Bill Cosby and the Allegations

[Knightshadow]

Ok, so I haven't seen this topic on the boards here, and I wanted to discuss opinions and speculations.

Bill Cosby, for many Americans, has been an institution. He is a celebrated comedian, famous actor, frequent guest speaker at university commencements, media giant, and mentor to many young performers wanting to break into acting.  For many years, he was the picture of fatherhood on his tv show.

Allegations have now come up accusing him of drugging and raping young women.  Some of the allegations date back over 20 years and have actually been filed, but never picked up on by the media at large.  Now this is sensational news and an intelligent/opinionated discussion is requested here.

What are your thoughts?
Yes, race must be brought into this, since he is a black man and many of the victims are white.  To focus only the fact that rape is a crime of violence is to tread delicately around the fact that he is a black man and some of the victims are white.  Cosby was known for promoting black-only production crews, which can be viewed as racist against whites. 

I welcome a healthy debate and discussion on this topic.

[Caehlim]

Bill Cosby, for many Americans, has been an institution. He is a celebrated comedian, famous actor, frequent guest speaker at university commencements, media giant, and mentor to many young performers wanting to break into acting.  For many years, he was the picture of fatherhood on his tv show.

Unfortunately it's become clear in recent years, that just because people were icons for many years doesn't mean that they were good role-models in their personal life. Far too many celebrities have been brought to light, for us to assume that just because someone was well loved means that they were good people.

What are your thoughts?

Well, these are merely allegations at this stage and haven't been confirmed or prosecuted.

However the allegations seem quite believable, from what I've seen of them. Unfortunately it's the kind of things that happens in hollywood and there are a lot of people in show business who will take advantage of young women in that sort of way.

Yes, race must be brought into this

How is it relevant?

Cosby was known for promoting black-only production crews, which can be viewed as racist against whites.

Firstly, how is this relevant?

At the time, there was significant racism within... well, I was going to say in hollywood, but let's just be more honest and say everywhere. White people had little difficulty in obtaining employment within this field, as such selectively employing African American personnel enabled them to obtain experience, which could assist them in entering that workforce in general and also acted to legitimize the concept of an African American production crew member.

Context is important to understanding whether an action is appropriate, and while in general selective appointment based on people's skin colour is not a good thing to have in society, in this case it would have helped to correct the existing inequality within the system.

In economics this is known as the Theory of the Second Best.

[Knightshadow]

In my opinion it is just as relevant as one white officer shooting one black teenager. Ferguson made it a race thing and Cosby allegedly raping white women looks racial to me. I know we cringe and experience discomfort when having to accuse a black perpetrator for fear of sounding racist, but I wish to open up this wound and discuss.

So why do we immediately try to ignore the race topic if it is black on white? If it were white on black, we would all openly welcome a discussion on racism.

I had a black manager tell me once that from his college education in black studies, "black people can't be racist". I have not yet found this to be a true statement.

[Caehlim]

In my opinion it is just as relevant as one white officer shooting one black teenager.

Which is how much and for what reasons?

Ferguson made it a race thing

Race was an issue in Ferguson, Missouri before the shooting of Michael Brown. The Washington Post describes some of the factors here. However Ferguson has its own thread. What is the relevance here?

Cosby allegedly raping white women looks racial to me.

Why? What in particular about it does?

I had a black manager tell me once that from his college education in black studies, "black people can't be racist".

That would seem self-contradictory.

[Beguile's Mistress]

If the alleged rapes were committed by a black person against a white person simply because of their race that would be germane to this discussion as might be a person of one race targeting people of only one different race.  These alleged rapes occurred because the opportunity was there for one person of influence to act out in such a way against another person who was perceived to be vulnerable.  I would say it is a power thing and not racial.

[Lux12]

Ok, so I haven't seen this topic on the boards here, and I wanted to discuss opinions and speculations.

Bill Cosby, for many Americans, has been an institution. He is a celebrated comedian, famous actor, frequent guest speaker at university commencements, media giant, and mentor to many young performers wanting to break into acting.  For many years, he was the picture of fatherhood on his tv show.

Allegations have now come up accusing him of drugging and raping young women.  Some of the allegations date back over 20 years and have actually been filed, but never picked up on by the media at large.  Now this is sensational news and an intelligent/opinionated discussion is requested here.

What are your thoughts?
Yes, race must be brought into this, since he is a black man and many of the victims are white.  To focus only the fact that rape is a crime of violence is to tread delicately around the fact that he is a black man and some of the victims are white.  Cosby was known for promoting black-only production crews, which can be viewed as racist against whites. 

I welcome a healthy debate and discussion on this topic.

I honestly didn't want to believe it when I first learned about the allegations. Not because I liked his work. To be quite honest I was never a fan of Cosby's humor or acting, and I regarded him as something of a joke, but I always thought that if you took away these things, you would have an otherwise decent human being. Then I found out about this and I don't think I can say that anymore. I can forgive a lot of things celebrities do, but this is not one of them. These may be allegations at this point, and I don't know everything there is to know about the case, it's not looking good.

I can understand where some people might think of this as a race thing, and it is true that an alarmingly large number of black people have been convicted based on or at least had false accusations leveled against them. The justice system as it is simply isn't fair to black people. It hasn't been  since the first colonies were established.

However, I doubt that Cosby is one of these falsely accused people. First of all, this wasn't a one time thing. There are a number of allegations against a single man and typically, where there are multiple accusations against one person, there's usually some element of truth. The fact that he paid to make these allegations go away for a time particularly makes me think there's some element of truth. I'm not doubting the victims, but frankly, if I had not known about this, Cosby would be one of the last people I'd suspect of being a serial rapist. There are a number of other celebrities I would have suspected long before Cosby. As Caelhim said, this sort of thing isn't exactly unheard of in Hollywood. The rate at which it occurs in broader society is already shocking, but more so there.

[Knightshadow]

You are correct, Caehlim.  Ferguson has its own thread and I shall not bring it up in here so I do not offend anyone.  Again, it is my opinion that I perceive the Cosby situation as potentially racial since one man of one particular race looks like he allegedly raped multiple women of another race. If he had allegedly raped within his race exclusively, I would not perceive it as racially motivated.  Again, it is my opinion and quite potentially flawed.  I have stated this again and if you still do not understand my opinion, then I can no longer help you.  My intent was to bring race up as a possibility.  If I am incorrect, let us discuss.  Otherwise, your continuing to ask me the relevance when I have given my opinion, makes me question your ability to understand other people's opinions.

If we want to move on to just the alleged rapes, then let us do so.  I do apologize for offending others by asking whether this might have been racial in nature.  Let us forget my comments as ignorant.

[Beguile's Mistress]

You are correct, Caehlim.  Ferguson has its own thread and I shall not bring it up in here so I do not offend anyone.  Again, it is my opinion that I perceive the Cosby situation as potentially racial since one man of one particular race looks like he allegedly raped multiple women of another race. If he had allegedly raped within his race exclusively, I would not perceive it as racially motivated.  Again, it is my opinion and quite potentially flawed.  I have stated this again and if you still do not understand my opinion, then I can no longer help you.  My intent was to bring race up as a possibility.  If I am incorrect, let us discuss.  Otherwise, your continuing to ask me the relevance when I have given my opinion, makes me question your ability to understand other people's opinions.

If we want to move on to just the alleged rapes, then let us do so.  I do apologize for offending others by asking whether this might have been racial in nature.  Let us forget my comments as ignorant.

I'm wondering if you would be willing to look at the motivation from another perspective?

If the alleged rapes were committed by a black person against a white person simply because of their race that would be germane to this discussion as might be a person of one race targeting people of only one different race.  These alleged rapes occurred because the opportunity was there for one person of influence to act out in such a way against another person who was perceived to be vulnerable.  I would say it is a power thing and not racial.

[Oniya]

Looking at the social demographics, and putting aside the little voice in my head that is saying 'Say it ain't so!', I'd be more inclined to think 'power' as a motivation rather than specifically 'race'.  The women in question were apparently selected at Hollywood parties, and so the question of 'what targets were available' comes up.

[Caehlim]

Again

I have stated this again and if you still do not understand my opinion, then I can no longer help you.

makes me question your ability to understand other people's opinions.

I don't believe in guessing other people's opinions or making assumptions about them. Until this post, you never actually said what relevance race had to do with it. But then you said...

If he had allegedly raped within his race exclusively, I would not perceive it as racially motivated.

...and now I know what you meant. The word racial does not equate with racially motivated. So now that we're on the same page:

It's a little difficult to talk about the motivation for an alleged crime, on which we don't have any comment from the alleged perpetrator. The victims don't report in their allegations that he stated his reasons for committing the assault, or that they suspected that their race was a factor. This means any discussion of motive, really does have to involve a lot of supposition, beginning with assuming actual guilt.

Trying to judge this from the pattern of alleged victims is problematic. Firstly we have Jewel Allison as one of the alleged victims, who is African American herself. Secondly, we don't know that everyone has stepped forwards yet. Without a complete list it is difficult to assume that the list we do have is statistically representative of the race of all victims, particularly if there may be factors involved which would make people of African American background less likely to report these assaults. Cosby's widespread fame within the civil rights movement, unfortunately would be a possible factor in dissuading African American victims from coming forwards.

Assuming that Jewel Allison's allegations are correct, we know that the attacks were not racially motivated, since they also occurred without race as a motivating factor. However it is possible that race influenced the selection of victims. This could have been out of some form of racially focused hatred or resentment, it could also have been out of some form of racially focused sexual attraction. We can't really know this for sure though, since it may have also been as Oniya suggest a question of availability. It may have also been another factor which exists on racially skewed lines, such as a preference for more wealthy or powerful victims. All these things and more are certainly possible, I'm not aware of any factors that rule them out. However there's also no way to know for certain whether they are factors.

Without facts, all we're really doing is guessing. I'm not sure exactly what the point of that would be.

[Ephiral]

The difference, Knightshadow, is that Ferguson was just the latest example of a widespread systemic problem. Until you can demonstraet that Cosby was just one of many many examples of black men in positions of authority raping white women, and that black men in general are more likely to target white women, then painting an equivalence between this incident and Ferguson is just plain disgusting - and doing it specifically to try to focus the discussion on "Black suspect who was black!" is... kinda racist.

The "black people can't be racist" statement most likely comes from the theory that racism is prejudice plus power (which, for the record, I disagree with on the grounds that "racism" already means something different in common parlance). Black people can absolutely be prejudiced, but lack the power as a group to structure systems and institutions and narratives to their advantage.

And that's all I really have to say on the subject of race. On the subject of the allegations themselves... I'm strongly inclined to believe them until we see evidence calling them into doubt.

[Sethala]

On the subject of the allegations themselves... I'm strongly inclined to believe them until we see evidence calling them into doubt.

No offense, but that stinks way too much of "guilty until proven innocent" for me to agree with that sentiment.  Granted, this is the first I've actually heard about it and I don't know enough of the facts to completely dismiss it either, but I do want to stress that there's a reason the rule is "innocent until proven guilty".

That being said, from what I gathered in the thread, it sounds like there were multiple allegations filed over several years, it wasn't just everyone started saying "yeah, he raped me 10 years ago, I just never told anyone til now", right?  If several of them were filed over a long period of time before any of it became public knowledge, then I'd say they're credible enough to look into, at least.  Does anyone have a decent story that goes over everything without too much bias?

[Caehlim]

Does anyone have a decent story that goes over everything without too much bias?

This source from CNN seems pretty good to me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/20/showbiz/bill-cosby-allegations-repercussions/

[Kythia]

No offense, but that stinks way too much of "guilty until proven innocent" for me to agree with that sentiment.  Granted, this is the first I've actually heard about it and I don't know enough of the facts to completely dismiss it either, but I do want to stress that there's a reason the rule is "innocent until proven guilty".

The rule in a court of law is "innocent until proven guilty"  This isn't a court of law.  If several unconnected women say to me to watch out for so and so, and then I catch him googling where to buy bulk rohypnol, then his Facebook status is "Gone rapin'" then I'd feel perfectly comfortable avoidiing him.  So would literally everyone else.  Shouting "innocent til proven guilty" would be relevant if Ephiral were planning on arresting Bill Cosby.  She's not.  She's saying "I believe these allegations and, should it ever become relevant, will act accordingly."

In essence, bringing up "innocent til proven guilty" is 100% missing the point.

[Knightshadow]

Some of you find this discourse pointless, so I respectfully accept that assessment. I am not an attorney, nor claim to have more information on the subject than anyone else that is not part of an investigation--if there is one.  Someone also suggest I make conclusions or show evidence about "many many examples of black men".  I cannot.  I do not have such statistics or facts.  I am not speaking about many many other black men, just this one alleged serial rapist. 

I do sincerely apologize for bringing up the race issue. Clearly, it is a volatile subject and I have been labeled a racist for trying to ask questions and have discussion.  Please accept my sincere apologies and allow me to retract my suggestion that this might have been a black-white issue due to my ignorant perception.  My math is off; my assumptions flawed.

I hope he is innocent, since I am a huge fan.  I hope these women get their say in court or in media coverage.  It is clear that tragedies have occurred, to both parties involved.  If found to be true (some, most, or all), then I hope Mr. Cosby meets with justice and the women are made whole in some form, either through vindication, reparation, or attention to the matter.

[Ephiral]

Kythia, thanks. That was the perfect response.

Knightshadow, for what it's worth, your apology was incredibly gracious and well-appreciated. I'm sorry I didn't make this clearer myself, but... I was referring to the action as racist, not you personally. It takes waaaay more for me to apply a blanket label like that to a person, but I do believe strongly in calling out bad actions - especially when good people might not realise they're doing them.

[Caehlim]

Some of you find this discourse pointless, so I respectfully accept that assessment.

I'm sorry I implied that the discourse was pointless, it wasn't actually my intention. I think you posed a worthwhile question, but my answer is that we can't know and that attempting to guess would be pointless. I wouldn't have considered the topic and reached that conclusion though if it wasn't for you asking about it. The topic for discussion is entirely valid in my opinion, I was just providing the best answer I had from the information we have available.

Clearly, it is a volatile subject and I have been labeled a racist for trying to ask questions and have discussion.

For what it's worth, I don't think that you're a racist either.

[Knightshadow]

Well said, Ephiral and Caehlim!  Thank you and I bow to both of your wisdom.  Sincerely. I have learned to question my thought process and conclusions.  THIS is why these boards are valuable!  We learn and can grow.

In other news...Mr. Cosby has severed ties with Temple University and UMass Amherst.  Tragic and sad, yet perhaps the right thing to do with regards to those institutions' reputation.  Mr. Cosby spoke at more than one commencement speech and I have a co-worker who witnessed one of those speeches.

My next question is:  given the allegations, do we now discount the power of his words/advice during these commencement speeches?  Is his message less valid now because we have allegations of very serious and violent crimes?

Opinions?

[Shjade]

The rule in a court of law is "innocent until proven guilty"  This isn't a court of law.  If several unconnected women say to me to watch out for so and so, and then I catch him googling where to buy bulk rohypnol, then his Facebook status is "Gone rapin'" then I'd feel perfectly comfortable avoidiing him.  So would literally everyone else.  Shouting "innocent til proven guilty" would be relevant if Ephiral were planning on arresting Bill Cosby.  She's not.  She's saying "I believe these allegations and, should it ever become relevant, will act accordingly."

In essence, bringing up "innocent til proven guilty" is 100% missing the point.

Technically even arresting him wouldn't be a problem. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that string of events constitutes "probable cause." After the arrest, dealing with the matter of actual conviction, then the presumption of innocent until proven guilty comes into play.

If we only arrested people we had already proven guilty, there'd be no reason to take them to trial after the arrest.

Regarding the racism angle:

it is my opinion that I perceive the Cosby situation as potentially racial since one man of one particular race looks like he allegedly raped multiple women of another race. If he had allegedly raped within his race exclusively, I would not perceive it as racially motivated.

Let's unpack this for a moment: you say that your opinion of your perception (why you need an opinion about your own perception I'm not sure, but okay I'll roll with it) is that this is racially motivated because his alleged victims are only of a race different from his own - if they'd matched his race you wouldn't have that opinion.

To which I reply: why not? If Cosby were accused of raping only black women you don't think it's possible he'd have targeted them specifically because they're black simply because he is, too?

I'm sorry, but this entire train of thought strikes me as wrongheaded at its very foundation. Racism isn't only about what you expect of "the other." It's also about what you expect of "your own." Generic example: white person preferring white partners because he expects them to be educated, reasonable, effective, etc. - that says as much about his prejudice toward non-whites as any overt negative expectations of PoCs.

To put it another way, that you would assume this is racially motivated because he's black and they're white - but wouldn't if they were black as well - says...well, it says more about you than Cosby, really. :x

[Knightshadow]

You may continue to accost me for my opinion, of which I have retracted and asked forgiveness, if you like.  I have rethought my opinion on the racial issue and have humbly retracted my ignorant comments.

[Shjade]

My apologies, I overlooked that in your last post. Didn't mean to gang up on you over it. :x

[Knightshadow]

[bows]
I have been ganged up on and am dusting off the dirt.  Cuts and bruises will heal and all is forgiven.

So, enough about Cosby.  Let's call this court adjourned.

[consortium11]

It may be worth looking at Operation Yewtree and the surrounding cases in the UK to look at similar examples.

In short, in the wake of much loved British TV personality Jimmy Savile's death a number of accusations that had been covered up during his lifetime that he was a serial child abuser came to light... and once they started to be investigated even more appeared. While Operation Yewtree was focused almost entirely on Savile and child abuse the fact that it became public and alleged historical offenses were being investigated meant that more people came forward to accuse celebrities (mainly associated with the BBC) of historical abuse, generally in the 1970's and 80's. There have been some high profile convictions (notably Rolf Harris, Max Clifford and Stuart Hall), some high profile "not guilty" verdicts (William Roache and Michael Le Vell), some high profile arrests followed by a lack of prosecutions (Freddie Starr and Jim Davidson and at least one case where questions as yo "was it worth it?" were raised: Dave Lee Travis was accused of about 14 different offences, found not guilty at his first trial of 12 of them and at the retrial convicted of one count of touching a researcher's breast for 15 seconds. There are still some cases pending, the biggest of which relates to Cliff Richard.

So we've got to see the good and the bad of such cases coming to light; some serial abusers are having to pay for their crimes while some (seemingly) innocent men had their names dragged through the muck (Freddie Starr for example was arrested four times and bailed nine, each with a lot of publicity, before being told he was not going to be prosecuted). We've also seen what could well be regarded as a misuse of resources in the wake of the Savile revelations; while it may well be right that Travis eventually had to account for his actions if you compare the zeal, effort and money that went into prosecuting him for what in the end amounted to one (in the great scheme of things) minor sexual assault compared to the complete inaction by the authorities in places like Rotherham it does leave a rather bad taste in the mouth.

We've also had to face a rather awkward discussion about historical culture. The simple truth is that things which were seen as acceptable in the 1970's and 80's over here no longer are. "Casual" groping was once considered largely fine... these days it's not just unacceptable it's also seen as sexual assault. But is it right to attach our cultural norms (even though clearly superior) to acts that occurred in the 70's and 80's? Is that getting a bit too close to "dog law" (punishing someone for something that wasn't a crime when they did it, much as like one would punish a dog for something that it hadn't been told was "bad")? Is it only celebrities who should be held accountable for acts like that in the 70's, 80's and 90's... and if not then why the emphasis on celebrities?

Prosecuting historical cases will always have more difficulty than more recent ones. In cases like sexual assault which already have a large "he said, she said" element it becomes even more difficult. These will almost always be troublesome, hard cases to get anything like accepted facts out of.

With regards to the discussion above I don't think we should be too hasty to completely dismiss the racial aspects of this however. As far as I'm aware all of the allegations against Cosby relate to white women. If he specifically targeted white women then there's of course a racial element to the crime. If he didn't just target white women then why have white women been the only ones to come forward (or at least get publicity; there may be accusers from other ethnic backgrounds I'm unaware of)? Isn't that dog whistling (and so blatantly it can hardly be called a dog whistle) that only sexual assaults against white people matter? And is Bill Cosby... a highly prominent black celebrity... the only celebrity with sexual offences skeletons hanging in his closet? If not then why only him? After all a law can be racist not only in its creation but also in its application.

[Caehlim]

As far as I'm aware all of the allegations against Cosby relate to white women.

One of the alleged victims, Jewel Allison, is African American.

[Sethala]

The rule in a court of law is "innocent until proven guilty"  This isn't a court of law.  If several unconnected women say to me to watch out for so and so, and then I catch him googling where to buy bulk rohypnol, then his Facebook status is "Gone rapin'" then I'd feel perfectly comfortable avoidiing him.  So would literally everyone else.  Shouting "innocent til proven guilty" would be relevant if Ephiral were planning on arresting Bill Cosby.  She's not.  She's saying "I believe these allegations and, should it ever become relevant, will act accordingly."

In essence, bringing up "innocent til proven guilty" is 100% missing the point.

Sorry, but I've heard too many horror stories from people that had their name dragged through the mud because someone falsely accused them of sexual assault, without a court ever getting involved, for me to give in to that argument.  I do agree that there can be a lower standard of evidence for personal actions than for a court punishment, but there still needs to be a standard set somewhere.

Regardless, to be honest this response has pretty much completely soured my opinion of the whole ordeal, so I'll be leaving the thread.

[Inkidu]

Seeing as these are merely allegations at this point I'm more than happy to follow the American justice system in spirit. Mr. Cosby is innocent until a court of law has found him guilty. My court of public opinion wouldn't get a conviction anyway.

[Drake Valentine]

Yea, funny I just heard bout it on radio on way home(not one to watch news much, mainly due to these sort of things.)

I think they are just 'allegations,' given that they did dated back many years ago. I mean, come on, you gonna wait decades to finally report something? You see this sort of thing with fame all the time, people making claims of someone doing something they may of not even be responsible for. And even if he was guilty, evidence behind it may be quite hard to properly present, just saying.

  He is really the last person I would expect as a serial rapist, I just can't see it. Amusing thought though.

[Ephiral]

Sorry, but I've heard too many horror stories from people that had their name dragged through the mud because someone falsely accused them of sexual assault, without a court ever getting involved, for me to give in to that argument.  I do agree that there can be a lower standard of evidence for personal actions than for a court punishment, but there still needs to be a standard set somewhere.

Regardless, to be honest this response has pretty much completely soured my opinion of the whole ordeal, so I'll be leaving the thread.

I ran the numbers on this once before: There's a ~2% false-accuse rate and a 95% no-convict rate. Why are 2% of victims more valuable and worthy of protection than 95%?

I think they are just 'allegations,' given that they did dated back many years ago. I mean, come on, you gonna wait decades to finally report something? You see this sort of thing with fame all the time, people making claims of someone doing something they may of not even be responsible for. And even if he was guilty, evidence behind it may be quite hard to properly present, just saying.

Yes, yes you are. Because you might be too traumatized to deal with it in the moment. You might be worried about being victimized again by a system stacked heavily against you. You might just want to put it behind you and try to pretend it never happened. You might not even remember it until something makes you think about it. You might be intimidated by the power imbalance between you and a major celebrity. You might, for any number of reasons, not have the strength to fight that battle - until other people come out and speak openly about it, showing you that you are not alone and lending you that strength.

You, as an outsider, do not get to dictate to victims how they should behave.

He is really the last person I would expect as a serial rapist, I just can't see it. Amusing thought though.

How do you think long-history abusers get away with it? Nobody thought Savile could possibly be a rapist, either.

[Inkidu]

I ran the numbers on this once before: There's a ~2% false-accuse rate and a 95% no-convict rate. Why are 2% of victims more valuable and worthy of protection than 95%?

Yes. The American legal system has always worked on the idea that it's better to let ten guilty people go free rather than falsely convict one man. The two-percent's innocence is more important than ninety-five percent's guilt.

[Ephiral]

First, the post I was responding to explicitly avoided calling out the justice system; it was referring strictly to public opinion. So... see Kythia's post.

Second, you're not answering the question I was asking: What about the 95% of victims who get to be revictimized, told they're lying or imagining things, forced to remain in close proximity to their attackers, and left in cycles of abuse? Forget "this has been our standard so we have to go with it"; I, for one, am all about making sure that we do the least harm and the most good for the most people.

[Inkidu]

First, the post I was responding to explicitly avoided calling out the justice system; it was referring strictly to public opinion. So... see Kythia's post.

Second, you're not answering the question I was asking: What about the 95% of victims who get to be revictimized, told they're lying or imagining things, forced to remain in close proximity to their attackers, and left in cycles of abuse? Forget "this has been our standard so we have to go with it"; I, for one, am all about making sure that we do the least harm and the most good for the most people.

Well I'm sorry I must have misread your original point.

You said approximately two percent are false accusations that infers that approximately two percent of people accused of some kind of sexual (for the sake of brevity) misconduct are accused falsely.

You then said 95% of people don't get convicted, that reads like 95% of people get away with it.

Finally you asked if this 2% of people who were falsely accused were more worthy of protection than the 95% of the people who were not convicted. To which I replied yes. At no point in your post did you actually make any indication or inference to a re-victimization statistic. Your original post indicates that the percentages are:

~2% falsely accused.
95% Not convicted for whatever reason.
~3% undefined.

So I find if that's not your point I'm now confused at which point you were trying to make. I can only go by what you've written. :|

[Ephiral]

Finally you asked if this 2% of people who were falsely accused were more worthy of protection than the 95% of the people who were not convicted.

This. Right here. This is your misunderstanding.

[Inkidu]

This. Right here. This is your misunderstanding.

Ah, yes I see now.

I ran the numbers on this once before: There's a ~2% false-accuse rate and a 95% no-convict rate. Why are 2% of victims more valuable and worthy of protection than 95%?

Two percent of people are falsely accused.

However you shouldn't have use a 95% no-conviction rate, you should have said a 95% of victims never come forward. The way it's originally stated means my statement still hold up, because a 95% no-conviction rate implies that 95% of people get away with it, not that 95% of people never come forward. The way you said it sounds like the 95% weren't the victims but the perpetrators.

In the way you intend they're all equally worthy of protection and the only thing we can do is instill in people that it's okay to come forward, as traumatic as it is doing nothing and waiting for years will not help them for the 95% and we shouldn't falsely convict the two percent of innocent people of a crime they didn't commit.

[Drake Valentine]

How do you think long-history abusers get away with it? Nobody thought Savile could possibly be a rapist, either.

But he wasn't. There was never any convictions on him and I have saw no hard evidence tying him responsible for any of those allegations to the scandal as of yet either, unless you would like to kindly direct me somewhere of documented proof and not simply 'reports' and 'claims' of victims.  That is the same as saying, nobody thought Micheal Jackson was a child molester, either and other popular celebrities who are blamed for sexual offenses.  ;\ 

[fireflights]

Personally, I think people are just too willing to use the racial card. Bill Cosby, if he did these things is horrible for it and to hide behind his fame to keep it quiet is deplorable. That is the main issue here, to say he attacked white women because he was black, that's just stupid and insane in my book. So many black men rape white women, so many black men also rape black, asian and so on, so many white men again rape black, asian, white. Rape is not about the color of one's skin, now or ever. He raped black women too from what I know of, so if he was racial profiling, he would have just gone with one race.

Now, I have never cared for people using the race card, if a black man is killed by a white person, they did it for racial reasons or so everyone but the white people believe, it wouldn't matter if the man broke into your house, if your white and he's black, it's a race thing. But when a black man kills a white man, it's just murder....pure plain and simple, there's no race card the whites can put on that? Seriously people, it's just something to fall back on when you think you can use it, people should look at the facts rather then the race, period.

[Ephiral]

But he wasn't. There was never any convictions on him and I have saw no hard evidence tying him responsible for any of those allegations to the scandal as of yet either, unless you would like to kindly direct me somewhere of documented proof and not simply 'reports' and 'claims' of victims.  That is the same as saying, nobody thought Micheal Jackson was a child molester, either and other popular celebrities who are blamed for sexual offenses.  ;\

No, no it isn't. You didn't see any convictions on him because the Crown isn't in the business of prosecuting corpses; Yewtree, which started with Savile, did certainly result in arrests. Please note that the Metropolitan Police Service found that he had committed literally hundreds of criminal acts, and the NHS found a lot of dirt when they started digging. No courtroom does not mean not credible. Celebrity perpetrator does not mean not credible.

[fireflights]

I also want to say one more thing. Sometimes those who are raped do come forward and are told there is nothing that can be done about it. I know this because my exhusband raped me anally, because I was married to him and there was no law protecting women in Utah at the time, I was told I couldn't say no to my husband and he had every right to do what he wanted to me. Right? Hell no it wasn't right, but the law protected him, not me. And sadly the law protects the accused a hell of a lot better then it does the accuser, the justice system is terribly flawed. My sister was ran over by a law student, and he got to walk free while now her body continues to break down daily because he ran her over all because he was pissed off a girl he was working on at a bar went home with someone else. He got 45 days in jail, was allowed to take the bar to become a lawyer and now only has to pay medical restitution to my sister who can no longer work because of his actions. Fair? Hell no.

This is why people don't come forward with allegations, because even now the women who are victimized are very likely to get no justice for the crimes against them. So you wonder why they didn't come out before? Well now you have a couple of very good reasons why.

[consortium11]

But he wasn't. There was never any convictions on him and I have saw no hard evidence tying him responsible for any of those allegations to the scandal as of yet either, unless you would like to kindly direct me somewhere of documented proof and not simply 'reports' and 'claims' of victims.  That is the same as saying, nobody thought Micheal Jackson was a child molester, either and other popular celebrities who are blamed for sexual offenses.  ;\

There were never any convictions during his lifetime because accusations were largely covered up (both directly and as a result of a culture of disbelief) and no convictions since because the Crown can't prosecute dead people.

I'd suggest reading Giving Victims a Voice, the official report into the Savile investigations and the other link Ephiral included above.

We've seen what are seemingly false accusations against celebrities in recent years, some of which came to trial; I mentioned several of them in my first post on the topic. If one wanted to talk about "opportunistic" accusations then some of them are probably a better place to start... using Savile as a an example of someone convicted by media pressure or subject to false allegations is pretty much backing a losing horse.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Three men were involved in a home invasion/burglary crime last month.  One was the getaway driver while the other two did the house breaking.  One had a gun stolen during a previous home invasion.   The owner of the home is a single white woman who lives on her own.  She had a gun of her own for personal protection.  Was the crew racist to break into the home of a white woman or would she have been racist if she had shot them because she was terrified and feeling threatened?  What difference should it make?  I think the word racist is over-used and because of that it loses it's power to help those attacked on that level find justice. 

[Knightshadow]

Three men were involved in a home invasion/burglary crime last month.  One was the getaway driver while the other two did the house breaking.  One had a gun stolen during a previous home invasion.   The owner of the home is a single white woman who lives on her own.  She had a gun of her own for personal protection.  Was the crew racist to break into the home of a white woman or would she have been racist if she had shot them because she was terrified and feeling threatened?  What difference should it make?  I think the word racist is over-used and because of that it loses it's power to help those attacked on that level find justice.

Hard to answer your questions since you never mentioned the race of the home invaders. Or were you trying to see if others assumed they were not white? 

[Inkidu]

Three men were involved in a home invasion/burglary crime last month.  One was the getaway driver while the other two did the house breaking.  One had a gun stolen during a previous home invasion.   The owner of the home is a single white woman who lives on her own.  She had a gun of her own for personal protection.  Was the crew racist to break into the home of a white woman or would she have been racist if she had shot them because she was terrified and feeling threatened?  What difference should it make?  I think the word racist is over-used and because of that it loses it's power to help those attacked on that level find justice.

It's all racist, crimes perpetrated against the human race are racist against humans. Stop being self-haters, world. :(

[Beguile's Mistress]

Hard to answer your questions since you never mentioned the race of the home invaders. Or were you trying to see if others assumed they were not white? 

Shows you the way I think.  They are black and that just went right on past me.

It's all racist, crimes perpetrated against the human race are racist against humans. Stop being self-haters, world. :(

There is a better perspective than any I've seen.

[Knightshadow]

Thank you for the clarification, B Mistress.  My UNEDUCATED ASSUMPTION is:  If she had shot the men, she might be deemed racist by some public opinion.  If they injured or killed the woman, it would be a murder investigation and most of the media would not bring up the race issue.  I have no statistics or facts to prove that, juts an assumption and opinion on my part.

Someone help me with math.  I am not a mathematician.

If there are 2% false accusations, does that mean there are 98% truthful accusations?

If there are 95% no-convictions, are 100% of those 95% guilty and they just got away with it?  So this assumption is that 100% of all defense arguments in these types of cases are lies?  Does this mean the defense attorneys are morally corrupt in these cases?  If 100% of defense attorneys in these cases are corrupt, does this mean 100% of the prosecutors are righteous and never wrong?

[Cherri Tart]

If you've ever been raped, you'll understand why someone might not come out and make an accusation, especially against someone that has power and influence and money and is well liked, someone who you know people will look at the victim as some sort of opportunist, not as what they are, a victim of a inhuman crime. as was stated, 2% of actual reported rapes are false - with as many rapes that go unreported, that number, in reality is probably closer to .002%.

women don't just make this shit up for publicity. i imagine that most of them are going thru the joy of reliving what happened to them just by standing up and telling their story. i hope that they nail this bastard to the wall and destroy him and his legacy. yes, there should be a trial, yes we should do this right, but once he is convicted, and i believe that if there is any justice in this world, he will be, he should be treated like any other rapist and put away for life. fuck him. he's not Doctor Huxtable - Doctor Huxable is a character he played on a tv show.

[Inkidu]

They're not going to look any less opportunistic having waited so long, generally, people are liable to look upon the victims as being even more opportunistic. Now they're not accusing young affluent Bill Cosby, now they're picking on old, nostalgia-backed Bill Cosby.

And sadly as much as I would like to think that there are nothing but genuine victims coming forward there are always opportunists, especially in cases like this where there could be any number of victims and evidence is so far removed from the actual time in which it happened, another reason why I advocate that, as much as it is traumatic, the victims need to not hide it.

Does the idea of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch suck? Yes.
Does it make it harder to find the genuine cases, making people skeptical overall?  Yes.
Should there be a statue of limitations on these kind of things? Yes.
Does that also mean that any man accused of rape is in fact a rapist? I don't think so, but waiting days, let alone decades doesn't help anyone but the accused.

Do I think Mr. Cosby did it? I don't know. As far as I've been able to find it's all allegations and discovery. Who knows if this will even go forward criminally.

[Ephiral]

I'm sorry. I was quoting numbers from hazy memory, which was dumb of me. The highest available "false-report" stat (actually a "not-enough-evidence" stat, which is different but...) is the FBI's, at 8%. The arrest rate on reported cases is about 25%, which is where that 2% I was remembering came from. From this, if we actually care about being right and responding well, we can see that we should err on the side of believing victims unless there's counterevidence.

However, dwarfing all of this in the stats is the actual report rate: Somewhere a bit south of 18%. Now consider that making things easier on the false-report victims is almost certain to make it harder for actual victims to report - false positives will happen in any screening process. 4 out of 5 rape victims are already unwilling or unable to report. Do we really need to work hard to leave more of them out in the cold?

[Knightshadow]

Thank you very much for the clarification, Ephiral.  All those statistics point to a sad condition we live with.  The wish is for more victims to gain the support they need in order to stand back up and fight for their rights and liberties.  Men (or women) who abuse the innocent must meet with the harshest of punishments for committing violent acts, not unlike repeat armed assailants.

I read a study somewhere that it was claimed that no pedophile has been successfully rehabilitated or reconditioned from their tendencies.  Once a child molester or rapist, always a molester or rapist.  If this is so, then why do we allow them to re-enter society with but an electronic ankle bracelet?  I cite a case back about two years ago near Syracuse where one such man was allowed to live at home, broke off his ankle bracelet, went to a mall and abducted, raped, and killed a teenaged girl in the parking lot.  Unfortunately, Hitler was right about these aberrant individuals in society.  If they cannot be fixed or controlled, then they must be terminated.  Shocking, I know. I'm sure I will get a backlash from mentioning Hitler, but if it's a choice between my children's safety by executing repeat, violent sexual predators, then I lean towards the extreme.

Comments?

[Ephiral]

I stand firmly against the death penalty under any circumstances, because again, false positives are a thing. How many innocent people can the state murder while claiming justice and the moral high ground?

Perhaps part of the reason there's a high recidivism rate is because it's pretty much illegal for people to get help for those issues - normal safe channels (psych specialists, etc) are legally required to report. So they remain silent and trying to bottle things up, which nigh-inevitably leads to it coming out in unhealthy and destructive ways.

[Mithlomwen]

I am restoring this topic for the second time. 

Knightshadow, do not remove it again.  Thank you. 

[Mithlomwen]

Locked at OP's request.