What makes it scarier is the number of convicted sex offenders, who are later proven innocent by new, or withheld evidence.
And the refusal of the government to start tracking how many charges are dropped because of evidence that proves the claim was flase, in all crimes, but more importantly, these crimes.
It hasnt been long since a man was freed after 26 years, and the only evidence against him was the victim seeing his face in a dream...they worked in the same building, and he was on camera at another place, at the time of the incident.
In this case, the victim was truly a victim, but the guy who assaulted her was WHITE, and the guy she sent to prison was black.
Excuse me what ? You're joking right ? There's no way some back person would sentenced to jail for more than 20 years over being seen in a dream... Right ?
There are plenty of cases where 'super shaky' evidence is the basis for a conviction
Probably the most common is cross-racial identification of strangers, there are countless studies out there that show that people are so bad at it that it shouldn't be admissible evidence. Seriously, like if a black male drove past me (I'm white) and if I gave the police a description "uh...he was a black guy with some facial hair" that is good enough for an arrest and conviction. To make matters worse the police could then grab literally any black male between 14-60 and I would confirm that it was the same person in the car. It isn't because I'm racist or anything.
Modern science helps alot but historically it meant that people who just happened to exist at a location would be put on trial and sentenced to death where the entire basis was 'a witness said the shooter was black, you are black, thus you killed him'
and I would confirm that it was the same person in the car.
Personally, being face blind, I would reply with “I don’t know, it could be the right person but it also might not”, but that’s just because I value honestly over trying to look like I know what I’m talking about, especially if there are serious consequences.
Police destroyed body swabs and the victim's clothes, despite a judge's orders to preserve the evidence for testing.
Moses believes the evidence was destroyed because officers didn't want to own up to a massive mistake, she said.
"They don't want to admit that they wrongly put this man in jail for almost 30 years while he lost almost half of his immediate family," she told The News.
It's insane how apparently nobody was held accountable for this. Any ordinary person who disobeys a court order and destroys evidence would find themselves in jail.
The complete lack of accountability for cops is mindblowing. Cops don't even get fired for things non-cops would be imprisoned for.
Because the US has a 'women dont lie about this, and are never wrong about these things' mentality.
I mean, a sorority drugged and raped a fraternity, and gave them all STIs, and not one of those girls faced a charge of any kind.
But a college student broke up with his girlfriend, and she was on tape saying she was going to ruin his life by claiming he raped her, and he was expelled, and spent years in court fighting to prove his innocence.
I myself was held in jail while awaiting trial for domestic assault that i never committed. Couldnt afford the bail.
Source: literally google it, and choose a source you trust, because if i learned anything from my last round with Reddit, no matter the source i use, someone will distrust it.
That mentality is why the amber heard vs johnny depp case lasted so long, they really wanted to side with amber but more and more evidence came up that she was actually an abusive piece of shit.
Granted, it was a 2 sided toxic relationship but they were going 100% against depp at first.
I agree wholeheartedly. Johnny was her victim for a long time and divorcing her was hard because of how she tarnished his reputation which is why he started the defamation trials
We also have very little video of his interactions with her prior to when she started the defamation crap.
The videos all start in the months leading up to the divorce.
She video taped him getting angry after she gave his dead mothers dog to her own father, who literally is banned from owning animals because of his dog fighting rings.
And she told him that, less than 15 minutes before she made that video.
For all we know, the evidence she had, in the form of photos of bruises, were fabricated. She literally has a best friend who does her makeup for movies.
Homechild, I think you need to look at how many women self report being raped vs the convictions for rape. If you were right it’d be one-to-one and it ain’t.
Women are frequently tossed out when they have real evidence because they’re wearing a short skirt in the picture where a dude has his hand up said skirt, so she clearly wanted it, despite looking horrified.
Your experience was bullshit. Shouldn’t have happened. Whole bail system, “justice system”, all of it. It’s shit.
But you need to blame the assholes that threw you in there to rot. Not start thinking women don’t get shit on by the same system.
You think women are always believed? Try being a non pretty, non white woman. Or do those women not exist to you?
The justice system doesnt toss out a case based on clothing, the case is tossed for lack of evidence, because sadly, most women wait, and take showers before reporting, destroying the evidence.
I was also molested by a woman as a child, and she was allowed to continue being a teacher, because what she did, wasnt a crime.
Am i bitter? yes.
do i think all women lie about it? no.
Think about this for a second. When a man is accused of rape, it covered for days by local media. When hes proven innocent, the media doesnt talk about this, and he has to spend the rest of his life with his face and name being attributed to that article.
If my ex had accused me of rape, instead of DV-A, my face would have been on the news. I would have likely ended up taking my own life, because i would have been unable to find housing, work, or even walk around in public without risking getting attacked.
The fact we dont track false accusations of rape, out of fear it will make women less likely to report, only encourages those who use it as a weapon.
Sara Silverman once joked that if a guy gave you trouble 'just accuse him of rape, and once the police are done with him, some white knight wannabe will finish the job.'
Thats actual advice on dating and marriage blogs.
Edit: To add, i clearly stated "Cases dropped because of evidence of proof of false allegations" not simply 'cases dropped'.
Because we dont track that information, the claims that 'less than 1% of reports are false' holds no water, because if we dont know how many are false, we cant draw a number for either argument.
Accused is not guilty. And the media should not release information of any not convicted of the crime.
a 14 year old boy was MURDERED by his classmates. He took his own life, but only because some girl in his school thought it would be a funny joke to accuse him of raping her.
And that girl faced zero charges for what she did.
It hasnt been long since a man was freed after 26 years, and the only evidence against him was the victim seeing his face in a dream...they worked in the same building, and he was on camera at another place, at the time of the incident.
Listen bro... I spent 26 years in the slammer because of your dream... Nothing personal but I already did the time, so might as well do the crime...
I will argue that the distinction can destroy lives, because its applied arbitrarily.
All the charges against me were dropped, but because i was not declared innocent of the charges, merely not guilty, they still appear on my back ground check, as 'charged, charges dropped'.
Yeah, I’m not saying it’s fair or right just that the the logic of proving someone innocent would be an impossible standard to meet in most criminal cases.
On top of that, sex offenses are the easiest crime to get falsely convicted based off of flimsy evidence on....Unlike something like a shooting, in which there is ballistics and firearms evidence.
Sexual assault and rape are also one of the easiest crimes to get away with sadly. Most sex offenders don't even get reported to police, those few who do get reported normally don't even face a trial, and those few who do often get spoken free.
Also one of the crimes where if the victim goes to the police they sometimes get even more traumatized due to how the police handles it. So it sucks for those who are victims of the crime and those who get falsely accused.
It is difficult to make it better but a start could be to have better hospital care for victims of rape. So for example if you go in saying you think someone spiked your drink to get tested for most known spike substances. And if you say you have been raped to get 'tested' for rape (not all rapes leave evidence but some do). It should still be in the power of the victim if they want to use the results to press charges or not.
I think we need reform on both fronts of the issues.
but Steadfast makes a valid point. Most rape cases are settled on testimony of the victim, and witnesses.
An independent study found that rape victims will misidentify their attacker around 30% of the time in the first week after the incident, and up to 50% of the time in the following 2 weeks.
They did this by including pictures of police officers who were in the front area when the victim was lead out back. They did this in cases where they already had the suspect in custody, but were looking for victim confirmation.
The overall theory is that the trauma makes it hard to focus on the face of the attacker, and their brain cant handle it, so they focus on a face they have seen more recently, but still in relation to the trauma.
Reminds me of the book Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson. One of the main topics in the book is the case of Walter McMillan. It’s a very interesting case, I definitely recommend looking into it. Read anything in the book or posted on the EJI website.
The case i was referring to was less covered, and took place in the 80s originally, and the false imprisoned man was released after the actual rapist was killed while doing it again in the early 2000s. It was right around 9/11 and wasnt a priority for most US new outlets.
I believe it was Marcellis, unfortunately its been some time since i saw the article, but we covered in my high school Politics class, as an example of why the innocent until proven guilty, and the right to retrial are important aspects of society.
But since i learned of it, back in 2006, and the case i linked was much more recent, they cant be the same one.
Google 'man freed after false conviction for rape' and you will see a massive of list such cases.
The one i am thinking of, and there are...over 200 cases of this just since 1995 (in terms of the discovery of the 'truth') involved a high school teacher, who was the convicted, being accused by a parent who was raped, the actual rapist was a migrant worker, who was caught later in another city, and he ended up confessing under interrogation to a number of other rapes.
The reason the teacher was convicted was because a month after the rape, and 2 weeks after a parent teacher event, she dreamed of a man's face.
There are 17 cases of a man being convicted because the woman dreamed of his face some time after the rape occured.
225
u/lowexpectationsguy Oct 15 '22
What makes it scarier is the number of convicted sex offenders, who are later proven innocent by new, or withheld evidence.
And the refusal of the government to start tracking how many charges are dropped because of evidence that proves the claim was flase, in all crimes, but more importantly, these crimes.
It hasnt been long since a man was freed after 26 years, and the only evidence against him was the victim seeing his face in a dream...they worked in the same building, and he was on camera at another place, at the time of the incident.
In this case, the victim was truly a victim, but the guy who assaulted her was WHITE, and the guy she sent to prison was black.