[Tainari88]

You are delusional and appear to hate women.

You don't need to know someone for them to have molested you.

I already explained that already, but you are too hung up on protecting the guilty rapists from their victims and the law. Why do you do this? You should not harbour sympathy for perpetrators of sexual assault and abuse.

Note: The rich people can afford the best defense and often get away with crimes because of this, so again your sympathy is misplaced.

Yes, you have. That is what you say when you don't want them to receive any justice/damages.

These rapists really do not understand how dangerous that is for them as men. If you wife were raped would you be lenient on that pig? Of course not. If you are the father, the husband, the brother, the friend, and they tell you...there he is?

The rapist is a dead duck. For sure.

Yet, there they go, thinking that it is all forgotten. They are free to rape again.

Weinstein is lucky that many of those women were scared to speak out and lose their careers or were ashamed of it all.

Lucky he did not run into some angry boyfriend or husband of a raped woman that he intimidated. The silence kept him protected for years. And his money and power.

One fifteen year old girl in Mexico City a few days ago was confronted by her rapist with a knife and taken away from the bus stop. He forced her under a bridge and raped her for two hours. When he was done he got ready to kill her. The girl freaked out and buried the knife in his heart and he was killed. The Mexico City cops came and she was accused of murder. They investigated and she was exonerated. No one had intervened but the witnesses thought it was highly weird that he dragged the teenage girl away.

The teen's mom was shocked and angry that the Mexico City cops would investigate her daughter instead of suing the shit out of the rapists family who knew he raped girls but were too intimidated to do anything.

Later on his friends tried to threaten her with death threats for killing the rapist.

That is how misogynistic these rings of rapists are in society.

[Puffer Fish]

There are a great many reasons why false allegations aren't incentivized by money, and counter-lawsuits are one of them.

I think you're being oversimplistic and unrealistic.

If his word was as good as hers, he would not have lost the criminal case.

There are clearly some double standards applied when it comes to burden of proof in these lawsuits.

Apparently a woman can sue for money when all she has is her claim that it happened, and circumstantial evidence to suggest the man might have raped other women.
Whereas the man, to try to sue the woman for defamation, has to prove she was lying. Which is virtually impossible when she claims the rape happened 15 years ago.

[Godstud]

I was saying that the justice system likely had LESS false accusations before 1990 (well maybe more like 2006).

Can you prove this? I don't seen any evidence.

So it's inappropriate to try to use past statistics of false accusations and project that onto the future.

We are not using statistics are not from 30+ years ago, so your have no argument.

Weinstein's criminal case is separate from the civil one.

Criminal case?
- Guilty. He goes to jail. There is no monetary compensation for his proven victims.

Civil Case?
- Guilty. The preponderance of evidence from the criminal case makes victims going after compensation, simple. He has already been found guilty in a criminal court where you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Weinstein was PROVEN guilty in a criminal court, so getting compensations from a civil court are substantially easier than say.... compared to OJ Simpson.

If his word was as good as hers, he would not have lost the criminal case.

You are ignoring the fact that it's not simply he said-she said. You are also ignoring the fact that if many victims are identified it creates a greater likelihood that the person is guilty, particularly if these accusations were made separately and witnessed by others.

Whereas the man, to try to sue the woman for defamation, has to prove she was lying. Which is virtually impossible when she claims the rape happened 15 years ago.

That's a false perception that you have. It's not based in reality or facts.

[Puffer Fish]

Weinstein's criminal case is separate from the civil one.

Criminal case?
- Guilty. He goes to jail. There is no monetary compensation for his proven victims.

Civil Case?
- Guilty. The preponderance of evidence from the criminal case makes victims going after compensation, simple. He has already been found guilty in a criminal court where you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Weinstein was PROVEN guilty in a criminal court, so getting compensations from a civil court are substantially easier than say.... compared to OJ Simpson.

One of the ways that the two were connected, and which some could argue was unfair to Weinstein, is that the judge refused to be willing to delay the civil case until after the criminal case.
For strategic legal reasons, Weinstein's lawyer wanted Weinstein to be able to not have to answer any questions during the criminal trial. (The prosecutor just uses this as an opportunity to bring up dirt not very directly relevant to the actual crime in the case and try to paint the accused person as bad)
However, not saying anything would make it more likely he would lose the civil case. There are some different dynamics at play, and jury will be more likely to assume guilt in the lawsuit if the defendant does not say anything.
Whatever he says in the civil case could then be used in the criminal case against him.

That may be one of the reasons why Weinstein chose to just pay the women a settlement to prevent the lawsuit from proceeding. (That does NOT mean it is all Weinstein's fault that he had to pay the women money, just to emphasise. He probably knew there was a very high chance the jury would rule against him in the lawsuit, whether fair or not)

Another small part of this is that if he lost the civil case, it would have been all over the news, and then that could inevitably prejudice jurors in the criminal trial.

[Puffer Fish]

You are ignoring the fact that it's not simply he said-she said. You are also ignoring the fact that if many victims are identified it creates a greater likelihood that the person is guilty,

Of course I realise that. That is the central issue that everything hinges on, isn't it?

You don't seem to be looking at the actual issue with that I brought up.

The problem is, all of those supposed victims stood to get gigantic amounts of money if their accusations were believed.

They already KNEW other women were accusing him.

And even if a perpetrator raped a woman, that does not mean any other woman who comes along and claims he raped her should get money. Even if the defendant was a known rapist, that still does not give us adequate evidence that another woman (who is trying to get money) is telling the truth about being raped.

particularly if these accusations were made separately and witnessed by others.

But that is definitely NOT the case in this story.
None of those individual incidents were witnessed by more than one person, or have any additional witnesses that could help corroborate the woman's account of what happened.

[Godstud]

You need to go read up on the Weinstein case. The evidence was overwhelming. Weinstein was a serial sexual assaulter. He used his wealth and power to do it, so it's only just that he loses some of that to his victims.

You still ignored the fact that false rape accusations are extremely rare. Money itself is an insufficient motivator, despite your chidishly idiotic opinion on it.

[Puffer Fish]

You need to go read up on the Weinstein case. The evidence was overwhelming.

As I stated before, you seem to be completely oblivious to my point.

I'm just arguing in circles with you at this point.


Saying there "was lots of evidence" is just stupidity. I pointed out a big problematic issue with the type of "evidence".

If you just keep saying "evidence", then you're just glossing over everything. You do not seem willing to have a real argument.

Weinstein was a serial sexual assaulter.

It seems you are insinuating things with vague words.
As I stated before, a difference needs to be drawn between sexual misconduct (that Weinstein probably did) versus full-out rape.

I think it is not fair to just be completely confusing those together.

He used his wealth and power to do it, so it's only just that he loses some of that to his victims.

So is what this really about is that people think he should be punished for "rape", even though what actually happened might have been something that was not (or fell short of) actual real rape, of the type that would be easy to prosecute?

You still ignored the fact that false rape accusations are extremely rare.

I strongly dispute that claim. But even if true, it does not justify giving women money because they say it happened.

Especially when it is gigantic amounts of money.

14 of the accusers ended up getting $385,000 each (almost enough to buy a nice home).
Then on top of that another $24 million to be divided amongst those and other additional accusers.

Doesn't it follow to reason that if we're going to pay women $385,000 , false claims of rape are going to become a lot more common?

[Godstud]

Saying there "was lots of evidence" is just stupidity. I pointed out a big problematic issue with the type of "evidence".

Take it up with the courts, then. The fact that there saw overwhelming abundance of evidence in the Weinstein case disputes your claim.

It seems you are insinuating things with vague words.

There is nothing vague about Weinstein being a serial sexual assaulter. It's fact, supported by evidence. I was not insinuating it, either. I was asserting it.

I strongly dispute that claim.

If that's what you believe, then that's fine, but it is not supported by reality, or facts, so it's simply delusional, on your part, to continue to dispute the claim.

Especially when it is gigantic amounts of money.

Completely irrelevant. Criminal cases do not involve money, unless you count the rich people being able to purchase the best possible defense.

Doesn't it follow to reason that if we're going to pay women $385,000 , false claims of rape are going to become a lot more common?

No. It does not follow to reason. That's a completely ridiculuous assumption to make, since civil court cases, like this, are nothing new.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think you are being overly simplistic and simply not listening, or thinking.

Do I need to start a new thread expanding on and explaining why outcomes in civil cases can create a clear incentive for people to lie in criminal cases?
(whether the criminal case happens before or after the civil case)

Explain why a person would risk jail for perjury simply to provide support for a civil case that may never happen.

This is the second time I ask you.

[Puffer Fish]

Explain why a person would risk jail for perjury simply to provide support for a civil case that may never happen.

First, because there is no way to prove they are committing perjury.
There is no realistic way for anyone to be able to prove it, in some types of cases. Especially when the rape supposedly happened a long time ago, and the woman can't remember specific dates or time of day.

Second, they know there is a high chance they could get a very large amount of money, in some types of cases.


Over in another forum there is a retired police officer who told a story about a woman he arrested who accused him of rape. Fortunately he kept a record in his work planner and was able to show that at the date and time she claimed he raped her he was somewhere else, and was able to prove it.

Now there is virtually a zero percent chance of that happening if the woman says the rape was 7 years ago.

[Godstud]

First, because there is no way to prove they are committing perjury.
There is no realistic way for anyone to be able to prove it, in some types of cases. Especially when the rape supposedly happened a long time ago, and the woman can't remember specific dates or time of day.

Horseshit. That is only your uneducated and ill-informed opinion.

People who are sexually assaulted usually remember things in very precise detail, because it is so traumatizing.

Second, they know there is a high chance they could get a very large amount of money, in some types of cases.

Lies. Stop with the lies. Most people who sexually assault people are NOT rich or famous. making your victimization public is not something that people generally like to do, as well. You are fucking clueless and know nothing about psychology.

Now there is virtually a zero percent chance of that happening if the woman says the rape was 7 years ago.

Only according to a pro-rape activist like yourself.

[Pants-of-dog]

First, because there is no way to prove they are committing perjury.

There is no realistic way for anyone to be able to prove it, in some types of cases. Especially when the rape supposedly happened a long time ago, and the woman can't remember specific dates or time of day.

For HW there is.

He has some deformities on his genitals, so if a woman could not describe said deformities accurately, that would prove perjury.

Since this did not happen with HW (i.e. the women were able to make accurate descriptions), perjury was possible.

Second, they know there is a high chance they could get a very large amount of money, in some types of cases.

No. The chances of getting a successful civil suit are not good. Especially when the criminal court case failed as it would have if the women had been lying.

Over in another forum there is a retired police officer who told a story about a woman he arrested who accused him of rape. Fortunately he kept a record in his work planner and was able to show that at the date and time she claimed he raped her he was somewhere else, and was able to prove it.

Now there is virtually a zero percent chance of that happening if the woman says the rape was 7 years ago.

This story you were told is probably untrue.

[MistyTiger]

Another small part of this is that if he lost the civil case, it would have been all over the news, and then that could inevitably prejudice jurors in the criminal trial.

Jurors can be secluded. In some cases, they are not allowed to access news or anything on their phones that can prejudice them against the case in any way. And in some cases, they are not allowed to go home and be around friends and family who can influence their opinions. This has happened during highly controversial cases.

[MistyTiger]

Do you think the other side will not ask the plaintiff why she didn't file a police report?
Even after she wins the civil case it could still go to appeal, which is probably going to happen 2 years later.

The defendant has a right to appeal the case. The court gives the defendant or plaintiff the right to appeal. It's not really important to ask why a woman didn't file a police report. Victims get scared and their thoughts get jumbled. The event is traumatic and under those conditions, they are not thinking calmly at all. If I was freaking out, I doubt I'd be thinking "Oh, I need to file a police report now!" I would be agitated, confused, hurt, and probably wanting to see my mother or someone else who could hold me.

The information about a criminal case (or lack thereof) is not kept totally secret from the court in a civil case.

Because the court system is interconnected online. The court is one branch of the government. However, the judge of the civil case should NOT let the criminal case proceedings prejudice him/her in any way against the defendant or plaintiff. The judge is supposed to be impartial and make a fair assessment of the case based on the evidence and testimony from witnesses, and looking at precedents.

The court is divided into divisions. It is like how a company has the HR department, R&D department, legal department, advertising department...each department or division has its own purpose and it would not make sense if advertising kept on messing around with legal, it would be messy and insane.

Do you remember that story I posted (in a different topic) that involved a prosecutor pressing the supposed victim (who had just won a civil case) to testify in a criminal case? (The civil case was against a drug rehab facility over an alleged rape supposedly committed by a man who did not even know that the civil case was happening at the time)
Man falsely accused of rape

Not every rape case involves a false accusation. I am unsure why you take one false rape accusation case and then try to transpose it onto all the HW cases? It is just not logical. Each case is different. This is what I learned as a law student. Judges and juries look at each case as if it is different and there is no cutting and pasting because past or other present cases. They look at what is in front of them. They use their own judgment based on facts and testimony.

(In that story, the woman had apparently been assigned a free rape crisis counselor by the state, which she used for emotional support. But the counselor pushed her to file criminal charges. Probably the young women knew if she did not go along with that, the counselor might have reported her and raised suspicions. Someone might then put 2 and 2 together.)

That is atypical. Not all state professionals act in ethical ways. Again, that case is not representative of all rape cases.

And usually the required burden of evidence is much lower for a civil case, which in this situation makes things worse and leads to a big problem.

It does not "makes things worse" or "leads to a big problem". A civil case is a civil case. You cannot drag a civil case into a criminal court. The courts are separated into different divisions. It would be like dragging a guardianship case into a criminal court, that just doesn't happen. That would be messy, confusing and very illogical. Besides as stated before, a judge on a civil case only presides over civil cases. A judge who presides over criminal cases only presides over criminal cases. There are different standards and different punishments/penalties and therefore different results. Plus, a criminal case is for the state and a citizen and civil cases are between private individuals or businesses.

Again, your argument is mostly besides the point.

I could say the same for your argument as you seem to be saying that it shouldn't be this way because YOU don't like it or agree with it.

Maybe you don't understand what I was saying, or don't understand the inherent connection that exists between the two?

Perhaps you should study a law book and tell me if you can find a section where it says this. I read some legal books and never came across anything like this.

I am not sure what you mean. Did you make an error in word choice? Could you please explain?

You are saying a civil suit will be brought forward regardless of whether the woman making the accusation wants to??

That is not what I wrote. You misunderstand. I meant that regardless of the woman's reason for bringing the civil suit against the defendant, the court will see her claim and decide if she has a valid claim. If it is valid, how much should she be able to recover from the defendant? The court is not there to ask if she is only suing for the money, they are not going to find out about her motives. Criminal cases look at motives, there you go again confusing criminal and civil. A civil case is about complaint and recovery of damages, once the judge believes that the plaintiff is honest and there is a clear case of harm. Oh actually, the judge does decide if the defendant intended to harm the plaintiff, there is that.

[Puffer Fish]

The defendant has a right to appeal the case.

You are trying to cloud the issue.
That is not directly relevant to the argument or point I am making.

If they make a wrong decision based on faulty logic (which you seem to support) in the first place, then it's very likely they could make that same wrong decision again, in a retrial, or appeal.

The point is the logic and reasoning they are using to decide if the man is guilty in a case like this.
That's what the argument is about.

[Puffer Fish]

Not every rape case involves a false accusation.

No of course not. But we have to consider that possibility.

We need some sort of heuristic to decide what should be done in certain types (categories) of situations when we do not have certainty what the truth is.

You would agree with that, wouldn't you?


In this case, millions of random women saw that Weinstein was being accused of sexual misconduct, or later sexual assault, in the news. Some of them came forward also accusing him. And the news immediately covered that. The women, struggling actresses, knew that by accusing Weinstein they could get a big amount of money. They knew he was already being accused by other women.

The question is how should we (as a society, or in the justice system) deal with such a situation?

(I am not talking about in a case by case basis, but this type of situation in general, because this type of phenomena is likely to repeat)

[Puffer Fish]

I meant that regardless of the woman's reason for bringing the civil suit against the defendant, the court will see her claim and decide if she has a valid claim.

I think you are side stepping the whole real issue. How will the court decide if she has a valid claim? That is the question.


Emotion, or totally leaving it up entirely to an individual case by case basis, is not a good idea.

I'm pointing out a problem here. You don't seem to want to look at that issue.

[Puffer Fish]

For Harvey Weinstein there is.

He has some deformities on his genitals, so if a woman could not describe said deformities accurately, that would prove perjury.

Well, at least what you are pointing out is a possible decent piece of evidence.

However, even that has its problems. Weinstein slept with a lot of women (probably including a lot of coercive situations where the woman did not really want to sleep with him but was doing it for her career). Talk can go around in Hollywood actress circles. One of the women could have told the others.

It's also very possible he DID make a few of these women sleep with him, but now they are lying and saying it was a full-out rape, because they are resentful against him.

As I explained before, it is pretty common in Hollywood circles for producers to sexually take advantage of actresses. If they want to get the desired part in the movie and be able to break into a career, they have to give in to a man's sexual advances.
This is horrible reprehensible sexual misconduct, could even very well feel like "rape" to many women, but legally it does fall far short of actual rape.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

Forcing a woman to have sex with you by threatening to tale away or not provide employment is rape.

Now, provide evidence that women talked about HW's deformed genitals.

[Puffer Fish]

Forcing a woman to have sex with you by threatening to tale away or not provide employment is rape.

In your opinion. Perhaps even morally. But not in reality or according to the law.


A woman being threatened with not getting or keeping her job unless she has sex is terrible and leaves her with a terrible choice, but it is still a choice.
It is not the same thing as a man threatening to physically hurt her.

There probably does exist some labor protection law against that, but it is not rape. And it would be much harder to prosecute than rape.

One could probably almost draw some analogy here to prostitution, offering a woman financial opportunity in exchange for sex, but I think that might be another discussion.


(Another possible legal factor: It is true that both California and New York passed laws defining sexual intercourse as "rape" if the recipient did not affirmatively give active consent, even if she did not say "no" or resist. But these laws did not exist at the time - before 2014 and 2015 - that these women claim the rapes happened to them.
So while I personally think these new laws are incredibly stupid, they are irrelevant to this specific case.)


But as I said before, if a woman feels "raped", whether or not what happened was actual rape, it makes it a lot more likely that she will claim rape and try to get the man punished. Even if she has to lie or exaggerate about some of the details to do it.