IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: 25% of children are mistaken or lying
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
wjlmarsh |
Randall wrote:
This touches on some of the discussions we've been having recently about rates of false reporting. Studies find a wide variety of percentage rates because their definitions of what counts as false also vary. In addition, the researchers use different methods to determine which reports fall within that definition.
What definition of false applies those who actually deal with the reports? There isn't one according to the CPS and police. There are no false reports because the policy is to believe everyone.
And what is the method used in criminal trials to determine which reports are true and which are false? Basically the jury just guesses who's telling the truth. But other research into detecting deception shows us that most humans detect lies no more than (and often less than) 50% of the time [Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1991), 162; and Aldert Vjrij, Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice (Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons, 2000), 5-31.]
If anyone asked me, which no one did but someone should have, I would recommend one of two remedies. The first is to put in place fixed evidential standards for rape and sexual assaults etc. My understanding is that Sharia law does something like this. A prosecution for XYZ requires evidence of A, B and C. Without it, no prosecution happens. An example would be when a woman claims to have been too drunk to consent to sex. OK then, let's see a blood alcohol reading from near the time. There isn't one? Tough fucking shit. And those who claim to have been ravaged against their will need to present medical evidence of injuries commensurate with such a tale. No injuries or no doctor's notes? Guess what... Tough fucking shit. To anyone who thinks this is unreasonable, consider a prosecution for theft. First you have to show that the property belonged to you, then that the thief took it from you, then that he did so knowing he had no lawful authority to take it and then that the repossession was permanent or amounted to permanence. In a rape prosecution, sex is "proven" to have occurred just by the woman saying so. Consent is "proven" to have been not given just by the woman saying so (and the man must then rebut this). In order to produce sounder results, I think so-called sexual offence prosecutions should have to meet set evidential standards for basic elements of each offence, like - hey here's a good idea - some evidence that sex actually took place at all, or that the two people have indeed ever actually met...
The second remedy, which I favour, is to abolish so-called sex crimes. Attacking someone or secretly drugging them would of course still be against the law, and sexual mistreatment subsequent to the commission of one of these crimes could be an aggravating factor in sentencing. Abolition gets rid of the legal concept of sexual consent, which is both hopelessly confused and tainted by feminist ideology. We have situations where "I consented but I didn't want to... [?]" or "I consented at the time but now I feel like I was raped." And from this kind of nonsense that comes out of women's mouths, juries are supposed to work out if she was or wasn't consenting, if the man thought she was or wasn't, and if he thought she was, whether his belief was a reasonable one. All without any independent evidence of the events, just two people's differing perspective on the same events, where the woman might also have had one perspective at the time, quite another perspective later and yet a third after helpful "support" in advance of giving evidence at trial.
This whole area desperately needs some perspicacity and a complete overhaul.
Well put Randall. ....This whole area desperately needs some perspicacity and a complete overhaul. The final statement would apply to almost all aspects of our society.
I would add some other things that may be considered. Maybe there is a place for another tier of techiicans in court called something like "Evidence Technicans" whose job is to compile a complete document for all cases of the evidence provided and it's strength like DNA and that even it's collection and anaylsis is verified. Thus accountability and transparency is established. Automatic right of appeal and review of all cases with a fully detailed view of the evidence and outcome. This is based on the fact that human error mistaken or deliberate is normal. Thus in hospitals and airlines there are now many checks to counter error. Juries and judges, those making the decision would need to detail why the decision is thus . They agree with the trial evidence, judge's summary (Evidence technican's presentation) or this is the reason they can not accept the evidence. Like in the historic sex trials a detailed declaration of the reasons they know for sure the complainant's allegation is true. Randall said "Basically the jury just guesses who's telling the truth." which is how it definitely comes across. The Bill Cosby trial was interesting because the media were allowed to locate the jury members and ask about their reasoning etc. One at least said they were surprised at the lack of evidence. I see this media challenge in this case giving rise to each jury member (some do not of course) pressured into thinking and analysing. |
|
hedda |
the real problem is the kids often do not know they are lying- they are often just repeating what they believe is real.
When they are young they have not learned how to discriminate between fact and fantasy.
Hence when idiots claim "children never lie"..it's a false hood. Apart from the fact there are very malicious children who grow up to be malicious adults, kids can easily be persuaded to repeat a lie by adults hoping to please that adult.
child psychologists have known and talked about this for decades but now we are a tabloid driven generation and tabloids can maliciously craft their version of the 'truth' |
|
tdf |
JK2006 wrote:
about sex abuse; I reckon it's nearer 75% of adults who once were children and have greater reasons for making things up.
www.factuk.org/children-arent-always-tru...-about-sexual-abuse/
I agree. Not sure if it's as high as 75% but the second issue is the more significant one. |
|
Randall |
This touches on some of the discussions we've been having recently about rates of false reporting. Studies find a wide variety of percentage rates because their definitions of what counts as false also vary. In addition, the researchers use different methods to determine which reports fall within that definition.
What definition of false applies those who actually deal with the reports? There isn't one according to the CPS and police. There are no false reports because the policy is to believe everyone.
And what is the method used in criminal trials to determine which reports are true and which are false? Basically the jury just guesses who's telling the truth. But other research into detecting deception shows us that most humans detect lies no more than (and often less than) 50% of the time [Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1991), 162; and Aldert Vjrij, Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice (Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons, 2000), 5-31.]
If anyone asked me, which no one did but someone should have, I would recommend one of two remedies. The first is to put in place fixed evidential standards for rape and sexual assaults etc. My understanding is that Sharia law does something like this. A prosecution for XYZ requires evidence of A, B and C. Without it, no prosecution happens. An example would be when a woman claims to have been too drunk to consent to sex. OK then, let's see a blood alcohol reading from near the time. There isn't one? Tough fucking shit. And those who claim to have been ravaged against their will need to present medical evidence of injuries commensurate with such a tale. No injuries or no doctor's notes? Guess what... Tough fucking shit. To anyone who thinks this is unreasonable, consider a prosecution for theft. First you have to show that the property belonged to you, then that the thief took it from you, then that he did so knowing he had no lawful authority to take it and then that the repossession was permanent or amounted to permanence. In a rape prosecution, sex is "proven" to have occurred just by the woman saying so. Consent is "proven" to have been not given just by the woman saying so (and the man must then rebut this). In order to produce sounder results, I think so-called sexual offence prosecutions should have to meet set evidential standards for basic elements of each offence, like - hey here's a good idea - some evidence that sex actually took place at all, or that the two people have indeed ever actually met...
The second remedy, which I favour, is to abolish so-called sex crimes. Attacking someone or secretly drugging them would of course still be against the law, and sexual mistreatment subsequent to the commission of one of these crimes could be an aggravating factor in sentencing. Abolition gets rid of the legal concept of sexual consent, which is both hopelessly confused and tainted by feminist ideology. We have situations where "I consented but I didn't want to... [?]" or "I consented at the time but now I feel like I was raped." And from this kind of nonsense that comes out of women's mouths, juries are supposed to work out if she was or wasn't consenting, if the man thought she was or wasn't, and if he thought she was, whether his belief was a reasonable one. All without any independent evidence of the events, just two people's differing perspective on the same events, where the woman might also have had one perspective at the time, quite another perspective later and yet a third after helpful "support" in advance of giving evidence at trial.
This whole area desperately needs some perspicacity and a complete overhaul. |
|
JK2006 |
about sex abuse; I reckon it's nearer 75% of adults who once were children and have greater reasons for making things up.
www.factuk.org/children-arent-always-tru...-about-sexual-abuse/ |
|
|
|
|
