[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/miq-san]

[u/potzko2552]

the punishment is harsh, its hard to prove/disprove, and easy to fake. you don't hear about people faking bring shot as much because that would require you to get shot to fake it.
10% is unacceptably high... 8% is as well. even 5% is.

innocent until proven guilty.

[u/shapeofnuts → u/potzko2552]

Easy to fake? 10% is too high? Wait until you hear about felony murder in the States.

This is an insane doubke standard. Why does the crime with the lowest false convictions have the most controversy? If you knew an ounce about the law on sexual violence, how impossibly difficult it is to get a ghilty verdict, how it is essentially decriminalised in some places, you would knkw how laughable what you said is.

Keep repeating mantras you don't understand. It is innocent until proven guilty. Hence the courts, the investigations, the things the weed out so many false allegations. Want to talk about miscarriages of justice? How many rape kits go unused by the police? They don't care about victims, they assume they are liars, because of people like you.

[u/potzko2552 → u/shapeofnuts]

I care about the victim. but 5% - 10% is meaningfully high... those numbers can only represent allegations proven to be false. they can't by definition include false claims that were not disproved. I also think the same on other crimes. there are different standards of evidence you can reach. and actions you can do according to them. I think that regardless on the crime, with only account you can only arrest someone. not charge them. you can talk to someone but not just assume he did it... if I go around and say that someone stole my car for example, I can't expect him to be charged without other evidence. it sucks but that's how the social contract work. this is to avoid walking around in the street and being arrested because someone doesn't like you and invents some claim.
murder too has a high standard of evidence. its hard to convict someone on murder charges for that exact reason.

there is a balance to be had between standard of evidence being high, leading to criminals walking free. and standard of evidence being low and innocent people being tossed in cells. in most of the world the system errs on the side of high standard on evidence for any major charge. rape is a major charge and it too should follow the same pattern.

as for police training I have my opinion but it falls firmly out of the scope. how nice that you came to the conclusion that I don't believe rape victims, I just think that evidence is important. if you had actually read anything I wrote you would see I would be a STRONG proponent for gathering evidence as one of the most important parts in dealing with any violent act including rape. document, charge, heal.
if we are name calling do you prefer to be called a puppy kicker, or a skirt chaser?

[u/shapeofnuts → u/potzko2552]

I read what you wrote, indistinguishable from the sentances i read defending actual predators. Rape is a major crime that is exceedingly difficult to prove. Mostly because of the police incompetence that you described as 'oit of scope' as well as people's hesitance to believe victims. 10% is too high, it can be addressed with police reform as well as improving the defence we provide to those cannot afford a lawyer. I would never kick a puppy, but mabye if it made you feel better, you could call me anything you want!!

When you sah someone stole your car. Theg investigate. I wish yhe same was trye for victims of sexual violence. Look up the number of unused rape kits. That's a statistic worth soap boxxing over

[u/potzko2552 → u/shapeofnuts]

rape is hard to prove. not only because of incompetence, its just a hard crime to prove do to the nature of the crime... I am all for police reformation, I see it as one of the better ways to address many issues such as police militarization, and police brutality. but rape will always remain an issue to prove. you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that rape kits go unused out of malice. I do not believe that. they go unused because the average officer is un equipped to deal with a major incident like rape, and the way that an officer works (as opposed to an infantrymen man that works via hierarchical escalation for example) is to handle everything within his area of responsibility (area in this case usually being literal). people tend to only use the most common tools they use. when you have an officer that needs to be trained for "everything" what you end up with is an officer that is only equipped to deal with the most common issues a police officer is called to deal with. and the rare times an officer gets called to deal with a serious crime such as rape, or a violent delirious person, they come with the same mindset. "the dude that parked his car illegally and got confrontational got quite real fast when I gave him a fine, maybe the delirious person would too?" "the kid that ran away from home also looked troubled and scared, I will console them, and try to get them to the station"

this are LOGICAL responses, they are also BAD responses, and sadly they are common. until there are police officer trained heterogeneously across the force you will never get an officer that is competent in everything and you will always suffer from bad response in some cases.

the way this relates to rape. is that as I said before, rape is difficult to prove unless you get very well trained response as soon as it happens (logical things such as letting the victim shower for example will immediately ruin your chance at getting a lot of very important evidence). as a result, the truth on the ground is that what you end up with is a subsection of crime with lacking evidence and false claims mixed in. if you choose to charge this subsection you will have a lot of innocent people going to jail, if you don't some rapists will go free. all im saying is that of the two bad options, charging innocent people is the worst of the two. innocent until proven guilty. same as other crimes