Rice

[DanaC]

A great many of these claims (woman claims man beat her; woman claims man beat child; woman claims man raped her; woman claims man raped child) turn out to be utter crap...lies that are recanted, or, proven false.

Not saying' 'most'; am sayin' 'a great many'.

Fair enough. But given that there are also likely to be many genuine cases; and given that there is likely to be an under reporting of genuine cases (of the women i know who have been raped or beaten only one involved the police ), it might be good if you didn't phrase things in such a dismissive manner.

I don't doubt that there are some people who lodge false complaints. And i absolutely believe that the accused should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But the experience of women who do report rape - and I mean women who have been subjected to deeply damaging attacks - is that they are often automatically disbelieved. They are treated as guilty of lying unless they can prove otherwise.

Studies into police practice have shown that in many cases women have been persuaded not to take action, on the grounds that they will not be believed and on the grounds that they cannot prove that it was rape - even when they have evidence to back it up. The attitude of those who investigate is often one of disbelief as a default setting. Women are often assumed either to be lying, or to have brought it upon themselves.

The result of that culture of disbelief is that the majority of victims do not report.

[Gravdigr]

Henry, I'm hearing a fairly solid endorsement of wife-beating there...

[xoxoxoBruce]

I have anecdotes too, several guys that lost everything and 2 that went to prison over trumped up lies. But they're no more evidence than anyone else's anecdotes.

There's something I wonder about though. Over the years I've heard/read a number of jokes which involved the same theme, what she's thinking, and what he's thinking. There's probably one or two in the humor thread. Sometimes she's writing in a diary, or talking to a friend, laying out a whole thought process that goes on and on about what she thinks he's feeling, what she thinks he's thinking, about a sexual encounter or their relationship. The punch line is always he isn't, he's wondering why his bike didn't want to idle, or why he hasn't heard from the taxidermist stuffing his fish.

This theme keeps popping up because it's funny. It's funny because most people can relate to situations where you find a significant other is thinking entirely different than you are. the same reason the Mars / Venus thing comes back like a cucumber sandwich. We do think differently, if for no other reason than we're raised differently. The cultural influences, the parental expectations, the education system, all shape our thought processes.

That long winded excursion was to say maybe the differences in descriptions of an incident can stem from how people view them, how they think about them. Most everyone agrees rape is bad, but it's harder to get a consensus on a definition of what constitutes rape. I'll never accept it's rape if you change your mind after, or regret your decision.

[DanaC]

I'll never accept it's rape if you change your mind after, or regret your decision.

That's because that is not rape.

However, if you go home with a guy, or take him home with you and then decide you do't actually want sex but he forces himself on you, that is rape. And if you are too unconscious from alcohol and a man decides to have some fun with your body when you're too out of it to know what's happening - that is rape.

Get so far into the act and realise it's actually hurting you (something I have had experience of ) and say - wait, stop, this hurting me. And he refuses to stop, lays his whole weight on you and keeps on going whilst covering up your mouth with his hand to shut you up - is rape.

Having sex that you then regret having? Not rape.

Knowing, as most women do, what you are likely to face if you accuse someone of rape, I cannot imagine many women would throw themselves into that lion's den, just because they had sex they regretted. Most women who go through real and serious rape wuoldn;t want to. Most women who experience date rape don't want to. Most girls who are abused by older men don't want to.

'Crying rape' is not an easy out. There may be occasional circumstances - such as a young woman in a very strict environment, caught out in willing sex, who may hide behind a claim of rape. And some people have mental issues. In much the same way that some people will confess to a crime they haven't committed. There may even be cases where a woman has chosen to take revenge against man or skew a decision on child custody. But the reality of what it actually means to report a rape would put most people off. It's not like reporting a burglary. The police don't turn up assuming you're the victim or that you didn't invite the criminal into your body.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

...Get so far into the act and realise it's actually hurting you (something I have had experience of ) and say - wait, stop, this hurting me. And he refuses to stop, lays his whole weight on you and keeps on going whilst covering up your mouth with his hand to shut you up - is rape.

Even if he just used his hand and not duct tape? Just kidding, I agree.

Having sex that you then regret having? Not rape.

Yes, but I've seen girls claim it to their friends, their social circle. Not confront the man, or going to the authorities, but using it to shuck the responsibility for their decisions. "I was very drunk and then he forced me".

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There may even be cases where a woman has chosen to take revenge against man or skew a decision on child custody

This is the vast majority of false accusations, I believe. Divorces get very nasty very fast, and it is easy to allege abuse or marital rape as part of the proceedings without actually going to the police to file a report. Your lawyer may even try to talk you into it. My father has a friend who was trying to hire an aggressive divorce lawyer known for always winning, and the lawyer asked her, "Did he ever threaten you?" She said no, and he said firmly, "I'm asking you... did he ever do anything to make you feel afraid? Make you nervous about having him in the home?" She insisted no, and he refused to take her case.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in family court, because the judge just gets to decide who they believe more. Poof, kids are gone.

[DanaC]

That's appalling. And may explain why many people seem to have great difficulty in believing that a lot of women are actualy beaten and abused - and indeed a lot of children (by either parent).

Not sure if it's the same here or not. Certainly family courts are not the same as main courts; but as far as I know if there is an accusation of violence or abuse then the judge would seek documentary evidence for that and would require some form of evaluation (of the father, of the child) and a risk assessment to decide whether access should be supervised.

I have no doubt that there are abuses of that system. However, I also know of cases where the father has done a bang up job of presenting himself as a reasonable and loving dad despite having previously kicked ten shades of shit out of his wife and shown little to no interest in the children during the previous years. I can imagine it must be deeply traumatic for a dad who loves his kids to have them withheld from him on the basis of a lie. I also know it must be just as traumatic to have no choice aout waving your children off to go spend a weekend with a man you know to be dangerous and violent.

[DanaC]

From a 2004 report by Women's Aid:

Women’s Aid has compiled details of 29 children in 13 families who were killed between 1994 and 2004 as a result of contact (and in one case residence) arrangements in England and Wales. Ten of these children were killed in the last two years. The Government has acknowledged that with regard to five of these families contact was ordered by the court.

Findings
•
In three cases it is clear that not only did the court grant orders for unsupervised contact or residence to very violent fathers but that these decision were made against professional advice, without waiting for professional advice or without requesting professional advice. There was nothing to indicate that any court professionals have been held accountable.
•
It is clear that domestic violence was involved in 11 out of the 13 families. In one of the two remaining cases the mother has spoken of her ex-partner’s obsessively controlling behaviour (a characteristic feature of domestic violence) and in the other case there were concerns about the child’s safety.
Several of the homicides occurred during overnight stays.
•
Mental health issues (including depression and suicide threats or attempts) are mentioned with regard to 9 of the 13 fathers who killed their children.
•
In several cases where statutory agencies knew that the mother was experiencing domestic violence, the children were not viewed as being at risk of ‘significant harm’, even when she was facing potentially lethal violence.
•
In five cases it is clear that the father killed the children in order to take revenge on his ex-partner for leaving him.
•
Some professionals clearly did not have any understanding of the power and control dynamics of domestic violence, and did not recognise the increased risks following separation or the mother’s starting a new relationship.
•
In several cases professionals did not talk to the children and this meant that, in effect, there was no assessment of their needs. Sometimes this was because the perpetrator prevented any meaningful contact with the child.
•
With regard to the five homicide cases where contact was ordered by the court, we can only assume that the court did not follow the recommendation in the Good Practice Guidelines about ensuring the safety of the child and the resident parent before during and after contact. The guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children about supporting the non-violent parent also appears to have been largely ignored.
•
No explanation was given for the failure to carry out Serious Case Reviews with regard to seven of the children who were killed



In one case a judge granted residence of two children to a very violent father without waiting for a mental health assessment of the father, although the Social Services report “outlined an expectation that [the father] would receive treatment for his mental health needs”. He had apparently taken an overdose recently and declined hospital admission. The court also determined “detailed direct and indirect contact between each child and the non-custodial parent”. The child, who chose to live with the mother, was subsequently killed by the father during an unsupervised contact visit. It was reported at the father’s trial that he had also left a note indicating that he intended to kill all three children to take revenge on his wife for leaving him. The Serious Case Review states that “with hindsight, it could be argued that the Court should have waited before making a final decision until all the recommended reports were placed before them”.

In another case the father was on bail, awaiting trial for injuring the mother during a violent incident. The executive summary states that “…no significant risks of a child protection nature were identified. Nevertheless the Family Court Welfare Officers had recommended to the County Court that the (children’s) contact with their father should not include overnight stays.” In spite of this the mother’s lawyer “encouraged her to make a compromise” and the judge “made the decision on contact, contrary to the recommendations in the Family Court Welfare report.” The children were killed during the first overnight stay.

In a third case two children were killed by their violent father after their mother was reluctantly persuaded at the door of the court to agree to a contact order by consent. The mother states that she asked in vain for reports from the police, the GP and a psychiatrist to be added to the court welfare report.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conte..._homicides.pdf

[DanaC]

It's a difficult thing to work out what's true in cases of family breakdown. But the implications for not taking accusations of abuse seriously are very clear.

The implications for taking accusations at face value without any evidence are also appalling - unnecessarily separating parent and child.

It isn't just violent dads of course. There are also cases of children abused or killed by the woman's new partner (and indeed with her assistance or collusion) where the father has had no chance of being able to protect his child from harm. And not all family abusers are men. Sometimes the violent abuse is at the hands of wives and mothers - though statistically it is more often men.

[DanaC]

Ah, on the standard of proof required for such things - from that report:

This is because the new measures being introduced in January 2005 will not overrule case-law precedents, which state that “contact is almost always in the interests of the child”13 and which require a higher standard of proof than the simple balance of probabilities in cases involving “more serious allegations”.14

[xoxoxoBruce]

Another point... everyone gathering data, compiling statistics, keeping/graphing records, has an axe to grind. Every one.

Whether working for a women's, children's, or men's, advocacy group. Or depending on impressive results to secure a further grant. Or working for some think tank or religious organization. Everybody has a stake in the results, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Probably the only ones you can trust are doing it for money, only for money.

[henry quirk]

Not from me, you're not.

[henry quirk]

Don't know why that would be.

Folks makin' money on 'this' or 'that' have a vested interest in seein' 'this' and 'that' continue (and if the money-makin' folks have to tweak stats, they will).

My point: when it comes to 'hot' issues like 'domestic violence', 'rape', 'child abuse', 'abortion', 'race', etc. money-makin' folks on both sides (on any side) are suspect.

Really: any and all passionately invested in any 'hot' issues are suspect.

Folks will lie to preserve jobs, to further legal agenda, to revenge themselves on another.

Friends will lie to friends, family will lie to family, folks will lie to cops/courts, for profit, for ideal, for 'justice'.

Real bad guys (and gals) and victims get lost amidst the horse shit foisted up by all the liars and profiteers.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Not from me, you're not.

I stand corrected.

But, I won't stand with you in an elevator.

[henry quirk]

Wise choice, especially if you plan to slap, and spit on, me.