7 ms·

Is there really a big problem with acceptable/legal behavior not being agreed upon? Isn't the problem usually that the guy claims "it was consensual?" Similar

by shasta 10y ago

Is there really a big problem with acceptable/legal behavior not being agreed upon? Isn't the problem usually that the guy claims "it was consensual?" Similarly, when police consider what a woman was wearing, isn't usually in the context of figuring out who's story they believe? In other words, the police aren't thinking "well, she wore a sexy dress and followed him to his room and therefore deserved to get raped" but rather "well, she wore a sexy dress and followed him up to his room so maybe his claims that it was consensual are true." I get that you don't want police to blame the victim, but isn't it just as/more important that they correctly figure out who the victim is?

panic 10y ago
What someone is wearing has nothing to do with consent.
- shasta 10y ago
  Your claim is that P(consent | sexy clothes) = P(consent | not sexy clothes)? Seems counterintuitive. Do you have evidence to support this claim?
- threatofrain 10y ago
  If the prosecution, in anticipation of defense strategy, believes that what a person is wearing, among a collection of facts, may be utilized by defense, then of course it's to prosecution advantage to have the police ask first on their terms, as opposed to letting the defense ask these questions on their terms. That way the police and prosecution can control the progression of fact discovery. It's because prosecutors understand factors to legal victory that clothing, drug use, prior relationship with defendant, and other things like that are relevant. Speaking descriptively, the job of the police is not to act as some neutral 3rd party of justice and investigate all claims of the truth in proportion to their merit. It is the secondary job of the police to set up cases for the prosecution without regard for defense interests. It is the primary job of all agencies ever to manage organizational credibility, robustness, and scope.
  - panic 10y ago
    Sure, and that means we need to change the "factors to legal victory" in order to make the courts effective for these kinds of crimes. Otherwise people just won't go to the police or use the court system, which is what happens today.
lusen 10y ago
> "well, she wore a sexy dress and followed him up to his room so maybe his claims that it was consensual are true." how is that reasonable? maybe we should ask what she claims and what he wore. but wait, what clothing indicates whether someone is a rapist? tshirts and tatty jeans? polo shirt? suit? of course clothing implies nothing. why does her wearing "sexy" clothing -- to say nothing of "sexy" being all about the male perception and desires, as if her own clothing can't be worn for her own reasons -- imply anything about her desire for sex? > "isn't it just as/more important that they correctly figure out who the victim is?" if you're only asking men their opinion, and believing whatever assumptions you want to make about women based on their clothing rather than their word, the system is already tilted towards men getting want they explicitly want, and women not being listened to. i'm not saying believe rape victims without scrutiny. i'm saying have a little more compassion and support and actually listen to their words as much as you listen to the man's words, and care about their clothes as much as you care about the man's clothes.
- threatofrain 10y ago
  When the police and justice system collects information about clothing, sexual history with defendant, alcohol and other drugs, they do so because these are legally relevant facts to establishing a narrative that's otherwise often too lacking in material basis. The police and justice system wish to know these facts so they know the strength of some legal narrative and what counternarratives can be supported. Wearing sexy clothing fits a narrative of consensual sex. Sexual injuries fits a narrative of sexual assault. Drug use damages the credibility of any party. Prior relationship with defendant can fit narratives about the likelihood that someone might agree to sex. These are facts that defense will ask, and it's best for the prosecution that the police ask first on their terms to control the progression of fact discovery, as opposed to letting the defense ask first on their terms. Why not be interested in what the man was wearing? Maybe because the prosecution, in anticipation of defense strategy, thinks it won't matter. The job of the police is not to act as a neutral 3rd party to the justice system, proportionally investigating claims on the strength of their merits. The secondary job of the police is to set up cases for the prosecution, even if it's unfair to the defense. The primary job of the police, and any agency, is to establish its own credibility, robustness, and scope as an agency. Note that I am speaking descriptively, not prescriptively.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946338 and marked it off-topic.

by shasta 10y ago

panic 10y ago

What someone is wearing has nothing to do with consent.

shasta 10y ago
Your claim is that P(consent | sexy clothes) = P(consent | not sexy clothes)? Seems counterintuitive. Do you have evidence to support this claim?
threatofrain 10y ago
If the prosecution, in anticipation of defense strategy, believes that what a person is wearing, among a collection of facts, may be utilized by defense, then of course it's to prosecution advantage to have the police ask first on their terms, as opposed to letting the defense ask these questions on their terms. That way the police and prosecution can control the progression of fact discovery. It's because prosecutors understand factors to legal victory that clothing, drug use, prior relationship with defendant, and other things like that are relevant. Speaking descriptively, the job of the police is not to act as some neutral 3rd party of justice and investigate all claims of the truth in proportion to their merit. It is the secondary job of the police to set up cases for the prosecution without regard for defense interests. It is the primary job of all agencies ever to manage organizational credibility, robustness, and scope.
- panic 10y ago
  Sure, and that means we need to change the "factors to legal victory" in order to make the courts effective for these kinds of crimes. Otherwise people just won't go to the police or use the court system, which is what happens today.

lusen 10y ago

> "well, she wore a sexy dress and followed him up to his room so maybe his claims that it was consensual are true." how is that reasonable? maybe we should ask what she claims and what he wore. but wait, what clothing indicates whether someone is a rapist? tshirts and tatty jeans? polo shirt? suit? of course clothing implies nothing. why does her wearing "sexy" clothing -- to say nothing of "sexy" being all about the male perception and desires, as if her own clothing can't be worn for her own reasons -- imply anything about her desire for sex? > "isn't it just as/more important that they correctly figure out who the victim is?" if you're only asking men their opinion, and believing whatever assumptions you want to make about women based on their clothing rather than their word, the system is already tilted towards men getting want they explicitly want, and women not being listened to. i'm not saying believe rape victims without scrutiny. i'm saying have a little more compassion and support and actually listen to their words as much as you listen to the man's words, and care about their clothes as much as you care about the man's clothes.

threatofrain 10y ago
When the police and justice system collects information about clothing, sexual history with defendant, alcohol and other drugs, they do so because these are legally relevant facts to establishing a narrative that's otherwise often too lacking in material basis. The police and justice system wish to know these facts so they know the strength of some legal narrative and what counternarratives can be supported. Wearing sexy clothing fits a narrative of consensual sex. Sexual injuries fits a narrative of sexual assault. Drug use damages the credibility of any party. Prior relationship with defendant can fit narratives about the likelihood that someone might agree to sex. These are facts that defense will ask, and it's best for the prosecution that the police ask first on their terms to control the progression of fact discovery, as opposed to letting the defense ask first on their terms. Why not be interested in what the man was wearing? Maybe because the prosecution, in anticipation of defense strategy, thinks it won't matter. The job of the police is not to act as a neutral 3rd party to the justice system, proportionally investigating claims on the strength of their merits. The secondary job of the police is to set up cases for the prosecution, even if it's unfair to the defense. The primary job of the police, and any agency, is to establish its own credibility, robustness, and scope as an agency. Note that I am speaking descriptively, not prescriptively.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946338 and marked it off-topic.