DrMantisToboggan

April 25th, 2017 at 1:30 PM ^

Every story regarding an NFL draft prospect between January and the Draft needs a "wait for more facts/investigation". 

Conley is either a horrible animal or innocent and a victim of a nasty opportunist. 

Peppers either drank too much water for the NFL's urine tests or wast trying to cover something up. 

JD either hit a woman or is, again, a victim of an (emotionally biased) opportunist. 

People make bad decisions and people also try to defame/extort people when they are about to blow up. Things get ugly when you try to sort between those two options without enough information.

Magnus

April 25th, 2017 at 1:43 PM ^

It's not impossible, but there aren't a ton of women who want to go through all the emotional turmoil and trouble of reporting sexual assaults. It's actually a huge burden on the victim and her family, too. So it's not that often that reports of sexual assault are just someone who's mad or looking for an opportunity. Most of the time, it's because they were actually attacked in some way.

DrMantisToboggan

April 25th, 2017 at 2:07 PM ^

The first two women that I personally knew who went through the entire criminal & legal process of accusing someone of rape both did so to cover up their adultery/out of spite. Completely ruined one man's life just because he slept with someone (multiple times, entirely consensually) that he was unaware had a long-time boyfriend. 

 

This is entirely anecdotal - I know. I also believe that rape is one of the most vile crimes one could commit and I believe that rapists (if able to be proved beyond any doubt) should be castrated or killed. However, false accusers of rape are not wildly uncommon. I agree and understand that it is a huge emotional stress for someone who is actually a victim of rape or sexual assault or any assault, but someone who was not actually assaulted would not carry that same reluctancy to come forward. 

 

I'm not absolving Conley, or any man who has been accused of wrongdoing, in this situation. I have just seen too many instances of an accusing woman who many people know is lying to unequivocally judge this accusation as genuine. I have also known men who have really forced themselves on victims. I would say that both happen enough to not make a judgement either way when these things come up, especially when one party is about to come into a lot of money or fame.

Erik_in_Dayton

April 25th, 2017 at 2:13 PM ^

...is arguing that this accusation is necessarily well founded simply because rape accusations are usually truthful.  But there are good reasons to believe that they are usually truthful and that rape is, if anything, underreported.  Any one of us could know ten men who were wrongfully accused of rape, but that is still far too small a sample to capture the national picture.  

BlueFaninCincy

April 25th, 2017 at 3:19 PM ^

"but someone who was not actually assaulted would not carry that same reluctancy to come forward."

Seems to me that falsely accusing a guy about to be drafted in the NFL is taking an enormous risk.  Prosecution, very costly civil suit, loss of reputation, etc.  I think that's where the reluctancy for someone not actually assaulted would come from.

Blueblood2991

April 25th, 2017 at 5:32 PM ^

To play devil's advocate, the risk vs high reward is still there. They could get a settlement from a new millionaire just to make it go away. False accusations are rarely prosecuted.

They can still cash out if that fails. All you have to do is look at reddit and gofundme to see how many people pour out thousands of dollars towards strangers who post a good sob story. They could easily cover court costs and make cash on top of that. It's a strange phenomenon going on these days. Plus if it is a false accusation, there's really no emotional stress for them 'reliving their made up rape". 

*Disclaimer- I agree with Magnus and most in this thread that most accusations are true, rape is under-reported, and there is a serious problem with the culture. However, it isn't that big of a risk to falsely accuse, and going after a soon to be millionaire would be a logical target.

gbdub

April 26th, 2017 at 1:21 AM ^

FWIW, your own link notes the 2-10% number is for "false reports" which are distinct from "baseless reports" or reports without enough evidence to carry forward. So "10% false report" doesn't mean "90% are truthful and accurate".

I don't think we have evidence one way or the other if claims made against a famous guy about to get rich are more or less likely to be false than average (intuitively you'd think more likely, but you know what assuming does...). And in any case the statistics don't let you judge for a particular event with confidence. So we ought to do what we always ought to do in these scenarios and let the professionals sort this out.

BostonWolverine

April 25th, 2017 at 2:16 PM ^

It is very important to believe someone who reports a rape. Far too many women don't report assaults for fear that they will not be believed and will not get justice. 

Many people say "innocent until proven guilty," but as Magnus said, it is *far* more likely that the alleged victim is telling the truth. And I mean it's not even in the same ballpark. 

Let's put it another way. By saying "it's very possible this woman is making this up and trying to extort the kid," you're going out of your way to account for something that has a 2-5% chance of happening. Probably less given that the other part of the story was about asking to have a foursome.

ijohnb

April 25th, 2017 at 2:29 PM ^

1) Innocent until proven guilty is every bit as applicable to rape than to any other crime.  There should not be any kind of presumption that a person accused of rape is more likely to be guilty than any other type of crime, that is ridiculous. 

2) You think it is more likely that a rape occured because the alleged victim voluntarily went to a hotel room with the alleged assailant to watch him involved in a threesome?  Huh?  I am not saying the alleged victim is lying but I can't see how these particular circumstances would convince you even further of his guilt.

BostonWolverine

April 25th, 2017 at 2:51 PM ^

Sorry, but that's crap. Here's the problem with "innocent until proven guilty" in rape cases: 

If "innocent until proven guilty" exists in this instance, it invalidates the victim's claim that a crime has even occurred and puts an ADDITIONAL burden of proof on the victim (and the state) past reasonable doubt. You have to prove TWO things: that a crime occurred AND that the defendant was the perpetrator. Therefore, the entire process starts within a system that is skeptical of a victim's claim. That absolutely cannot happen. 

ijohnb

April 25th, 2017 at 3:06 PM ^

doesn't invalidate anything.  You always have to prove those two things, it doesn't create a more significant burden in any way.  In fact, often times, the most significant element of the crime (that sex occured) is often admitted by the accused and is not in dispute, and he only has his word as his defense.  In this way, innocent until proven guilty is even more important in a rape case.

BostonWolverine

April 25th, 2017 at 3:36 PM ^

It *does* invalidate the aspect of the crime, because the vast majority of rapes aren't in the public space, have trace-if-any evidence, and are committed by people who KNOW each other. 

Nobody goes "Well, you have to check and see if that money is really missing or if that convenience store owner hid it as revenge against this guy." 

Nobody says, "Well, maybe that mugger thought the guy WANTED to have his watch stolen. He shouldn't have taken it off." 

Don't be ridiculous. If you assume that the defendant in a rape case is innocent until proven guilty, that means the victim's credibility is the primary thing on trial. If you assume credibility of a rape complainant, far more guilty people will get locked up than innocent ones, and more victims will see justice. 

 

Maynard

April 25th, 2017 at 6:06 PM ^

No, you're obviously not ready for that conversation. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard in a rape case whether you like it or not. And you don't just have to give someone their day in court. They are also presumed innocent during that day in court until proven otherwise. It's a criminal matter, not a civil one. Pretty basic stuff.

Maynard

April 25th, 2017 at 8:05 PM ^

No shit Captain Obvious. But that was not the argument you have been making throughout the thread. But seriously, please learn about criminal law before coming on here and proving foolish. Hell, just Google element (criminal law) for the most basic understanding of why you're wrong on this. You seemed to have skipped the whole alleged part and went straight to trial when that is not how it works. Learn about the components i.e. Mens rea, Actus reus, concurrence, and causation before saying what you have about it being about determining just whether the accused committed a crime. 

BostonWolverine

April 25th, 2017 at 8:20 PM ^

Well, here's the thing about what I said: If that were so obvious, then there wouldn't be trial arguments about whether sex was consensual. There wouldn't be discussions of why she would go up to his hotel room. There wouldn't be arguments about why she didn't get a rape kit. There wouldn't be arguments about whether she's lying about being raped. 

If you assume that a rape has been committed, the only thing you could do to defend is the idea that it could've been someone else - NOT that she wasn't raped. 

grumbler

April 25th, 2017 at 9:41 PM ^

This is totally false, and one of the problems with the "lynch 'em" mentality.  Rape is one of those peculiar crime where the difference between the crime and perfectly lawful behavior is in the mind of the accused.  Whether the woman believes she was raped is not relevant to the issue of whether a crime occurred or not; the crime requires criminal motive on the part of the accused.  If he sincerely believed that the sex was consensual he is not, as a matter of law, guilty of the crime of rape.

I think that victims who believe they were raped should be believed as a matter of course, and they should get all the assistance that they deserve regardless of the outcome of the trial (if there is even a trial).  Whether the accused is found guilty is a matter of mens rea, though, and independent of the victim's beliefs.

I also, btw, find your assumption that only women are raped disturbing.  That's one more bit of evidence that you are not equipped to address this issue.

BostonWolverine

April 25th, 2017 at 10:18 PM ^

First off, I'm talking about women being raped because 90% of adult rapes are of women. That's an overwhelming majority, so let's not pretend men are taking up a ton of the rape stats. I'm also not worried about those being prosecuted. Men are more likely to be believed if they say a rape has occurred. 

Second, the mens rea issue is a gross miscarriage of justice. And frankly, "I didn't know she didn't consent" is such a piece of crap thing to claim. That's a sexist precedent, and it's already being changed in many jurisdictions to set parameters for what constitutes a "reasonable mistake" of consent. 

I know what the laws are, and I know why I don't like them. I'm hoping to see more laws/statutes made about enthusiastic consent. 

rc15

April 25th, 2017 at 3:38 PM ^

How is that absurd..? Socially they were assumed guilty by everyone and it destroyed their lives. In the end they were innocent.

The whole purpse of "innocent until proven guilty" is that it is worse to punish someone for a crime they didn't commit than to let someone go who for a crime they did. Rape shouldn't be any different.

gruden

April 25th, 2017 at 6:51 PM ^

You give a perfectly valid example of why it's important to not rush to judgment of the accused and you get downvoted.  Have we learned nothing from recent history?

Yeah, when a woman is raped it is a major traumatic affect on her life.  Well, the same is true for someone falsely accused of a crime.  We can help both sides with a reasonably swift and fair judicial system.  To bias potential jurists with a rush to judgment does no one any favors.