Doing the right thing?

[Jux]

I debated with myself putting this in R&P, but since it doesn't specifically deal with religion or politics, I'm dropping it here. Mods, if that was in error, sorry.

So, I was catching up some some regular blogs I read, and came across this [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade/].

In short, a woman known to Professor Myers, who wished to remain anonymous, gave Myers information regarding someone raping her, and asked him to get the information out there as a warning to other women. It seems that since putting out the information, he received other messages (from people that also wished to remain anonymous) with info that seems to back up the woman's accusation.

My question is, would you have done the same? Would you put that anonymous accusation out there, as a warning to the public against a sexual predator? Or do you feel like your inability to personally vouch for the accusation would keep you from saying anything? Are there any factors that might sway you in one direction or another, or would you have a hard and fast rule for regardless who gave you this information?

For me, the biggest factor would be how well I knew the person, how much I trusted them. And regarding the scenario at hand, I would like to think I'd have done the same as Myers.

 

[tippy2k2]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this but...

I don't think she should do anything with the information.

Like it or not, there is still a question of whether the guy is guilty or not. While evidence points to GUILTY (I skimmed through the blog so unless I missed the smoking gun, it sounds like it's a handful of witnesses with the alleged victim not willing to give their name), I don't feel it's right to throw what would be almost certainly a death blow to someone's life and career because of talk.

As much as we don't want to think about false allegations happening since rape is a crime often swept under the rug, they do happen. Unless there is some actual proof that proves it (and for some reason you can't go to the police, I know the blog said it was a few years and that's why they can't go to the police but that's not true, it'll just be harder to prove since it's not...fresh for lack of a better word). I know people want to throw the "But he's untouchable" argument for why they shouldn't go through the legal system, ask Bill Cosby how well being untouchable has worked...

 

[Loonyyy]

I remember reading this when it broke, and it was honestly kind of awkward for me. Michael Shermer's someone I respected and looked up to, and it did make it hard to take the accusation at face value. And on the flipside, PZ Myers is a complete shithead, and his post on it is smarmy, nasty and smug. I mean, who the fuck labels their story of someone being sexually assaulted "What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade?". What kind of fucking sociopath do you have to be to act like that?

But on the other hand, it'd be wrong to just disbelieve people, and on the same note, they're trying to warn people of potentially predatory behaviour. I get that criminal proceedings aren't likely to get far, and they're trying to prevent someone else getting hurt, and it'd be pretty shitty to go after that. And it'd be wrong to discount the message, which, if earnest, probably hurt a lot to send, just because the person relaying it is an asshole.

I don't know, I really don't know. I get wanting to remain anonymous, but it makes the accusation harder to believe, and I get that the intention is to prevent predatory behaviour, but yeah, the legal system is the proper place to evaluate these claims. But yeah, it makes sense to warn people to be on their guard. It really doesn't help that it's at the intersection of a bunch of personal drama in those circles, most of which amounts to various internet slap fights over their tiny little areas of dominion.

If I got that information, I guess I'd want to follow it up. I wouldn't just toss it out into the open like a "grenade" (Jesus fuck what is wrong with you Myers). I'd go asking around on my own, and try to see if anyone's willing to come forward with an actual allegation. Yeah, that's harder to do than just dropping it out there and waiting for people to come forward, but that's due diligence.

 

[Thaluikhain]

almost certainly a death blow to someone's life and career

It's a serious accusation, sure, but that's quite an exaggeration. Even a conviction is hardly a guarantee of that, this isn't someone being taken to court, this is someone saying that they are a rapist.

As much as we don't want to think about false allegations happening since rape is a crime often swept under the rug, they do happen.

They are also exceedingly rare.

I know the blog said it was a few years and that's why they can't go to the police but that's not true, it'll just be harder to prove since it's not...fresh for lack of a better word

That's not what they said. They didn't say anything about not being able to go to the police, they said the police wouldn't do anything, which is very often true even in cases of recent rapes. You'll also note they said they did report it at the time and got nowhere.

...

Difficult position to be put in. On one hand, there's no proof, of course, and this is quite a serious accusation. OTOH, people get away with this because people don't talk about it. Cosby was mentioned above, there's more than 50 women claiming he assaulted them. Now, one is too many, of course, but for that many, there had to be a great many people who knew or suspected and let it slide. Likewise Saville or Harris.

 

[Jux]

-snip-

Myers does come off as an asshole a lot of the time, and I agree it was an especially callous way of describing the situation he found himself in. Looking further into these kinds of allegations before putting it out there for all to see does sound like the best starting point, though tbh I'm not sure how I would have done that if I were in such a situation. I mean, what does that entail? Going around and asking people in the skeptic community 'Hey, so I heard this about Shermer...' Doesn't that kind of still spread it around anyway?

I don't really follow the goings on in the atheist community, much less the ideological fights between the different 'factions', if you will, so I didn't even know who Shermer was until I wiki'd him. And Myers only came to be known to me because Futrelle has Pharyngula listed on it's sidebar of recommended blogs. A complete sidenote, but 'yo, is this racist?' is probably one of my favorite reads now.

 

[tippy2k2]

That's not what they said. They didn't say anything about not being able to go to the police, they said the police wouldn't do anything, which is very often true even in cases of recent rapes. You'll also note they said they did report it at the time and got nowhere.

The blog stated "She?s torn up about it. It?s been a few years, so no law agency is going to do anything about it now; she reported it to an organization at the time, and it was dismissed."

That seems to mean that they did NOT report it to the police (as they stated they reported it "to an organization"). I could be reading that incorrectly but they refer to law agency and organization in the same sentence, which to me implies it's two different things.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I wouldn't do anything about it. Do you trust strangers?

In fact, this was one of the best blackmailing scheme I've ever conceived few months back then.

Get few women together, and offer any male a chance to have life NOT destroyed.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I would try to corroborate her accusations, but I wouldn't even know where to start or how to do it.
I guess I would recommend the woman that she bring her accusations up to someone more qualified to handle a proper investigation, such as the police.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

If there is good indication that the information might prevent further damages, then yeah of course. But if there is no rational or empirical reason that it might prevent further damages, then it can be seen as interfering in the usual justice systems. It's a bit hard to justify the results of making public such information on largely unknown auantities at the time. If I were in Myer's place I might organise a means of their escape until police or legal services can promote a civil response. But according to the situation, there seems to be all indication that this wasn't handled by police at all or may not have been reported.

Honestly, I can get why. Involving police can often be a quick way to further abuse. Even in the enlightened West. I remember a particularly deleterious result of calling the cops in response to an assault. A lot of marginalised groups often don't bother on police given it often leads to greater net losses for the individual. A lot of trans people end up having to validate and prove their abuse and simply broadcast if to more representatives of the justice system to get the same degree of judicial action.

Often times necessitating longer intervals between malicious action and initial reporting, given many times nothing is done. If it gets to the point where police do nothing and there is good reason to suspect the person will re-offend... then it becomes a case of just how likely will bringing a private grievance into the public space will generate a public good. Simply trusting police to do the right thing and being utterly quiet on known malfeasance by the police does little other than bury situations that people can affect change. Trust is earned by effect, not good will alone.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

In a situation where its the word of one person and others who wish to remain anonymous, its difficult to know the "right" thing to do. I've had personal experience with an unprovable allegation of sexual assault and the only reason I believe it is because I know the person who made the accusation and the accused and its extremely believable. Beyond that situation, where I trust the accuser and know the situation, I can't be involved because I am unable to honestly make a decision without enough evidence beyond hearsay.
I'm just not up for it, though I'd personally set watch on the accused and try to find at least a few behavior markers that point to it being likely. Thats about all I could do. I've grown up and lived in a society where we have the whole innocent before proven guilty thing and I'm not one to buck that trend. I'm just not up for believing everyone's grievances in life, not without something to point to proof of guilt.
If its wrong to try to be at least objective about things I've no personal knowledge of, I don't know if I want to be right honestly.

 

[spartan231490]

I would absolutely not. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, so no I wouldn't sick an entire community on someone without proof, let alone on just the word of some anonymous internet stranger. I'd probably pass the information/warning along to the police and let them investigate.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

In general, I prefer to let witches go unhunted.

I mean, unless I have first-hand information on the subject, I don't think I'd do anything. I'm not going to throw someone under the rape bus without some god damned good evidence.

But, ayy, that's just me.

On another note; Meyers isn't exactly a reputable or reliable source of information.

 

[doggy go 7]

Interesting parallel; police in the UK (and I think other countries, though I don't know), when they receive information pertaining to a credible threat to someone's life, but don't have enough to actually arrest and convict anyone, will nevertheless tell the person who's life is in danger that it is, and will, if deemed necessary provide police support (either by watching the house or helping them move). Most relevantly, they say who the person whom they believe the threat to be is. Seems to me that warning people to be wary (which half the time seems to be the rape advice given to women anyway, but that's a very different rabbit hole) is not the same thing as calling someone guilty, and especially since rape is under-reported and under-prosecuted (due to the crime essentially being one word against the other, and it being an incredibly traumatic experience to go over in minute detail) I tend to think that putting the information out is the right call.

 

[Kaymish]

I wouldn't put a public accusation out there especially if it was anonymous
firstly helping people is stupid its just going to explode in your face and cause problems

secondly how do we even know that this is a legitimate complaint? this could cause cause some poor person no end of trouble for something that could for all we know be a false accusation

and thirdly i am not qualified deal with it that's for the authorities people who have the correct training and powers to deal with it

 

[Phasmal]

Yes, I probably would put the information out there.
There will be hundreds of people willing to float `well what if it's false?`. I'd be okay with being the person asking what if it is true. False allegations are rare.

And I don't even buy the `destroys lives` thing, because generally these people do not get punished. And they will often have many people, even people who know nothing of the situation, declaring them innocent.

In the culture we live in, I think women have a right to be warned of men who are dangerous to them, and it's kind of hard to do that without identifying the dangerous men.

 

[Albino Boo]

Interesting parallel; police in the UK (and I think other countries, though I don't know), when they receive information pertaining to a credible threat to someone's life, but don't have enough to actually arrest and convict anyone, will nevertheless tell the person who's life is in danger that it is, and will, if deemed necessary provide police support (either by watching the house or helping them move). Most relevantly, they say who the person whom they believe the threat to be is. Seems to me that warning people to be wary (which half the time seems to be the rape advice given to women anyway, but that's a very different rabbit hole) is not the same thing as calling someone guilty, and especially since rape is under-reported and under-prosecuted (due to the crime essentially being one word against the other, and it being an incredibly traumatic experience to go over in minute detail) I tend to think that putting the information out is the right call.

If you as private individual make statements about someone online you have to be able to back it with credible facts or you can be sued for libel. You can't make damaging statement to someone's reputation without any facts that are testable in court under UK law. Repeating third party hearsay will find you paying out damages.

 

[Zontar]

almost certainly a death blow to someone's life and career

It's a serious accusation, sure, but that's quite an exaggeration. Even a conviction is hardly a guarantee of that, this isn't someone being taken to court, this is someone saying that they are a rapist.

You're joking, right? Rape accusations aren't something people just shrug off in our society, not when it's a man on the receiving end of it. We live in an age where despite the rate of rape being lower in almost every Western nation then at any other point in our histories (with Sweden being the exception) large numbers of people are openly advocating and pushing for the state and institutions to violate peoples rights in order to combat an epidemic which doesn't exist. The Duke Lacrosse fiasco was 9 years ago, had ALL involved proved innocent beyond any possible doubt, had the accuser exposed as a liar (who would then go to prison for an unrelated homicide) yet still to this day those accused in that textbook example of miscarriage of justice and modern day lynch mobs are receiving criminal harassment by zealots.

Stating a false accusation will ruin someone life and career is not an exaggeration, it's an observation, and one which makes the lack of mandated prison time for those caught making false accusations (about 20-40% of cases depending on the police department) be a real head-scratcher given the damage done.

 

[Jux]

The Duke Lacrosse fiasco was 9 years ago, had ALL involved proved innocent beyond any possible doubt, had the accuser exposed as a liar (who would then go to prison for an unrelated homicide) yet still to this day those accused in that textbook example of miscarriage of justice and modern day lynch mobs are receiving criminal harassment by zealots.

And yet it still hasn't been a death blow to their lives or careers has it? Unless all of those people are societal pariahs now and can't hold down a job because of that spectre.

An aside, but your claim that rape 'is an epidemic that doesn't exist' is unsubstantiated. More accurately, false accusations are the epidemic that doesn't exist. And there are plenty of actual rapists that get the support of the community behind them, or have we all forgotten Steubenville?

 

[Zontar]

False allegations are rare.

20 to 40% is not rare. The only case they are rare for is when a police report is being made and the officer involved is a woman, where it drops to 2% (which should make having women be involved be standard practice, but that's just my opinion).

And I don't even buy the `destroys lives` thing, because generally these people do not get punished. And they will often have many people, even people who know nothing of the situation, declaring them innocent.

The Duke Lacrosse fiasco was 9 years ago, all accused involved where proven innocent in a court of law with no reasonable doubt about it, yet even today they're still being harassed by zealots who think the accusation is the evidence, and that the accusation alone is enough.

In the culture we live in, I think women have a right to be warned of men who are dangerous to them, and it's kind of hard to do that without identifying the dangerous men.

Men are in more danger in society then women by an order of magnitude. That isn't hyperbole, that's a statement of fact based on hard data, yet you don't see men using that as an excuse to prostrate others in a gross violation of their rights in the name of safety. We live in a society whose justice system is built on the presumption of innocence for a reason, the witch hunts which occur when evidence is no longer needed never end well, innocent people always get caught in the middle of it and get hurt, and I can find no rational argument for having such behaviour permitted by the state which has the maintenance of order as one of its core functions, to have such a system turn a blind eye to a chaotic mob which has throughout history not once ended in justice but only and always in the creation and perpetuation of injustice.

If I where to say you attacked me, to warn society that you are a menace and a danger to all, that parents should not let their children near you, that no one should consider getting into an intimate relationship with you because you will be a threat to them, and to have the state allow such slander, how would you react?

 

[Phasmal]

If I where to say you attacked me, to warn society that you are a menace and a danger to all, that parents should not let their children near you, that no one should consider getting into an intimate relationship with you because you will be a threat to them, and to have the state allow such slander, how would you react?

I'd probably point out we don't live on the same continent, but that's just me.
I'm really not interested in getting into a long argument with you, dude, so I'mma just agree to disagree. The OP's question is what would I do. I answered what I would do, you're free to think I'm wrong, but I'm not gonna go into statistic flinging and and endless back-and-forth.