We need to STOP giving alleged rape victims any money

In recent years there have been a huge number of cases involving women claiming a wealthy celebrity raped them and then trying to sue them to get large amounts of money.

Very frequently, after one woman accuses a celebrity of rape and it appears in the news, scores of other women come forward also claiming to have been raped by that celebrity in the past.
But is it possible these women are just trying to hop aboard the gravy train to easy money?

This entire thing is the result of the "Me too" movement, where everyone is expected to automatically believe women.

If a woman claims a man raped her, and there's no other evidence besides her testimony, I have no problem punishing the man, with maybe 6 years in prison, for example.

But DO NOT give her money. Do not give her any money!!! Nothing will incentivize false rape accusations more than handing out free money. And these women know these wealthy celebrities have lots of money. The court systems are wacky and will sometimes pay out millions of dollars to a woman who was allegedly sexually abused, if the perpetrator was wealthy.

Some people will naively say that the accuser has an incentive not to lie, because of if it's determined she is lying she will be punished. But it's very rare that a false accuser ever gets punished. Even if they strongly believe the woman is lying, lots of times they will not charge her, or even if they do charge her she will only get a tiny little fraction of the punishment the alleged perpetrator would have got. This is because no one wants to punish a woman when there's a possibility she might be telling the truth, no one wants to do anything that might dissuade other women from coming forward.
And women often do not think logically. If there's an opportunity for some easy money dangling in front of them, there are many people who would just want to grab that, without giving much thought to the consequences or risks. That is just how crime often works.

Some of these women may even convince themselves they are "helping" other women. Because if one woman accuses a man of raping her, maybe no one will believe her. But if several women are accusing that same men of raping them, people will be much more likely to believe that man was a rapist. So in the minds of some of these women they are "helping" another woman to receive justice, and getting some free money for themselves in the process.

More than half the time these men just agree to pay the accuser a large amount of money in a settlement, because they're worried if it actually goes to court there's a risk they could be ordered to pay out much more money. Whether the man is really guilty or not.

The amount of money a woman should be paid should not be dependent upon how wealthy her alleged perpetrator happened to be, but in the current screwed up court system that is exactly how it is.
But the Progressive Left will balk and squeal at any notion that we should curtail this and cut women off from this money.

 

You are making grandiose assumptions here. For starters, are there Susan Smiths of the world? yes. But for many women, it was a norm to be touched inappropriately, even caressed in parts of the woman's body that generally should not be touched, even a few quid pro quo back in the day.

If you don't give any person who is raped, or allegedly raped, money, then all that will do is drive those who are actually raped further not to report the rape and incentivize the people who actually rape the persons further without any consequences. And statistically, nearly 95% of all rapes go unreported for one reason or another. Then we have certain court cases that have found the person not guilty because the rape victim was placed on trial in the court by the Defense rather than the alleged perputrator. Or should Jennifer Flowers give back her money that she did win?

 

So what? Don't give her any money.

 

If a woman does not want to report a rape because she is not going to get any money from it, then too bad for her.

If she wants to, she can get the man punished. That is the only thing she should be entitled to, under the law.

 

I take it you never been raped before?

I would suggest you talk to people, men and women, who have been raped and hear their stories, especially the ones who were raped by a wealthy businessperson, or a person in power in the political field.

 

Women don't report rape because of the court system and because they will be put on trial. It is not unusual for the defense to blame the rape victim for the clothes she wore, the perfume she wore, or even her past sexual history, for instance, even if it was consensual and had no exchange for money. And on top of that, most will get little to no jail time if they are white, suburban males from a "good family" that has wealth and power.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-belter-rape-probation-victim-mm/

 

Nobody is forcing you to write a check. Beyond that, this is none of your business. Its between the parties involved and that is where it should stay.

 

I agree about the money in lieu of justice. Bad thing. Predominant in America and encourages going after rich people. The amounts of money are ridiculous.

Mind you, it means the rich can buy their way out of crime as well. Here's the solution: throw them in jail, if found guilty. Forget the monetary nonsense. Or at worst much smaller compensation (only if criminal charges hold).

Put crims in jail.

 

Nice mansplaining. Can't help yourself?

 

An interview does not always reveal what someone is thinking - or planning.

 

An interview is from someone who has already been raped, after the fact. And it is not about what someone is thinking, it is about how they are feeling before, during, and after the rape.

 

Let me correct you a little. An interview is a verbal account of what somebody claims to be feeling and/or thinking.

 

Quite wrong.

What you have is an isolated ancedote of a privileged wealthy guy getting a light sentence. Yes that does happen, with ore than one type of crime,but it is not how most cases conclude as you claim. The vast majority of convictions end up with heavy prison time.

Furthermore it is strictly an urban legend that the victim is blamed due to such nonsense as how they dress or what they wear. You claim it is not unusual, in fact it is unheard of.

 

This is a truly sad attitude. Rape is serious. I saw my first case of false rape conviction in the 80s. I don’t remember the details, but he was in jail for some time, based on her word, and he was only freed because she came clean.

As a woman, it was like a gut punch. Women mostly have the reputation they do because of other women.

If a woman needs a cash payout to report rape, she wasn’t really traumatized.

Should she prove it in criminal court, she is free to move to civil court for reparations.

I’m so flippin sick of lawsuit lottery. It’s one of the factors In our hatred of each other, and therefore, a cause in our upcoming fall.

 

so go to court that, don't settle, when one settles they give up the right to prove that someone is a false accuser or not

Rich people sue people all the time too...

 

How naive.
If you don't settle, you risk something even worse happening to you.
Paying a settlement, or agreeing to plead guilty, even if you did nothing wrong, can oftentimes be the logical choice.

I started a whole thread about this topic, so am not going to waste the time explaining it here.
You can read more in that other thread, if you want: Pleading guilty does NOT mean that person is guilty

Would you pay a $500,000 settlement, or take a 40 percent chance of winding up being ordered by a court to pay $2 million? Mathematics says your chances are better overall paying the settlement.

Of course ridiculous decisions by courts are the only reason people agree to pay these absurd settlements in the first place. No one would pay $500,000 if they were not concerned about having to pay $2 million.

 

I'm open to considering the idea of giving a woman who was raped a little bit of money, if there's some strong video evidence.

For example, if a security camera shows a woman walking down a hallway with no one else around, and then a man can be seen quickly following her.

If we're going to start paying out money, the evidence needs to be stronger than just her claim that it happened.

Statute of limitations would also be important. No money if she waited longer than 2 weeks to report it.
We can't have women claiming they were raped 8 years ago when any relevant evidence no longer exists and any witnesses who could shed light on the case have long since forgotten details. It's too easy to make up a story if it allegedly happened a long time ago, and it just becomes too difficult for police detectives to authenticate any details.

 

and sometimes not reporting a rape can be easier than reporting it... both are true

 

Two things: unless you have been raped, no one, I repeat no one, can understand what it feels like. Second, from the OP, it was clear she/he was being extremely judgemental on the person. Money through civil litigation is another remedy that people who have received or "perceived" injury can use the court system to prove. It isn't just about rape, but any other injustices that criminal courts cannot do. It is why the family of Brown and Goldman filed a wrongful death suit. It is why Jennifer Flowers filed her civil lawsuit against Bill Clinton. It is why countless other people filed civil lawsuits against certain powerful political persons that have been on the news. It is literally part of the US Constitution and in every state jurisprudence legal civil doctrine.

 

That's just a red herring and has little to nothing to do with whether women should get money.
Again, I repeat this has nothing to do with whether the man will be punished and go to prison.

Maybe you'd like to read the story of a man who had to spend 9 years in prison because a woman was trying to get money?
Man falsely accused of rape

 

You appear to have completely missed my point. Or you're not interested in discussing it.

But at least you use the word 'perceived' injury. I commend you for that.

 

there are risks of false allegations, especially when kids are involved in a custody battle during divorce. Those don't really get into the news on the national or even local level, but that is more common than the
lawsuit lottery" you are referring to. But it you look at the statistics, nearly 8 out of 10 women knew their attacker, usually a boyfriend/girlfriend, ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, an office worker, the person they met at a bar and struck up a conversation, at a frat/sorority party, etc. It gets dicey when there is a rape drug involved and that can dissipate from the body system within 24 hours. What is not known is the 3% of men who have been raped and nearly all of them don't report it either, and no, I am not talking about inappropriate relationships between a teacher and a middle school boy.

It just needs to be weighed carefully the legal consequences. At the end of the day, they have to prove their claim. And that is the other statistic, nearly 95% of all lawsuits are settled out of court with no one admitting anything. The insurance usually pays this amount, and there is a legitimate NDA by both parties not to discuss. The only ones getting rich are the lawyers. But it is within our legal constitution for the right of redress and for civil lawsuits above $25 to have a trial by jury if need be, much live the Johnny Depp v Amanda Heard defamation lawsuit.

 

Because if it is sellted out of court, no one really knows, do they?

 

Actually, it does go to it.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not any false allegation of any alleged crime should stop the police from investigating future crimes. This issue is more complex than I think you realize here and we are talking about the US Constitution and especially state law and the State Constitution of who has the standing to bring a lawsuit that can have repercussions on other civil lawsuits, such as wrongful death lawsuits after the person was acquitted, defamation, and any other wrongful grievance, and so forth.

If the statute of limitations has run out criminally, the only way to redress is to through civil lawsuits. It is how Jennifer Flowers, remember her, sued a person named William Jefferson Clinton. Was it a love affair gone wrong? Or was she pressured to have sex with him because of his position, aka rape?

I prefer to look at the merits of each case before making a judgment call. That would be the prudent thing to do.

 

My point is, the burden of evidence for a civil trial (trying to get money) should be different than at a criminal trial.

The "conventional legal wisdom" is that the burden of evidence is steeper at a criminal trial than a civil trial, but in my opinion it is not that simple; it SHOULD NOT be that simple; because here is an instance where the burden of evidence should be steeper in the civil trial than it should be in a criminal trial (involving the same alleged act).

I think it's really important to write that into the law, somehow, so judges and juries are not misled about what the burden of evidence should be in such a civil trial.

(In a civil trial, typically the law says that they only need "a preponderance of the evidence" to win the case, which is a much lower standard of evidence than needed in a criminal trial)