo-science journals".
Do you not actually read the posts you're responding to?
I mean, is there something about those sentences that are confusing?
To put that into practical application: When a Florida jury found a defendant innocent of rape because the woman was asking for it according to the cut of her clothes, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
Let's try another: When a Colorado prosecutor, with confession in hand from the rapist, chose to not prosecute the crime because he felt the woman deserved to be raped, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
Or, perhaps: When a Virginia court spared an Air Force officer in charge of seuxal assault prevention with sexual assualt, that was embarrassing. Given that the charge against him has been reduced to assault and battery because forcibly groping a woman's genitals, breasts, and buttocks isn't a sex assault, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
Or maybe: When the University of North Carolina attempts to drum a rape survivor out of school for accusing another student of rape, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
How about: When Colorado University is facing a federal investigation for deliberately meting out a light administrative punishment for rape, and then refused to enforce a no-contact order protecting the rape survivor, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
That ruse is so common it's stupid. Someone goes out of their way to say something like, "Because I challenge these claims does not make me a supporter of rape culture", and then tries to turn around and say they don't care about appearances.
Yes, personal attacks.
The idea that you're making yourself look bad by conducting yourself in an embarrassing manner is a personal attack? Remind me to never point out if your fly is open.
That would be a little more apparent if you were to try an affirmative argument, instead of vague allusions and conspiratorial whiffs.
If I remind you that it helps one appear logical to have an actual, affirmative, testable thesis, would you consider that a personal attack?
Or if I suggested that discounting sources in order to bolster your own half-attributed source doesn't sound like a logical approachl, would you complain of personal attacks?
Something about straw men goes here.
It's a little bit late for not offending anyone, but you can certainly try some affirmative, genuine logic, which has side effects you might find desirable. That is, not only does it indicate a more educated perspective on an issue, and lend some credibility to your expressed opinions, it also has a clarifying effect for those who might otherwise consider your cookie-cutter routine suggestive of an outlook you don't seem to want attributed to you.
Oh, right. You don't care about your appearance. Which makes it easier to say explicitly: Look, if you don't want to be viewed as a rape advocate, don't use the rape advocacy playbook.
So, yeah. That's the problem. That is, since you're not sure what your appearance is, you keep digging a deeper foxhole in rape advocacy territory. Of coursre, since you don't really care what your appearance is, you have no reason to not continue along the path you're on.
Schema said:
Please do provide your source. And remember, no "pseudo-science journals".
Do you not actually read the posts you're responding to?
If anything, the projections are low. You find out about this stuff by asking people, and the influential factors speak toward understatement.
I mean, is there something about those sentences that are confusing?
To put that into practical application: When a Florida jury found a defendant innocent of rape because the woman was asking for it according to the cut of her clothes, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
Let's try another: When a Colorado prosecutor, with confession in hand from the rapist, chose to not prosecute the crime because he felt the woman deserved to be raped, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
Or, perhaps: When a Virginia court spared an Air Force officer in charge of seuxal assault prevention with sexual assualt, that was embarrassing. Given that the charge against him has been reduced to assault and battery because forcibly groping a woman's genitals, breasts, and buttocks isn't a sex assault, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
Or maybe: When the University of North Carolina attempts to drum a rape survivor out of school for accusing another student of rape, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
How about: When Colorado University is facing a federal investigation for deliberately meting out a light administrative punishment for rape, and then refused to enforce a no-contact order protecting the rape survivor, how is the question of whether she was actually raped a straw man, especially in the context of your bizarre forty percent assertion?
That ruse is so common it's stupid. Someone goes out of their way to say something like, "Because I challenge these claims does not make me a supporter of rape culture", and then tries to turn around and say they don't care about appearances.
Yes, personal attacks.
The idea that you're making yourself look bad by conducting yourself in an embarrassing manner is a personal attack? Remind me to never point out if your fly is open.
That would be a little more apparent if you were to try an affirmative argument, instead of vague allusions and conspiratorial whiffs.
If I remind you that it helps one appear logical to have an actual, affirmative, testable thesis, would you consider that a personal attack?
Or if I suggested that discounting sources in order to bolster your own half-attributed source doesn't sound like a logical approachl, would you complain of personal attacks?
Something about straw men goes here.
It's a little bit late for not offending anyone, but you can certainly try some affirmative, genuine logic, which has side effects you might find desirable. That is, not only does it indicate a more educated perspective on an issue, and lend some credibility to your expressed opinions, it also has a clarifying effect for those who might otherwise consider your cookie-cutter routine suggestive of an outlook you don't seem to want attributed to you.
Oh, right. You don't care about your appearance. Which makes it easier to say explicitly: Look, if you don't want to be viewed as a rape advocate, don't use the rape advocacy playbook.
So, yeah. That's the problem. That is, since you're not sure what your appearance is, you keep digging a deeper foxhole in rape advocacy territory. Of coursre, since you don't really care what your appearance is, you have no reason to not continue along the path you're on.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I can't vouch for the precision of his numbers, but I have read enough about this to support his contention that a large percentage of convicted "rapists" turn out to be innocent, just as a large percentage of convicted "murderers" do. There was an article in the Post a couple of weeks ago, which I'm struggling to find.
Considering that most cases are still decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony, even though it's been demonstrated over and over again that eyewitnesses are much less than 50% reliable, it's hardly surprising that a huge number of people are wrongly convicted.
DNA tests have been springing so-called "murderers" from prison right and left. The same is now happening with so-called "rapists."
Not to diminish the suffering of the victims, but it can hardly bring them peace and closure to know that:
- Not only do you have on your conscience the horror of locking the wrong man in prison,
- But the guy who actually did it is still out there, ready to do it again!
The Remaining Question: Which FBI source?
I don't disagree, but I find striking the suggestion that in a society where so many rapes go unpunished, the people we are getting are subject to an error rate of forty percent.
This is why his analysis and source are so important. As long as someone simply says—
—it's not a real assertion, but a dodge.
I mean, think about it. The problem is conflicting statistics, but only one source—not specifically offered—is accurate, even though it makes an extraordinary claim.
So I want him to put up his source, so we can examine the detail he refuses to provide.
Now, I know you're a fan of LaPlace, and I am also conscious of your disclaimer. In this case, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, I admit I'm puzzled by your response. It reads like you're saying, "We don't need the evidence. Even if the number is exaggerated, it doesn't matter."
Yes, we know DNA is exonerating certain convicts. But I think we're entitled to an explanation of of our neighbor's extraordinary claim that forty percent of men convicted of rape are actually innocent.
Of course, you're welcome to suggest that a forty percent erroneous conviction rate is hardly extraordinary.
Our neighbor needs to support his assertion.
Well, unless, of course, you think the burden should be on other people to raid every available FBI document on the subject, and pursue every news article that might have communicated some form of that statistic.
(The most recent DNA exoneration article from WaPo I can recall is the one about twenty-seven innocent people being sent to death row.)
Fraggle Rocker said:
I don't disagree, but I find striking the suggestion that in a society where so many rapes go unpunished, the people we are getting are subject to an error rate of forty percent.
This is why his analysis and source are so important. As long as someone simply says—
"The problem with this is conflicting statistics. we can back and forth all day with difference sources, but I can tell you that every source will conflict. There is one statistic, however, that will hold true from any source- including the FBI."
(Boldface accent added)
(Boldface accent added)
—it's not a real assertion, but a dodge.
I mean, think about it. The problem is conflicting statistics, but only one source—not specifically offered—is accurate, even though it makes an extraordinary claim.
So I want him to put up his source, so we can examine the detail he refuses to provide.
Now, I know you're a fan of LaPlace, and I am also conscious of your disclaimer. In this case, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, I admit I'm puzzled by your response. It reads like you're saying, "We don't need the evidence. Even if the number is exaggerated, it doesn't matter."
Yes, we know DNA is exonerating certain convicts. But I think we're entitled to an explanation of of our neighbor's extraordinary claim that forty percent of men convicted of rape are actually innocent.
Of course, you're welcome to suggest that a forty percent erroneous conviction rate is hardly extraordinary.
Our neighbor needs to support his assertion.
Well, unless, of course, you think the burden should be on other people to raid every available FBI document on the subject, and pursue every news article that might have communicated some form of that statistic.
(The most recent DNA exoneration article from WaPo I can recall is the one about twenty-seven innocent people being sent to death row.)
Bells
Staff member
Biased against rapists?
Poor them.
There is no real bias in attempting to defeat rape. There is no real slippery slope. That argument only exists for people who do not believe that rape is a problem for society.
Considering the amount of times this has been discussed in this thread alone and on this site, a simple google search can help you answer your questions.
Hell, Wiki has a very good and short breakdown, with links to studies and papers and a list of books you can read on the matter.
Well seeing that you seem uncomfortable with rape statistics and are attempting to deny them because you feel they are biased, perhaps you can tell me why you stereotype that women make up rape allegations? That in itself is a stereotype.
Firstly, one of your links is about a woman who was forced to recant her allegations of rape and threatened and bullied by the police to do so..
Secondly, the claims were backed up repeatedly in this thread. I understand you are coming late in the game, but perhaps you should read through the whole thread instead of expecting us to rehash what has already been hashed numerous times.
How about you read through the thread and see the numerous studies cited in the thread?
What do you classify as a pseudo-science journal?
RAINN has a breakdown of the statistics in rapes and under-reporting, as well as prosecution rates. Their figures come from the FBI and the Department of Justice. Unless of course you consider the FBI and the DoJ as being pseudo science?
If I am reading that muddle correctly, half the contention is that exoneration of an alleged perp by DNA testing is evidence against the occurrence of the rape itself.
The other half is that lack of sufficient evidence to find or convict an alleged perp is also evidence that the rape never happened.
And the conclusion is that "actually raped" is a significantly smaller category than 'rape accuser willing to go to trial'.
Can that actually be the argument intended?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I don't stand by his 40%. I just suggested that it's possible since I don't know what the actual rate is. AFAIK, nobody knows yet because DNA analysis is still not universally performed--in the one crime where there is always DNA evidence!
Given my low opinion of the government in general and the police in particular (except for surprising exceptions like their exemplary record of rarely shooting the wrong victim compared to the horrifying record of gun-totin' civilians), I'm quite willing to entertain the possibility that 40% of people convicted of rape might be innocent.
Either I didn't write clearly or you misunderstood me. What "does matter" is the reality that lots and lots of people are being convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Even in the case of rape, arguably the most heinous crime in the criminal's playbook, I still stand by Blackstone's Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Absolutely. And forgive me if I appeared to argue otherwise.
I'm just gonna hope that it is. In the Jim Crow era it certainly was not, if the defendant was Afro-American.
Sounds like a job for Snowden. I wonder if he has access to the necessary technology in his new digs.
What's the spatial and temporal domain of that statistic? I think we've got that many who are still alive on death row right now. The total since WWII, when we claim to have begun improving our justice system, has to be an order of magnitude more than that, and surely 99% of them are irreversibly dead.
Brief Note
I would agree. And I accept that we're probably just suffering a crossed wire or two. All I really want is to see the source. The FBI says? Great, that means there's a source document. What is that source document? I would like to do my own analysis, since I suspect the forty percent outcome is based on a subset.
It's just hard to believe we have a conviction error rate so far above our conviction rate.
Um ... er ... let me see.
Ah, these are current capital convictions including FBI forensic testimony; the repoort from Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post:
So I stand corrected; it's not a straightforward DNA exoneration issue, but, rather, that there is a strong probability that DNA would exonerate, as the Justice Department seems to think it has helped wrongly send over two dozen people to death row. I've omitted, by ellipsis, one of the sadly funniest paragraphs in recent journalism, but only because it's one of those catch-up bits for people who have no idea why the question of guilt is important.
The main issue here is whether the deliberate exaggeration of microscopic analyses of hair was appropriate and reasonable—i.e., whether or not the analysts were ever right in the first place, and whether DNA analysis would have changed the verdict. It's a disaster, and has stayed one execution already.
____________________
Notes:
Hsu, Spencer S. "U.S. reviewing 27 death penalty convictions for FBI forensic testimony errors". The Washington Post. July 17, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...75a0a4-bd9b-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html
Fraggle Rocker said:
I would agree. And I accept that we're probably just suffering a crossed wire or two. All I really want is to see the source. The FBI says? Great, that means there's a source document. What is that source document? I would like to do my own analysis, since I suspect the forty percent outcome is based on a subset.
It's just hard to believe we have a conviction error rate so far above our conviction rate.
Um ... er ... let me see.
Ah, these are current capital convictions including FBI forensic testimony; the repoort from Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post:
An unprecedented federal review of old criminal cases has uncovered as many as 27 death penalty convictions in which FBI forensic experts may have mistakenly linked defendants to crimes with exaggerated scientific testimony, U.S. officials said ....
.... FBI officials discussed the review’s scope as they prepare to disclose its first results later this summer. The death row cases are among the first 120 convictions identified as potentially problematic among more than 21,700 FBI Laboratory files being examined. The review was announced last July by the FBI and the Justice Department, in consultation with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).
The unusual collaboration came after The Washington Post reported last year that authorities had known for years that flawed forensic work by FBI hair examiners may have led to convictions of potentially innocent people, but officials had not aggressively investigated problems or notified defendants.
.... FBI officials discussed the review’s scope as they prepare to disclose its first results later this summer. The death row cases are among the first 120 convictions identified as potentially problematic among more than 21,700 FBI Laboratory files being examined. The review was announced last July by the FBI and the Justice Department, in consultation with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).
The unusual collaboration came after The Washington Post reported last year that authorities had known for years that flawed forensic work by FBI hair examiners may have led to convictions of potentially innocent people, but officials had not aggressively investigated problems or notified defendants.
So I stand corrected; it's not a straightforward DNA exoneration issue, but, rather, that there is a strong probability that DNA would exonerate, as the Justice Department seems to think it has helped wrongly send over two dozen people to death row. I've omitted, by ellipsis, one of the sadly funniest paragraphs in recent journalism, but only because it's one of those catch-up bits for people who have no idea why the question of guilt is important.
The main issue here is whether the deliberate exaggeration of microscopic analyses of hair was appropriate and reasonable—i.e., whether or not the analysts were ever right in the first place, and whether DNA analysis would have changed the verdict. It's a disaster, and has stayed one execution already.
____________________
Notes:
Hsu, Spencer S. "U.S. reviewing 27 death penalty convictions for FBI forensic testimony errors". The Washington Post. July 17, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...75a0a4-bd9b-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html
A Morbid Dose
What the Hell?
Okay, just as an aside, I only read this depressing story because I couldn't resist the irony of a "Former Microsoft manager charged with rape" linked by an url that includes the term "rapechargexml.html".
I know, I know. Pathetic. It's a Seattle thing. Or maybe not.
But we can certainly let that be a lesson about how pervasive misogyny is. I mean, a rape story, and the first thing I notice is a joke I can make out of the web address.
Yeah, anyway, moving onto the even more depressing reality:
Okay, just a reminder.
There is a long-held concept in dealing with sexual assault survivors that says, "Don't doubt what they're telling you". It's complicated, true, but should not be taken to mean there are no false allegations. However, functionally: If an employee comes to you and reports a workplace sexual assault, do not denigrate the accusation.
This ... is ... not ... rocket ... science.
Having settled that point, we might note that this ridiculous story gets worse.
No, really, it gets worse.
I mean, really? "Honestly, Officer, I had no choice but to leave the building calmly, walk across the parking lot, retrieve a condom from my car, and then returned to be raped because I felt like I had no choice."
A reader commented on the routine sexual hrassment of women in India, but I'm not sure Srivastava's story would play in India. Then again, when facing twenty to life for a Class A felony, what the hell is he going to say?
I suppose he could apologize and beg for mercy, but now that he's laid out that bizarre accusation against the alleged victim, I would hope the court would feel insulted by scripted contrition.
____________________
Notes:
Green, Sara Jean. "Former Microsoft manager charged with rape". The Seattle Times. August 6, 2013. SeattleTimes.com. August 7, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021551843_rapechargexml.html
What the Hell?
Okay, just as an aside, I only read this depressing story because I couldn't resist the irony of a "Former Microsoft manager charged with rape" linked by an url that includes the term "rapechargexml.html".
I know, I know. Pathetic. It's a Seattle thing. Or maybe not.
But we can certainly let that be a lesson about how pervasive misogyny is. I mean, a rape story, and the first thing I notice is a joke I can make out of the web address.
Yeah, anyway, moving onto the even more depressing reality:
A former Microsoft senior program manager was charged last week with second-degree rape for allegedly forcing himself on a janitor inside his office on the company’s Redmond campus.
Vineet Kumar Srivastava, 36, was arrested July 26, four days after the alleged rape, charging papers say. He spent 24 hours in the King County Jail before posting a $150,000 bond, jail records show ....
.... Microsoft spokesman Lou Gellos said Tuesday that Srivastava’s employment was terminated after the alleged attack. He said Microsoft contracts with an outside company to provide cleaning services.
According to charging documents, the alleged victim, 32, was cleaning the third-floor kitchen in Building No. 27 around 11 p.m. on July 22 when Srivastava approached her and motioned for her to follow him down the hall to his office. She grabbed her cleaning supplies and followed him, “assuming he needed something clean(ed) in his office,” the papers say.
Once inside the office, Srivastava grabbed the woman’s breasts and buttocks, showed her pornographic videos on his cellphone, then slammed her to the floor and raped her, charging papers say. The woman screamed and struggled to get away, then laid on the floor crying while Srivastava left the office to dispose of the condom he wore during the attack, according to the papers.
The woman called her supervisor but couldn’t reach him until nearly 1 a.m. on July 23. When she did, the supervisor “discounted what she reported and he failed to report it to the authorities,” charging papers say.
The woman reported the incident to a female supervisor the evening of July 24, and that supervisor called Redmond police, according to the papers, which do not indicate the name of the cleaning company. Gellos declined to name the cleaning company.
(Green; boldface accent added)
Vineet Kumar Srivastava, 36, was arrested July 26, four days after the alleged rape, charging papers say. He spent 24 hours in the King County Jail before posting a $150,000 bond, jail records show ....
.... Microsoft spokesman Lou Gellos said Tuesday that Srivastava’s employment was terminated after the alleged attack. He said Microsoft contracts with an outside company to provide cleaning services.
According to charging documents, the alleged victim, 32, was cleaning the third-floor kitchen in Building No. 27 around 11 p.m. on July 22 when Srivastava approached her and motioned for her to follow him down the hall to his office. She grabbed her cleaning supplies and followed him, “assuming he needed something clean(ed) in his office,” the papers say.
Once inside the office, Srivastava grabbed the woman’s breasts and buttocks, showed her pornographic videos on his cellphone, then slammed her to the floor and raped her, charging papers say. The woman screamed and struggled to get away, then laid on the floor crying while Srivastava left the office to dispose of the condom he wore during the attack, according to the papers.
The woman called her supervisor but couldn’t reach him until nearly 1 a.m. on July 23. When she did, the supervisor “discounted what she reported and he failed to report it to the authorities,” charging papers say.
The woman reported the incident to a female supervisor the evening of July 24, and that supervisor called Redmond police, according to the papers, which do not indicate the name of the cleaning company. Gellos declined to name the cleaning company.
(Green; boldface accent added)
Okay, just a reminder.
There is a long-held concept in dealing with sexual assault survivors that says, "Don't doubt what they're telling you". It's complicated, true, but should not be taken to mean there are no false allegations. However, functionally: If an employee comes to you and reports a workplace sexual assault, do not denigrate the accusation.
This ... is ... not ... rocket ... science.
Having settled that point, we might note that this ridiculous story gets worse.
No, really, it gets worse.
Redmond police say Srivastava claimed the woman forced him to have sex, saying he was “afraid of her,” but had retrieved a condom from his car, then reluctantly returned to his office because he “felt like he had no choice,” charging papers say.
“He said he should have been stronger but was missing his wife who has been in India” since July 8, according to the charges.
The charging papers note that Srivastava said he had no injuries or bruising after the incident, while the woman had bruises on both shoulders “that appeared consistent with finger pressure.” The woman identified Srivastava from a photo montage and also turned over unwashed clothing that she was wearing at the time of the alleged attack, the papers say.
(Boldface accent added)
“He said he should have been stronger but was missing his wife who has been in India” since July 8, according to the charges.
The charging papers note that Srivastava said he had no injuries or bruising after the incident, while the woman had bruises on both shoulders “that appeared consistent with finger pressure.” The woman identified Srivastava from a photo montage and also turned over unwashed clothing that she was wearing at the time of the alleged attack, the papers say.
(Boldface accent added)
I mean, really? "Honestly, Officer, I had no choice but to leave the building calmly, walk across the parking lot, retrieve a condom from my car, and then returned to be raped because I felt like I had no choice."
A reader commented on the routine sexual hrassment of women in India, but I'm not sure Srivastava's story would play in India. Then again, when facing twenty to life for a Class A felony, what the hell is he going to say?
I suppose he could apologize and beg for mercy, but now that he's laid out that bizarre accusation against the alleged victim, I would hope the court would feel insulted by scripted contrition.
____________________
Notes:
Green, Sara Jean. "Former Microsoft manager charged with rape". The Seattle Times. August 6, 2013. SeattleTimes.com. August 7, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021551843_rapechargexml.html
Who Knew Jane Austen Was Rape-Bait?
Who Knew Jane Austen Was Rape-Bait?
Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has the overview:
Labour MP Stella Creasy defended Criado-Perez responded to that savage outburst: "Twitter tells me we should simply block those who ‘offend us,’ as though a rape threat is a matter of bad manners, not criminal behavior."
Welcome to England, I guess. I have to invoke Manchester jokes, or the Liverpool of Clive Barker's haunted vision, to imagine this kind of vitriol in England. Even in bustling, oft-chaotic London, one would not expect this sort of hatred. Of course, there is probably a lesson to be had about stereotypes, even about people being friendly.
No, but really. York? Bourton-on-the-Water? Avebury? Cirencester?
Beneath the picturesque, evil can, indeed, reside.
As Marcus reminds:
Notes:
Marcus, Ruth. "Venom gone viral". The Washington Post. August 8, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. August 8, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a81750-0052-11e3-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html
Who Knew Jane Austen Was Rape-Bait?
Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has the overview:
It is a truth universally acknowledged that we live in an age of incivility, with coarseness enabled by the Internet’s immediacy and anonymity.
Still, one needn’t have the delicate sensibility or decorous manners of a Jane Austen character to be shocked by the violent response in the Twitterverse to, of all things, the Bank of England’s plan to put Austen’s likeness on the 10 pound note.
Feminist blogger Caroline Criado-Perez had lobbied the bank for a wee bit more gender diversity on its currency; prison reformer Elizabeth Fry, the only other woman portrayed besides the Queen, was being rotated out for Winston Churchill. Criado-Perez’s online petition proposed, as “suitable replacements,” biophysicist Rosalind Franklin or 18th-century feminist Mary Wollstonecraft.
Austen, as Rebecca Mead wrote for Newyorker.com, “seemed the most uncontroversial of choices,” having achieved “a status among the English rather like that of a cup of tea: cozy, restorative, unthreatening, and omnipresent.”
Apparently not, except the omnipresent part. Criado-Perez found her Twitter feed deluged — not just with the usual torrent of profanities but also with explicit threats of rape and murder. “I’m going to pistol whip you over and over until you lose consciousness,” one Twitter user warned. “Wouldn’t mind tying this bitch to my stove. Hey sweetheart, give me a shout when you’re ready to be put in your place,” said another.
Still, one needn’t have the delicate sensibility or decorous manners of a Jane Austen character to be shocked by the violent response in the Twitterverse to, of all things, the Bank of England’s plan to put Austen’s likeness on the 10 pound note.
Feminist blogger Caroline Criado-Perez had lobbied the bank for a wee bit more gender diversity on its currency; prison reformer Elizabeth Fry, the only other woman portrayed besides the Queen, was being rotated out for Winston Churchill. Criado-Perez’s online petition proposed, as “suitable replacements,” biophysicist Rosalind Franklin or 18th-century feminist Mary Wollstonecraft.
Austen, as Rebecca Mead wrote for Newyorker.com, “seemed the most uncontroversial of choices,” having achieved “a status among the English rather like that of a cup of tea: cozy, restorative, unthreatening, and omnipresent.”
Apparently not, except the omnipresent part. Criado-Perez found her Twitter feed deluged — not just with the usual torrent of profanities but also with explicit threats of rape and murder. “I’m going to pistol whip you over and over until you lose consciousness,” one Twitter user warned. “Wouldn’t mind tying this bitch to my stove. Hey sweetheart, give me a shout when you’re ready to be put in your place,” said another.
Labour MP Stella Creasy defended Criado-Perez responded to that savage outburst: "Twitter tells me we should simply block those who ‘offend us,’ as though a rape threat is a matter of bad manners, not criminal behavior."
The predictable consequence? The Internet trolls targeted Creasy as well. “I’m gonna be the first thing u see when u wake up,” wrote one tweeter, including a picture from the horror film “Halloween” — a masked man brandishing a meat cleaver. “YOU BETTER WATCH YOUR BACK . . . IM GONNA RAPE [YOU] AT 8PM AND PUT THE VIDEO ALL OVER THE INTERNET,” offered another.
Three men have been arrested for the online harassment. Twitter, which had taken a deliberately hands-off policy to policing content, announced stepped-up efforts to handle abuse reports and make it easier to flag problems.
Three men have been arrested for the online harassment. Twitter, which had taken a deliberately hands-off policy to policing content, announced stepped-up efforts to handle abuse reports and make it easier to flag problems.
Welcome to England, I guess. I have to invoke Manchester jokes, or the Liverpool of Clive Barker's haunted vision, to imagine this kind of vitriol in England. Even in bustling, oft-chaotic London, one would not expect this sort of hatred. Of course, there is probably a lesson to be had about stereotypes, even about people being friendly.
No, but really. York? Bourton-on-the-Water? Avebury? Cirencester?
Beneath the picturesque, evil can, indeed, reside.
As Marcus reminds:
There is no pat fix for venom gone viral. The problem is both technological (the medium encourages the abhorrent message) and societal (the underlying abhorrence of the message itself, and whatever the incomprehensible cocktail of hatred, anger and resentment that fuels it). The fault is not simply in our social media but in ourselves.
____________________Notes:
Marcus, Ruth. "Venom gone viral". The Washington Post. August 8, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. August 8, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a81750-0052-11e3-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html
Bells
Staff member
Ah victim blaming..
Imagine if you will, you are a 41 year old man. You come across a 13 year old girl, still in her school uniform. You believe she is "a little bit older". She asks you to buy her some cigarettes, because she is not old enough to purchase them herself. Over the next two weeks, you 'bombard' her with calls and sms' and then you lure her to your home and have her strip out of her school uniform and perform a sex act on you.
Is the child to blame for your behaviour?
Sadly, this sorry scenario is not a work of fiction but was reality in the UK.
It seems that according to the prosecutor and a judge in a London court, you are not to blame.
In fact, the court and the prosecutor went so far as to blame the child for her behaviour and accused her of wrong doing, while alluding to the 41 year old perpetrator as being the true victim in the sordid offense and he walked away with a suspended sentence. Now, for most rational beings, Wilson's behaviour was what is commonly known as grooming. Unless of course you are the prosecutor and judge in this case, which described the victim as being a sort of Lolita character who somehow or other was to blame for her own abuse.
A prosecutor reported to have called a teenage sex attack victim "predatory" has been suspended from working on other cases involving sexual offences.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had already called the comment about the 13-year-old girl apparently made during a court case in London "inappropriate".
Following an outcry from children's charities and campaigners, it has now started looking at prosecutor Robert Colover's overall involvement in sexual offence prosecutions.
The CPS, which has received several formal complaints, said he would not be instructed on any ongoing or future cases involving sexual offences while it investigates.
Neil Wilson, 41, was given an eight-month suspended sentence at Snaresbrook Crown Court in London on Monday after admitting sexual activity with a child.
Mr Colover reportedly told the court: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."
Passing sentence, Judge Nigel Peters then said he had taken into account that the girl looked and behaved "a little bit older" than she was.
"The girl was predatory and was egging you on. That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension," he said.
Wilson, now living in York, had watched the girl strip out of her school uniform at his home in Romford, Essex, before she performed a sex act on him.
Police also found images of child abuse and bestiality at his home.
He admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.
Judge Peters told him: "Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison."
In normal circumstances? We have a 41 year old, who admitted to having abused this girl, who has images of child sex abuse in his home, and the judge says that usually in normal circumstances he would have received a longer jail sentence, but in this case, because she is the predator, he can get off with a suspended light sentence.. What planet are these people from?
How he could possibly have gotten away with this, even after he admitted to his crimes, is beyond belief. How the judge could deem that she looked a little bit older than 13 years of age, while wearing her school uniform.. He was 41 years of age, she was a 13 year old school girl still wearing her school uniform.
To suggest and openly say that a victim of child sex abuse somehow brought on or invited her own abuse, while dismissing the perpetrator's actions as being someone who was apparently duped because "she looked a little bit older" in her school uniform.. Even though he admitted to the acts.. It's astounding. To blame a victim of child sex abuse, for a prosecutor and a judge to accuse her for the actions of her behaviour is disgusting.
This is yet another case of a female victim inviting her own abuse, of duping the poor rapist, of leading on the abuser and rapist if the prosecutor and the judge are to be believed.
However this type of behaviour in the courtroom when it comes to rape and abuse cases is not new, especially in the UK. The matter of victim blaming is so problematic, that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is looking at training for its staff and judges and reviewing how child victim of abuse and rape are treated in court. The need for a review could not have been any more blatant when a child victim of rape abuse and human trafficking was allowed to be questioned and grilled over a period of 12 days by several lawyers for the defendants involved:
Caroline Criado-Perez's experiences on Twitter are a prime example of society's openness to treating women this way. There are some elements in society who believe that women and girls invite or instigate their own rapes. This is nothing new. What made this case hit the headlines is because of the age of the victim. And the fact that the perpetrator walked away with a suspended sentence. And most of all, the language against the victim was not guarded but quite open in their accusations against her and the sympathy of the court towards the perpetrator who admitted to the offense and also to having and owning child sex abuse images in his home.
Imagine if you will, you are a 41 year old man. You come across a 13 year old girl, still in her school uniform. You believe she is "a little bit older". She asks you to buy her some cigarettes, because she is not old enough to purchase them herself. Over the next two weeks, you 'bombard' her with calls and sms' and then you lure her to your home and have her strip out of her school uniform and perform a sex act on you.
Is the child to blame for your behaviour?
Sadly, this sorry scenario is not a work of fiction but was reality in the UK.
It seems that according to the prosecutor and a judge in a London court, you are not to blame.
In fact, the court and the prosecutor went so far as to blame the child for her behaviour and accused her of wrong doing, while alluding to the 41 year old perpetrator as being the true victim in the sordid offense and he walked away with a suspended sentence. Now, for most rational beings, Wilson's behaviour was what is commonly known as grooming. Unless of course you are the prosecutor and judge in this case, which described the victim as being a sort of Lolita character who somehow or other was to blame for her own abuse.
A prosecutor reported to have called a teenage sex attack victim "predatory" has been suspended from working on other cases involving sexual offences.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had already called the comment about the 13-year-old girl apparently made during a court case in London "inappropriate".
Following an outcry from children's charities and campaigners, it has now started looking at prosecutor Robert Colover's overall involvement in sexual offence prosecutions.
The CPS, which has received several formal complaints, said he would not be instructed on any ongoing or future cases involving sexual offences while it investigates.
Neil Wilson, 41, was given an eight-month suspended sentence at Snaresbrook Crown Court in London on Monday after admitting sexual activity with a child.
Mr Colover reportedly told the court: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."
Passing sentence, Judge Nigel Peters then said he had taken into account that the girl looked and behaved "a little bit older" than she was.
"The girl was predatory and was egging you on. That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension," he said.
Wilson, now living in York, had watched the girl strip out of her school uniform at his home in Romford, Essex, before she performed a sex act on him.
Police also found images of child abuse and bestiality at his home.
He admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.
Judge Peters told him: "Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison."
In normal circumstances? We have a 41 year old, who admitted to having abused this girl, who has images of child sex abuse in his home, and the judge says that usually in normal circumstances he would have received a longer jail sentence, but in this case, because she is the predator, he can get off with a suspended light sentence.. What planet are these people from?
How he could possibly have gotten away with this, even after he admitted to his crimes, is beyond belief. How the judge could deem that she looked a little bit older than 13 years of age, while wearing her school uniform.. He was 41 years of age, she was a 13 year old school girl still wearing her school uniform.
To suggest and openly say that a victim of child sex abuse somehow brought on or invited her own abuse, while dismissing the perpetrator's actions as being someone who was apparently duped because "she looked a little bit older" in her school uniform.. Even though he admitted to the acts.. It's astounding. To blame a victim of child sex abuse, for a prosecutor and a judge to accuse her for the actions of her behaviour is disgusting.
This is yet another case of a female victim inviting her own abuse, of duping the poor rapist, of leading on the abuser and rapist if the prosecutor and the judge are to be believed.
Caroline Criado-Perez, who received rape threats following her calls for Jane Austen to be the face on the £10 bank note, called the judge's decision "completely appalling".
She told Sky News: "It's really worrying that we're in the 21st century and we're still suggesting victims can be complicit in their abuse which is basically what calling a 13-year-old child a sexually predator is.
"I don't think you can ever call a child a sexual predator because they are a child. They are below the age of consent. We have laws specifically because of this kind of thing so that you can't say a child is responsible for her abuse.
"This adds to the horror that has happened to her. She has been abused and now we are blaming her for it. It's just unconscionable."
She told Sky News: "It's really worrying that we're in the 21st century and we're still suggesting victims can be complicit in their abuse which is basically what calling a 13-year-old child a sexually predator is.
"I don't think you can ever call a child a sexual predator because they are a child. They are below the age of consent. We have laws specifically because of this kind of thing so that you can't say a child is responsible for her abuse.
"This adds to the horror that has happened to her. She has been abused and now we are blaming her for it. It's just unconscionable."
However this type of behaviour in the courtroom when it comes to rape and abuse cases is not new, especially in the UK. The matter of victim blaming is so problematic, that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is looking at training for its staff and judges and reviewing how child victim of abuse and rape are treated in court. The need for a review could not have been any more blatant when a child victim of rape abuse and human trafficking was allowed to be questioned and grilled over a period of 12 days by several lawyers for the defendants involved:
Mr Green raised concerns about the treatment of victims in the recent trial of a gang who ran a child prostitution ring in Telford, Shropshire. One girl - who had been sold to men across England since the age of 13 - was aggressively cross-examined for 12 days by seven different defence barristers.
He said the defence barristers took it in turns to accuse her of lying, asked whether she repented of her sins, and left her in tears on the stand. One defence barrister walked out in protest at how aggressive the questioning was.
He said the defence barristers took it in turns to accuse her of lying, asked whether she repented of her sins, and left her in tears on the stand. One defence barrister walked out in protest at how aggressive the questioning was.
Caroline Criado-Perez's experiences on Twitter are a prime example of society's openness to treating women this way. There are some elements in society who believe that women and girls invite or instigate their own rapes. This is nothing new. What made this case hit the headlines is because of the age of the victim. And the fact that the perpetrator walked away with a suspended sentence. And most of all, the language against the victim was not guarded but quite open in their accusations against her and the sympathy of the court towards the perpetrator who admitted to the offense and also to having and owning child sex abuse images in his home.
For more than two weeks, writer Caroline Criado-Perez has been leading a fight against the threats of violence online, which followed her banknote victory. Speaking today, she said: “This latest incident is the very front line of the sexism that still pervades UK society. For two weeks, Twitter has been awash rape and death threats against women who dare to speak out against abuse. The women are accused ‘provoking’ them.
“Now we have seen where this kind of attitude ends up: with what looks like a judge calling a 13-year-old girl a ‘sexual predator’ and letting her abuser off with a suspended sentence.”
“Now we have seen where this kind of attitude ends up: with what looks like a judge calling a 13-year-old girl a ‘sexual predator’ and letting her abuser off with a suspended sentence.”
A Note on Rape Prevention
A Note on Rape Prevention
I admit, I'm not sure what prevention techniques I could have advised a presently-unnamed rape survivor in Seattle:
Ideas? Anyone? I'm not certain the Seattle Police Department's advice to wear shoes that are good for running away from an attacker would have helped.
Maybe she shouldn't have worn a super-short skirt? You know, 'cause a seventy-eight year-old woman shouldn't be tempting weak men?
Or maybe she had a rape-bait hairstyle?
Or maybe a seventy-eight year-old woman should be more cautious about what time of day she tries to enter her own home?
Hello?
Anybody? Anybody?
____________________
Notes:
Pulkinnen, Levi. "Seattle rape survivor: I’ve never seen ‘anyone so cruel’". SeattlePI. August 7, 2013. SeattlePI.com. August 8, 2013. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-rape-survivor-I-ve-never-seen-4715746.php
Mikkelson, Barbara and David P. Mikkelson. "Assaulted Tale". July 5, 2011. Snopes.com. August 8, 2013. http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/rape.asp
A Note on Rape Prevention
I admit, I'm not sure what prevention techniques I could have advised a presently-unnamed rape survivor in Seattle:
King County prosecutors contend a Beacon Hill man previously caught in a sexually motivated attack also raped a 78-year-old woman at knifepoint.
Sentenced to six years in prison for a similar 2008 attack, Jacob L. Ward is alleged to have raped the tiny, frail woman on July 24 in the entry of her International District apartment building. Ward, 34, was arrested the following day by Seattle police and subsequently jailed on a probation violation.
Ward, who is now charged with rape and related offenses, is alleged to have followed the woman into her apartment building and, when confronted, displayed a steak knife. According to charging papers, Ward then knocked her to the ground and raped her at knifepoint.
(Pulkkinen)
Sentenced to six years in prison for a similar 2008 attack, Jacob L. Ward is alleged to have raped the tiny, frail woman on July 24 in the entry of her International District apartment building. Ward, 34, was arrested the following day by Seattle police and subsequently jailed on a probation violation.
Ward, who is now charged with rape and related offenses, is alleged to have followed the woman into her apartment building and, when confronted, displayed a steak knife. According to charging papers, Ward then knocked her to the ground and raped her at knifepoint.
(Pulkkinen)
Ideas? Anyone? I'm not certain the Seattle Police Department's advice to wear shoes that are good for running away from an attacker would have helped.
Maybe she shouldn't have worn a super-short skirt? You know, 'cause a seventy-eight year-old woman shouldn't be tempting weak men?
Or maybe she had a rape-bait hairstyle?
Or maybe a seventy-eight year-old woman should be more cautious about what time of day she tries to enter her own home?
Hello?
Anybody? Anybody?
____________________
Notes:
Pulkinnen, Levi. "Seattle rape survivor: I’ve never seen ‘anyone so cruel’". SeattlePI. August 7, 2013. SeattlePI.com. August 8, 2013. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-rape-survivor-I-ve-never-seen-4715746.php
Mikkelson, Barbara and David P. Mikkelson. "Assaulted Tale". July 5, 2011. Snopes.com. August 8, 2013. http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/rape.asp
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Up to this point, I'm willing to cut the defendant some slack until I hear the whole story. There really are a few 13-year-old girls who look and act like they're 18, and maybe this fellow had the bad luck to encounter one.
Whoops. I don't know what the legal age for buying cigarettes is in the U.K. Here it's 21 so she could still be 18. Maybe it's 18 in the U.K. In America we let kids have sex at 18 but they have to be 21 to buy cigarettes. I know, that sounds kinda stupid. But by now I would be wondering if she's really 18 or only 17. I have a friend who ruined his life by believing a girl who told him she was 18 and was really 16. Notice that I'm placing some of the blame on the child, but that doesn't matter because children are not held responsible for the consequences and adults are.
Considering how extraordinary it would be for a 13-year-old to really look like she's above the age of consent, I would invoke the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. So the burden of proof is on the man to prove that she did indeed look five years older. Surely by now he has taken lots of photos? I don't really want to look at them but the police have to, it's their job. And the jury would have to see them. I wouldn't want to be on that jury either, but civic duty is civic duty.
Like disasters, not all crimes can be prevented. The best we can do is prevent so many of them that the odds of one happening to you or me or someone we love are less than being killed by falling furniture (about 120 Americans per year, mostly big-screen TVs although children love to climb up the drawers to the top of a dresser and get squashed when they pull it over). Nobody worries about being killed by falling furniture, so it would be reasonable to not worry about something that's even less likely than that.
Of course Americans are notoriously unreasonable when it comes to risk analysis, but that's not my problem. We worry about dying in a plane crash when we're something like a thousand times more likely to die in a road accident on the way to the airport.
I am sure you would have just advised her to submit to whatever he chose to do. Then you could leave her and walk away with a clear conscience.
... With Liberty and Justice for All
... With Liberty and Justice for All
I suppose we might excuse ourselves by saying, "If they survived this, they're not weak."
It isn't satisfying, though.
It is not so much that I'm speechless, far from it. But right now it's just a bunch of songs tumbling through my head, like an anti-censorship heavy metal song that includes the backup lyric, "Motherfucker, motherfuck!"
And every fighting song I know.
And the thing is, it gets worse. Hunter Stuart's article for The Huffington Post also includes this supratrochlear-bursting bit:
Could the "fuck you" be any more literal? Maybe they could revitalize Detroit with sex tourism: Come rape a child! And then come again! Your chances are better for getting away with it here than in Vegas!
What the hell is going on? These are the United States of America, damn it!
How do we end up with these situations? Is it just that human decency isn't worth enough in the ledgers?
Notes:
Hunter, Stuart. "Child Trafficking Victims Recovered By The FBI Could Go To Jail". The Huffington Post. August 9, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. August 10, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/child-sex-trafficking-jail_n_3732099.html
... With Liberty and Justice for All
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
—Mahatma Ghandi
I suppose we might excuse ourselves by saying, "If they survived this, they're not weak."
It isn't satisfying, though.
Some of the children who were recovered in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's huge sex trafficking sting in late July could go to jail if available resources are insufficient to find safe housing for them.
The FBI operation, which was carried out in 76 cities across the country along with the help of nearly 4,000 local, state and federal officers, resulted in the recovery of 105 sexually exploited children, most of whom were between the ages of 13 and 17, though some were as young as 9, reported ThinkProgress.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which partnered with the FBI to carry out Operation Cross Country, now says some of the recovered children may go to jail, at least temporarily.
"If there is nowhere to hold them, and nowhere safe for them to go, law enforcement has no alternative," the organization's director of case analysis, Staca Shehan, told U.S. News and World Report. "If they aren't placed in a juvenile detention facility, the child could run back to the prostitution scenario."
FBI spokeswoman Whitney Malkin confirmed to U.S. News that some of the child victims rescued in the sweep could be detained, but she called such circumstances "rare" and said more children would be placed in safe housing than imprisoned.
"Detaining victims ... falls far short of ideal," Malkin said. "The infrastructure to support the range of services just isn't there in many places."
(Stuart)
The FBI operation, which was carried out in 76 cities across the country along with the help of nearly 4,000 local, state and federal officers, resulted in the recovery of 105 sexually exploited children, most of whom were between the ages of 13 and 17, though some were as young as 9, reported ThinkProgress.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which partnered with the FBI to carry out Operation Cross Country, now says some of the recovered children may go to jail, at least temporarily.
"If there is nowhere to hold them, and nowhere safe for them to go, law enforcement has no alternative," the organization's director of case analysis, Staca Shehan, told U.S. News and World Report. "If they aren't placed in a juvenile detention facility, the child could run back to the prostitution scenario."
FBI spokeswoman Whitney Malkin confirmed to U.S. News that some of the child victims rescued in the sweep could be detained, but she called such circumstances "rare" and said more children would be placed in safe housing than imprisoned.
"Detaining victims ... falls far short of ideal," Malkin said. "The infrastructure to support the range of services just isn't there in many places."
(Stuart)
It is not so much that I'm speechless, far from it. But right now it's just a bunch of songs tumbling through my head, like an anti-censorship heavy metal song that includes the backup lyric, "Motherfucker, motherfuck!"
And every fighting song I know.
And the thing is, it gets worse. Hunter Stuart's article for The Huffington Post also includes this supratrochlear-bursting bit:
In California, one of the top juvenile recovery states in the FBI's recent sweep, trafficked children are routinely arrested for prostitution. Although many other states have "safe harbor" laws protecting minors from being criminalized for prostitution, California is not one of them. A bill that passed the California Senate -- SB 738 -- would give new protections to sexually trafficked minors, but it has not been signed into law yet.
In Michigan, another state where the FBI recovered a high number of sexually exploited minors, anyone 16 or older can be put in prison for the crime of prostitution, even if it's their first offense.
For boys and girls under 16 who are sexually exploited, Michigan state law doesn't always protect them. "The sex trafficking and CSEC [Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children] laws do not prohibit a defense based on consent of the minor to the commercial sex act, making it possible that a victim may have to prove a lack of consent" in Michigan ....
In Michigan, another state where the FBI recovered a high number of sexually exploited minors, anyone 16 or older can be put in prison for the crime of prostitution, even if it's their first offense.
For boys and girls under 16 who are sexually exploited, Michigan state law doesn't always protect them. "The sex trafficking and CSEC [Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children] laws do not prohibit a defense based on consent of the minor to the commercial sex act, making it possible that a victim may have to prove a lack of consent" in Michigan ....
Could the "fuck you" be any more literal? Maybe they could revitalize Detroit with sex tourism: Come rape a child! And then come again! Your chances are better for getting away with it here than in Vegas!
What the hell is going on? These are the United States of America, damn it!
How do we end up with these situations? Is it just that human decency isn't worth enough in the ledgers?
Concentrate. The world still goes in circles. Will no one come and save me tonight? Am I too late? So helplessly I stand, with my head in my hands. I have tried to see the light. I gloried in the night. I can only say that I am alive.
See the runaway, there on the corner? Just a throwaway, but somebody's daughter. Had a pretty face, so somebody bought her. Sellin' her soul away, so put in your order.
She knows what she's doin'. She's a ghost in the ruins. She's doin it well, tonight; she's got dreams to sell to night.
She wants to belong; she knows what to do. She's got to hang on.
Out here you got to be stronger. Out here you're right when you're wronger. And if you fight and live to tell, you fight again—this life is hell.
____________________—Floater
• • •
See the runaway, there on the corner? Just a throwaway, but somebody's daughter. Had a pretty face, so somebody bought her. Sellin' her soul away, so put in your order.
She knows what she's doin'. She's a ghost in the ruins. She's doin it well, tonight; she's got dreams to sell to night.
She wants to belong; she knows what to do. She's got to hang on.
—Savatage
• • •
Out here you got to be stronger. Out here you're right when you're wronger. And if you fight and live to tell, you fight again—this life is hell.
Notes:
Hunter, Stuart. "Child Trafficking Victims Recovered By The FBI Could Go To Jail". The Huffington Post. August 9, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. August 10, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/child-sex-trafficking-jail_n_3732099.html
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Let me guess: most of them are foreigners? And they're not from "nice" countries like England and France? So the Rednecks who seem to now be in charge of the country don't give a flying fuck about them?
Slipping Through the Cracks at Home
The implication seems to be these are children lost through the foster care system.
Operation Cross Country is now a perpetual job; this was sweep seven since its launch in 2008. Numbers tallied elsewhere suggest 423 youth recovered over the last five years.
I am not finding much mention of international youth trafficking in this round.
____________________
Notes:
Koseff, Alexei. "Sex-trafficking sting highlights vulnerability of foster children". Loss Angeles Times. July 29, 2013. LATimes.com. August 16, 2013. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-child-sex-20130730,0,1571781.story
Koyama, Emi. "Operation Cross Country VII Roundup and Comments". Eminism. July 30, 2013. Eminism.org. August 16, 2013. http://eminism.org/blog/entry/387
Fraggle Rocker said:
The implication seems to be these are children lost through the foster care system.
The three-day sweep of 76 cities focused on underage victims of prostitution. The FBI said 105 teens — nearly all of them girls — were rescued, and 150 people suspected of being pimps were arrested.
The largest raid was in the San Francisco area, where officers said they rescued 12 juveniles and arrested 17 pimps. In the Los Angeles area, two juveniles were recovered and three people arrested.
The raids, carried out by nearly 4,000 local, state and federal officers, brought renewed attention to the vulnerabilities of foster children, who are disproportionately targeted and recruited by child sex traffickers, sometimes right out of the foster care system.
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the information clearinghouse that tracks missing child reports in the United States, 60% of runaways who are victims of sex trafficking had been in the custody of social services or in foster care.
The center assisted the FBI in the weekend raids, part of the agencies' Innocence Lost Initiative that the FBI says has rescued more than 2,700 sexually exploited children since 2003.
"We are finding a very disturbing trend," John Ryan, the center's chief executive, said at a news conference at FBI headquarters. "They leave foster care and they literally fall off the radar. That's something that needs to be addressed."
The circumstances that put minors into foster care are often what make them especially vulnerable to sex trafficking, said Staca Shehan, director of the center's case analysis division.
"These kids are usually without an involved parent," she said in a telephone interview. "Pimps can come into their life and initially take on the role of protector."
Without families to work on their behalf, Shehan added, it is more difficult to rescue foster youths from sex trafficking and keep them out of the cycle. Victims of sex trafficking might be returned to a group home only to begin recruiting their friends into the sex trade, she said.
That is the concern of CAS Research and Education, a Sacramento-based nonprofit group that combats human trafficking. The organization was spun out of California Against Slavery, co-sponsor of Proposition 35, the anti-sex-trafficking measure California voters passed in November.
Half of sexually trafficked minors in California come from the foster care system. By comparison, fewer than 1% of all children in California are foster children.
(Koseff)
The largest raid was in the San Francisco area, where officers said they rescued 12 juveniles and arrested 17 pimps. In the Los Angeles area, two juveniles were recovered and three people arrested.
The raids, carried out by nearly 4,000 local, state and federal officers, brought renewed attention to the vulnerabilities of foster children, who are disproportionately targeted and recruited by child sex traffickers, sometimes right out of the foster care system.
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the information clearinghouse that tracks missing child reports in the United States, 60% of runaways who are victims of sex trafficking had been in the custody of social services or in foster care.
The center assisted the FBI in the weekend raids, part of the agencies' Innocence Lost Initiative that the FBI says has rescued more than 2,700 sexually exploited children since 2003.
"We are finding a very disturbing trend," John Ryan, the center's chief executive, said at a news conference at FBI headquarters. "They leave foster care and they literally fall off the radar. That's something that needs to be addressed."
The circumstances that put minors into foster care are often what make them especially vulnerable to sex trafficking, said Staca Shehan, director of the center's case analysis division.
"These kids are usually without an involved parent," she said in a telephone interview. "Pimps can come into their life and initially take on the role of protector."
Without families to work on their behalf, Shehan added, it is more difficult to rescue foster youths from sex trafficking and keep them out of the cycle. Victims of sex trafficking might be returned to a group home only to begin recruiting their friends into the sex trade, she said.
That is the concern of CAS Research and Education, a Sacramento-based nonprofit group that combats human trafficking. The organization was spun out of California Against Slavery, co-sponsor of Proposition 35, the anti-sex-trafficking measure California voters passed in November.
Half of sexually trafficked minors in California come from the foster care system. By comparison, fewer than 1% of all children in California are foster children.
(Koseff)
Operation Cross Country is now a perpetual job; this was sweep seven since its launch in 2008. Numbers tallied elsewhere suggest 423 youth recovered over the last five years.
I am not finding much mention of international youth trafficking in this round.
____________________
Notes:
Koseff, Alexei. "Sex-trafficking sting highlights vulnerability of foster children". Loss Angeles Times. July 29, 2013. LATimes.com. August 16, 2013. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-child-sex-20130730,0,1571781.story
Koyama, Emi. "Operation Cross Country VII Roundup and Comments". Eminism. July 30, 2013. Eminism.org. August 16, 2013. http://eminism.org/blog/entry/387
- Status