God forbid we re-write the laws of evidence to put rapists in jail. Not to turn this blog into, bull-shit conversations I have in a bar, but last night I was talking to a police lieutenant, acquaintance in my town (population around 30,000), the DSK case came up and he basically said that we get 2-3 rape accusations a week here, but the vast majority of them are lies, he knows this because, the DA gets so very few convictions, therefore... Also there was a bunch of if you agree to have sex with a stranger you agree to have sex with any particular person, and if you go home with someone you must know that he wants sex, therefore; any sex that happens must be consensual. This is someone who has been on the force for 10+ years.
So does the system work? No, not if you give a shit about putting rapists in jail. Luckily no one does.
Leblanc has a point. How _would_ you rewrite the rules of evidence? It's no good just fulminating about it.
So does the system work? No, not if you give a shit about putting rapists in jail. Luckily no one does.
See, that's your problem, leblanc. You just don't give a shit about putting rapists in jail. I bet you're soft on child-murder, too.
But I'm sure he will come out ferociously for the right to free spit.
Fucking Bullshit! If our evidence rules were such that the vast majority of murderers were going free, no one would be all: "Whoops, nothing we can do." They'd all be like: these rules are shitty, cause all these folks are shooting people in the face, and then just wandering around.
Well, I happen to think we do need to rewrite the rules of evidence, though it's not directly related to this case. The criminal justice system (not just in America but Blighty as well and probably most other criminal justice systems) places far, far too much weight on eyewitness testimony, for instance, which has been shown time and time again to be extremely unreliable and subject to police/prosecutorial influence. More broadly, there needs to be a sytem in place to empirically test the reliability of forms of evidence (and sources, in the case of forensics labs and such), and more or less automatically feed the results of that research into the justice system. I'm not sure if that should be done by disallowing certain forms of evidence entirely (eg confessions where the entire interview is not available on tape) or merely by making it mandatory for judges to inform juries of their empirical backing (or explicitly take it into account for non-jury trials). Certainly police should be obliged to use best practice for things like line-ups.
It's not so much the rules of evidence that are the problem, as the prior probability people assign to different possibilities. Depending on exactly what the evidence about the accuser that comes out at trial, there's a fair chance that I'd think both that she had incredibly little credibility and that it would be a mistake taking her word for anything, and that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Because if DSK isn't claiming that the encounter was straightforward prostitution, the idea that it was spontaneously impulsive consensual sex on both sides is wildly more implausible than that it was rape.
But I'm sure he will come out ferociously for the right to free spit.
She.
There's a shitload wrong with the rules of evidence in every country, but it's not clear that changing them will help in this case. In England they introduced a rule ten years ago that a person's sexual history couldn't be used as evidence unless it had direct bearing on the case being heard. But convictions remain below 6%, and a Home Office-commissioned study was quoted as saying there had been "no discernible effect" on reducing the number of failed prosecutions.
I'd love to do something about this, but saying that something should be done isn't helpful unless you suggest what.
And of course what's going on here isn't the witness's prior sexual history, but her prior credibility history. I can't imagine what would keep that out.
Yes, re: 9.
In terms of a general reassessment of the nature of evidence, as per GY's 6, that seems a good idea.
I think 7 also gets it right [from what I've read, and it may turn out to be completely different] : he seems, as far as I can tell, to be guilty.
re: 5
I'm still waiting to hear what your suggestions are.
10: Easy, at base, we treat rape like other violent assaults. So when someone shows up with bruises and a fucked up shoulder claiming to have been attacked, we don't respond: "well, since he also put his penis in your mouth, it might of been consensual.".
11: That's not a change to the rules of evidence, and it is not a change to the rules of evidence regarding credibility of witnesses.
Lawyers: When changing the rules of evidence, can we do it just for rape cases? Can we do it just for the testimony of victims in rape cases? That would prevent a lot of collateral damage.
My big fear in making it easier to convict in the US is that the new rules would just be used to put a lot of black people in jail who aren't guilty of anything besides being black.
If our evidence rules were such that the vast majority of murderers were going free, no one would be all: "Whoops, nothing we can do."
Actually, overall violent crime conviction rates are really low, at least in the UK. A few years ago there was a bit of a scandal when it was found that, for example, only 9.7% of cases of serious wounding led to a conviction. Similar figure for robbery, slightly lower figure for rape.
And those rates are far, far higher than the overall conviction rate - i.e. what percentage of crimes of any description, violent or non-violent, lead to a conviction - which is 3-4%.
The distinction that needs to be drawn here is between the crime-to-conviction rate, which is very low, and the charge-to-conviction rate - how likely is it that someone charged with the crime will be found guilty of it - which is naturally much higher, about 68% for rape, for example. So I am not sure that this really points to a crying need for the rules of evidence to be changed; the weak link isn't "guilty people are being let off by the courts" but "guilty people aren't being found, arrested and charged".
Let's stipulate that the number of false rape accusations is small, but not negligible, and that the number of false acquittals is much greater than the number of false convictions. A targeted change in the way victim testimony is treated in rape cases is then likely to put some innocent people in jail, but prevent many more guilty people from going free. Is that a good outcome or an unjust violation of the rights of a few for the greater good? How many more does "more" have to be?
12: Of course it isn't, that's like asking me to address the disproportionate incarceration rates of African Americans with a evidence rule. These are large scale societal problems, so at some level they need societal answers. However, how about this: in sexual assault or rape cases the jury should consist only of women and men who have suffered sexual assault or rape, god knows it won't be a problem finding enough of them.
However, how about this: in sexual assault or rape cases the jury should consist only of women and men who have suffered sexual assault or rape, god knows it won't be a problem finding enough of them.
Vengeance will be theirs!
More broadly, there needs to be a sytem in place to empirically test the reliability of forms of evidence (and sources, in the case of forensics labs and such), and more or less automatically feed the results of that research into the justice system.
A good idea, considering that machines never go wrong.
However, how about this: in sexual assault or rape cases the jury should consist only of women and men who have suffered sexual assault or rape, god knows it won't be a problem finding enough of them.
How would they prove it?
In changing the rule of evidence, here, can we target just the admissibility of evidence damaging the credibility of witnesses in the cases we want to target?
A rule that says "the testimony of alleged victims in rape cases is to believed unless the [legal mumbo jumbo for a high standard] of evidence is against her" doesn't sound right to me.
But a law that says "Evidence damaging the credibility of victims in rape cases because it shows a pattern of prior deceptiveness is not admissible unless it [legal mumbo jumbo for a high standard]" sounds better to me.
These are large scale societal problems, so at some level they need societal answers.
Well, that's right -- what needs to change is jurors' and prosecutors' sense of the prior probabilities. Don't know how to do it other than talking about it, but at least the talking needs to happen.
Asteele: I'm on your side here. I'm just trying to find a practical way to put it.
17. I don't view victims of sexual assault as vengeance crazed harpies (or whatever fantasy is going on inside your head).
19. I'd be willing to accept self-reported testimony.
Getting rape prosecutions right in a culture of rape (or at least a culture with strong sub-currents of rape, per previous threads on consent) is a good but somewhat doomed fight. I guess just another way of saying "broad societal problem" needing broad societal approaches.
A good idea, considering that machines never go wrong. Eh?
By "more or less automatically", I mean federal/constitutional rules that require the judicial system to take into account the best available information on types of evidence and put procedures in place to ensure that those types of evidence are used where possible. I'm not talking about turning judges into algorithms.
And, conversely, demonstrably unreliable forms of evidence should be systematically deprecated.
27, 28: Would juries, presumably still comprised of humans, take readily to the demotion of the human factors?
@:27
The Supreme Court took a step in this direction with Daubert, which required judges to assess the reliability of scientific fields when deciding whether to allow expert testimony. Opinions differ, but I think on the whole the view is that it didn't do a whole lot to improve the accuracy of trials.
27, 28: Would juries, presumably still comprised of humans, take readily to the demotion of the human factors?
How am I demoting human factors? Much of what would get kicked out/minimised in my system is bogus forensics as in the Willingham case. Besides, juries are instructed to disregard or bear in mind things all the time - obviously they may not listen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it when it comes to evidential standards.
Here's an odd bit of business from the Wikipedia piece on the DSK case:
In an interview with Libération on April 28, 2011, Strauss-Kahn had stated he was "worried his political opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy, would try to frame him with a fake rape".
That seems like a rather idiosyncratic thing to worry about, especially publicly.
7
... Because if DSK isn't claiming that the encounter was straightforward prostitution, the idea that it was spontaneously impulsive consensual sex on both sides is wildly more implausible than that it was rape.
The defense claim is that the maid was expecting a tip. And the incidence of consensual sex might be higher than you would expect.
32: Perhaps not, for some of the reasons out of which this thread has arisen: an accusation of embezzling, kidnapping, burglary, murder, etc., could be complicated machine to develop, start and stop (bank accounts, fingerprints, corpses, weapons, etc.), but even in France, I suspect, sexual assault prosecutions can be so frustrating and humiliating for the accuser that a refusal to testify or pursue a case past the initial charges would not be remarkable.
Also, w/r/t DSK, the guilty flee where no man pursueth.
We could have a system that treats any accusation of rape as true and convicts merely on that basis. But presumably that's unfair. So you need some way to decide whether an accusation is credible. You could go by physical evidence alone, but there are plenty of rapes where there's no physical evidence of violence or coercion. Also, even some physical evidence of violence is not dispositive about the nonconsensual element of rape -- sometimes consensual sex leaves bruises. It's unavoidable that you'll need to evaluate the credibility of the accuser's testimony, absent dispositive evidence other than that testimony. (You can imagine cases in which a videotape turns up that proves the whole crime, but there are plenty of real-world cases in which nothing of the sort emerges.) And very often, evaluating the credibility of someone's testimony includes evaluating their credibility in general. And then you're basically where Leblanc says you are, unless you just don't think wrongful convictions are all that bad.
We could have a system that treats any accusation of rape as true and convicts merely on that basis. But presumably that's unfair. So you need some way to decide whether an accusation is credible. You could go by physical evidence alone, but there are plenty of rapes where there's no physical evidence of violence or coercion. Also, even some physical evidence of violence is not dispositive about the nonconsensual element of rape -- sometimes consensual sex leaves bruises. It's unavoidable that you'll need to evaluate the credibility of the accuser's testimony, absent dispositive evidence other than that testimony. (You can imagine cases in which a videotape turns up that proves the whole crime, but there are plenty of real-world cases in which nothing of the sort emerges.) And very often, evaluating the credibility of someone's testimony includes evaluating their credibility in general. And then you're basically where Leblanc says you are, unless you just don't think wrongful convictions are all that bad.
31: How am I demoting human factors? Much of what would get kicked out/minimised in my system is bogus forensics as in the Willingham case.
Because, as you mentioned before, "The criminal justice system... places far, far too much weight on eyewitness testimony, for instance, which has been shown time and time again to be extremely unreliable". Eyewitness testimony = human factors.
how about this: in sexual assault or rape cases the jury should consist only of women and men who have suffered sexual assault or rape, god knows it won't be a problem finding enough of them.
Again, Asteele, I think you're looking at the wrong part of the problem here. The rape conviction rate, once someone has been charged, seems actually to be pretty high (as far as I can tell from a quick google for conviction rate figures).
It seems that it's getting from crime to charge, not from charge to conviction, that's the big problem. Changing the makeup of juries wouldn't really address this issue.
Besides, juries are instructed to disregard or bear in mind things all the time - obviously they may not listen...
Have I told my dad's boss's story comparing instructing the jury to disregard with straining milk to remove cow urine?
Not to mention that victim testimony is, after all, eyewitness testimony - so measures like 20, which act to increase the weight that victim testimony carries in court, are in direct conflict with measures like 6.
I'm not saying that a victim is unreliable on whether a rape occurred or not, but he or she could certainly be unreliable - like any other victim of crime - on the identity and description of the person who committed it.
If our evidence rules were such that the vast majority of murderers were going free
In the case of a murder accusation it is generally absolutely certain that a crime has occurred. In the case of rape, most of the time that is what needs to be proven at the trial.
You're all looking at this from the wrong angle. The criminal justice system is simply not well suited to dramatically reducing the incidence of rape. What's needed for that is to change the general culture around consent, gender, and kill off all those 'she's slutty' or 'put herself in the position to be raped' attitudes. Or in other words, what you need here is a large dose of applied political correctness.
O tempora! O lawyers!
Where does this rule-tinkering get us? While improving the conviction to crime ratio and reducing false positives and negatives is a good thing, it's mostly good for (a) the individual victims and (b) our sense when watching the news that justice is being done. Maybe a bit of deterrence on the side. The charge to crime ratio OTOH illuminates the paucity of the role that the CJ system is bound to play as long as we live in a liberal society. Improve it as much as you can, both procedurally and resource-wise, within those limitations: habitual liars will still be rapeable, as will be people who won't speak up for whatever reason (and rapists can deliberately create those reasons). The major component - 3/4 at least - is keeping rapes from happening in the first place.
I think everyone here is aware of these issues, but I felt they bore repeating.
35: I get that if he was worried about being framed, then rape is a sensible thing to be worried about. But publicly trying to indemnify himself against a future charge of rape seems a bit off to me.
If he really was worried about a false rape charge, then spontaneous sex with a random stranger seems like an exceptionally bad idea.
I'm interested in what GY says about changing the rules of evidence, but I don't have any clear idea what he's talking about. Eyewitness testimony that's belied by physical or documentary evidence is easy to beat up on cross-examination already. I guess you could have a series of judicial warnings about the overall credibility of eyewitness testimony, but in addition to figuring out what the warning should say, there's a real risk of that warning not being applicable in any given case and in any event that job can be done by the defense lawyers. In cases where there's nothing but eyewitness testimony, what are you going to do -- you can undermine the credibility of the witness, but sometimes eyewitness testimony will be the only available evidence, as, for example, in rape cases where the physical evidence is consistent with consensual sex. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious.
Hard cases make bad law armchair lawyering.
We really shouldn't be using the DSK incident as a typical or average rape accusation. Most victims don't call their boyfriends within and discuss making money.
And billions were in play in getting DSK off the IMF.
I love rule tinkering!
Maybe we are attacking the wrong end. The high profile false convictions in rape cases (at least here on guncrime continent) are situations where the accused didn't have sex with the victim at all, and is only in jail because the cops decided to nab the nearest black man. These convictions get overturned on DNA evidence.
The high profile false acquittals come in cases where it is known the victim and accused had sex, but the accused manages to convince the jury that despite all reason and evidence, the sex was consensual.
SO!
We need to attack rules regarding establishing consent in court. The very restrictive Swedish laws that have ensnared Assange might be a model.
or we could just admit that no one is up for another rape thread.
42. I don't know, I think a lot of people with bullet wounds were asking for it, I'm not sure we can assume that those shootings are crimes.
39. Oh for fucks sake, people were hounding me on how to change the evidence rules, that means after one has gone to trial. My answer for how to get the police to take rape accusations more seriously is, i don't know, feminist revolt?
Also, 43 gets it completely right, and not just w/r/t rape, but for all crimes.
45: it certainly seems like there are different types of eyewitness testimony, and I can't really figure out how this should apply to rape cases, but eyewitness identification of a stranger (at least based on a single encouner, and especially at a distance or when distracted) is bad enough (and afflicted enough by false certainty) that I would argue it should almost never be believed, possibly even in the presence of additional, confirmatory evidence.
there's a real risk of that warning not being applicable in any given case and in any event that job can be done by the defense lawyers.
Can it? IANAL, and I realize that lawyers can question the credibility of individual witnesses, but there's a general, non-specific problem with eyewitness testimony, in much the same way that there is a general problem with lie detectors. And I don't think lawyers are allowed to, say, present expert testimony regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses in general.
Because, as you mentioned before, "The criminal justice system... places far, far too much weight on eyewitness testimony, for instance, which has been shown time and time again to be extremely unreliable". Eyewitness testimony = human factors.
Eyewitness testimony is just one example, and it goes both ways. Tightening up the rules on line-ups, for instance, would dramatically increase the reliability of it (I can dig up some links to research if you like) and allow it to be used with some confidence in the right circumstances. Similarly, the Willingham case would have been better decided with more emphasis on "human factors" given the unreliability of the pseudo-scientific forensics.
It's not a question of humans bad, science good. It's a question of systematically looking at what's reliable and what isn't and making sure that the system bases its judgements on the best available information. And furthermore that the system ensures reliable information is available (eg mandatory video of interviews, best practice line-ups).
While improving the conviction to crime ratio....
I haven't watched The Wire, because I've never liked eating broccoli, but is there no well-educated white public-affairs blogger nearby to leap in to write something about "stats" and the "juking" thereof as substitutes for authentic progress in public safety?
44: Hence the part about the guilty fleeing, etc.
Oh for fucks sake, people were hounding me on how to change the evidence rules, that means after one has gone to trial.
I don't think it was unreasonable of you to broaden the conversation beyond the rules of evidence, as you did in comments 11 and 16, but I think you need to remember that you did that. For fucks sake.
If I were a Japanese brewer, you couldn't stop me from making a beverage called "For Fucks Sake."
And sorry, so very sorry, but we have seen this messing with the rules of evidence before, in the 80s when every other day-care center turned out to be a Satanist cult child-raping facility. I didn't have an answer then, don't have one now. I would have broken a leg to avoid jury duty (anything that makes it to a jury is a tough case.)
But people really aren't helping the cause by focusing on the DSK case, this is a terrible place to take a stand.
17. I don't view victims of sexual assault as vengeance crazed harpies (or whatever fantasy is going on inside your head).
The Casey Anthony issue reminds us that the average citizen is fairly vengeance-crazed. Let alone the average citizen who had a certain crime perpetrated against them, watched the person get away with it (as may happen in 93% of cases or something), and is now in a position to judge someone else who seems likely guilty of that crime. Human nature.
I don't know, I think a lot of people with bullet wounds were asking for it, I'm not sure we can assume that those shootings are crimes.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but in fact what you've said is true. See the Radley Balko/Cory Maye thread, where the whole point was that there was unquestionably a person with bullet wounds, but no crime had (it was argued) taken place.
If I were a Japanese brewer, you couldn't stop me from making a beverage called "For Fucks Sake."
Whose success will be followed by a communion rice wine called "For Jesus' Sake."
re: 23
Yes, I can see it, with the wee embedded spreadsheet. Interesting.
53 makes sense, and no one reasonable could disagree. Although I think that most changes you'd want are probably best implemented by nstitutional and funding changes in police departments rather than changes to the rules of evidence governing trials.
There is a real rule of evidence specific to sex offense cases. This is the federal rule,direclty applicable only to crimes on federal lands, involving federal employees, in the armed forces, on some Indian reservations, and various other specific circumstances, but most states have similar rules.
Rule 412. Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition
(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.
The following evidence is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c):
(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior.
(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) In a criminal case, the following evidence is admissible, if otherwise admissible under these rules:
(A) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;
(B) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct offered by the accused to prove consent or by the prosecution; and
(C) evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant.
(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the alleged victim.
I don't have time today, but it might be useful to consider the actual rule for better or worse.
Since b.1.C. brings up the constitutional rights of the defendant, I'm going to spent the next several hours typing the U.S. Constitution to the comment box.
16: However, how about this: in sexual assault or rape cases the jury should consist only of women and men who have suffered sexual assault or rape, god knows it won't be a problem finding enough of them.
Uhhhmmm, wouldn't that make it extremely easy for the defense to argue that the jury had been specifically selected to be unable to view the defendant and the evidence objectively, and thereby get a mistrial? Are you arguing that in these cases, the defense attorneys should be unable to participate in voir dire?
Basically, Silvana (who we know hereabouts as M. LeBlanc and who, protip, you should reaaally not try to talk smack about as though she were some pro-rape troll) is making a point that's extremely difficult to get around. Either you can want the justice system to provide retribution and catharsis, or you can want it to provide fairness and due process. It's incredibly difficult to formulate rules and procedures that can provide both at the same time.
Going with the catharsis option sounds great when you think about all the actual rapists you could lock up if you didn't have to be scrupulous about this fairness and evidence stuff. It starts to not sound so great when you realize that the reason those rules exist is because chucking them out often tends to turn the justice system itself into an obscene and criminal mockery. I mean, American law furnishes a current experiment in an alternate system designed to be punitive and cathartic and weighted toward upping the total of convictions: terrorism, and the trial of accused "terrorists" in offshore facilities at military tribunals. How many credible convictions has that system produced? How much abuse and criminality on the part of the government has it produced?
That's not to say that alternative systems aren't possible. Just that Silvana is saying, correctly, that there are endless pitfalls in designing and implementing them and that if you're serious about it, that work has to take place with your brain and not your spleen. And she's right.
49: i don't know, feminist revolt?
I do know feminist revolt. Or at least feminist revolutionaries, and I hear very few of them bemoaning rules of evidence as the main problem with rape culture. I would expect that for every extra rapist you might convict with draconian rules of evidence, you'd still have half a dozen who were never prosecuted in the first place. Prosecuted? Hell, even investigated.
The thing we have seen over and over and over again is that when you try to put a feminist patch on the patriarchal legal system, you wind up with a patriarchy that has one more excuse to justify its crimes. Witness the attacks on the Chicago Bash Back people under the FACE law.
As alluded to above, virtually anything you do to restrict defendants' rights in the current US legal system is pretty much automatically going to guarantee that a lot more innocent African-American men are going to go to prison, where some percentage of them will be raped. In a system where white people are investigated less, charged less, convicted less and sentenced to less, I have zero confidence that any minor procedural change is going to promote anything resembling "justice". We do need a revolution, that's what people should be working for, not bullshit "reforms" that do exactly the opposite of what they're intended to do.
Basically, Silvana (who we know hereabouts as M. LeBlanc and who, protip, you should reaaally not try to talk smack about as though she were some pro-rape troll) is making a point that's extremely difficult to get around.
Slack? I kinda wish you wouldn't say things like this. Silvana's right about this because she's right, not because we all think she's the greatest (I mean, I do think that, but it's a logical possibility that she could have been wrong about something), and asteele really hasn't been particularly unpleasant about anyone, just frustrated about what is a very frustrating issue.
IMO, correcting people's manners is the fastest way to turn an argument really ugly and dull. I'll do it sometimes, but I try not to if I think there's anything useful left to be said on the actual subject matter.
How many credible convictions has that system produced
IIRC, it's actually produced fewer convictions full stop for terrorist offences than the civilian system has managed over the same period.
and asteele really hasn't been particularly unpleasant about anyone
No, just really strongly implied it. Come on, look at post 1 on this thread.
(And I wouldn't characterize it as "correcting manners." Far be it from me of all people to criticize someone for being acerbic; I just prefer that people get their targets straight. Otherwise, your point is taken.)
Eh, I'm doing to you what I asked you not to do to Asteele. Ineffectual moderation attempt over for the day.
Ineffectual moderation attempt over for the day.
Does that mean I can go back to insulting people without a reason?
I'ma changin' my pseud every comment!
64 is useful, but applies only to past sexual behavior, while LeBlanc's original point (which I take quite seriously) was about past lying.
In the DSK case, some of the alleged past lies look like they are going to be very hard to exclude. One involves an accusation of gang rape which prosecutors now believe to be false. I'm still pretty sure DSK is guilty, but there is a reason why the prosecution thinks this is damaging to their case.
What is interesting about previous laws against slut-shaming in rape cases is that they have been fairly ineffective. This doesn't speak well to the potential to gain much ground on credibility issues.
74: Unless I've missed something, you've only had two comments here.
76: I was taking time to rationalize each one.
Israel is bad! The IRA is good! Make up is bad! Criticizing mothers is good!
78: Rationalization is for stupid-heads. And that's what you are, Moby. A big, dumb, stupid-head.
(Drat, did my joke insult get mixed up with someone's attempt at an actual insult?)
Can I join the IRA over the internet? I think I qualify on ethnicity grounds.
Although I think that most changes you'd want are probably best implemented by nstitutional and funding changes in police departments rather than changes to the rules of evidence governing trials.
Oh definitely. It's a root and branch thing. But I think rules of evidence have a part to play.
If my grandmother prepaid my dues far enough in advance before she died, I might still be a member in good standing.
82: You could join Sinn Fein's internet mailing list to break the ice.
Speaking of big heads and things grandmothers like, I'm going to buy a cycling helmet today unless it costs so much that I won't have beer money left over.
78: I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
86: You missed a penis measuring comment.
Can I join the IRA over the internet? I think I qualify on ethnicity grounds.
Do you have your own electric drill? You know, for community work.
87: did you get a bike, or are you worried about tripping on the sidewalk?
88: Lately, it's mostly about gluing "gems" to vests and why nobody visits my Etsy store.
92: I have a bike and rode on the (bike lane portion of the) streets last night.
Yeah! Wooooooooooo rapethread turns into bikethread!
Bike dorks unite, take back the night most-common-thread-topic-people-don't-really-want-to-talk-about title!
You can rape in a car, on the bus, on the train, on a plane, on a boat, while on foot. Bicycles are about the most anti-rape means of transport.
She will get her payday, in a civil court with a the only possible fair jury of 12 Andrea Dworkins. And a book deal, paid interviews, and appearances on talk tv. Entire nations will help and support her.
And millions of more credible rape victims will get no attention or help at all.
This is a bike thread now? I'm getting old -- my lower calves and feet are sore all the time when I'm commuting. Not acutely, I'm fine all day, but it keeps me up at night.
I'm going to have to start taking a couple of Advil before I go to sleep.
97: Wasn't there a thread where urple insisted that bike-sex wasn't terribly impractical? Admittedly, as difficult as bike-sex sounds, it's still easier than bike-rape.
101: Maybe that's why they make recumbent bikes?
101: it's very difficult to establish whether your bike has consented.
102: Remember, not *every* recumbent biker is a rapist.
Bicycles are about the most anti-rape means of transport.
Not rape, but for a while my first year here there was someone known as the bicycle groper, who would ride up alongside women and grope them.
100: that sounds like it might be a fit issue, or something that toe clips (or even half clips) might help with; if you have to use muscles to maintain foot position, or if your foot is sliding around on the pedal, that could cause stress on your calves and feet, he says, kinda talking out his ass. But I have definitely read that depending on your pedaling style you should be able to almost eliminate foot/calf stress.
Wouldn't that risk a very bad injury for the groper as well as the groped?
Hey, if you read the post, you could ring one of them up! Otherwise you'll look like Liberal Q. Weaksauce in front of Bob and you don't want that, do you?
103: it's very difficult to establish whether your bike has consented.
Why else did my Cannondale have those fat tubes?
Fat innertubes make its rocking wheels go round?
106: Huh. I independently came up with ankling and feel it adds power, but maybe I should stop. OTOH, I don't bike that much, so its unlikely to cause injury, and when I do I usually quickly forget to do it.
Wouldn't that risk a very bad injury for the groper as well as the groped?
You would think, right? From what I could tell from the reports, it sounded like the guy would bike really slowly toward a woman and then grab her breast on the way by.
yeah, you'd think that, but when someone does something totally inappropriate one's first instinct is to freeze up sometimes like, what the fuck? and the groper is expecting to get thrown off balance, while you are not, and since I am a bad cyclist I'd be as likely to knock myself down as neatly push him over, especially if he sped away. let's see if I can smoothly introduce they, we, and you pl. into the sentence now.
I wiped out trying to wakeboard yesterday and now my neck is super sore. Boo.
Hrm. My bike really is due to go into the shop and have someone who knows what they're doing groom it a bit -- it's a little rattly. Maybe I'll ask if they can put on half-clips. Not sure about whether that works with the folding pedal.
Hang on, who is on the bike? The groper, the gropee, or both? Is it like grope jousting?
I think a cycling groper was groping pedestrians. Double-bicycle groping would be prohibitively difficult.
My bike was purchased in 1980 for a person 8 inches shorter than myself. I'm not sure if it fits or not.
117: yes, I'm a bit puzzled by that too. I assume just the groper.
118: it would be very easy if both were on the same bicycle. As in, a tandem. Getting away from the scene of the crime would be trickier.
My bike is a ridiculous contraption. I'm almost sure it doesn't fit properly, but I don't think there's any way to make it fit properly, and the foldiness of it is key to my habits. (If my office had an internal bike room, I'd give up the Brompton in a heartbeat, but it doesn't.)
Yes, it was the groper on a bicycle, and the women on foot. It did take a while for me to figure that out from the reports (they send out these absurd crime alert emails to everyone on campus); many of the accounts left the logistics quite unclear.
115: Oh God, wakeboarding. I haven't done that in ages. I totally need to go wakeboarding this summer.
Double-bicycle groping would be prohibitively difficult.
But something to do at Ren fairs.
Friends at Berkeley used to joust in supermarket parking lots with bicycles and shopping carts. I don't think groping was involved.
I've only skimmed the thread (which looks contentious), so perhaps I shouldn't jump in. But I was reminded of something I saw yesterday:
Getting rape prosecutions right in a culture of rape (or at least a culture with strong sub-currents of rape, per previous threads on consent) is a good but somewhat doomed fight. I guess just another way of saying "broad societal problem" needing broad societal approaches.
When Rape Victims Lie (via Felix Salmon) makes the case that victims are in a tough position when it comes to establishing credibility. On one hand evidence of lies undercuts their credibility, on the other hand they risk not being taken seriously if they don't craft their story to fit very specific narratives.
Which gets to the point that social problems require social solutions. Unless and until juries are willing to convict (and prosecutors are willing to prosecute) rape cases that take place in messy circumstances there's going to be a lot of pressure for victims to lie which puts them in a very difficult situation.
But something to do at Ren fairs.
Because the breasts are conveniently hoisted up and displayed.
(124: No, hang on, wakeboarding is the version standing up on a board with bindings that requires actual skill. I'm thinking of its kiddie cousin that involves being pulled rapidly behind a boat and hanging on for dear life. That's what I haven't done in ages.)
119: if you ride it enough you'll figure it out.
122: I don't really know much about Bromptons, but presumably there are things (handlebar height? seat fore/aft positioning? stem positioning, maybe? Handlebar angle?) that you can mess with.
I don't think wakeboarding involves a ton of skill, but I just haven't been around boats and boating sports very much. I popped up okay, but didn't turn the wakeboard to be streamlined (ie, I had the broad edge facing the boat, which is how you pop up) and so I quickly ate it.
Hawaiian Punch was super-duper traumatized, because she was already upset watching other people eat it, and when I went down everyone oohed and aahed in a melodramatic way, and she really flipped out. But then she was super nice to me the rest of the day! I guess I need to fake my death from time to time.
130.1: I never figure anything else out. Why should this be different? I do think I'm going to raise the handlebars. The instructions say they should be a bit lower than the seat, but I don't like being all hunched over.
128: More because the tiltyard is already built. Not sure how points should be awarded though.
130: Maybe I can move the seat, but I think everything else is fixed.
re: 134
According to the Brompton manual you can adjust seat position front to back, seat angle, seat post height, and some adjustment of the front-to-back position of the handlebars. Handlebar height is fixed, though.
Huh. And you know, I actually have the manual on paper in my bike bag, close enough to touch. I suppose I could have looked at it.
Still don't know how a bike is supposed to fit, other than how high the seat should be.
133: Hands coated in red dye. White smocks with concentric circles around the target areas. Points scored as a weighted measure of the amount of paint in each "tier" (bulls eye--50 pts/cm², then 10, then 2 for instance). Evolving with time into a more sophisticated automatic sensing system which does something like ∫(R-r)²d for r from o to R where d is average density of the paint on the smock distance r from the target and R is an outer limit. The lower target area might have a non-circular shape.
"Dye" and "paint" should be interpreted as referring to the same substance for purposes of understanding comment 138.
138 sounds messy. For competition fencing, you wear a metal lamé jacket hooked up to an electrical circuit with the weapon, so that a hit in the scoring area completes the circuit and registers a point. The same system could be modified for this application: I'm thinking lamé gauntlets for one player and Carrie Fisher/Boris Vallejo-style metal underwear for the other.
140: Your mother Precision is messy.
140: I was assuming both competitors would be on offense and defense simultaneously. Male participants would have to use noseless seats, of course.
137.2 continued. But I should probably figure out how to either move the seat back or the handlebars forward. I'm pretty sure it's too short front-to-back for me. (Funny, I'm really fond of the ridiculous little contraption, but I find it surprising that it's sold without warning that it's only for shortish people. I've got the seat all the way up, and I can't imagine riding it comfortably if I were even an inch or two taller. And I'm only 5'7")
Heyyyyyyy. I'm the Fonz! Heyyyyyyy.
Great post by mblanc.
I am not interested in changing the rules of evidence. I've been involved in some he-said/she-said cases, and a couple of cases where the "victim" made it up.
5 to life is a long time. Take a jury and lose and your guy gets a minimum of 5 years.
I am not interested in it being much easier for the government.
I am more interested in continuing the education process that consent must be given and that consent can be withdrawn at any time. Even mid-stroke!
144: Just searched for and read it before you linked, and it doesn't actually help much. Mostly, it boils down to "adjust until it feels right", which, if I don't know what I'm doing, how would I know?
for a while my first year here there was someone known as the bicycle groper
Reading this blog, I am no longer surprised by the variety of circumstances in which people engage in random deviant and abusive behavior. Heck, I'm not even surprised by how often apo can come up with a link to a picture of it.
142: OK, lamé gauntlets and metal skivvies for all, in that case.
Further to 147: Whine whine, bitch bitch, moan moan. How come I can't get someone to adjust it perfectly for me without my having to know anything about it or schlep it to an inconvenient bike store? And where are the minions that should be bringing me sherbert?
I want to express my 100% agreement with 6 and my strong approval of 7's mode of discourse.
11: I'm not sure on what basis you'd distinguish that from rough sex gone wrong or other consensual physically rough activities like some contact team sports. Right now people don't seem very motivated to prosecute fellow athletes for assault, but if injury leads to a presumed lack of consent, that could change.
I don't have a dog in that fight since I hate those kinds of activities anyway, but it seems like something a lot of other people enjoy and it would therefore be sad to make it presumptively criminal behavior.
Also, I'm told that plenty of rapes don't involve physical injury, this wouldn't help at all for those (which I would imagine are already the most difficult to prosecute).
100: Kobe. my lower calves and feet are sore all the time when I'm commuting
This is me with racquetball now. Woke up this morning, with heel ache and overall soreness. Confused for a moment and then remembered--a "boomer over-active sports extension beyond a reasonable age" session last night.
I now have a helmet that is probably with more than my bike and a heavy metal U that I can hit cars with.
So now I don't need to carry expired batteries in case I need to express my displeasure.
I manage to satisfy myself with bitchy comments (last night, passing a teenager wobbling all over the bike lane as he talked on his cell phone on a block with about six cars either parking, double parking, or doing u-turns: "Do you mind? I'm trying not to die here.")
Reaching over and yanking their cords is surprisingly satisfying.
Reaching over and yanking their cordsgroping them is surprisingly satisfying.
158: Oh my. That would be satisfying. Now I'm tempted. I had to give up groping pedestrians when they started writing articles about me, but the urge is still there.
101: it's very difficult to establish whether your bike has consented.
If I understand the atomic theory of bicycles correctly, there are ways around this.
You can find videos of canoe jousting on YouTube. You're welcome.
Last night, while out for a casual evening bike ride (and get-to-know-the-nearby-neighborhoods-trip), I was treated to one "Nice Townie!" from a kid playing basketball and one "That's the ugliest bike I've ever seen! I would be embarrassed to be seen on that thing!" from a punk looking for trouble (or so I can only assume).
158 and 159 can be combined to make SCIENCE.
147: well, if something hurts, something related to that something isn't adjusted right. So: your feet and calves are hurting, ergo something to do with your feet and calves is wonky. Maybe your seat height? Maybe your feet are too far forwards on the pedals? Maybe your feet aren't far enough forward on the pedals? Maybe your toes are canted in too far? Maybe they aren't canted in far enough? Maybe your seat is too high? Maybe it isn't high enough? Maybe you're riding in too high a gear?
161: The first question is at what point the bicycle has become sufficiently sentient to be capable of consent. It would probably be morally safest to leave the bicycle to make the first move (... "leaning there conveniently and trying to look very small and comfortable and attractive").
164: Sometimes the problem is with the meat itself not the motion or position.
166: Have you tried a better bike seat?
You know what's a pain in the ass about bicycles? They seem to constantly break down. I bought a new bike in January, which has been great for reasonably regular weekend riding with my kid, but it's only July and there have already been two flat tires and the chain keeps falling off (not in a way that's super hard to fix, but still an annoying pause involving lots of bike grease). On the last bike trip I did, on a somewhat older bike, my friend's chain broke completely. It's like driving around in British automobiles from the 1950s. I'm sure this would all be OK if I carried around a tool and fixit kit and knew more about being handy around bikes, but it's kind of a surprising annoyance in a world in which most things work properly.
My seat height is a bit low, but not much, and that's as much seatpost as the bike has. My feet are probably too far back on the pedals -- I'm basically pedaling with my insteps, and I think I should be pedaling with the balls of my feet, but every time I stop paying attention to it the pedals are back under my insteps. (Which I think also comes out of the slightly short seatpost.)
it's kind of a surprising annoyance in a world in which most things work properly.
Please send me a completely list of all medications/substances in your blood. I'd like to share that delusion.
LB, looking at the Brompton site you can get different seat posts for gigantic tall freaks with inside legs over 30".
169: I just had a very difficult little interaction with my mother, who buys fifteen-dollar bicycles at yard sales and rides them until they break. She had me riding a three-speed with a coaster brake and the seat about six-inches low and rusted in place. I got it back to her place, and broke the nut free so I could raise the seat, and then started trying to clean some gunk off the chain and sprockets and steelwool some of the rust off, and somehow managed to knock it around such that the coaster brake (located inside the rear axle where you can't get at it without disassembling the whole thing) is stuck on.
She was reasonable about it, but there was a definite cloud of "You broke my perfectly functional bicycle with your highfalutin ideas about lubricant and raising the seat," over the rest of the afternoon.
Clever person that you are, I assume you already looked for nearby bike lockers that you could rent? City of Oakland provides some, but that is a bit far for you.
174: I know, I've been resisting spending additional money on it, when it's really pretty close to fitting. I probably want the seat less than an inch higher than I can get it.
177: They sell padded bicycle shorts, for that elusive extra inch. As a bonus, they help protect you in grope jousting.
it's kind of a surprising annoyance in a world in which most things work properly
I'm surprised, actually, at how little maintenance* my bikes require. I did a bunch of annoying stuff to my bikes this past spring (chain replacement, derailleur adjustment to get more precise shifting), but that was because I got them all used, and they were overdue. Do your tires have puncture protection? That will go a long way in keeping you from getting flats.
*Does not include the endless fiddling around to get the fit right, as discussed above.
176: Nothing where I could safely leave it overnight without paying a bunch.
My daughter has a sweet adult-sized tricycle with an awesome basket in the back.
She was named Best Tricyclist at our block party.
I would like to be more of a bike mechanic, but I have to admit that my specific bike makes me jumpy -- it's so weird, and I'm afraid of breaking it. If I had a normal bike, I'd be less reluctant to mess with it.
Do your tires have puncture protection?
Probably not! I'm not even sure what that is. The derailleur also seems to shift the chain off of the gears fairly regularly. This is all on a new 2011 bottom of the market Trek, which I got because it was stable enough for a kid bike seat.
The derailleur also seems to shift the chain off of the gears fairly regularly.
That's a pretty easy adjustment, I think -- someone else should be able to explain it better, but if I get what's happening correctly the gear cable is just a little tight (or loose?) and needs to be tweaked a bit.
And by someone else, I mean probably Blume or Tweety.
Actually, it's an adjustment on the derailleur itself-- one of the adjustment screws needs to be made to stop it from going to far out in one direction.
The derailleur thing is a simple adjustment; there are web sites can show you how. Basically screws adjust the travel of the derailleur at either end. Most of my road bikes, when I had them, needed nothing more than lubrication and the odd tweak of the brakes or gears. The MTBs I've had since have all had annoying v-brakes that go off centre easily or otherwise need over-regular adjusting, and grip shifters plus lots of gears are more fiddly than a simple 5 or 10 speed with non-indexed frame mounted shifters.
A very basic tune-up at a bike shop should be able to address most of your concerns. I think it's suggested to get a tune-up on a new bike after a couple of months anyway, to tighten the cables and such.
I don't really understand why anyone needs that many gears. I can understand why you'd want your high gears to be really high, and your low gears to be really low, but is it ever really necessary to split the range into more than ten possible settings?
191: I wonder about that also because last night all I used was the low gear and the middle gear. (I didn't use high because I was too unsure to want to go fast.)
Biking here in flat Sacramento converted me to a single speed enthusiast.
I don't really understand why anyone needs that many gears.
Depending on what kind of biking you're doing, it can be really nice to have your gears closely spaced. That said, yeah, range is more important. And shifting strategy is still really hard for me to figure out.
I couldn't get home without my low gear, so I'm all about the gears. It's the fineness of the distinctions -- do real bicyclists decide that a given slope calls for gear 9 of 24 as opposed to gear 10 of 24?
I suppose it's undesirable to have too big a jump between different cogs, maybe? My current bike has 18 but it might as well have 3 or 4. One for flat roads at speed, two for various speeds/slopes as general use gears, and one for steep hills.
That said, on the 5 speed road bike I once had the biggest gear wasn't big enough.
Many bike shops will offer a free tune-up thirty days or so after buying the bike. Even if you didn't get that, a quick tightening and adjustment shouldn't cost very much.
Low-end bikes do tend to need more maintenance, but if you deal with it, they tend to settle into a bit of a steady state where they don't need any work done for a while. Except for v-brakes, yeah, which are a pain.
194, 195, 196: allegedly "serious" cyclists like to have as small a gap between gears as possible; pro riders (when they aren't on mountain stages) generally have the cogs separated by only one tooth. Basically, this is so you can keep a consistent cadence (and consistent effort) no matter what the conditions are. Over a long ride, an even, high cadence is going to be much more efficient (muscularly, anyhow) than a variable or low cadence. Once you get used to the shifting (and have a good pattern) it is really nice to get into a good, fast pedaling rhythm that you can just stay in; modulation of your speed happens primarily in the gears, rather than primarily with your legs.
I thought the idea behind lots of gears was that serious bikers liked the keep cadences steady.
My fancy bike has 20 gears; the lowest one will get me up pretty much any hill, and the highest six or seven allow me a lot of fine gradations when I'm riding on flattish ground. It's also nice to be able to shift from the big ring to the small ring in front while simultaneously shifting the back such that pedaling difficulty remains relatively constant.
The bikes I rent have three speeds. I guess I understand 198, now that it's explained, but that doesn't seem to apply to commuting or any other kind of biking in a city; even if you run some red lights and stop signs, I don't think you could go even five minutes at a truly steady pace.
that doesn't seem to apply to commuting or any other kind of biking in a city
Not really, no. My commuting bike has one speed.
My fancy bike has 20 gears
Twenty gears? Or gear combinations?
Despite the supposed simplicity of set-screw adjustment, I've never been able to get it really right at the extremes.
I'm imagining a bicycle with five chainrings and fifteen cogs. Intense!
Chuck Norris has one speed.
Terminal velocity.
On the contrary, there is no such thing as terminal velocity for Chuck Norris, because that would imply that he couldn't go faster if he wanted to.
203.1: more gears than this bad boy!
I've never been able to get it really right at the extremes.
Do you have a triple in front? One of my bikes has that, and it really is impossible to get the biggest and smallest chainrings to work very well past a certain cog in the back.
I have trouble switching the chainring on my bike, but I assume it is because I haven't had much practice. It is never very smooth, which is another reason I've mostly used the five lower gears.
206: I think you misunderstood our correspondent, neb. Whatever the velocity of Chuck Norris, that speed is terminal velocity.
209: has the bike been tuned up lately? The derailleurs could certainly need adjusting.
What kind of shifters does it have? (And where are they?)
208: yes. However, the guys at the palo alto bike shop can get it working at all points in like ten seconds.
looks like I was super pwned with detail and confidence in what is being said.
211: It was tuned up a couple of years ago and then sat in a garage. It has whatever kind of shifters people put on Schwinn bikes during the Carter administration.
Even during the couple periods when I took my biking seriously (non-competitive but doing centuries and trying to do what they suggest with cadences) I always found a dozen gears with a large spread in ratios quite enough.
213: you aren't counting all the internal ones.
After like ten hours I got mine to work in all the combos except for extreme cross-chaining. Man, brifters are awesome, but indexed shifting is a pain in the ass.
215: I'm guessing either these or these, then.
In any case, if it's been sitting in a garage for a couple of years, it could probably use a bit of a tuneup. The hippies down at the co-op could almost certainly help you out for cheap.
219: It's the first type. I really do think it is my pedalling as it really was only in the garage for a year or two since the tuneup and the garage was climate controled.
My latest bike related daydreaming is taking a week and doing the Erie Canal trail. It's a little under four hundred miles from Albany to Buffalo -- six days at an average of about seventy miles a day would do it.
On the other hand, taking a vacation by myself that Buck and the kids aren't up for probably isn't going to happen. It would be fun, though.
I should probably get a real bike before doing that sort of thing, though.
220: are you talking about shifting the front chainring? If so, it could certainly be your pedaling; shifting in front requires easing up in a particular way that isn't instantly intuitive.
More to the point, I noticed that I was stopping my feet while I was reaching for the shifter and didn't resume pedalling until after I had pulled the shifter.
Argh, bike thread! Um, I rode mine this weekend and have begun to wonder if, by not exercising much ever for coming up on 38 years, I have broken something and will never have any kind of stamina for anything. [," he whined.] Not-that-steep hills make me wheeze and sweat like a beast. I think I want to have one of those horrible tv coaches who yells and browbeats me until I have some kind of dramatic breakthrough and learn to love exercise and can go up TWO FLIGHTS OF STAIRS without feeling like my lungs are bursting.
223: Yes, that front chainring. So I just started using the other one lever. The other shifter was easier anyway since it uses my dominant hand and the hand I use less for braking.
It's a little under four hundred miles from Albany to Buffalo -- six days at an average of about seventy miles a day would do it.
Don't forget to duck at the low bridges. And to correctly identify your neighbor and your pal.
That's absurd. No matter how nice your bike, a mule can't pull it seventy miles in a day.
George Washington's bike had, like, 30 goddam gears.
225: You know what I'm going to say about commuting. Seriously, an originally quite slowish and now really not all that fast at all commute of the same length you'd have, March to October and an average of probably not quite three days a week, has done wonders for my fitness level (from a low baseline to a still low, but now much higher, pinnacle.)
And I do frolic lightly up multiple flights of stairs that I used to resent.
The whole frolicking bit annoys the crap out of the other commuters.
When I commute by walking, I never frolick on the steps where the guy died this winter. You'd think they might have a note in the paper saying if they found the steps unsafe or what, but you'd be wrong.
ntil I have some kind of dramatic breakthrough and learn to love exercise and can go up TWO FLIGHTS OF STAIRS without feeling like my lungs are bursting.
No need for a coach or special exercise for that. Just move to a walk-up. Preferably one with laundry in the basement.
LB, have I told you my dream about a bike ride with my sister and her boys? The fantasy is to have one car and one adult bike on the trip. The adult on the bike takes the kids on the all day ride to the next campsite. The adult in the car breaks down camp, gets food, drives to the next camp, sets up and then reads pleasantly for the next few hours 'til the riders come in. That way the bikers never carry their stuff and arrive to a well-stocked camp.
The limitation is the time, and the crappy bikes that kids ride. It isn't fair to make them do long rides on those heavy crappy bikes.
Smearcase, if you don't like exercise, you aren't going to like it more with a hostile person yelling at you. Find a trainer who praises you lavishly and tells you how great you look climbing every single step.
233: As in, presumably a guy who slipped and fell on ice?
235: I wonder if I could talk Buck into a version of that.
236: Yes, but I'd have felt better if they'd have said, "Don't worry, he was really drunk. This won't happen to you." Or "Don't worry, we're going to fix the handrail."
I notice that couples, understandably, don't generally consider versions of trips where they split off or hand off the kids. But doing it that way allows for cushy car camping and cushy bike riding.
235. In some ways you are describing RAGBRAI. They haul your stuff for you. But many groups have their own vehicles. I have seen kids and old folks, racers and very leisurely riders, all do the ride. The only drawback is it is usually hot! As a group ride it is much better than things like Bike NY.
||
I am eating a carrot that I got at the farmer's market at lunch and it is close to being the best of all possible carrots. Flavorful, tender, fresh, I have a hard time imagining a better carrot.
|>
230: The standard excuse here is "I don't belong to a gym so I couldn't shower." The actual thing is I'd have to get up an hour earlier.
241: I'm having a hard time imagining a carrot worthy of this comment.
Also, did you just get one carrot?
238: Alternatively they could put up a sign that says "This stairwell not for the faint of heart."
241: Save half and taste-test it again after the acid's worn off.
241: I just imagined a carrot that craps ice cream and owns 20% of Intel.
244.1: I'd prefer the city spend more time telling lies about how likely I am to die due to poor infrastrcture.
242: I will argue about whether you'd really need to get up earlier at some later juncture.
I just ate one carrot from the bunch.
Save half and taste-test it again after the acid's worn off.
First, what's wrong with a little hyperbole to lighten the load of a dull day in a sweltering office. Second, I didn't say that it was better than all other carrots, just that I couldn't imagine a better carrot. I think that there's a certain point at which it becomes difficult to detect "better" for fresh vegetables.
248.2: Nothing's wrong with hyperbole! Love love love hyperbole. There's absolutely nothing better in the world than hyperbole, including the birth of a first-born son and heir or your first threesome with a pair of attractive celebrities of your choice. It just makes great raw material for acid jokes, is all.
I applaud 252.
And 253. Sycophancy is the best!
I think I want to have one of those horrible tv coaches who yells and browbeats me until I have some kind of dramatic breakthrough and learn to love exercise and can go up TWO FLIGHTS OF STAIRS without feeling like my lungs are bursting.
I'm your man! Smearcase, you lazy piece of shit, drop and give me 10 push ups! Move it, lazyass, my three year old daughter has more arm strength than you! All right, nice job, fancypants, now get up and run to the end of the block. DO IT NOW.*
*No this isn't similar at all to a gay porn scenario, why do you ask?
OT: (But Megan should appreciate this one.) My son is off at military academy for the summer. His sister can hit really hard. (She has a bony growth on a finger that can really do some damage.) So we discussed how he might need to explain how "You hit like my sister!" is a compliment.
169 speaks for me, except you made it January to July with only two flats? Bless you. My bike needs to go by the shop for one thing or another every other time I ride it, and now I'm not even sure if the back tire is low on air because it has a leak (which I can't hear, and it never goes all the way flat) or because I am too stupid to operate the pump correctly. It is the most unmanning thing. I never loved my car so much until I got a bike.
k-sky you can (and should!) learn to repair flats on your bike. Believe in yourself!
Also, if you have enough air in your tire, you will get less flats, I wager. Can we... help you with your pump?
I never loved my bike so much until I wrecked my car.
I tried to ride again. After about a mile, at the end of a mild climb, I got a splitting headache that left me unable to finish my ride. I had to stand there for ten minutes before I could go home.
If you're not sure if your tube has a flat you can take it off, pump it up and put it in some water to see if bubbles are rising. And get a proper standing pump with a pressure gauge and keep the tire at its proper pressure (it's marked on the side). WHen pumping it do it to slightly above that pressure. Also, Sifu is right, assuming you have quick release wheels and some levers to pry the tire out of the wheel, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. If I can do it, anybody can. I'm absolutely incompetent at any fixit or mechanical or other stuff like that. The pump costs maybe twenty or thirty bucks, the levers a fraction of that and are tiny and weigh nothing. Don't use screwdrivers or knives or you'll end up puncturing your new tube half the time.
I have a new bike! It is also a bottom of the line Trek! I am terrified to ride it here in Fixietown / Assholedriverville and I'm kind of lousy at riding a bike anyway. So not sure where to start. Hoping to wake up at dawn spontaneously one of these days and go for it while no one is watching or killing me.
I'm also a little nervous about the maintenance aspect, though the guy at the store showed me how to take off the front tire when I asked, and that was fun. I was all over that. But a class or something (and they do exist) is probably a good idea. Heck maybe I'll add that to my new todo list I also have !!
Add adding it to your todo list to your todo list first.
Good kevlar tires, especially on the rear wheel, are totally worth the $40 they cost. Schwalbe or Continental.
I think I might try RATPOD next year. We can have a team: who's in?
Me! (No lie, Charley, I'd love to do it.)
RATPOD looks awesome. Seems like it'd be hard to get my bike there. (Same for the Gran Fondo, which I'd love to do.)
Register's Annual Tennis Play-Off, Dude?
How? Also, I'll bet Tweety will do it.
Tweety, you can ship your bike. Zach will loan you a case. Also, what about, um, what's his name? The sociologist who used to comment here? Not Kieran. The other one. Crap, why can't I every remember anyone's name anymore?
googles. Gak. Basically an easy TdF mountain stage. Nice if you're in good enough shape to enjoy it.
Goneril! That's him! (Or is that the guy from Lear?) Regardless, he rides, doesn't he?
He spells it "Gonerill", for whatever reason.
An extra "l" can be handy in a pinch?
I have this pump which though not standing is still pretty fancy with the gauge and the two stages undsoweiter.
RATPOD aside, nosflow should definitely ride the Gran Fondo. Or, since it's apparently filled up, the Medio course.
I'm going to have to work up to it, that's for sure: nice to have a goal. You in TKM?
Presta. I figured out how to open and close it.
281: ok, good! Presta tends to be easier to deal with, I think. As long as the valve is open and the pump is pretty well wedged on there, you should be good. Your pump is convertible between presta and schrader (probably by unscrewing a ring around the valve and flipping a rubber washer around); do you know if it's set to the correct valve type?
I strongly recommend investing in a standing pump. The small ones or for carrying with you while biking, but that's it.
Yeah I mean a floor pump with a valve is pretty key. But in the meantime I wager if we work together we can get some air in that tire.
Yes. It doesn't fit on if I use the schrader. But then I get it on. I flip out the lock so it's perpendicular to the pump (otherwise it just hisses). The gauge just kind of bounces up and down around 40 psi as I pump. On Hi-Volume it just locks up, on Hi-Pressure I pump and pump and the gauge just bounces.
With presta you have to unscrew the little nut (raising it from the bottom to the top).
"valve" in 284 should have been "gauge".
285: it sounds like maybe the valve isn't really seating all the way; if you start with no air in the tire can you get it up to 40 PSI from there?
A transcontinental tire change: the highest and best use of the internet? I say, yea.
OMG I just woke up are you really talking about bike tires?
D'oh. I scanned the thread and missed where k-sky said he had figured that out. Sorry.
Well, the evidentiary system for rape worked itself out on its own, and I have low tires.
286: roger.
287: I feel as though throughout my various pumpings and letting-air-outs the amount of air in the tire has changed.
If we're talking about bike tires, I have a floor pump with a valve and it looks very nice. It's a steel thing from the 60s. But the thing you hook to the tire, which is one of those with the folding clamp, doesn't work anymore. Can I just go buy a new thing to hook the pump the tire or do I have to buy a new pump?
When the valve is open, can you press down and get it to leak air? I've had pumping issues such as you describe (LOW HANGING FRUIT) and it was usually because the valve was blocked and the air wasn't getting into the tube. Sometimes pressing down on the valve so it hissed helped.
Impasse with the psi. As a compromise, I'm going to take my car for a walk.
I have also managed to tear the valve stem with too vigorous pumping using my frame pump. A floor pump is good.
Yes on pressing down and leaking air. Possible on tearing the valve stem, except then I'd think it would leak out farther than it does.
295: Those don't really enlarge anything so at least be gentle.
Yeah, push down on the valve and see what happens.
Try it!
Super fun.
Oh, never mind. You did that. And it was super fun!
Well, maybe your pump sucks, is my current theory.
Can you inflate a tube that is not mounted on a wheel? It removes a lot of the distractions/variables. Basically, what you would do if checking for a puncture.
169 it's kind of a surprising annoyance in a world in which most things work properly.
Now I have a vision of Steve Jobs announcing the iBike: "it just works!"
I've been biking a bit this week and realizing that I still really prefer walking as a way to get from one place to another (fewer tense moments at intersections, made worse by my lack of much biking experience). But biking is a hell of a lot faster....
The parade of Segways I passed this morning really gets some kind of prize for dorkiest means of commuting, though.
RATPOD aside, nosflow should definitely ride the Gran Fondo. Or, since it's apparently filled up, the Medio course.
Sadly, I won't be very close to Santa Rosa when the ride rolls around. I did ride in the wine country century a few years ago, but (a) I did the 100km route and (b) I didn't actually do all of that route because it was pissing rain and I was not even close to dressed properly.
DON'T WORRY, though, because you can be damn sure that my dad will keep me very well informed of the rides in my soon to be environs.
This seems like the right thread for me to brag that I biked to work 21 times in June. Yay me!
Hey, what do you know? 42 really is the answer.
42 really is the answer.
In psi.
And it sounds like k-sky's pump is only sealing to about that level of pressure (which would lead to the "bobbing" behavior on the gauge). Looking at the cheap little thing, I've never known those small pumps to really work all that well. Although counterexamples indignantly described are welcome.
re: 235
Those holidays exist. A friend did a coast to coast one across the north of England a few years ago. Basically a wee minibus/van takes the luggage between the daily stopping points and the people on bikes ride 40/60 miles each day with just a little day-pack with some food/cash/water.
Yeah, we met some nice Americans in a bar in Girona who were part of a group cycling down the east cost of Spain from the French border to somewhere in Andalucia, with their bags in a bus. I'm sure people must offer this in the US somewhere.
235: family holidays for the young ajay consisted of taking a ferry to an island, cycling 20 miles or so across it with all our stuff in panniers, taking another ferry to another island and spending the next week there before reversing the process to get home. You can get a surprising amount of stuff into a good set of panniers and still make fairly decent speeds, even as a kid. You could probably manage your plan without the need for a car, if you've got two adults involved to carry the heavy stuff like the tent.
Yeah, I know about supported rides. The genius here is in the figuring out that a pair of adults could do the same thing for themselves and kids, so no one has to meet strangers or pay a company.
re: 310
That was our family holidays, too, more or less. Train to Edinburgh, then train to Cupar, cycle to the coast and spend a week in a static caravan. Cycling to somewhere new every day, and then back in the evening. We didn't have a car, so everything was done on bikes.
Regular day trips to the Ochils, bits of the Trossachs, etc from home, too.
309: US Air is very good about sending bags to Andalucia.
313: There was once a queen of England who thought that fate befell her luggage. However, it turned out she just had a bit of a fever and was imagining things. This episode is known to historians as the Anne Delusion.
I'm picturing Stanley's office as full of metal bars hanging from the ceiling at the elevation of his forehead. The bars don't move or anything, but sometimes he forgets and gets a mild concussion.
Stanley walks into a metal bar and says "ouch!".
They offered to give me a raise, but I figured I'd just hit my head that much more often.
Suddenly, I feel like bob. Where was that shit we were all going to burn down?
I wouldn't get a bunch of big dogs unless you have more space that most people in your area.
318:I think I am a lot closer to retirement and needing to get a return on the FICA payments I have been making all these years. So maybe you don't have quite as much fear.
Another prediction:the Bush/Obama tax cuts will be allowed to expire, well after Obama has used them to slash the welfare state to shreds and destroyed the Democratic Party. The Repubs will go along, based on a deal of privatization and dedicating that revenue to paying down the national debt.
Obama Advisors Say Jobless Rate Won't Matter in 2012 FDL from Atrios
Glenn Greenwald on the Obama
Initiative to kill old people and steal their money.
There's nothing "risky" about that. Of course enough Democrats will get in line behind Obama's proposal to pass it once they're told they must. Similarly, those progressive commentators who are first and foremost Democratic loyalists -- who rose up in angry and effective unison (along with actual progressives) to prevent George Bush from privatizing Social Security in 2005 -- will mount no meaningful opposition out of fear of weakening the President's political prospects. White House aides will just utter Michele Bachmann enough times like some magical spell and snap more than enough people into fear-induced compliance. The last thing the White House is worried about -- the last thing -- is its "base."...GG
And GG is absolutely right, isn't he? Obama can do anything anything and still get the votes.
318: Heh, I went the less respectable route with bob and Greenwald here. I'm holding out hope it's all expectation management, or something.
O Hai to a post about my post! Yay! Now to read the comments. This is cool. Blogging: I remembered that it is fun.
318: Last sentence of the post. I can't bring myself to feel outraged because I already resigned myself to it a year ago.
324: Sorry that a bunch of the comments turned out to be about bikes.
321. Fuck, you're not joking! That's immense!
327: here's hoping they keep the pressure up and get Coulson, Brooks or both banged up.
re: 328
And the rest. A nice forensic lens shone on the corrupt relationships between the police, the media, and MPs. But it won't happen. The inquiry will have very carefully drawn terms of reference.
They might throw Brooks to the mob, if they can do this. She's not really "one of us".
Do all the Screws hacks get jobs on the Sunday Bun, then?
It's an open secret that a lot of what some "private investigators" do is act as a conduit for money to bent coppers who will abuse police facilities by e.g. running numberplates for you.
Do all the Screws hacks get jobs on the Sunday Bun, then?
Not all. Murdoch jr told staff "I can understand how unfair these decisions may feel. Particularly, for colleagues who will leave the Company. Of course, we will communicate next steps in detail and begin appropriate consultations."
So some of them are on the way out.
NMM to the News of the World
Not so fast. There is going to be a final issue this Sunday, and I for one intend to take full advantage.
re: 332
Nice opportunity to clear out unwanted staff, streamline a bit, and start again with the slate apparently clean.
The "criminal justice" system in this country exists to create slave prison labor, funnel money into the large and growing prison industry, and reinstitute Jim Crow. It does not exist to capture or punish criminals, much less to dispense justice, much less to protect women from rapists. To respond to a case in which one of the most powerful men in the world is caught raping an African maid and gets away with it by scratching one's head over rules of evidence is to miss the fucking point entirely. This is a system run by a tiny handful of evil rich elites for a tiny handful of evil rich elites, in order to facilitate those elites' fucking-over of the rest of the world.
Comment 1 actually sort of gets it right, snarkiness aside. I actually don't care about 'putting rapists in jail' for a definition of "rapists" that is anything other than "people who have been convicted of rape in a criminal justice system in which they are afforded lots of due process." Like, truthfully, I don't know what a "rapist" is for purposes of criminal punishment. It's hard to figure this shit out, people. It's hard to know who is a 'rapist', at least with enough certainty that we feel comfortable punishing them. That's why we have this whole shebang. That's why we have juries, and the constitution, and judges, and lawyers, and rules upon rules upon rules. It's hard. I'm sort of shocked that all these other people seem to think they know who the rapists are. Hell, I'm not even sure that the person who I regard as having raped me is a rapist.
My guy had an interesting proposal when I was discussing this post with him. Because it really is true that it's hard to get "justice" if you're a rape victim. Conviction is hard. It should be hard. But it still sucks. What about making it easier to bring civil cases. Establishing some kind of fund to provide people with civil attorneys, or passing laws on the state level giving you a right to a civil attorney paid by the state in a rape case? (although, for equal protection purposes you'd probably have to give the defendant a lawyer too). If you bring a civil case for rape, your justice is a lot easier. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no confrontation clause, you get discovery (although I'm guessing they would just assert the 5th so a deposition wouldn't be worth much), a lot of the pesky rules of evidence that get in the way here (and the constitution) aren't at plan.
Of course, if your defendant is judgment-proof (i.e. doesn't have money) you're never going to get paid out, but you can at least make them suffer and get a judgment and garnish their wages or whatever.
Anyway, an interesting thought. You are much better off being in civil court. Of course, you don't get to put people in jail from civil court, so if what you really want is for someone to be locked up, it's not going to be much consolation.
To back up a minute regarding 318: the last I understood from TPM yesterday, Republicans didn't have enough votes to pass a budget agreement/debt-ceiling increase on their own, since some of their caucus refuses to vote Yea no matter what. This meant that they needed some Democratic yes votes as well, and Steny Hoyer had declared that that wouldn't happen unless revenue increases were in the mix.
This had seemed a promising approach and scenario to me. So either Hoyer's claim -- which amounts to a claim to have complete control over the votes of the House Democratic caucus -- was hogwash, or Drum is right.
That is, Drum has opined before, as he does in 318's link, that Obama has been wanting to do something like this for a while.
I'm inclined to request a new post on this, though it may be exhausting already.
Establishing some kind of fund to provide people with civil attorneys, or passing laws on the state level giving you a right to a civil attorney paid by the state in a rape case?
Or even just a 'losing defendant pays plaintiff's attorneys fees' rule like in employment discrimination cases.
Ezra Klein on four President "budget deals". Reagan's was mostly tax increases, although I think part of that was FICA. And this was written before Obama upped the cuts to $4 Trillion.
$400 billion a year for ten years.
Europe raised interest rates today. Projection is for America to reach full employment in 2021. After cutting for years, Obama will have credibility asking for Keynesian Spending during the next crash. And there will be another crash. Obama has fucking guaranteed it. So who could do the spending? Romney or Pawlenty. They could also raise taxes on the "middle class" Not believable? Wait and see.
Oh. Underground oil spill in Yellowstone water supply. We need a trillion in infrastructure spending.
I hate Obama so fucking much.
No proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no confrontation clause, you get discovery (although I'm guessing they would just assert the 5th so a deposition wouldn't be worth much), a lot of the pesky rules of evidence that get in the way here (and the constitution) aren't at plan
I am finding it hard to reconcile this idea with the concern for due process in the preceding paragraph.
Or even just a 'losing defendant pays plaintiff's attorneys fees' rule like in employment discrimination cases.
Good idea, but what lawyer is going to take a case on contingency from a person with no money suing another person with no money, or at least, a person with shallow pockets? They know they'll never get paid.
I'm not even sure that the person who I regard as having raped me is a rapist.
You might be letting reasonable doubt go a little too far here.
337: I'm actually pretty uneasy about the whole tactic of using the civil courts for criminal matters; I don't think you should be able to short-circuit the criminal justice system that way.
344: Me also, for a whole variety of reasons.
343: m. might mean that she's not sure of their identity?
Or even just a 'losing defendant pays plaintiff's attorneys fees' rule like in employment discrimination cases.
Good idea, but what lawyer is going to take a case on contingency from a person with no money suing another person with no money, or at least, a person with shallow pockets? They know they'll never get paid.
I'm inclined to request a new post on this, though it may be exhausting already.
I know I am exhausted.
This meant that they needed some Democratic yes votes as well, and Steny Hoyer had declared that that wouldn't happen unless revenue increases were in the mix.
I think it will be mostly Democratic yes votes. I also think it will happen around the middle of August, after we have defaulted and the markets have crashed.
The revenue increases will be at best 25% of the plan, and they will fall mostly on the middleclass.
But it could be on the rich, who have been given a ten-year head start on inequality, and might accept a deal now that they own the fucking country and the rest of us are bankrupt and terrified. We will have some expensive healthcare bills to keep us quiet after 2012.
I am finding it hard to reconcile this idea with the concern for due process in the preceding paragraph.
In general, the due process protections are a lot less strong when the thing that's at stake is your money rather than your liberty. Do you disagree that that should be the case?
341, 344, 345: Silvana (I keep on wanting to call her Leblanc) isn't suggesting anything weird here. Right now, you're allowed to bring a tort suit against someone who committed an intentional tort, say, battery, against you whether or not that tort is also a crime. And right now, the standard of proof for a tort suit is more likely than not rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This is because paying for the harm you caused is a much lesser sanction than being convicted of a crime, so all of the safeguards necessary in the criminal law don't apply to tort suits.
Messing around with attorney fees is the sort of thing that's very pro-plaintiff, but it's not all that fundamental to the nature of the cause of action.
You might be letting reasonable doubt go a little too far here.
I'm totally serious. Do I feel that I was violated? Yes? Do I feel shitty when I think about it? Yes. Does it still affect me? Yes. Do I feel certain that the thing that the person did was bad enough, and done with sufficient intent and malice, that he should be put in prison? Not even close.
Not all rapes start with someone jumping out of the bushes.
349: up to a point, and not really that far. A criminal case should be prosecuted in the criminal courts, and the prosecution of crimes is the job of the state, not the victim.
In general, the due process protections are a lot less strong when the thing that's at stake is your money rather than your liberty
Not always. Criminal courts can impose fines, but they still need to go beyond reasonable doubt to do so.
343, 345: I can reconcile "I was raped" with "I'm not sure that the guy who did it was a rapist (in the sense that if the system worked perfectly, he would have been convicted of rape)" through the possibility that he could somehow have been self-deluded about the lack of consent. (See all of our prior tedious conversations on why having sex with an unenthusiastic partner is almost certainly creepy and terribly risky).
I'm actually pretty uneasy about the whole tactic of using the civil courts for criminal matters; I don't think you should be able to short-circuit the criminal justice system that way.
What? How is that "short-circuiting" the criminal justice system? You are not the party in a criminal case. The state is. So you don't get to choose anything. You can bring your own civil matter.
Also, if you are uneasy about it, you are uneasy with the current state of the law, because you can bring civil suits for rape cases right now. You just have to be able to pay a lawyer, or have a case strong enough/a defendant with pockets deep enough that a lawyer will take you on contingency.
I'm seriously curious: what do you think is wrong with this?
352: But almost any crime is also a tort. Is there a reason that you're uncomfortable with a person injured by intentional wrongdoing that rises to the level of criminality recovering for their injuries, when it would be completely normal for a person injured by negligence to recover for those injuries?
352: Agreed. Removing the victim (and the victim's family) from the role of prosecuting crimes has been a very effective way to lower the overall amount of violence in a society.
if you are uneasy about it, you are uneasy with the current state of the law,
Yes, I suppose I am then. The current state of US law anyway; I am not sure whether you could do the same thing in other countries. IANAL.
358: But they haven't been, and never were, removed from the role of recovering tort damages from their injuries. If someone knocks your teeth out, it's up to the state whether or not to prosecute him for assault. But it's always been up to you to sue him for your dental bills.
. A criminal case should be prosecuted in the criminal courts, and the prosecution of crimes is the job of the state, not the victim.
Okay. What is "a criminal case"? I agree that criminal cases should be prosecuted by the state. But just because we define something as potentially being a crime doesn't mean it's only a crime. Hence the law of torts.
If something is prosecuted as a civil case, it is by definition not a criminal case.
Do you really want prosecutors to have that much power? That if, for whatever reason, they decide not to prosecute something as a criminal case, you just have no recourse to get some kind of judgment against the person who's wronged you?
What do you propose? That if the alleged act, as pled, meets the definition of something that is a crime according to the criminal code of that particular state/jurisdiction, that suing someone for committing that particular act be barred by statute? Because that's what you'd have to do.
I'm still finding it very difficult to reconcile the idea of a) having no problem with the courts judging someone to be a rapist and assessing potentially ruinous financial damages on the basis of a civil standard of proof, with b) being opposed to any weakening of the standard of proof in criminal rape cases. And I think that the money/liberty distinction is quite a thin reed to hang this one on.
I was actually thinking about the potential for a civil suit in the DSK case. There, I don't think it changes things much -- the lower burden of proof makes a plaintiff's verdict more likely, but the fact that she's going for money damages exacerbates her credibility problem. But that wouldn't be a general rule, it's specific to the whole 'conversation about the financial potential of the situation' issue that she's got.
Part of me thinks that the right long-term solution is to find a way to move to a system where the default assumption was lack of consent unless there was solid evidence of consent. We are closer and closer to having technology that would make this doable (for people with smart phones). You just want a system where two people in the same place both running the same app can agree to have sex, and this agreement is stored somewhere *in a way where it's technically impossible to recover the information without both party's permission*. (We have cryptographic protocals that do that I'm sure.) Of course, you still have the problem of someone being forced at threat of bodily harm to "agree." But this too has a technical solution. Suppose you consent by entering a password and your fingerprint, furthermore suppose you have two passwords an "I agree to sex" password and a "immediately call the police I'm being forced to enter a password against my will" password.
The obvious problem here is that it's not a practical system for poor people. But it doesn't seem so clear to me that moving to a system where the crime was "sex without documenting consent" rather than "sex against consent" is obviously a bad idea.
I mean, I understand that most people aren't lawyers, blah blah blah, but I really, really want these conversations about why things are Wrong The Way They Are to contain some actual proposals about what you think should be changed.
Is there a reason that you're uncomfortable with a person injured by intentional wrongdoing that rises to the level of criminality recovering for their injuries,
Ah, I think I see the problem. In the US, if I understand you, you could have a situation where the person who assaulted you goes to prison for the crime of assault after being found guilty in a criminal court, and then also has to pay you compensation for the tort of assault after being found liable in a civil court.
In the UK, the latter is handled by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, whether or not a conviction has occurred. No tort suit required.
348: I'm beginning to suspect you're right, bob, though I'm unsure about the "after we've defaulted and the markets have crashed" part.
But this is the rape/criminal justice thread again now.
Do you really want prosecutors to have that much power?
Yes; this is the same thing as "the job of the state, not the victim". But my own ideal solution (which I haven't worked out here) isn't really particularly important - as I say, I don't think that if you regard widespread encouragement and subsidy of an alternative civil system for rape cases as a good idea, that you can simultaneously be an absolutist about standards of proof in criminal trials. Either you think that improving the ability of victims to get justice is worth reducing the protections for the accused, or you don't, surely.
362: Did you have the same reaction to the civil suit against OJ Simpson, or did that just not come across your radar? It's exactly the same thing, pretty much.
Also,
assessing potentially ruinous financial damages
I doubt it. You'd need attorney's fees to make this sort of thing work because the provable economic losses are pretty low. Doctor bills, therapist bills, maybe lost wages if you were too upset to work, but this wouldn't be the sort of big-money case that crippling injuries are. Not really sure what standard would be used for monetizing emotional damages (actually, I don't do personal injury torts at all -- I don't really even know to what extent emotional damages are available at all).
being opposed to any weakening of the standard of proof in criminal rape cases
Okay, let's get real then. What do you propose the standard of proof in a criminal case be weakened to?
The courts already can judge someone to be a rapist based on the civil standard of proof. I'm not proposing anything new. Are you saying that my values are internally inconsistent? Maybe so--I just don't care nearly as much about depriving people of their money as I do about depriving them of their liberty. I think calling that distinction a "thin reed" is kind of insane. Of course, you're an economist and I'm a lawyer, so....
Did you have the same reaction to the civil suit against OJ Simpson
Yes, which is basically why I'm making the same objections now.
I don't think that if you regard widespread encouragement and subsidy of an alternative civil system for rape cases as a good idea, that you can simultaneously be an absolutist about standards of proof in criminal trials.
It doesn't seem inconsistent to me at all. The reputational and personal damage to a defendant from a wrongful criminal conviction seems to me to be incomparable to the economic damage from a wrongful civil verdict, and thinking that different standards of proof are appropriate is perfectly reasonable.
360: Yes, I'm not opposed to that to a point. But I'd rather not see the government push the option. I see lots of private incentives contrary to public goals. You could create victims with a financial stake in a violent criminal staying out of prison so they could be paid. You could give prosecutors even more of an excuse to ignore rape (or other crimes). You could make it even easier for the wealthy to have relative impunity from real punishment. And the whole thing reminds me too much of the blood money or something.
367:But this is the rape/criminal justice thread again now.
Indeed! And a new variant, dealing with the privatization of public crime, wherein the millionaire can buy his way out of a rape charge, free to rape again. Justice used to a matter settled between individuals and families, but I though we have progressed beyond that, and although I am not certain how or why, I am sure that letting the community share in the enforcement of standards and be partially responsible for the behavior and safety of its members is probably a good idea. With taxes to pay for it, always a good idea.
I bet this is discussed in Genealogy. I may be gone for a while.
370: see criminal-injuries.co.uk for the tariff lists on CICA compensation for the victims of violent crime.
I would say that this is pretty much my ideal solution: the criminal court is the only one that can say "this person is a criminal, send him to jail" and then only once it's beyond reasonable doubt; the CICA can say "it looks like this person was the victim of crime, give him some money" on the balance of probabilities. But no one gets punished for a crime unless it's beyond reasonable doubt that they committed it.
The distinction between fines and imprisonment is loose; there are plenty of offences where the statutory penalty is a fine or imprisonment or both.
You could create victims with a financial stake in a violent criminal staying out of prison so they could be paid.
Really can't see this -- you mean that a victim would try to torpedo the prosecution in the hopes of a bigger, more collectible, defense verdict?
You could give prosecutors even more of an excuse to ignore rape (or other crimes).
Don't see this either.
You could make it even easier for the wealthy to have relative impunity from real punishment.
And the whole thing reminds me too much of the blood money or something.
I suppose it certainly is tacky.
Or this -- the wealthy would still be as prosecutable as they ever were.
DS and bob agree. That's got to count for something, either for or against.
Either you think that improving the ability of victims to get justice is worth reducing the protections for the accused, or you don't, surely.
Dude, come on. This is insane. I have to be either/or? I think improving the ability of victims to get justice is important. The whole point of my post was to analyze a bunch of ways that could happen and talk about how they're problematic and/or really fucking hard to effect. I am all for finding ways to improve access to justice for victims that don't involve amending the constitution or doing something really fucked up to defendants' rights. Maybe subsidy/encouragement of civil suits is too much of a deprivation of defendants' rights--I don't know. I'm just throwing ideas out there. But it's surely less deprivatory than having a whole separate standard of proof in a criminal case just because its a rape case.
Dont forget about the civil commitments of sexually violent predators. Once you are in the system, they have ways of keeping you in the system.
I'm not proposing anything new.
? Since this isn't common practice at present, and you're entertaining the idea that it should be, surely you're implicitly proposing something new (a system of subsidies for legal fees?) to get from point A to point B?
Are you saying that my values are internally inconsistent?
I'm saying that it is difficult to reconcile them, and specifically, that (in a world where, as ajay notes, there are plenty of criminal offences which don't carry custodial sentences, not to mention the fact that lots of people would willingly take a short jail sentence over a large monetary penalty) the liberty/money distinction doesn't really seem convincing to me as a reason for having such radically divergent views.
376: How does compensation for negligence torts work? That must be through a similar system, or you'd be at risk for someone trying to prove that they couldn't be sued as negligent, they'd meant to cause the injury.
(formatting of my prior comment got messed up somehow.)
Oh, I suppose the idea is that for instance, a rape is a crime against and offense to us all, not just to the particular victim, like a dispute over a backyard fence.
I do not like diminishing that sense of shared responsibility and community grievance, so much so that I have disapproved of the "victim's rights" movement.
civil commitments of sexually violent predators
Don't get me started. Literally, because I shouldn't talk about work on the internet and I am doing this work now. The things that they'll civilly commit you for boggle the mind.
381: Anything fundamentally new. Bringing a civil suit against a rapist for the rape is an available cause of action now, and the standard of proof is the civil, not the criminal standard. Silvana's suggesting some minor changes in the law that would encourage the use of a currently available legal remedy.
I would really like m. leblanc to respond to the point about CICA, because it involves the question of "is justice served by the victim getting compensation, or by the (probable) criminal being punished?"
377.1: Most people don't have wealth to pay a judgment so garnished wages is all they have to take. Not just thinking of rape here, but if you were disabled by an assault and you had to choose between garnishing the wages of your attacker or sending him to jail, you might well choose to insure you didn't starve. You might feel pressure from you family to take that income, especially since criminal trials are uncertain things.
in a world where, as ajay notes, there are plenty of criminal offences which don't carry custodial sentences, not to mention the fact that lots of people would willingly take a short jail sentence over a large monetary penalty
Interesting. I hadn't thought about that. I guess that's true? But that's mainly for people who don't have a lot of money. This is mainly applicable for things for which the extent to which its a "crime" is pretty minor (in D.C. for example, simple assault, simple possession of marijuana, failing to show up for court).
But you're not getting 30 days in jail for a rape case.
How would people feel if the federal government were to use the civil courts to sue whistleblowers for breach of copyright, or some other tort?
(This was actually done in the case of Frank Snepp's book "Decent Interval", where the CIA asserted that he was in breach of his employment contract. IIRC, the law was later changed because it was felt by civil libertarians that the government shouldn't be allowed to use civil process to do an end run around constitutional protection).
The system is already weighted against criminal defendants too much. We fund Prosecutors offices far more than public defender's offices. We have Victim Assistance programs everywere. Plus, the police operate as the prosecutor's investigators.
Police officers are believed over defendants unless there is video taped evidence contradicting it. (And the police are fighting like dogs to stop people from video taping them in public bc it violates their privacy rights!)
The LAST thing that is needed is to make it easier to convict people.
If you care about reducing rape, 42 gets it right.
How does compensation for negligence torts work? That must be through a similar system, or you'd be at risk for someone trying to prove that they couldn't be sued as negligent, they'd meant to cause the injury.
I don't know. As far as I know, there is no Civil Injuries Compensation Board; if someone negligently injures you, you sue them. And if they then argue, in court, that they injured you deliberately, then they get arrested and tried, with their own sworn confession as Exhibit A.
378: DS and bob agree.
Just a note to say that this confused me: DS hasn't posted on this matter, as far as I can tell. dsquared is not the same as DS. Just checking.
387: That actually sounds like a good result to me. The accused stays out of jail, the accused gets to remain a member of society and earn wages, the victims gets a little help in life, the accused is punished in such a way that he/she will be, literally "paying" for the crime.
How is that worse than the person being locked up in jail? The victim doesn't get any compensation except mental satisfaction, the accused is taken out of the community, thus harming him and everyone connected to him, and the state has to pay for all of it.
you had to choose between garnishing the wages of your attacker or sending him to jail,
But how could that choice work in practice?
The police, criminal courts, prison system are "us," part of a democratic community.
The civil courts are, I think, a private convenience for the arbitration of contract disputes or grievances between individuals and corps.
This idea is libertarianism, folks, and not good.
There are plenty of places existing that use civil or religious courts more than we do. How much compensation for an honor killing in Afghanistan?
Whew, for awhile we were stuck in that nasty bicycle thread.
For those interested, Mother Jones gives us another skeptical story on a prominent rape accuser - this one on the alleged KBR/Iraq rape.
In Virginia, if you elect to have a jury and you get convicted, you will spend at least 5 years in jail. It could be life in jail.
383 to 393. The accused it taken out of the community because the accused's behavior destroys community.
This idea is libertarianism, folks, and not good.
Racist.
394: Potential defendant's lawyer approaches you before the start of a criminal trial and gives you some talk along the lines of: "Nice place you have here. Shame to lose it all and still not see justice since my client has to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt and you make a crappy witness for reasons X, Y, or Z."
or you'd be at risk for someone trying to prove that they couldn't be sued as negligent, they'd meant to cause the injury
... playing the "Get Into Jail Free" card?
401: That still doesn't make sense. What 'place you have here' is he talking about? Are you talking about a defense attorney bribing a rape victim (with, I suppose, an offer of a settlement in a later civil case) to throw the criminal case? Because that bribe could happen now, just the same -- the only thing a civil case could do is make it easier to launder.
402: not to mention the fact that lots of people would willingly take a short jail sentence over a large monetary penalty
403: The "nice place you have here" was meant to evoke a mobster seeking protection money.
I understood the reference, but not the applicability. How does the existence of the possibility of a civil suit make it more possible for the defense attorney to threaten the victim?
403: A bribe is not just harder to launder, it leaves both parties open to future prosection for bribery.
It would still be a bribe, even if framed as a civil settlement, and still illegal.
404: in cases where there is a criminal conviction, the CICB is allowed to recover its compensation costs from the convicted party.
406: I was unclear and that mobster reference was confusing things.
The victim isn't threatened with anything that isn't already a problem in the current system. The victim is given a potentially better option (financial recompense, not having to endure trial, less risk of getting "nothing" if the defendant gets acquitted). Society, as in potential future victims of this rapist/criminal and any other rapist/criminals who might be more deterred by prison than a fine, is what I'm worried about and why I don't want to make it any easier to discard the "State v. John Doe" part of the criminal justice system.
I realize M. Leblanc asked in 365 for this to be about what we should actually do, but in my not-a-lawyer capacity, I have to say I'm a little astonished at the notion that reverting rape cases to civil court is a good solution.
Would there be any benefit at all in distinguishing, legally, between violent rapes and the more nebulous types, occurring without consent but not of the jump-out-from-behind-the-bushes-threatening-physical-violence sort? Or is that just insupportable for any number of reasons?
Since I began writing this comment, the thread has moved on to things that may have addressed this, but I'll finish anyway: the point of the distinction would be that we do as a society (I think) want to try to ensure that likely repeat violent offenders are locked away, so that they may not do it again; we may be less sure of this in the more nebulous cases.
I mean, (I know, seriously, IANAL), there's Murder 1, and Murder 2, and Involuntary Manslaughter. Is there a reason there couldn't be Rape 1, and Rape 2, and so on?
396: There's a difference between replacing criminal punishment with civil remedy and supplementing it.
Does one of the following responses summarize your counterposition?
(a) There are things which would be right and proper to do to improve the criminal procedure, which will not be done if people feel like "we already did something" by improving the civil procedure.
(b) Any increased reliance on civil suits will erode the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, and may lead to future practical diminutions thereof.
Or do you think some third thing that I've missed? I am looking for some specific bad thing that would happen if we made it easier to bring civil suits without altering the criminal law.
Is there a reason there couldn't be Rape 1, and Rape 2, and so on?
There are (degrees of rape charges that is, not reasons).
411: No one's suggesting that rape cases that could be taken to a criminal conviction be removed from criminal court.
412: In most, maybe all, states there's exactly the same sort of thing for sexual assault.
414: But they're usually distinguished by what is alleged to have happened, not by the level of uncertainty in the consent. One could imagine adding an easier to prove crime with a lower punishment in addition to different crimes for different kinds of assault.
Enforcing a civil judgment isn't always all that easy. I'd expect a tort case arising out of a rape to carry punitive damages, so you'd be chasing the defendant for quite a while.
One could imagine adding an easier to prove crime with a lower punishment
Changing the burden of proof for any criminal conviction is a big weird step that makes me very uncomfortable.
414, 415.2: Thanks. I didn't know that. It seemed so obvious that I shouldn't be surprised that there are.
415.1: Okay. That's where, as not a lawyer, I lost track of things.
416 pursues my line of thought, though.
And, of course, punitive damages are based on the net worth of the defendant, so you get a certain positive inequality that the criminal justice system doesn't really allow.
418: What about a crime like "possession of stolen property" or RICO? Aren't these just easier to prove versions of other crimes?
413:Whatever. I'm tired.
Incidentally, 2010 Korean movie Shi (Poetry) is precisely on point, private compensation in a rape case versus criminal prosecution, and the differing effects on public and individual memory, communication, and empathy. Excellent and moving movie.
Green beans! What do you do if you have a shit-ton of green beans, and they keep on coming on?
Puree them for soup? When they're fresh and young, it's nice.
421: They're not easier to prove because the burden of proof is lower, they're easier to prove because the conduct that makes them up is broader. (And RICO is a hell-spawned nightmare of a law. It's awful and evil and stupid and bad.)
That would involve, what, blanching them first? Then puree them in what? Water? I've never made soup from green beans.
I had been figuring on giving some away, if I can find takers, and blanching and freezing more. Yet they still keep coming. (My housemate will, I hope, understand that he planted too many green bean plants this year, but before he left for vacation, he didn't seem to think so. Just freeze 'em! he said. Pick and freeze!)
423: In Pennsylvania, you can now use deadly force against them, regardless of whether or not you could safely retreat, if you are in your own home or somewhere you are legally entitled to be
- Every salad is a green bean salad. Actually there is a good recipe in the cookbook Please to the Table, reprinted on a freshdirect.com page. Won't link because the link resized my browser window and I am annoyed.
- Try to recreate that delicious thing they do at Local Chinese Restaurant. (I guess saute pretty hot with garlic and add soy sauce.)
- Blanch and freeze them
- Food process with basil and olive oil, freeze in ice cube trays. Later thaw and mix with parmesan for on-demand pesto.
On preview -- yeah, soup. Maybe the same soup I am going to find a recipe for that uses all the freaking escarole I have.
425: Right, so you could make the conduct broader by making the definition of consent stricter.
The notion that plaintiffs in civil cases are more satisfied that justice is served than victims in criminal court will surprise many lawyers. Almost all cases setle before trial, meaning that there is no determination of justice at all. When the cases does go to trial, verdicts are as much a crapshoot as in criminal cases. Collection on a judgment not covered by insurance is also difficult and rarely successful, even where the defendant has money, as Fred Goldman can attest.
.
For example, a law banning "penetration without obtaining prior consent in advance or having some prior sexual contact" where "prior" means more than 30 minutes in advance and sexual contact includes kissing, would make prosecuting DSK quite easy while only having minimal affect on other behavior. (For example, in a sex club you'd have to wait 30 minutes upon entering to have sex with anyone. That's slightly annoying but no big deal really.)
426: I'd be making it up, because I haven't done this in ages, but something like saute your basic aromatics in a little oil (onion, carrot if you like, anything else that made sense) add stock or water, bring to a boil, throw in the green beans and cook just until softish, and then puree. Season to taste.
431: I should actually be working, so I'm not going to do this, but that sort of suggestion makes me want to pick it to pieces to explain how it wouldn't make anything better but would make some things worse. Remind me another day if you're interested in what the picking-to-pieces would consist of.
428: Food process with basil and olive oil, freeze in ice cube trays. Later thaw and mix with parmesan for on-demand pesto.
I'm liking this option. On the green bean salad front, I have one of those that I quite like: lightly steamed green beans, tomatoes (preferably halved cherry tomatoes), thinly sliced red onions, kalamata olives, feta cheese (cubed), in a red wine vinaigrette, with basil-family herbs. Toss, marinate/refrigerate, cool, serve at room temperature. Maybe put some homemade cubed croutons on there.
I am not remotely noticing the creepy and horrifying debt-reduction talk stuff about Social Security cuts. Yay for AARP's coming down in strong and uncompromising terms against it.
My pretend attempts to ignore it will not last long.
On preview to 432: Thanks. It's pretty hot here (mid- to upper-90s) so I'm not inclined to generate heat in the kitchen for long, but it's in my back pocket. If we get a cooler day, I'll try it.
This thread really makes it clear that nonlawyers, even very smart ones, know almost nothing about tort law.
If I negligently operate my car and run over your foot, you can sue me for compensation for the injury, including medical bills, loss of future earnings, and emotional distress damages. But somehow if I intentionally rape you, you should be forbidden from suing me to obtain similar compensation? Of course a civil suit should be an option, and precisely because the government and criminal system can't be relied upon to provide compensation for injury.
As to the specifics of Silvana's proposal, I think it's a bad idea. You can't get blood from a stone; either the victim can pay and you have a decent case (in which case You can already find a lawyer to take the case on contingency) or the victim can't pay, in which case you can't get blood from a stone. A civil case with a noncollectible judgment is not a good result for the victim -- all the pain of a trial without any resulting benefit. I'd never advise anyone to bring a civil suit for "vindication" reasons alone, and the same applies here.
431: Would you be allowed to reduce it to 15 minutes of kissing if you just sat through a musical or a fancy dinner?
Is there a reason there couldn't be Rape 1, and Rape 2, and so on?
As others have pointed out, there already is. The creation of lesser criminal offenses like 2nd and 3rd degree sexual assault was a victory of legal feminists, who recognized that juries were reluctant to send a man to prison for 20-30 years if the circumstances didn't conform to the popular stereotype of bad man jumping out from behind the bushes.
they're usually distinguished by what is alleged to have happened, not by the level of uncertainty in the consent. One could imagine adding an easier to prove crime with a lower punishment in addition to different crimes for different kinds of assault.
This is true in theory, but in practice, prosecutors selectively use the lesser charges to get convictions in cases where murky circumstances might cause jurors to consider the defendant's actions somehow less blameworthy than "rape-rape". On balance, that's a good thing.
The AARP statement, by the way.
I tend to assume that most people here read TPM, but I don't know for sure.
How do you calculate damages for the tort of rape, anyway?
438:I rarely read TPM. A bare step above Village hacks.
439: Doctor bills, therapist bills, if you dropped out of college for a term, tuition, if you couldn't work for a while, lost wages, that kind of thing. That's economic damages -- I don't do personal injury, and I find I'm completely unsure of what's available in terms of pain&suffering, emotional damages, and punitives.
Peg it to the costs of hymen restoration?
(Sorry if that's too flippant for a conversation about serious stuff.)
I truly despise the monetizing of such things.
439: I was a juror in a case in which a woman was suing an apartment complex owner for negligence in providing adequate security to prevent an attempted rape. In his argument for how to quantify damages, the plaintiff's attorney stated that the plaintiff was likely to have horrible nightmares about the incident at least once a month for the rest of her life. How do you assign a dollar value to that? His suggestion was that you multiply the $50 you would pay for a good night's sleep at a hotel times the number of nights the plaintiff would have nightmares and be unable to have a good night's sleep over the rest of her life, assuming she would live the expected number of years.
Can anybody understand 444?
443 sums it up.
444: This brings up an interesting issue in jury selection for these sorts of civil cases. On the one hand, you might think that the plaintiffs don't want educated people because people who are more emotional are more likely to award damages. On the other hand, if you win you really really want people on the jury who can multiply and aren't afraid of large numbers. It's also interesting because the interests of the lawyers and their clients are obviously divergent here.
Emotional distress damages are available, at least in CA, as are punitive damages for the tort. The law o emotional distress damages recognizes that they're inherently difficult to calculate.
443, 445: Yes yes, but in the environmental realm, the default bias is "if it isn't monetized, it has no value." When people are confronted with that statement, they generally don't agree and switch to saying how hard it is to monetize the knowledge that a river has a salmon run, which is surely true.
But until that bias is challenged out loud, it remains the unconscious default.
It would be as true to say "if it isn't monetized, it has infinite value" as it is to say "if it isn't monetized, it has no value." But people who haven't thought about it default to the latter, not the former, and that's a problem for environmental decisionmaking.
The law o emotional distress damages recognizes that they're inherently difficult to calculate.
Dear judge/jury:
Emotional distress damages are inherently difficult to calculate. Sucks to be you.
Sincerely,
CA tort law
With things like emotional distress, you're trying to translate the harm that's been done -- that is a real harm -- into an amount that the defendant can actually provide in compensation, which is money. In today's world, and in the civil system, there's no real alternative, nor should there be. The alternative to monetarizing emotional distress damages s that people don't pay, at all, for substantial harm that they caused. I personally find that far more distasteful than trying to put a dollar value on the amount of sleepless nights or whatever.
448, 449: Well, thanks for making that explicit, Megan.
So what I'm saying here is that although it may be distasteful to monetize emotional/spiritual/environmental aspects of experiences, in practice denying the whole concept supports the "not monetized = worthless" side.
Shoot. Hadn't seen 452 when I wrote 453 to make it even more explicit.
Punitive damages is maybe easier. What amount, given the defendant's assets, is required to make sure he never does a thing like this to anyone else. And none of his friends either.
According to this table, rape with loss of virginity ("Vergewaltigung mit gleichzeitiger Entjungfernung") is valued at 4,100 Euros in Germany, or somewhat less than a broken upper arm or salmonella infection.
BTW, consensual loss of virginity under false pretense of intent to marry was by itself a cause of action under German law until 1998.
453 and previous: I'm not happy with the notion that it's an either/or proposition. The idea that the only measure of value is monetary (either it's worth some money or it's worth nothing) is obviously bogus stupid morally contemptible wrong.
The obviousness of these statements pains me, so I'll probably stop now.
Erm, I realize that you (Megan) are reporting the views of many/most people, and not necessarily your own.
456: Taylor v. Rann, 106 Mont. 588 (1938), explores the tort of seduction in trying to decide when the claim accrues for limitations purposes.
Well, right, parsi. No one likes it. But the jury has to agree on a number. It's really all they get to do. (Other than agree that the elements of the tort have been proven by a preponderance.)
Well, right, parsi. No one likes it. But the jury has to agree on a number. It's really all they get to do. (Other than agree that the elements of the tort have been proven by a preponderance.)
You know, if you replace the word "rape" in this thread with the word "Negro", you all sound like a bunch of Klansmen.
Also, if you replace the word "bicycle" with the word "Negro" you all sound insane.
If you replace the word "bicycle" with the word "rape", we all sound topical and cruel.
||
The Breaking Point ...Hamsher at FDL, which has a lot of coverage of the "Big Bargain" today
Digby links to Jamelle Bouie at the Nation
[T]his proposal is further evidence that the debt ceiling negotiations were an intentional decision on Obama's part. The president genuinely believes in deficit reduction, and chose to use the debt ceiling as an opportunity to cut spending with significant bipartisan cover. Obama hasn't been fooled into these negotiations, nor is he playing rope-a-dope or a complex game of 11-dimensional chess. This is what he wants.What does this mean for liberals? Well, they can complain and attack Obama -- they've already begun -- but criticism from the left has yet to budge the president, and it's doubtful that this time will be any different. Demonstrations sound great, but they don't actually carry a high chance for success; if your only option for changing the political calculations of a president is protest, then you're probably too late to the game. Likewise, a primary campaign against Obama sounds like it might work, but outside of activist circles, there is little appetite for a challenge. The Democratic establishment is satisfied with President Obama, and will work to ensure his reelection.
|>
460/461: I know, and I was having a bit of a rant. Though Megan up in 448 wasn't talking about a jury's assignment of damages, but the way our society tends to view and assess damage and risk in general. I continue to protest against that.
443, 444: Peep, did the jury decide the dollar amount? If it did, what did it come up with?
464 et al. -- as we've discussed before, there has been a consistent expectations management strategy every time Obama is close to a big final proposal on a major issue. First, he has aides leak things that suggest that he'll move extremely far to the right. Then, super-engaged progressives on blogs and elsewhere freak out. Finally, the ultimate deal is released, and is a more sane seeming, but far from ideal, proposal which causes most liberals to breathe a sigh of relief and fall in line.
At least, that's what happened before, with health care and the budget. OTOH, it does seem like Obama actually believes the nonsense he's been spouting about the deficit. But we'll see what happens when the smoke clears.
Likewise, a primary campaign against Obama sounds like it might work, but outside of activist circles, there is little appetite for a challenge.
It's probably not realistic (political discussion on the Internet, not realistic? Heaven forfend.) but I've been wondering. Is there anyone plausible who reasonably might primary Obama?
467.1: You know, I know that, and I hadn't actually applied it to this particular mess. I wonder what the godawful compromise is going to be this time.
468 -- There is no one, no one at all. All talk of this option has been, since day one, nothing but pony-wishing. If there wasn't an analogy ban, I'd start talking about fathers who drag their pre-teen (or whatever) daughters to purity balls.
To 450, that's basically right. The actual California jury instruction is as follows: "No fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of noneconomic damages. You must use your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense."
[It's not quite as random as it sounds, since the plaintiff has to present evidence supporting each category of claimed pain and suffering or emotional distress damage, so the award has to be based directly on evidence presented at trial and claimed by the plaintiff. And, in practice, both sides usually have a pretty clear idea of what the reasonable range of damages will be. But there's no magic formula.]
Is there anyone plausible who reasonably might primary Obama?
If by that you mean actually give him a scare, I believe the answer is no. If you mean someone that might actually do it and would be able to make strong attacks on Obama's policies from the liberal side, then...maybe, Kucinich?
470: But have I made it clear that I would really very much like a pony? I would brush it and currycomb it and feed it carrots and donate to its campaign.
Actually, it's more like wishing for a pony when one lives in a Manhattan apartment. If a pony magically appeared, it would end up starving for lack of feed.
OK, that was bannable. A genuinely progressive candidate would be crushed by Obama. 70-30 at best, probably more like 90-10. What lesson would party functionaries derive from that? A lesson you'd want them to learn?
It seems odd that everyone in the government is so driven to make people's security, pensions, health care, etc. worse, and increase unemployment, but I guess every other western country is doing the same thing. That bond market must be very convincing.
468, 470:No chance of primary opponent, but the 2nd link above at Digby's is entitled "The Lesson of 2000." There may still be a possibility of a third party candidate that absolutely will not win, but by running in a few selected states, can deny Obama an electoral college victory.
I must admit I'm riding the current Presidential pony to the end. And I have little confidence in what the WaPo says on this, and zero energy or interest in trying to untangle whatever n-dimensional beltway chess is being played in this latest report.
I agree with 467's assessment. Though in this case, the freakout by relatively engaged progressives may not count for as much as the AARP's and House Democrats' (Pelosi et al.) immediate response. It looks like a demonstration case by Obama to Republicans: see? I can't do that, that cutting of Social Security and so on. No can do.
Maybe that's what Villagers did with their money after 2008?
[T]his proposal is further evidence that the debt ceiling negotiations were an intentional decision on Obama's part.
When you put it that way, it really doesn't make sense ("hey, John, you know that debt ceiling vote? Let's make it really hard for me"), but sure it was an intentional decision. Congress needs to pass a budget in 3 months anyway; negotiating over revenue was always going to happen. This way, though, there's a ticking time bomb involved--one that Republicans are genuinely concerned about--and bipartisan agreement (if Brooks counts) that the Republicans are putting the country at risk by refusing to compromise. That's why the Democrats are able to force them to bite the bullet and raise taxes.
The president genuinely believes in deficit reduction, and chose to use the debt ceiling as an opportunity to cut spending with significant bipartisan cover.
Does anyone not believe in deficit reduction? Obviously, a recession is not the right time to reduce the deficit, obviously the debt level is not causing the U.S. any pain today, but also, too, the spending and revenue trajectories are truly not sustainable forever--some change that amounts to deficit reduction is going to have to take place within the next decades. I'd rather this change not take place when Republicans control all three branches of government.
A genuinely progressive candidate would be crushed by Obama. 70-30 at best, probably more like 90-10. What lesson would party functionaries derive from that? A lesson you'd want them to learn?
I have to say that the prospect of party functionaries finding out how electorally weak progressives are doesn't worry me in the slightest -- I think their belief that we're negligible is already as strong as it could possibly be. In terms of being intimidating, there's nowhere to go from here but up.
Oh, and, the way I see this shaking out is that the final bill contains some piddling SS cuts, like switching from CPA to chained CPA for COLA, and this will give the Democrats an excuse to vote against it en masse, which means the Republicans will all have to vote yes: for tax hikes, for entitlement cuts, and to raise the debt ceiling.
We'll see soon.
483 was me. NOT NEIL THE ETH/ICAL WER/EWOLF.
476 -- I don't think there's any reason to doubt that disaffected progressives could possibly engineer the same kind of defeat for Obama they brought on Al Gore. I agree that Obama does not deserve to be reelected. The question, though, is whether we deserve Republican rule. You can't complain about Citizens United and all the other devastation being visited upon us, for years to come, and then also argue that, well, a few years of Republican rule isn't such a high price to pay if it punished wayward Dems. (Who would never draw the inference from their defeat that more voters want the Republican platform than theirs . . . )
I'd rather this change not take place when Republicans control all three branches of government.
It will anyway.
Does anyone not believe in deficit reduction?
The lesson of the transition from the Clinton years to the Bush II presidency is that even if you actually resolve the deficit, it will be immediately opened up again as soon as Republicans come into power, since Republicans' guiding principle is more tax cuts for the rich. So, no, I don't believe in deficit reduction in the short or medium term. Build social programs first, now and when the government can borrow cheaply, and let whatever political fighting has to happen over the deficit happen closer to a moment of crisis, when the programs are already entrenched.* Reducing the deficit is a mug's game for liberals/social democrats.
*For example, as fucked up as the UK is right now, they're not abolishing the NHS.
When you put it that way, it really doesn't make sense
Yglesias has been demanding for months that Obama simple not negotiate. Either Republicans cave to Wall Street or get unequivocal blame for default. Obama, by negotiating deficit reduction under the cover of debt ceiling and default, has taken the Democratic party, and the country, as hostages to his own ambitions.
That's why the Democrats are able to force them to bite the bullet and raise taxes.
Give me a break. Last reported settlement was 83 percent spending cuts, 17% revenue increases. Ezra Klein, friend of the Village, substutute hhosting on MSNBC today, link above, is offended at this lopsided deal compared to what Reagan and Bush I managed.
484: Don't worry, we're following (and I'm pretty sure he capitalizes). Although I'm not sure how long you've been around here, so you may not have seen me bitch about people who post under first names, because it leads to exactly this sort of confusion.
Eliot's unusual enough to be tolerable, though, although I'd still prefer if you came up with something sillier, and therefore less likely to be accidentally duplicated.
LB: Not just weakness. Irrationality. As the Republicans have been trending ever rightward, the Dem coalition is faced with the choice whether to try to pick more voters on its right or left fringes. The choice has consistently been the rightward fringe, because those voters are thought to be more reliable and more numerous. There's also the cultural factor: senaors are white millionaires too, after all.
Petulance is not how you overcome this. It will never work. And yet, there's always a faction who thinks that this time they can wreck the place and be greeted as liberators.
I'll remember to avoid petulance. Surely excellent advice for us all in any situation.
I think this is the best political blog post I've read this year. I might have gotten it from here, even.
Fabianism says that the wind is at our (progressives') backs--that progress is a fundamental fact of human society. Fabianism is why two steps forward and one step back is an OK deal for progressives but a terrible deal for anti-progressives, and why one step forward and one step back is even OK for progressives. Fabianism is why gay marriage is on the verge of total acceptance, even though in 2004, the Republicans won by demagogueing gay marriage. Fabianism is why conservatives have to concentrate all their efforts on one particular issue to gain any ground at all. Why didn't the Republicans do all these draconian social cuts just a few blinks of the eye ago, when they controlled all three branches of government? Because their efforts were concentrated elsewhere.
492 -- You're wrong! [pouts, sticks out tongue, runs out of room and slams door]
peep, those are supposed to be the same person. E.T. was the original Jellicle Cat. "the night spread out upon the sky/ like a patient etherised upon a table" is a reference to when the space alien was getting all poked at by the bad gov't scientists.
483:Not so soon.
I have said how I think this will play out.
Obama will come out with Boehner and say "This is the deal. Absolute best available. Negotiations are over"
(Remember ACA?)
House Democrats will scream. Senators will slip in pork. August 2 deadline will pass, Geithner will scream and cry, people won't get paid. Maybe SS checks. Interest rates will spike, markets will crash.
Obama and Pelosi (Hamsher talks about her) will say: Emergency! Do we want Great Depression II blamed on Democrats? Vote yes! Now! Tonight!
And the debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill will pass with a majority of Democratic votes and a few Republicans.
It is called Shock Capitalism, and it is a game played with real disaster for profit.
489: pshaw. "eliot" is fine; I don't know anyone else by that name. Silly names are overrated. (I'm not looking at anybody here, honest.)
496: bob is trying to make us feel better about what will actually happen.
They won't come in time for 2012, but California is incubating a really nice crop of decently progressive Democrats. Harris, Newsom, Bowen, Chiang, Steinberg, Jones. All fairly young, most photogenic. They have a while yet before they go national, but it won't always be true that there are no potential ponies for LB.
I keep hoping one of them will challenge Feinstein. Newsom, maybe.
489: You have, and I adopted a pseud, but then I didn't like it, and I stopped posting anyway.
Last reported settlement was 83 percent spending cuts, 17% revenue increases.
I call that raising taxes. And I don't think it'll end up looking that way after the accounting tricks get shaken out. But it's ridiculous to make assumptions based on anonymous reports from ongoing private negotiations, anyway. There isn't a deal yet, so there's no point comparing it to other deals. About which:
offended at this lopsided deal compared to what Reagan and Bush I managed.
Mau-mauing.
Obama, by negotiating deficit reduction under the cover of debt ceiling and default, has taken the Democratic party, and the country, as hostages to his own ambitions.
The only way this makes sense to me is under the argument that it's going to happen again next time the debt ceiling needs to be increased. What we're seeing now is the budget fight that was bound to come anyway, except this time, big money is leaning on the Republicans to compromise.
498: Spitzer? Ness? (The kid from E.T. was Elliott, by the way.)
And coincidentally, the $4 trillion over ten years is the cost of the Bush/Obama tax cuts extended in December.
So next summer, Obama will say:"Economy is tolerable, we have a bipartisan plan to get the budget under control, I have no new spending plans, and we are coming home from the wars. Now why exactly do we have to increase taxes? Let's make them permanent."
I suspect this is the closed door deal.
501: See, I remember mano negra. Not, I admit, in detail, but if you'd started posting again as mano negra I'd have known you had some history here, rather than having wandered in from Balko's. (Nothing against anyone who wandered in from Balko's -- I like new people. But I explain things to them more.)
I posted as 'neil' for a lot longer than I did as 'mano negra.' I guess it's true about the nondescript names being easily forgotten.
502: Wry Cooter is still available.
500 -- A very fine thing. Our House seat is an open race this time, and the choices actually look pretty good.
I bitch about it for a reason. Maybe other people don't have the same issues I do, but a post signed with a common first name, the identity of the poster doesn't stick at all. I can keep track through a single conversation, but that's it. Everything you ever posted as 'neil' was a one-off, pretty much.
Bob, do you produce a twitter feed? If not, why not?
Remember LB, it's not your fault if someone doesn't know that you complain about first names as pseuds, it's their fault since if they'd RTFA they'd know.
"post signed with a common first name, the identity of the poster doesn't stick at all"
I've relied on this for years.
508: Somebody has to be picky about that kind if thing or this would get too hard to follow.
Yeah, I guess I have kind of been a hit and run type. I adopted the pseud when I thought I'd try to become more of a Member of the Community, but then I second-guessed my reasons for wanting to do that and decided to quit bothering you all, instead.
507 - It feels like such a luxury to pick between good choices. Almost like the fate of the republic isn't at stake.
489: although I'd still prefer if you came up with something sillier, and therefore less likely to be accidentally duplicated.
With an attitude like that how do you expect to attract the serious-minded such as "There's no way in hell I'm going to look at an unfogged thread on this, though. I can't think of any bigger waste of time." Matt from CT.
511: There was a point when I confused you and McMegan.
I can confuse 50 people at once.
509:What's the word? Archaic? Old-fashioned? Technophobe? I refuse to Facebook also. Oh, and don't carry a cellphone most of the time.
These things are addicting and committing, and I need to be able to turn the world off sometimes. Click.
I think that happened a fair amount, Eggplant. It can't be helped, though. I think I've recounted meeting her? It is one of my favorite encounters.
[In case I haven't, we met at a party. Tyler introduced us and she said "I don't usually like other Megans." I said, "I don't either." Then we walked away without a parting and didn't speak to each other again. That's awesome.]
If there's one thing we don't need around here, it's more Matts. At one point half the posters were Matts. (In other news, last week I matted all my posters.)
516: I think this is perhaps what makes Megan's pseud memorable in contrast to most first name pseuds. It's memorable because functionally it's actually "Not McMegan".
519: I do love that story.
521: Yep. Also, it amuses me that Megan, despite being a later arrival in the blogosphere, managed to scoop McMegan's name out from under her.
Let's try to annoy everybody at once.
That's because McMegan hung on to her pseud for too long.
managed to scoop McMegan's name out from under her
In very limited circles. Well, just this site really. I think that attests to my usual relentless strategy of persisting. My new shouty neighbors should take heed. (No new updates, NickS.)
At Marginal Revolution, I was Megan Not-McArdle for a long time, which gives her dominance.
519 is such a beautiful story. Only way it would be better would be if you'd clean and jerked her a few times.
526: She's McMegan most places I see her mentioned, and before you were on the scene, she was just Megan.
Maybe I'll start commenting at McMegan's as Wry Cooter.
I couldn't possibly react negatively to other Elizabeths -- there are just too many, particularly in my age bracket. But I resent the existence of other LizardBreaths on the internet.
532: I think it may be coming back. I have a niece (and a grandmother) who share your name.
523 ISN'T ME. IF IT WERE IT WOULD HAVE MORE CAPS. WHERE ARE THE STANDARDS?!!?
A disturbing percentage of the girls whose middle names I know have the middle name Elizabeth.
(Er, the "girls" there is a leftover from when "high school" was in that sentence.)
If you haven't tried it, Bob, you really should.
Don't let anyone push you into something you don't feel ready for bob. It can be a beautiful thing, but only in the right circumstances.
If I negligently operate my car and run over your foot, you can sue me for compensation for the injury, including medical bills, loss of future earnings, and emotional distress damages. But somehow if I intentionally rape you, you should be forbidden from suing me to obtain similar compensation? Of course a civil suit should be an option, and precisely because the government and criminal system can't be relied upon to provide compensation for injury.
This is why government run no-fault injury compensation schemes are a pretty good idea. (ACC ftw.) Of course, even better would be a decent universal welfare state, but.
If we had a decent universal welfare state, I could injure all kinds of people through negligence. Just like high school, but without the need to be nice to people over 21.
531: "Festus Cowpee" is still available.
Is there a rule about how drunk you can be before the bus driver can refuse you?
Occasionally I will try to register somewhere or other and it will tell me that the username asilon is already in use. That really pisses me off. I've been asilon since 1995 (on the intertubes - longer in real life) and that should count for something damnit!
542 - something to do with your blood alcohol level being proprtional to the time (24 hour clock) I think.
I decided I'd better go home before I chanced it.
337
... If you bring a civil case for rape, your justice is a lot easier. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no confrontation clause, you get discovery (although I'm guessing they would just assert the 5th so a deposition wouldn't be worth much), ...
IANAL but I think there is no right to assert the 5th in civil cases. If you refuse to testify the jury will be instructed to draw adverse inferences.
And I don't think rape shield laws would apply.
On the pseudonym-picking front, it's funny. There are so many factors, or can be. I know I wanted something that wasn't gendered one way or the other (and it continues to gratify me when people assume I'm male).
I also wanted something relatively google-proof (hence the shortening of "parsimonious"); though I see that someone going by the name of parsimon has a blog. It's not me.
There's also the question whether you think you might want to use your pseud in more than one online locale -- is it going to travel with you? If so, it should be rather unique. If not, and you're going to use different names in different places, doesn't matter so much.
That clearly narrows it down to, like, 20 choices! Seriously, though, whenever I see the word "parsimonious" now I'm caught up short for a moment, so I don't necessarily advise that approach. Also: my blog persona was rather different when I first began commenting here (under various names until I settled on this one).
(/navel-gazing)
(and it continues to gratify me when people assume I'm male)
Rolled up socks, or so I've heard.
||
Apparently, I'm going to spend the next 12 days either prone or pressing hard on a spot on the right side of my crotch. Then I get to see the specialist.
I know there are far worse medical problems out there, but I demand my constitutional right to whinge in a public forum.
|>
My sympathy, but I think you might do well to remember that while you have to press the right side of your crotch to keep your innards in place, there is no reason you can't press the left side for amusement.
I have a bland name, but I make up for it by raising earnestness to the level of a distinctive style.
Which reminds me, I was musing at some point about when it was that I started to feel think of myself as a regular, rather than a lurker who occasionally posted. I decided that the transition was when I felt like I could assume that other people reading my comments would have some memory of who I was, rather than feeling like I should behave as if I was starting from scratch.
Wow. Best wishes, Herniated, and go for prone, rather than walking around, as much as possible, I'd think. Ouch.
I also just got the rolled up socks joke.
418
Changing the burden of proof for any criminal conviction is a big weird step that makes me very uncomfortable.
As others have pointed out you are not changing the burden of proof you are changing the definition of the offense (more precisely creating a new lesser offense). For example New York state had a problem with male prison guards raping female prisoners. Convictions were difficult to obtain for obvious reasons. So it was made statuatory rape for guards to have sex with prisoners.
Not just a joke, but very possibly valid first aid advice.
Sorry about that, George. On the other hand, it'll leave you more time for commenting.
The problem with using the civil system to deter crime is that most criminals are judgement proof.
One problem with compensating crime victims is that it would end up in large part workers comp for drug dealers.
And people with stupid car stereos.
557 -- In the mid-1990s, the idea was peddled, and actually bought, that allowing civil suits against governments that sponsor terrorism would lead to less terrorism. Hey, just like the trial lawyers shutting down municipal swimming pools.
Problem: even if you find out the Swiss bank account where Mr. Rafsanjani keeps his millions, you can't execute on it. Without having to worry every time you start you car for the rest of all time.
I mean, who would you bet on to win a confrontation between John Edwards and Fidel Castro?
Either 558 is some honest-to-god amazing trolling, or I should go do something else.
I don't know, but I'd spring for it on Pay-per-view.
I found it somewhat awkward a few years ago to be in a discussion where many people, including me, were in a heated "discussion" with someone who was essentially a troll and whose commenting name happened to be the same as my actual first name.
Problem: even if you find out the Swiss bank account where Mr. Rafsanjani keeps his millions, you can't execute on it.
"Skip Tracer can find any asset, foreclose on it (or sell it in lieu of foreclosure pursuant to a negotiated settlement) and deliver the proceeds to you in less time than most litigators take to leave a voicemail for counsel to the indenture trustee.
"But when a beautiful woman who looks sort of like Catherine Zeta Jones but also has a vaguely defined but assumedly powerful career in which she gets to order around tertiary male characters walks into his office with a retainer big enough to keep Skip in platinum legal pads until the usual but not mandatory retirement age, his skills will be put to the ultimate test. Because she wants Skip to obtain, serve and execute an enforcement order ... on a safe deposit box ... in a bank ... in Luxembourg ... where banks have moats and guard wolves and ninjas and stuff.
"This winter, best-selling author and former litigator Flip Spacer takes 'Harvard Law School's toughest living alumnus, though that really isn't saying much if you think about it' from the steel towers of Manhattan to ... The Bank Manager's Office."
I'm thinking McConaughey. Maybe Gosling.
I'd go see it if there was brief nudity.
Speaking of inappropriate things, is it wrong to reply to a tweet from a city council woman by making a joke about the mineshaft?
Before you do that, you should go over to the CT thread mentioned in 515 and accuse any and all unfogged avoiders of being unable to hang with the big dogs.
IT IS A SIN TO TWEET, A GRAVER SIN TO RETWEET AND GRAVESTLY SINFUL OF ALL TO TWEET IN REPLY, FOR IN THAT LAST DOTH MAN OPE SATAN'S FACEBOOK PAGE FOR ALL RECURRENCE OF SIN AND SINNING THEREINBY TO COME.
YEA, I WOULD JUST E-MAIL THE JOKE TO A SELECT FEW WHO MIGHT GET IT.
I'm finally figuring out facebook, and now there's Google+. Which I'll probably just ignore for a while, and then join up just as the cool kids are moving on to the next thing.
I saw a little girl at the local pool yesterday who shares my double-barrelled, double-sainted first name (yes, it's sort of two names, but really just one). This surprised me a little bit, as she appeared to be only five or six years old. I know at least three other MCs, but they're all well over the age of 21.
For some it seems easier to say "better 10 murderers go free than 1 innocent person be convicted" than to say "better 10 rapists go free than 1 innocent person be convicted."
If there's no persuasive physical evidence of the non-consent (force, drugs, or characteristics like age, status in an institution, etc.) element, then - assuming sex is established - it's going to be about credibility of eyewitnesses and circumstantial factors.
While people don't generally give away their wallets to strangers, ask others to break car windows, or request aggravated assault, lots of people do have consensual sex.
So it's always going to be a difficult crime to prove. That's not a problem with rules of evidence. Nor is it necessarily a problem with victims being reluctant to come forward. Nor is it a "rape culture." It's problem amenable to four solutions: blanket recording of a person's life with surveillance equipment, perfectly accurate deception detection technology, total discouragement of all rapes (rendering all accusations false), or total discouragement of all false accusations (still leaving mistaken accusations). Progress can be made on all fronts - but leave the rules of evidence alone.
551: crossfit not everything you thought it'd be, eh Preznit Halford?
I don't know Andrew. If one out of four women was murdered during her life, many of them murdered by serial killers that over their lifetimes will commit many or even hundreds of murders, and almost none of them went to prison. I might think we need to take the problem a little more seriously. I might even say we had something like a "murder" culture.
Also champ job there of picking two really specific things and then a super vague "have consensual sex".. How about people don't usually bruise their vagina's while performing oral sex on strangers twice their age while they are at work.
I was thinking about the use of analogies between rape and murder in arguments recently, and it occurred to me that people recover from rape. I don't think that means murder automatically wins the "most heinous crime" contest, but it is an important difference.
Some people are nicer to be around after they are murdered.
Some people are nicer to be around after...no, I can't finish that riff.
Murder culture (via Emerson).
That said, I think Andrew F. is being a more offensive troll then Asteele.
Also, I'm becks-style and my fucking bowels are in danger of slipping into my goddamn scrotum, and I'm not sure why I went presidential with my stupid medical conditions in the first place.
I'm sorry to hear about your bowels, helpy.
If you had drunk less water through the years this might not have happened.
I'm sorry to hear about your scrotum, rob.
Truthfully, hernias suck. Fucking intelligent designer.
6: The dying declaration rule is stupid.
584: indeed. Look at Othello.
O, who has done this deed?
Nobody; I myself; farewell.
584: Granted the situation probably doesn't happen that much, but I don't see how the rule doesn't serve a purpose.
A problem with the government paying compensation to crime victims who don't file criminal charges is that it is an invitation to fraud. You want to pay compensation to the woman who claims she is raped by her husband every Saturday night?
575
I don't know Andrew. If one out of four women was murdered during her life, many of them murdered by serial killers that over their lifetimes will commit many or even hundreds of murders, and almost none of them went to prison. I might think we need to take the problem a little more seriously. I might even say we had something like a "murder" culture
You have a source for the lifetime risk claim? What is the risk for reported rapes? How does this compare to other crimes?
I would guess the risk for (non-sexual) assault is also pretty high on a lifetime basis.
I see a bit of Asteele's point. Given the prevalence of rape, if we lacked a rape culture, conservatives might see rape as the best example of a crime for which civil liberties ought to be weakened. We might even be having a national conversation about whether accused rapists should be tortured.
Even in the culture we've got, we have rightwing glee over the prospect of rapists themselves getting raped in prison.
My opposition to these things isn't rooted in an acceptance of rape culture. It's rooted in liberalism.
A problem with the government paying compensation to crime victims who don't file criminal charges is that it is an invitation to fraud. You want to pay compensation to the woman who claims she is raped by her husband every Saturday night?
To my knowledge, this doesn't happen very much in the UK, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN PAYING COMPENSATION TO CRIME VICTIMS SINCE 1964. (Caps intended.)
I'm not suggesting some sort of wild-eyed policy hypothesis here. This is the way things are in the UK - and, as Keir points out, in other countries too - and it would be nice if your criticism would take reality into account in this regard.
I should point out, too, that the process of getting compensation is not as simple as "I've been attacked!" "Oh, OK, have some cash" - it uses a balance-of-probability standard.
Not only that, Shearer, but you seem to be suggesting that a woman being repeatedly raped by her husband is prima facie ludicrous. I would like to think that this merely represents cluelessness rather than actual evil on your part.
crime victims who don't file criminal charges
This is also wrongheaded. Crime victims don't bring criminal charges; that's the responsibility of the procurator fiscal's office, or, in England, the public prosecutor's office.
592: actual evil, because he's an intelligent man. although I'm fond of shearer generally.
For some it seems easier to say "better 10 murderers go free than 1 innocent person be convicted" than to say "better 10 rapists go free than 1 innocent person be convicted."
It does to me, slightly, but this is because I have the very probably wrong bias to think that murderers are generally more likely to murder a particular person.
And, re: Shearer's trolling, you can only get murdered once.
584: It was based on the idea that if you knew you were going to die, you would be totally truthful, because you were afraid that you were about to meet your maker. Atheists would have no such compunction. And anybody who really wanted to get someone could say that they saw so and so do X without any fear of perjury charges. There's no reason to think that it's particularly reliable.
Someone ought to exploit the dying declaration rule to fake his own death and frame someone for it.
596: I thought it was based on the idea that the rules required the other side to get the right to cross examine a witness and that dying was a way to get a exception to this rule. The alternative would be to exclude the testimony of everybody who said "John Doe shot me" if they died before trial.
If I was shot in a drive by, and knew I was going to die, I'd totally say, "It was James Murdoch." The point is, in a gang war situation, which is basically a grudge match, I wouldn't trust a dying man an inch. One who thought he might live might be scared enough to tell the truth.
Interesting tidbit from Wikipedia:
The first use of the dying declaration exception in American law was in the 1770 murder trial of the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre. One of the victims, Patrick Carr, told his doctor before he died that the soldiers had been provoked. The doctor's testimony helped defense attorney John Adams to secure acquittals for some of the defendants and reduced charges for the rest.
This is also wrongheaded. Crime victims don't bring criminal charges; that's the responsibility of the procurator fiscal's office, or, in England, the public prosecutor's office.
As I'm sure you all know, this is a bit oversimplified. Anyone can bring criminal charges in England (and most other jurisdictions like England), but generally these days it is either the Police or the public prosecutor that does so, but up until comparatively recently it wasn't. (Often in Georgian and early Victorian England it was the town clerk or some other functionary that was the plaintiff). In America only the DA can, normally, which is one reason the office of DA is much more powerful than the DPP. (In Scotland the procurator fiscal (or the High Court?) has to grant leave to allow private prosecutions.)
But this doesn't really matter as to your point.
Asteele, like I said, if there's persuasive physical evidence, then eyewitness testimony matters much less. I can't evaluate the strength of the forensic evidence in DSK's case at this point. Neither can you. But the rules of evidence don't preclude such evidence, nor do they undermine its value. And, if anything, the value of such forensic evidence may now be magnified in the minds of the jury due to popular entertainment like the "CSI" franchise.
So I get your anger at a crime like rape. But I don't think our judicial system requires changes to enable its prosecution; nor, imho, is it either as pervasive (1/4th of all women sounds insanely high) or as accepted as you believe.
592
Not only that, Shearer, but you seem to be suggesting that a woman being repeatedly raped by her husband is prima facie ludicrous. ...
I was suggesting it would be ludicrous to pay compensation in such a case. It appears the Brits agree (p. 6-7).
Making sure that the person who injured you cannot benefit from your claim
3 In general, the Scheme does not allow any person who causes an injury to benefit from an award paid to the
7
victim. We will not pay an award if there is a continuing close link between you (the victim) and the offender and it is likely that the offender would benefit from your award.
593
This is also wrongheaded. Crime victims don't bring criminal charges ...
I was a bit sloppy, what I meant of course was promptly report the crime to the relevant authorities and co-operate with any decision to prosecute. Again the Brits agree. From the link in my comment above (p. 11, p. 12)
... We expect you to report the crime immediately (to ensure the best chance of catching the person who injured you). Normally we will refuse a claim if you do not report the incident to the police straightaway. ...
And
19 We expect you to have done everything possible to help the police catch and convict the person who injured you, including making a full statement to the police and cooperating in bringing the person who injured you to justice.
20 We appreciate that you may be reluctant to bring charges (for example, if you fear a revenge attack or reprisal). However, since the Scheme is publicly funded, it is important that you have done your public duty by reporting the crime and cooperating with the police.
562
Either 558 is some honest-to-god amazing trolling, or I should go do something else.
The Brits seem to have this covered (p. 10) as well:
The Scheme is intended to compensate blameless victims of crime. Before making an award we have to check that your behaviour did not contribute to the incident where you got your injuries. We also have to take account of your criminal record, if you have one. This may mean we refuse your claim, or offer you a reduced amount of compensation. ...
and
We are likely to refuse or reduce your claim if:
...
you were taking part in illegal activities when you were injured; ...
591
To my knowledge, this doesn't happen very much in the UK, ...
Because in the UK the rules don't allow you to get compensation if you don't report the crime which is sensible.
1/4th of all women sounds insanely high
I've heard that statistic always in association with One in Four.
Here's a decent discusssion of the 1 in 4 statistic:
