Maybe it would be investigated and reported the way fires are.
Arson is a very serious problem in the United States. Like false rape claims, the prevalence of arson is difficult to pinpoint, and even the definition/classification varies (some classifications of arson include fires of either an incendiary or suspicious nature, others include only incendiary fires). While the numbers are a moving target, ironically, the range of percentages typically cited isn't far off from conservative estimates of false rape claims. We've seen reports that 16 percent, 12.2 percent, and 21 percent of all reported fires, and 14 percent of all structural fires, are arsons. Each year, arson is responsible for hundreds of deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in the US. Motives for arson range from malicious mischief to attempts to collect insurance money to revenge or intimidation to attempts to cover up another crime. The majority of arsons are started by teenagers, and studies show that boys make up the vast majority of teen arsonists.
Despite its seriousness, arson is treated as exactly what it is: a crime. Unlike rape, fire investigations and arson have not been politicized.
For example, no sane person insists that no one commits arson, or that every report of fire is a legitimate report of an accidental fire.
Few people are intent on manufacturing statistics to make it appear fires occur more frequently than they actually do.
No one insists that every arson diminishes the credibility of every person who reports a fire, or that arsons cause homeowners to not report legitimate fires due to fears they won't be believed.
Fire investigations aren't subject to political pressures to reach a conclusion about the origins of fires. This is in contrast to rape claims in some jurisdictions: due to political pressure from women's groups, special sexual assault police officers are sometimes assigned to make putative victims more comfortable and to help build a case against the accused male. Evidence inconsistent with the claim that a rape occurred is at times ignored.
Neither police nor journalists shy away from publicly raising the possibility of arson after a fire they deem "suspicious." When fire fighters suspect arson -- perhaps they see multiple points of origin, or the presence of accelerants, or they just have a gut reaction that something isn't right -- no one thinks it improper when they initiate an arson investigation. A recent headline blared the following: "Suspicious Early Morning Fire in Edinburg" The story noted: "The fire was quickly put out. The Hidalgo County arson K9 was called to the scene to help determine how the fire started." Another started this way: "Fire Department investigators suspect an arsonist set fire to a home that has burned twice in 22 days, a Fire Department spokesman said." Another story said this: "An arson investigation is underway in Emerado after a mobile home burned down. . . . . It's not clear yet what caused the fire, but the Fire Chief is investigating it as an arson . . . ."
_______________________
No one is suggesting that false rape claims are as easy to spot as arson is to a trained fire investigator. The lifeless crime scene is often more conducive to objective fact-finding than a human being who cries rape. But suspicious rape claims are often relatively easy to spot. Usually, one or more red flags are present. I frequently can predict that a rape claim will turn out to be a lie just from reading the news accounts of alleged rapes. I am 100% certain that qualified law enforcement investigators are far more adept at it than I am.Yet, we are stranded in a culture where it is proper to deprive men of their liberty and blacken their good names name over even suspicious rape claims -- because treating a rape claim as "suspicious" before it is conclusively shown to be a lie, usually in the face of overwhelming evidence of falsehood and a recantation, is not the politically correct thing to do.
If rape/false rape claims were handled the way fires are handled, we'd let law enforcement investigators do their job without subtly and not so subtly urging them to snag more rape convictions. Law enforcement wouldn't shy away from treating suspicious claims as suspicious claims, or calling them exactly that. And law enforcement would not jail a presumptively innocent man or boy on a suspicious rape claim merely because a woman cried rape.
In short, we would stop treating rape as a political issue, and start treating false rape claims as crimes.
14 comments:
If rape were treated the way arson is treated, without all the shit, we'd see women locked up in droves for false rape claims.
And then we'd see false rape claims disappear.
"Maybe it would be investigated and reported the way fires are"
Brilliant! Simply brilliant.
This is a very apt analogy to draw WRT False rape accusations.
Perhaps the very word 'rape" is simply to "charged" for many feminists and Conservatives to be able to separate themselves logically from their initial "gut" reactions to hearing or reading that "trigger word".
Thus, to give them a way to compare it to something not so "charged" so that they will be able to step back and take a more object look is probably a very good way to introduce such folks to the issue of FRA's.
Well done!
I disagree with this, Archivist.
Unfortunately, as can be seen in by the behavior of Rick Perry in Texas as concerning the Camaeron Todd Willingham case where a man was executed for an arson that dozens of national experts over the past 5 years have said was not an arson, politicians will do anything to cover up mistakes. Based on faulty "science" there's been a heck of a lot of arson convictions in Texas -much more than the national average - and yet Perry's office has refused to change Texas's methods, interfered with an independent panel set up to investigate the case, and recently
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7344654.html
Injustices, esp. ones involving death, tend to be very apt in all parts of our system to be minimized or denied.
Clarence
Another article on the Willingham case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us/28ttdocumentary.html
I like how it ends:
"If there’s an overriding theme to a film that puts science first, it is that science and advocacy are not friends. "
Clarence
Clarence, I don't mean to say that arson is handled properly everywhere. But even in Texas, what politicized victim group has highjacked it?
Clarence - "I disagree with this, Archivist."
Clarence,
I'm afraid I'm not seeing the connection here.
Yes,
it is possible to have someone wrongly accused of arson, and ultimately wrongfully imprisoned.
Yet, in keeping with Pierce's analogy, even supposing that at some point a woman is wrongfully convicted of having made an FRA, would that then suggest that no rape claim should be considered suspect and women should ever be investigated?
That would make as much sense as arguing that the tragic situation in the Willingham means that no one else should ever again be suspect of arson and investigated lest another innocent person be likewise ensnared.
Miscarriages of justice DO NOT imply that efforts to punish criminals should be ceased, but rather that the bar must be adjusted higher to help in preventing such injustice.
This is exactly what has been said here of charges of rape. For instance, had the now nearly universal standard for all available DNA evidence being tested and identifications clearly established (which is not as trivial as it might sound to those who’s primary knowledge of DNA evidence comes from TV shows), William McCaffery would likely have been exonerated at trial (the DNA evidence clearly showed that the saliva attributed to him as proof of his alleged sexual offense came from a woman instead). His defense should have been able to use the collection of such evidence, without it having been tested to raise reasonable doubt.
What is necessary with both arson and false reporting charges are proper corroborating evidence, and the best possible forensics available. In matters of both sex and fires, the forensics today are well advanced from what they were in 1991 (and even 2004, for that matter). While such things as DNA evidence are not “fool-proof”, it is increasingly less likely that a man will be wrongly convicted of rape where DNA evidence does not clearly implicate him today that it was even 6 years ago.
I don’t believe that any serious person here has ever called for anything other than clear and convincing evidence against a woman accused of falsely accusing a man of rape as the basis for her conviction. And, as can be seen in many of the stories covered here, there is ample evidence against the false accuser to easily result in a just conviction.
I must disagree with (your) throwing out-dated monkey-wrenches into the effort to have false rape claims investigated and prosecuted.
slwerner:
You owe me an apology.
I've posted here many times before, though not a lot recently. I've never done anything but care for those falsely accused or rape or criticize feminists.
But Archivist made a sweeping statement about how no other crime is ever politicized as much as rape prosecutions, well he may be right about no other particular CRIME- but when it comes to things involving the death penalty that politicization and polarization is all over.
Texas executes more than any other state in the US by far, and the potential innocence of those sentenced to death is a big deal in Texas AS IT SHOULD be.
Considering WHAT HAPPENED TO WILLINGHAM, Archivist using arson as his example of a crime which is not politicized was ignorant enough for me to consider commenting about.
Basically here's the rule: any crime that can get one the death penalty or put on a public offenders list is a crime that is potentially (and probably is) politicized somewhere in the US.
Prosecutors and pro-death penalty politicians (by the way I am pro death penalty but I won't hesitate to admit this) LOVE to COVER THEIR BUTTS.
Archivist would be better served to have said that NO CRIME IS POLITICIZED AS MUCH as rape has been and left it there. I would agree with him on that.
Clarence
Archivist:
In Texas the groups that seem to have hijacked arson are:
The State, particularly the governor and the parole board neither of whom will look good if through negligence or whatever they sent an innocent man to death.
The State's firefighting investigators- the ones at the top that is, at least one of whom was involved in this case. Texas likes to do things the "Texan" way might as well sum up their attitude.
Both pro and anti- death penalty groups. Pro-death penalty groups often do all they can to try to deny that anyone innocent has ever been put to death in Texas, meanwhile , while I'd settle for a moratorium on the DP in Texas so the state could get its act together, some anti groups want to use Mr. Willingham as the first stage of an effort to end it. The death penalty is popular in Texas, I might add, so that particular quest is quixotic.
Clarence
Clarence, I do think you have a good point, and I don't think anyone is minimizing what you're saying. And, yes, from everything I've seen, Texas has a tremendous problem with the death penalty, a sort of law and order fetish all its own.
But I agree that this attitude cuts across all serious crimes in Texas.
Most importantly, perhaps I need to spell out what I mean by politicized. I am referring to is group identity politics. No "victim" group has highjacked a crime the way the feminists have highjacked rape.
Clarence - "You owe me an apology."
Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your post. I do apologize if I have.
I took your point to be that if an innocent person could be wrongly convicted of a crime that is actually an attempt to gain from fabricating misfortune befalling them, then we should avoid looking at those claiming to have been victimized as possibly lying about it.
I'm not familiar with the case you cite, but I'm certain that the capital charge was 1st degree murder (based on the supposed knowledge that he started the fire knowing that his children would die because of it) rather than arson.
I'd have to doubt that there is a "victims" lobby related to arson, so I don't see it as be politicized. The situation in Texas seem more like good old-fashion ass-covering.
Still, If I've misunderstood and mischaracterized your point, I do apologize.
Nicely argued, Archivist.
I'm running this through my feminist ideology to see where there might be a flaw with your analogy, but I can't find a logical one.
Other than just, it's not the same thing, but that's true of any analogy.
The emotional upheaval around the issue of rape/false rape is so huge, I often have a hard time getting women to stay neutral when discussing it.
This comparison does a strong job of addressing it.
Maybe a name change is a good idea, but it would quickly just become the "new" word for rape and sexual assault.
I tend to agree with Clarence that perhaps arson is not the best example, as arson is also an emotive issue that tends to be exploited by populist politicians. (I have lived in areas prone to bushfire, and I can say that in many of these places you are as likely to get a lynch mob against a suspected arsonist as a suspected rapist. Probably more so).
The only difference is that with rape, you have the law-and-order populist hang-em-high brigade singing from the same hymn sheet as the radical fems. This is a formidable combination.
Maybe a good example would be to compare how rape is covered with how crimes like fraud are covered.
For example, in a media report about an employee allegedly defrauding their employer, would the employer be referred to as "the victim"?
Nick S,
No, but then, there isn't an industry that needs to keep the emotional angst going strong, to keep the funds flowing in, when it comes to fraud.
This is why the government needs to scrap VAWA and funding for any kind of shelters and programs. If they are that needed, it will be possible to support without the government.
Post a Comment