Believe women

[Syne]

So...1.8 per 1,000 (BJS 2016) is common enough that any given guy being accused must be guilty, regardless of lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary? O_o
That's an emotional overestimation of danger...like you being paranoid and "sizing every man up for danger".  

"One in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives.

In the U.S., one in three women and one in six men experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime."

https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

That's a self-reported survey (read: no way to verify...hence the more reliable FBI/BJS stats) "including...alcohol/drug facilitated".
From the actual survey:

Sometimes unwanted sex or sexual contact happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they are too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or times when they were given alcohol or drugs without their knowledge or consent.

Voluntarily consuming alcohol or drugs to the point of not being able to give consent or stop it from happening, where others are equally impaired, is either consent to or regret over being in said situation. Equally impaired perpetrators are no more responsible for their actions than the victim is their lack of action (to either deny consent or stop the act). Otherwise it's just a transparent double-standard.

And "touched you in a sexual way" (contact sexual violence) is highly subjective... to the point that it could include socially innocuous contact.



This is why all victims of a crime should report it. That way it can be prosecuted or at the very least verified with contemporary evidence.

[Magical Realist]

That's a self-reported survey

That's the official stats. It doesn't get any more accurate than from the people the sexual assaults actually happened to.

"Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police.

The prevalence of false reporting is low — between 2% and 10%. For example, a study of eight U.S. communities, which included 2,059 cases of sexual assault, found a 7.1% rate of false reports. A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston found a 5.9% rate of false reports. Researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1% rate of false reports."

And for the record, drinking is not a justification for being sexually assaulted or raped.

[Secular Sanity]

That's a self-reported survey

Like I said, it’s very common. How many women do you think at some point in their life were groped by some drunken fool or even a sober one for that matter?

And "touched you in a sexual way" (contact sexual violence) is highly subjective... to the point that it could include socially innocuous contact.

If more women were aware of the actual definition of sexual assault, I'm sure way more women would realize that they've been a victim of it and probably more than once in their life.

This is why all victims of a crime should report it. That way it can be prosecuted or at the very least verified with contemporary evidence.

I don't think that we have the man power to handle something like that. Just off the top of my head, I could probably name a dozen or more incidences that would legally qualify.

[Syne]

From what I recall, I'm not sure the ''friends'' and ''witnesses'' denied it happening, with absolution. They simply couldn't recall the party at all. Kind of like how Kavanaugh couldn't recall staggering, and blacking out, but clearly some of his classmates did, back in college. Not recalling something, isn't the same thing as denying it.  I don't know for sure, but Dr Ford seemed credible to me. I don't understand why the FBI didn't interview her, or Kavanaugh, and others...or take longer. It seemed like it was being steered to bring people to conclusions, even if they weren't quite ready to make them.

Then you made a judgement without bothering to ascertain the facts, since everyone Ford named as being there denied any knowledge of such a party...in sworn statements, prosecutable as perjury. The attorney of Ford's lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, wrote that Keyser “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” And just in case Ford is mistaken about the identity of her attacker, no one really wants to just say she's outright lying. None of the claims about Kavanaugh's drinking could be independently verified, and the major one was hearsay from a guy that denied he ever said it.

The only purpose the FBI interviewing Ford would serve would have been to prove she perjured herself...when she may be a victim of a misremembered assault. On top of not having anywhere near enough info to actually investigate anything...not knowing when or where a crime happened nor any evidence that a crime occurred at all...as well as that crime not being in the jurisdiction of the FBI. What, did she hold back some critical evidence or leave something out of her sworn statement? Why would she do that? And Kavanaugh had already passed several thorough FBI background checks. What else could he offer about something he knows didn't happen? How would more time change any of those facts? No potential witnesses proved to have any info that would have changed the outcome.

It was all a political ploy to delay his confirmation beyond the midterm election, and they played you like a fiddle. Otherwise, why is no one still digging into it?

---

That's a self-reported survey

That's the official stats. It doesn't get any more accurate than from the people the sexual assaults actually happened to.

"Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police.

The prevalence of false reporting is low — between 2% and 10%. For example, a study of eight U.S. communities, which included 2,059 cases of sexual assault, found a 7.1% rate of false reports. A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston found a 5.9% rate of false reports. Researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1% rate of false reports."

And for the record, drinking is not a justification for being sexually assaulted or raped.

The only measure of under-reported crime is self-reported surveys. People lie, to themselves most of all.

The prevalence of false reporting only includes those cases positively proven to be false and does not include those that lacked enough evidence to even bring charges or prosecute.

No one said drinking is a justification for being sexually assaulted or raped. It's just a simple fact that if a person is incapable of giving consent or stopping sex, they are equally incapable of controlling any other action.

---

And "touched you in a sexual way" (contact sexual violence) is highly subjective... to the point that it could include socially innocuous contact.

If more women were aware of the actual definition of sexual assault, I'm sure way more women would realize that they've been a victim of it and probably more than once in their life.

What is the "actual definition"? Is it a legal definition? Do you have an authoritative source?

This is why all victims of a crime should report it. That way it can be prosecuted or at the very least verified with contemporary evidence.

I don't think that we have the man power to handle something like that. Just off the top of my head, I could probably name a dozen or more incidences that would legally qualify.

We'll never know for sure unless they are reported. And even then, we need to track reports that do not result in charges, which we currently do not do.

[Magical Realist]

We'll never know for sure unless they are reported. And even then, we need to track reports that do not result in charges, which we currently do not do.

Hence the accuracy of self-reported surveys.

[Syne]

We'll never know for sure unless they are reported. And even then, we need to track reports that do not result in charges, which we currently do not do.

Hence the accuracy of self-reported surveys.

Your proclamation simply does not follow.

[Yazata]

Hi Leigha, glad to see you're still around.

I think it's crucial to only make presumptions or determinations of allegations of misconduct based on facts. it is insulting to me as a woman, that simply because of my gender, I can accuse any man of misconduct and I will be believed...

Now with the Dr Ford vs Kavanaugh situation, I did believe her story, and didn't believe his testimony...

Ms. Ford is said to have drunk to excess at the time these parties took place, and likely doesn't have a clear recollection of some of them. Her whole allegation is based on her memory and her memory might not be all that reliable.

She admits herself that she didn't tell anyone about this alleged sexual assault until 2012, when she was in "psychotherapy". Her former boyfriend who lived with her for years says that she never mentioned having been sexually assaulted. Nor did she display any of the psychological peculiarities that she says are the result of that alleged assault, such as fear of enclosed spaces. She didn't name the alleged assailant during psychotherapy either, that seems to have only came after President Trump had named Judge Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court pick. So it looks like this whole thing is fairly recent. It's possible that it's a "recovered memory" and as unreliable as those often are. It's also possible that it's all just a politically motivated lie. Or maybe it really happened, just as she says. None of the people she named as witnesses corroborated her story.

Given that none of us can really know what happened, if anything, I choose to assign Ms. Ford's allegation a low credibility weight in my own mind. That's especially true given the over-heated political context and the Democrats' frenzy to keep a Trump appointee off the Supreme Court. I choose to concentrate instead on the more tangibly documented facts of Justice Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy and his exemplary record on the bench.

I think that he will be an excellent addition to the Supreme Court. (The Justice he's replacing, Anthony Kennedy thinks so too.)

[Magical Realist]

We'll never know for sure unless they are reported. And even then, we need to track reports that do not result in charges, which we currently do not do.

Hence the accuracy of self-reported surveys.

Your proclamation simply does not follow.

It's a form of reporting that doesn't result in charges. It's exactly what you wanted.

[Syne]

We'll never know for sure unless they are reported. And even then, we need to track reports that do not result in charges, which we currently do not do.

Hence the accuracy of self-reported surveys.

Your proclamation simply does not follow.

It's a form of reporting that doesn't result in charges. It's exactly what you wanted.

No, a survey has no potential consequences for inaccuracy, whereas filing a false police report could result in charges. Surveys do not name any perpetrators nor have any means to adjudicate their credibility. Survey answers are just taken on faith.

[Syne]

A report by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that no evidence supported the “numerous allegations” of misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that surfaced during his confirmation process.

“This was a serious and thorough investigation that left no stone unturned in our pursuit of the facts,” said committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in a statement on Saturday as the panel’s Republican majority released a 414-page report. “In the end, there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against the nominee.”
...
According to the Senate Judiciary Committee report, six FBI reports on Kavanaugh over the course of his career in politics and on the bench ― probes that included interviews with nearly 150 individuals who knew him ― “did not reveal any alcohol abuse or inappropriate sexual behavior.”
...
One person interviewed who claimed to know Ford said she did drugs on occasion. The type of drugs were not specified.

...Another said Ford had a “robust” social life and did not seem to be suffering from the effects of a sexual assault.

The report concluded: “Committee investigators found no verifiable evidence that supported Dr. Ford’s allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. The witnesses that Dr. Ford identified as individuals who could corroborate her allegations failed to do so, and in fact, contradicted her.”
...
Committee investigators spoke with 45 individuals and took 25 written statements.
- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sen...67a87d2a61

Where's the Democrat report? Oh right, they don't care since it no longer matters to their political agenda.