Bikerbernie's Weblog weblog Acting Locally Affecting the World Globally a Little at a Time!

Again, Men Jailed on False Rape, Woman Still Free

Jane Velez-Mitchell thinks there is a war on women. She should try this on for size. The number of men jailed because a woman says she was raped and then states she was lying seems to be having an exponential growth rate. I am not justifying, but people wonder why some men harbor anomosity toward women, it seems pretty clear to me. Adding insult to injury is that these women who recant their rape claim rarely have charges filed against them. They broke the law and yet they almost always skate. Interestingly, what also seems to be increasing is that the woman do not just make a rape claim against one but rather several men, this and the Duke case come to mind. This is not a flattering commentary on women and their sexuality. I suppose that womens groups would take issue with derogatory sexual comments about these women when it is nothing but true.

How can we keep men safe on campus?

It seems that the same methods that we tell women to use to keep them self safer backfire on men. Instead of keeping men safer, staying in groups ensures that at the hands of one dangerous woman, most or all the men in the group will go to jail, at the same time that a woman who admits to COMMITTING A CRIME remains free. OK, now I get it, be in a group of 5 men, all stating that they did not commit a crime, let alone rape and jail them when they say that they are innocent. Then we take a woman who freely admits to a crime, but we do not jail her, because we have to investigate if she done anything wrong when by her own admission she committed a crime. Am I crazy or is this utterly absurd? Then we have Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice who said her office has launched a criminal investigation into the woman’s statements. What in the hell is there to investigate? She admits to a crime and she is allowed to run free until there is an investigation?

I can see it now a man walks into a police station states that he is the person that killed Annie Le and they say “OK, thanks for the information but you are going to remain free amoung the population until we investigate.” Arrest the “woman” and I say woman because women when they are the criminal have their identity protected, as apposed to the men who have done nothing wrong, we have all of their names. Stalin Felipe, 19, Rondell Bedward, 21, Jesus Ortiz, 19, all of the Bronx, and Kevin Taveras, 20, of Brentwood, faced 25 years in prison if convicted, Bedward, had been suspended by the university.

Where is the equal protection under the law? It is non-existant in this misandric country, but remember, women need more protection and not men, yeah, right!




16 Responses to “Again, Men Jailed on False Rape, Woman Still Free”

  1. Oh, please regale me with your version of how I am wrong in my observation that it is painfully obvious that there is a minimal increase for a very active season and that there is a much more extreme critical criteria for a relatively quiet season.

    There is no way that you can explain away the disparity as a fair assessment of the weather, the numbers speak for themselves. I believe that it is you who do not understand. BTW my post has little to do with climatology and more to do with playing with number assignments.


  2. For some unknown reason this did not post when I first sent it (after your 9:27pm post).


    Really?! I think that you are feigning being obtuse. You are twisting what I said. All I said is that when the woman is drunk, sex IS rape, period. That is the way women’s rights groups see it and many courts. It has nothing to do with the woman saying no; it is that she was drinking. Seriously, stop putting words into my mouth to make others believe what you would have them believe about me. I NEVER said that we should take the mans word not did I imply it but it seems that you are implying that we should always accept the woman’s word and that is not right either.

    Still trying to change the focus off of you, you still have not offered a cite of your statistics. Until you address that I am done with you on this subject there is no longer a point to debate with you since you will not answer my questions.


  3. Yes, since in order for a season to be above active average one has to take into consideration not only the number of tropical storm systems but their strength, active seasons are much more rare than the passive ones (larger storms are rarer than small ones). Hence, a smaller increase in activity is enough to classify a given season as “active”. What’s more, your small detour into percentages has nothing to do with reality, since all the spread is calculated from the existing average. It is nothing but an asymmetrical probability distribution, and should be clear to a hedgehog. Here is what can, but should not be interpreted as a shameless plug: I honestly do not think you are in any position to argue mathematics with me: it is a major part of my living, including but not limited to statistics. What’s more, the specific criteria used in assigning a particular severity to a season are public knowledge; databases of records and specific methods used are freely downloadable from research archives and one can repeat the calculations oneself. There is a nifty language for statistical computation, called R. I spend a whole lot of time in it, as it happens, and it is highly recommended. One has to remember that statistics (along with most scientific conclusions) are NOT common-sensical, and sometimes may be downright counterintuitive.

  4. You are challenging widely accepted numbers: please provide specific reasons why you do not think they should be taken seriously.
    Again, perhaps the specific methods used to arrive at these numbers are incorrect, but I hear nothing from you besides ad hominem attacks on the sources of these statistics.

  5. Jorg said;

    “One has to remember that statistics (along with most scientific conclusions) are NOT common-sensical, and sometimes may be downright counterintuitive. “

    . . . and this is why people know for a fact that people who do statics taint the evidence to prove what they are trying to prove. At least I make an attempt to put factors on an even playing field and when I do that someone like you tells me I do not know what I am talking about. Well I do, when there is an unbalanced assessment of above and below it will taint reality.

    Statistics should be fair and unbiased but that is rarely the case and I will every chance I get call anyone out on that no matter what their degree or “expertise.” This is the only way to give credibility to statistics.

    If you only interview women who have been abused then your statistics will wrongly conclude that all women are abused, “and this should be clear to a hedgehog.”

    Again you have to read for comprehension. I stated my reasons clearly, when there is a different number required for above and below it does not give a true picture of what is really happening there is just no simpler way to explain.

    Simply 30+% points does not = 10% points in my world, nor will it ever.


  6. And I told you why your reasons, in this particular case, do not hold water. Your response to my explanation furthers my belief that you do not know mathematics or statistics specifically. Expertise is relevant: in order to discuss, meaningfully, a subject, one must know what it entails. There is a difference between mean, average and mode. There are specific reasons why the ranges have been selected in this way, as I have said, they include not only the frequency but the severity of storms and historical records. All in all this particular piece of data is so boringly uncontroversial to anyone but you that I find it difficult to even understand your problem with it, save atributing it to ignorance of the subject. That is NOT meant as an insult: all of us are ignorant of some things; the key is to be able to recognize our ignorance in specific fields and refrain from holding forth on the subjects one knows nothing about. You will not catch me talking about the finer points of corporate law, or pediatric medicine, for example…:)

    Your claim of selection bias in the interviews reaffirms my position again: there are specific tools, both social 9double blind) and mathematical (regression analysis, to name but one) that are deigned to eliminate, or, at least, reduce biases in the collection and interpretation of data. If you think those specific tools have been misapplied in the particular statistics on the incidence of rape that I quote, feel free to present me with your critique. Unsupported assertions and allegations that the conclusions MUST be wrong simply because they do not agree with your specific veiw of reality have nothing to do with their validity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: