MLB suspends Trevor Bauer for 2 years with no pay

[BornToRun]

I might be fully ignorant, but isn’t Cruise way worse than Depp?

I would never root for Bauer. I would root for the Sox still, but never for him. That said, that’s entirely because I think what he did was unconsensual. I don’t think morally you can consent to anything when you’re passed out (i know legally you cannot). This may be a topic for a different thread (I don’t even know what forum it would be it) but if everything had consent and was desired by both parties, then my opinion is who are we to judge. I simply don’t think that’s what happened, I think Bauer abused women without consent to do what he did

Tom Cruise never bombarded me with an astroturfed internet campaign in an effort to paint himself as a harmless, victimized innocent instead of a violent spousal abuser. Tom Cruise wasn’t the main character of a domestic violence court case that was turned into meme fodder by terminally online misogynists. I have no doubt that Cruise sucks, no one that high up in Scientology doesn’t, but I have nothing but contempt for Johnny Depp and anyone else who uses his case as an excuse to scream “See!? Women are liars!”

 

[jbupstate]

In what way has Bauer’s life been “ruined”?

Both these things can be true:

— Bauer is a violent misogynist deserving of his MLB suspension.
— Hill is a conniving extortionist.

Not a defense…

Bauer was a top MLB pitcher playing at the highest level. Bauer now (through this participation in actively hurting someone during sex) is considered an extra low life. His name has been tarnished beyond repair. His career could be over. I would think every woman (and man) with a shred of decency would steer very clear of him. He’s always going to wear this. And rightfully so.

I also believe the other two cases should stand on their own merit but I know full well that when serious money is involved the opportunists arrive. I have also seen payouts to make people go away…. Even when there isn’t a shred of guilt. Almost all accusations are bad for business.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

I very clearly said I was not talking about Bauer. An allegation should not be enough to ruin a person's life. One of the women falls between dishonest and despicably criminal. I mean where does somebody who conspires to create a false allegation to get money fall on the moral spectrum? There is something wrong when a lie can ruin a reputation by itself before it is investigated.

Who are you responding to?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I very clearly said I was not talking about Bauer. An allegation should not be enough to ruin a person's life. One of the women falls between dishonest and despicably criminal. I mean where does somebody who conspires to create a false allegation to get money fall on the moral spectrum? There is something wrong when a lie can ruin a reputation by itself before it is investigated.

There is a huge distance between someone wanting to be in a relationship with a rich guy for the perks of it and an extortionist. We have no idea what Hill meant by her texts/video, nor do we really know the sequence of events. Here's what we do know:

(1) The parties agreed to have "rough sex."
(2) There was violence.
(3) Hill went to the hospital and had documented injuries (presuming the hospital wasn't in on whatever it might be in on).
(4) the TRO judge said that the injuries were real.
(5) Hill received an insurance check from her insuer for $300,000 (for reasons we don't know), which is a lot of (presumably) medical bills.
(6) MLB investigated and suspended Bauer for 2 years, which was appealed down to 1 year.
(7) Bauer also dismissed his defamation case against Hill.

Those are absolute facts and require no conjecture at all. You can argue extent of injuries, judgement, whether or not Hill exaggerated her story in order to get a payday from Bauer; etc. As stated before, while Hill may not be someone any of us would want to be friends with, it doesn't take away the fact that Bauer is violent.

edit: And in the bigger scheme of things, if you want to talk bigger picture, I'm sure there are women who make up schemes and literally try to exort stars for $ in all sorts of different ways. In any system one sets up, there will be abuses. But just like there are young people who make false allegations of abuse against older people (my brother was one of those falsely accused), the system tries to protect kids from being taken advantage of by adults. And many people might say that the system still isn't favorable enough to victims, given the effects and aftereffects.

 

[dhappy42]

There is a huge distance between someone wanting to be in a relationship with a rich guy for the perks of it and an extortionist. We have no idea what Hill meant by her texts/video, nor do we really know the sequence of events. Here's what we do know:

(1) The parties agreed to have "rough sex."
(2) There was violence.
(3) Hill went to the hospital and had documented injuries (presuming the hospital wasn't in on whatever it might be in on).
(4) the TRO judge said that the injuries were real.
(5) Hill received an insurance check for $300,000, which is a lot of (presumably) medical bills.
(6) MLB investigated and suspended Bauer for 2 years, which was appealed down to 1 year.
(7) Bauer also dismissed his defamation case against Hill.

Those are absolute facts and require no conjecture at all. You can argue extent of injuries, judgement, whether or not Hill exaggerated her story in order to get a payday from Bauer; etc. As stated before, while Hill may not be someone any of us would want to be friends with, it doesn't take away the fact that Bauer is violent.

edit: And in the bigger scheme of things, if you want to talk bigger picture, I'm sure there are women who make up schemes and literally try to exort stars for $ in all sorts of different ways. In any system one sets up, there will be abuses. But just like there are young people who make false allegations of abuse against older people (my brother was one of those falsely accused), the system tries to protect kids from being taken advantage of by adults. And many people might say that the system still isn't favorable enough to victims, given the effects and aftereffects.

Where did you get the $300,000 insurance payout was for medical bills?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Where did you get the $300,000 insurance payout was for medical bills?

It's speculation - that's why I said "presumably." But we do know that her insurance company paid $300,000. If you or anyone else has a theory on why what insurance of hers would agree to pay out $300,000, I'm all ears.

I do know that insurance companies do not pay out when people make up injuries and try to extort other people.

But I have revised my post. Don't think it changes my point but it's more accurate.

 

[azsoxpatsfan]

Tom Cruise never bombarded me with an astroturfed internet campaign in an effort to paint himself as a harmless, victimized innocent instead of a violent spousal abuser. Tom Cruise wasn’t the main character of a domestic violence court case that was turned into meme fodder by terminally online misogynists. I have no doubt that Cruise sucks, no one that high up in Scientology doesn’t, but I have nothing but contempt for Johnny Depp and anyone else who uses his case as an excuse to scream “See!? Women are liars!”

I agree with everything you say about Depp. I think I have much more hatred for Scientology than you though

 

[BornToRun]

I agree with everything you say about Depp. I think I have much more hatred for Scientology than you though

They’ve certainly earned every bit of hatred a thousand times over.

 

[azsoxpatsfan]

They’ve certainly earned every bit of hatred a thousand times over.

I was really close to my cousin and they stole her. I hate them an unhealthy amount, I’m not defending Depp in any way. And I know we’re on the same page, obviously not trying to come at you

 

[BornToRun]

I was really close to my cousin and they stole her. I hate them an unhealthy amount, I’m not defending Depp in any way. And I know we’re on the same page, obviously not trying to come at you

You’re good, I understand. I didn’t think we were trying to play shitbag Olympics. I’m sorry to hear about your cousin, I can’t imagine how frustrating and infuriating that must be.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

“In the video posted on Twitter on Monday, Bauer showed a message from Hill to one of her friends saying, “Next victim. Star pitcher for the Dodgers.” “

That text invites a question: Who was the previous victim?

I read yesterday that specific text "Next victim. Star pitcher for the Dodgers" was sent by Hill before she ever met Bauer.

No idea what any of this means, honestly. I think he's a piece of shit.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Bauer might be (probably is ) a not so great person and guilty of this particular crime with other women, but honestly this is exactly why I just throw my hands up and say I have no idea when the large majority of these kinds of accusations come to light. I find it really gross and improper for people to be judged and punished by a society that 99% of the time either doesn't have access to all the facts or doesn't take the time to thoroughly and honestly examine them. As a general rule (I will grant there are some exceptions based on publicly available information), I find it best to leave the judgment for their proper settings, which is not social media or water coolers. And nowadays, judgment almost invariably seems to come down to where X person falls on a political spectrum, because that's just how things are at the moment.

I see now that this particular accusation looks more like an opportunistic accuser who exploited actual SA victims to her own benefit, there is some sentiment "well, but there are two other accusers." Ok, yes, that's true, and maybe he's guilty. But I mean at least after this, shouldn't we be a bit more reticent to assume guilt, and worse, punish it? What exactly have we learned if a case like this can happen and mean absolutely nothing?

 

[jezza1918]

Bauer might be a terrible person and guilty of this particular crime with other women, but honestly this is exactly why I just throw my hands up and say I have no idea when the large majority of these kinds of accusations come to light. I find it really gross and improper for people to be judged and punished by a society that 99% of the time either doesn't have access to all the facts or doesn't take the time to thoroughly and honestly examine them. As a general rule (I will grant there are some exceptions based on publicly available information), I find it best to leave the judgment for their proper settings, which is not social media or water coolers. And nowadays, judgment almost invariably seems to come down to where X person falls on a political spectrum, because that's just how things are at the moment.

I see now that this particular accusation looks more like an opportunistic accuser who exploited actual SA victims to her own benefit, there is some sentiment "well, but there are two other accusers." Ok, yes, that's true, and maybe he's guilty. But I mean at least after this, shouldn't we be a bit more reticent to assume guilt, and worse, punish it? What exactly have we learned if a case like this can happen and mean absolutely nothing?

I have no quibble with anything you wrote. Speaking for myself, I'm not advocating that we assume/punish Bauer's potential guilt in a criminal way...but at the same time my personal judgement is that I dont want to root for him, which I kind of think is where the general discussion in here lies?
One small correction, I believe there are 3 other accusers. Though that doesn't really change the sentiment behind your post, which again, I largely agree with. The bolded part is something I especially want to +1, because when we (society at large) do this, and it comes back to bite us in the ass so to speak...the people who pay for it arent us, it's the actual victims of sexual assault.

 

[simplicio]

We haven't learned anything, because there's nothing to learn. We already knew that most sexual assaults are never reported at all, and only an extremely small percentage of the time are those accusations false, and nothing about this case changes that.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I read yesterday that specific text "Next victim. Star pitcher for the Dodgers" was sent by Hill before she ever met Bauer.

No idea what any of this means, honestly. I think he's a piece of shit.

I'm sure if there was a more-damning greater context, Bauer would have pointed that out.

So I'm leaning towards the idea there isn't.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I have no quibble with anything you wrote. Speaking for myself, I'm not advocating that we assume/punish Bauer's potential guilt in a criminal way...but at the same time my personal judgement is that I dont want to root for him, which I kind of think is where the general discussion in here lies?
One small correction, I believe there are 3 other accusers. Though that doesn't really change the sentiment behind your post, which again, I largely agree with. The bolded part is something I especially want to +1, because when we (society at large) do this, and it comes back to bite us in the ass so to speak...the people who pay for it arent us, it's the actual victims of sexual assault.

Oh, personal rooting, I have no qualms with whatsoever. However, there's no doubt in my mind that in general these discussions end up bleeding over into campaigns that pressure organizations to act in various ways, and it really makes me uncomfortable. There are obviously exceptions like Ray Rice, of course, but for a general rule where we really don't know much of anything, I don't understand why people feel the need to force themselves into conclusions about it one way or the other.

We haven't learned anything, because there's nothing to learn. We already knew that most sexual assaults are never reported at all, and only an extremely small percentage of the time are those accusations false, and nothing about this case changes that.

So what is your logical continuation from this? Anyone accused is probably guilty so they deserve to be punished as if they were? That's the level of evidence required for you to upend someone's life? Also, if you start going down this path and make it clear that's your stance, do you not see the avenue you've opened up for opportunists to cheat life and go after other people's fortune? Please understand I'm not saying most accusers are like this or not telling the truth, but there definitely are people willing to do this and it's not right to just create an open lane for them to run through.

There's just always these overarching causes people co-opt chosen cases for and it just seems totally unfair to both the accusers and the accused. Each case should be judged solely on its individual merits, and the truth is that we are usually not even in position to properly be able to do that.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Bauer might be (probably is ) a not so great person and guilty of this particular crime with other women, but honestly this is exactly why I just throw my hands up and say I have no idea when the large majority of these kinds of accusations come to light. I find it really gross and improper for people to be judged and punished by a society that 99% of the time either doesn't have access to all the facts or doesn't take the time to thoroughly and honestly examine them. As a general rule (I will grant there are some exceptions based on publicly available information), I find it best to leave the judgment for their proper settings, which is not social media or water coolers. And nowadays, judgment almost invariably seems to come down to where X person falls on a political spectrum, because that's just how things are at the moment.

I see now that this particular accusation looks more like an opportunistic accuser who exploited actual SA victims to her own benefit, there is some sentiment "well, but there are two other accusers." Ok, yes, that's true, and maybe he's guilty. But I mean at least after this, shouldn't we be a bit more reticent to assume guilt, and worse, punish it? What exactly have we learned if a case like this can happen and mean absolutely nothing?

You know, offhand, I can't really think of any sort of improper social judgments/cancellations that have happened in regards to people accused by multiple victims of multiple acts of sexual assault and rape. There was the Duke lacrosse thing. . .from 17 years ago, and there was only, IIRC, one accuser.

What are the other factually innocent ones you're thinking of?

And of that subset, which ones didn't have the benefit of some social reservation in response to the accusations?

 

[jezza1918]

You know, offhand, I can't really think of any sort of improper social judgments/cancellations that have happened in regards to people accused by multiple victims of multiple acts of sexual assault and rape. There was the Duke lacrosse thing. . .from 17 years ago, and there was only, IIRC, one accuser.

What are the other factually innocent ones you're thinking of?

And of that subset, which ones didn't have the benefit of some social reservation in response to the accusations?

I dont remember all the details, but wasn't the Rolling Stone/UVA an example of this? And what's so awful about that story and the Duke lacrosse one is that they are still referenced by men anytime a sexual assault allegation comes forward..."sure she may be telling the truth but let's not forget about Duke lax..."
And what's even worse, and likely why Im so sensitive about this subject, is when one of my female student-athletes didnt want to come forward about her sexual assault because of Duke lacrosse type backlash. She was 9 years old when that Duke story happened.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I dont remember all the details, but wasn't the Rolling Stone/UVA an example of this? And what's so awful about that story and the Duke lacrosse one is that they are still referenced by men anytime a sexual assault allegation comes forward..."sure she may be telling the truth but let's not forget about Duke lax..."
And what's even worse, and likely why Im so sensitive about this subject, is when one of my female student-athletes didnt want to come forward about her sexual assault because of Duke lacrosse type backlash. She was 9 years old when that Duke story happened.

I'm truly sorry to hear about your student's experience; this has been an issue for me since a friend of mine was raped on campus in '92. The number of suppressed claims was (and likely still is) astronomically high, compared to false-accusations.

In the UVA case, Rolling Stone published an article about what happened to a single victim (who was later discovered to have fabricated the story to some extent.) IIRC there wasn't any specific outing/sanctioning of specific alleged abusers.

 

[Ed Hillel]

You know, offhand, I can't really think of any sort of improper social judgments/cancellations that have happened in regards to people accused by multiple victims of multiple acts of sexual assault and rape. There was the Duke lacrosse thing. . .from 17 years ago, and there was only, IIRC, one accuser.

What are the other factually innocent ones you're thinking of?

And of that subset, which ones didn't have the benefit of some social reservation in response to the accusations?

Well, this is really a can of worms, but I believe Michael Jackson was very likely factually innocent. Kobe, as well, though that was a single case. I'm only even comfortable saying this because I spent a substantial amount of time looking into them for whatever reasons. I also looked into Cosby and R Kelly (he's in the exception camp) quite a bit, but I'm definitely on the guilty side for both there. Outside of those, I really just haven't put the effort in and don't feel qualified to say much of anything. But I mean part of the issue here is oftentimes we really just don't know, so coming up with the standard of which was proper or improper is oftentimes difficult and essentially is my point. So maybe my answer is I think the large majority of them are improper on their face.

Regarding Bauer, to be honest, I can't find much on the other accusations against him. Again, not saying he's a good guy or innocent of other claims, but I'm just not comfortable going with the "stats say he's guilty" and leaving it at that. That's not how my brain works anyway. If I decide I want to make the decision to come up with a judgment, I go into it knowing it will be a commitment, and quite honestly I usually don't want to take the time to sit down and review everything or I acknowledge it's just not possible at that point and I leave it be. It's not for me to decide.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I dont remember all the details, but wasn't the Rolling Stone/UVA an example of this?

I would classify the UVA story by Sabrina Erdely as more a work of fiction than a false accusation, but YMMV. I'll note that at the time, questions came up about other of Erdely's stories as well but since she basically disappeared from public view, I don't think anyone looked more into those stories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

 

[jezza1918]

Well, this is really a can of worms, but I believe Michael Jackson was very likely factually innocent. Kobe, as well, though that was a single case. I'm only even comfortable saying this because I spent a substantial amount of time looking into them for whatever reasons. I also looked into Cosby and R Kelly (he's in the exception camp) quite a bit, but I'm definitely on the guilty side for both there. Outside of those, I really just haven't put the effort in and don't feel qualified to say much of anything. But I mean part of the issue here is oftentimes we really just don't know, so coming up with the standard of which was proper or improper is oftentimes difficult and essentially is my point. So maybe my answer is I think the large majority of them are improper on their face.

Regarding Bauer, to be honest, I can't find much on the other accusations against him. Again, not saying he's a good guy or innocent of other claims, but I'm just not comfortable going with the "stats say he's guilty" and leaving it at that. That's not how my brain works anyway. If I decide I want to make the decision to come up with a judgment, I go into it knowing it will be a commitment, and quite honestly I usually don't want to take the time to sit down and review everything or I acknowledge it's just not possible at that point and I leave it be. It's not for me to decide.

Regarding your bolded, bottom line for me is I am comfortable going with "the stats say he's guilty" and leaving it at that. But again, only from a non-legal/im sitting at a computer typing my thoughts perspective. I had this discussion with a younger family member of mine today...who put out there "dont you think there's a chance the three other accusers were just trying to pile on?" I told him that yes, there is definitely a chance that happened...but that statistically speaking it's far more likely they felt a little more comfortable coming forward as a result of the first accusation (even though the first one appears to be false). And I'd add that I'm not sitting here trying to claim, or convince anyone for that matter, that Bauer is guilty of sexually assaulting anyone. It's more along the lines of "if I had to bet one way or the other" kind of thing. And that my bet is based on both lots of factual reading Ive done, but Ill own that part of the bet is emotional as well because of the aforementioned first hand experience I have with this subject.
Finally, I just want to state as plainly as I can, I'm not sitting here at my computer judging you or your brain for how it's operating - even if my brain operates differently (this is obviously a sensitive subject matter so wanted to make sure you didnt assume I was coming from a place of judgement).

 

[jezza1918]

I'm truly sorry to hear about your student's experience; this has been an issue for me since a friend of mine was raped on campus in '92. The number of suppressed claims was (and likely still is) astronomically high, compared to false-accusations.

In the UVA case, Rolling Stone published an article about what happened to a single victim (who was later discovered to have fabricated the story to some extent.) IIRC there wasn't any specific outing/sanctioning of specific alleged abusers.

Thanks for the UVA clarification. I can only remember my initial, vivid reaction being along the lines of "f*ck, this is going to set women back."
Ive probably mentioned it before in other threads, but Id strongly suggest the book "Missoula" by Jon Krakauer for anyone interested in a deeper dive on sexual assault (this one specifically deals with sexual assault on college campus, but I think you can draw a lot of conclusions about our rape culture at large).

edit: and my sorry's go out to you and your friend as well. My experience was 25 years after yours, and I fear 25 years from now not much will have changed.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Well, this is really a can of worms, but I believe Michael Jackson was very likely factually innocent. Kobe, as well, though that was a single case. I'm only even comfortable saying this because I spent a substantial amount of time looking into them for whatever reasons. I also looked into Cosby and R Kelly (he's in the exception camp) quite a bit, but I'm definitely on the guilty side for both there. Outside of those, I really just haven't put the effort in and don't feel qualified to say much of anything. But I mean part of the issue here is oftentimes we really just don't know, so coming up with the standard of which was proper or improper is oftentimes difficult and essentially is my point. So maybe my answer is I think the large majority of them are improper on their face.

Regarding Bauer, to be honest, I can't find much on the other accusations against him. Again, not saying he's a good guy or innocent of other claims, but I'm just not comfortable going with the "stats say he's guilty" and leaving it at that. That's not how my brain works anyway. If I decide I want to make the decision to come up with a judgment, I go into it knowing it will be a commitment, and quite honestly I usually don't want to take the time to sit down and review everything or I acknowledge it's just not possible at that point and I leave it be. It's not for me to decide.

Let me first say that I don't disagree with your greater point that people should not rush to conclusions before facts come out. (Can't overstate that enough in fact.)

But when you say the following, you're giving the impression that there's some kind of ongoing issue with false accusations. It's the kind of argument that's often associated with less savory masculinist drivel. Personally, I've never gotten that impression from you. But I am curious as to where this is coming from.

. . .his is exactly why I just throw my hands up and say I have no idea when the large majority of these kinds of accusations come to light. I find it really gross and improper for people to be judged and punished by a society that 99% of the time either doesn't have access to all the facts or doesn't take the time to thoroughly and honestly examine them.

As for the two examples you give:

Michael Jackson was accused in '93, that went through the normal process, and he was acquitted. His career continued. He was accused again in 2002. His career continued. After his death other accusations came out. It's hard to argue he was "judged and punished by society" given his ongoing popularity and immense cult following.

Kobe Bryant (who issued an apology to the victim and settled out of court) didn't face significant backlash. Bryant kept playing his sport. Like Jackson, he didn't, and does not, lack admirers.

I really don't see either of their situations as remotely like Bauer's.

 

[DJnVa]

I would classify the UVA story by Sabrina Erdely as more a work of fiction than a false accusation, but YMMV.

I would assume the members of the fraternity that were accused would say their mileage varied and Rolling Stone had to pay nearly $2M to settle a lawsuit.

 

[Marciano490]

Let me first say that I don't disagree with your greater point that people should not rush to conclusions before facts come out. (Can't overstate that enough in fact.)

But when you say the following, you're giving the impression that there's some kind of ongoing issue with false accusations. It's the kind of argument that's often associated with less savory masculinist drivel. Personally, I've never gotten that impression from you. But I am curious as to where this is coming from.



As for the two examples you give:

Michael Jackson was accused in '93, that went through the normal process, and he was acquitted. His career continued. He was accused again in 2002. His career continued. After his death other accusations came out. It's hard to argue he was "judged and punished by society" given his ongoing popularity and immense cult following.

Kobe Bryant (who issued an apology to the victim and settled out of court) didn't face significant backlash. Bryant kept playing his sport. Like Jackson, he didn't, and does not, lack admirers.

I really don't see either of their situations as remotely like Bauer's.

Bryant also had or allowed his lawyers to improperly say her name repeatedly in open court, leading to her being outed and harassed, before settling. I’d be curious what Ed’s individual research has done to show Kobe’s probable innocence.

None of these are good tests cases. Bauer seems pretty clearly to be a violent sociopath. Michael Jackson, best case, carried on a number of inappropriate relationships with very young boys. Kobe (allegedly) forced a teenage girl into sex at her workplace.

Best case, these guys all used incredibly poor judgment, in part because their behavior even in the best light was so sketchy and open to different interpretations by their victims.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I would assume the members of the fraternity that were accused would say their mileage varied and Rolling Stone had to pay nearly $2M to settle a lawsuit.

Rolling Stone paid millions because it willfully published what turned out to be fiction. One of the main reasons Rolling Stone was liable was because the writer pushed back on fact-checking plus IIRC she was (not in a legal sense) complicit in making up the story.

YMMV.

 

[nighthob]

If it's a street named for you, it's not really jaywalking.

True, then it’s Papiwalking.

 

[moondog80]

If Kobe did what he did, only 20 years later, I think his career would be done.

 

[jayhoz]

Rolling Stone paid millions because it willfully published what turned out to be fiction. One of the main reasons Rolling Stone was liable was because the writer pushed back on fact-checking plus IIRC she was (not in a legal sense) complicit in making up the story.

YMMV.

I am struggling to understand the distinction you are trying to make. What is the difference between a work of fiction that tells a story about real people doing horrible things to other real people and an "accusation" in the eyes of the readers of RS?

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

We haven't learned anything, because there's nothing to learn. We already knew that most sexual assaults are never reported at all, and only an extremely small percentage of the time are those accusations false, and nothing about this case changes that.

I have to be honest, I've heard that so many times that I just assumed it was in the fractions of a percent. Based on an incredibly extensive 5 minutes of googling, the dozen or so sources I saw (Brown University, CNN, EVAWI "End Violence Against Women International", etc) cite the same statistics: anywhere between 2-10% of sexual assault cases are falsely filed.

2% is very small - 1 in 50. But that's not some kind of once in a lifetime event.

10% - 1 out of every 10 filed sexual assaults? That number seems too high to give credibility to, but that's what the sources say.

I have to imagine adding in the number of cases that go unreported, those numbers shrink drastically. But...I dunno. Doesn't 2-10% feel alot higher than what we assume the number would be? It does to me.

 

[jezza1918]

I have to be honest, I've heard that so many times that I just assumed it was in the fractions of a percent. Based on an incredibly extensive 5 minutes of googling, the dozen or so sources I saw (Brown University, CNN, EVAWI "End Violence Against Women International", etc) cite the same statistics: anywhere between 2-10% of sexual assault cases are falsely filed.

2% is very small - 1 in 50. But that's not some kind of once in a lifetime event.

10% - 1 out of every 10 filed sexual assaults? That number seems too high to give credibility to, but that's what the sources say.

I have to imagine adding in the number of cases that go unreported, those numbers shrink drastically. But...I dunno. Doesn't 2-10% feel alot higher than what we assume the number would be? It does to me.

I wonder if the fact that only 30% or so of sexual assaults actually get reported results in us all being in a bit of muddy water with regards to our exact language around the topic?

 

[Marciano490]

I have to be honest, I've heard that so many times that I just assumed it was in the fractions of a percent. Based on an incredibly extensive 5 minutes of googling, the dozen or so sources I saw (Brown University, CNN, EVAWI "End Violence Against Women International", etc) cite the same statistics: anywhere between 2-10% of sexual assault cases are falsely filed.

2% is very small - 1 in 50. But that's not some kind of once in a lifetime event.

10% - 1 out of every 10 filed sexual assaults? That number seems too high to give credibility to, but that's what the sources say.

I have to imagine adding in the number of cases that go unreported, those numbers shrink drastically. But...I dunno. Doesn't 2-10% feel alot higher than what we assume the number would be? It does to me.

I’ve never seen the 10% figure. Do you mind linking it?

 

[jezza1918]

I’ve never seen the 10% figure. Do you mind linking it?

Here’s one I found
On mobile trying to get a power walk in so can’t dive deeper for now. But still unsure of how “reporting” is defined. Actual police claim only? Do reporting it to a res hall director etc count?

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I wonder if the fact that only 30% or so of sexual assaults actually get reported results in us all being in a bit of muddy water with regards to our exact language around the topic?

Oh, absolutely. I think any kind of rigor into the analysis is going to lower that number. Theres no real universal standard for what a "false claim" is, and it is impossible to include cases that go unreported. For example, EVAWI states:

Statistics even appear to converge internationally. In an analysis of 2,643 sexual assault cases reported to British police, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet when researchers applied the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, this figure dropped to 2%. These criteria specified that there must be either “a clear and credible admission by the complainant” or “strong evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005).

I’ve never seen the 10% figure. Do you mind linking it?

Yeah, man. The link above is one. The three sources it uses cites between 2-8%.

Brown University citing 2-10%.

CNN citing a National Sexual Violence Resource Center study citing 2-10%.

Most sources I find lean into Dr Lisak's research, where he found 6% of cases to be false claims, but acknowledged/verified other studies that cited claims anywhere between 2% and 11%.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I am struggling to understand the distinction you are trying to make. What is the difference between a work of fiction that tells a story about real people doing horrible things to other real people and an "accusation" in the eyes of the readers of RS?

It was my understanding that the original issue being discussed was examples of people who wrongfully accused someone else of sexual assault (it was actually multiple victims with multiple incidents) and the question was asked whether the UVA incident was an example of this.

The UVA incident to me was about a young woman who made up a story and was discovered by a Rolling Stone writer who apparently had a penchant for making up stories, and used this woman to basically write a piece of fiction to make what the writer thought was an important point about how college campuses deal with sexual assault. In my mind, the woman at the heart of the UVA story ("Jackie") was as much a victim as those who won defamation suits against Erdely and Rolling Stone. I mean the main "perpetrator" didn't even exist.

I see this as very very different from, say, the Duke Lacrosse thing. Maybe you don't.

 

[jayhoz]

It was my understanding that the original issue being discussed was examples of people who wrongfully accused someone else of sexual assault (it was actually multiple victims with multiple incidents) and the question was asked whether the UVA incident was an example of this.

The UVA incident to me was about a young woman who made up a story and was discovered by a Rolling Stone writer who apparently had a penchant for making up stories, and used this woman to basically write a piece of fiction to make what the writer thought was an important point about how college campuses deal with sexual assault. In my mind, the woman at the heart of the UVA story ("Jackie") was as much a victim as those who won defamation suits against Erdely and Rolling Stone. I mean the main "perpetrator" didn't even exist.

I see this as very very different from, say, the Duke Lacrosse thing. Maybe you don't.

I guess the circumstances are different, but the impact on the victims is exactly the same.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

You know, offhand, I can't really think of any sort of improper social judgments/cancellations that have happened in regards to people accused by multiple victims of multiple acts of sexual assault and rape. There was the Duke lacrosse thing. . .from 17 years ago, and there was only, IIRC, one accuser.

What are the other factually innocent ones you're thinking of?

And of that subset, which ones didn't have the benefit of some social reservation in response to the accusations?

I have no idea about the actual cases, so if there's extenuating circumstances, my apologies. That said, Kevin Spacey comes to mind. He was considered one of the best actors of his generation, and he's been completely wiped off the face of the earth.

We can all agree being innocent in a court of law does not mean sexual assault didn't transpire. With that caveat, it's hard to find any other method of someone being vindicated of claims other than being found innocent.

Disgraced actor Kevin Spacey has won yet another trial stemming from the onslaught of sexual-assault allegations that have surfaced against him in the past six years. On Wednesday, a U.K. jury cleared him of nine sexual-assault charges, concluding a monthlong trial in which four men testified to being preyed on by the actor.

Maybe he gets found guilty in a civil trial, I really don't know the details of Spaceys situation. That said, despite being found innocent on all charges filed by four accusers, Spacey's career is over and he has, unequivocally, been canceled.

 

[BornToRun]

I have no idea about the actual cases, so if there's extenuating circumstances, my apologies. That said, Kevin Spacey comes to mind. He was considered one of the best actors of his generation, and he's been completely wiped off the face of the earth.

We can all agree being innocent in a court of law does not mean sexual assault didn't transpire. With that caveat, it's hard to find any other method of someone being vindicated of claims other than being found innocent.



Maybe he gets found guilty in a civil trial, I really don't know the details of Spaceys situation. That said, despite being found innocent on all charges filed by four accusers, Spacey's career is over and he has, unequivocally, been canceled.

Well not to get technical, and I don’t know exactly how things work in the UK, but I don’t think that being acquitted means “innocent“ so much as “can’t prove with enough certainty to imprison.” which makes sense considering the nature of sexual assault and harassment and how hard it can be to prove. Considering how much smoke there was around Spacey and for how long, I’d be comfortable with betting a large sum of money that he is indeed someone I wouldn’t want to be alone in a room with.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I have no idea about the actual cases, so if there's extenuating circumstances, my apologies. That said, Kevin Spacey comes to mind. He was considered one of the best actors of his generation, and he's been completely wiped off the face of the earth.

We can all agree being innocent in a court of law does not mean sexual assault didn't transpire. With that caveat, it's hard to find any other method of someone being vindicated of claims other than being found innocent.



Maybe he gets found guilty in a civil trial, I really don't know the details of Spaceys situation. That said, despite being found innocent on all charges filed by four accusers, Spacey's career is over and he has, unequivocally, been canceled.

You mean the Kevin Spacey who was ordered to pay $31M for violating a sexual harassment policy and who has been accused by various forms of inappropriate conduct, some of which he admitted but said were misconstrued on being a "big flirt" and others he chalked up to being drunk?

Here's some details you might want to look at: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-07-28/kevin-spacey-news-acquittal-cancellation-anthony-rapp-house-of-cards. I think Kevin Spacey is more towards the Trevor Bauer side of things than the Duke Lacrosse side of things.

 

[Myt1]

It was my understanding that the original issue being discussed was examples of people who wrongfully accused someone else of sexual assault (it was actually multiple victims with multiple incidents) and the question was asked whether the UVA incident was an example of this.

The UVA incident to me was about a young woman who made up a story and was discovered by a Rolling Stone writer who apparently had a penchant for making up stories, and used this woman to basically write a piece of fiction to make what the writer thought was an important point about how college campuses deal with sexual assault. In my mind, the woman at the heart of the UVA story ("Jackie") was as much a victim as those who won defamation suits against Erdely and Rolling Stone. I mean the main "perpetrator" didn't even exist.

I see this as very very different from, say, the Duke Lacrosse thing. Maybe you don't.

It’s not relevantly very different as to the issue of the existence of false allegations of sexual assault. To be honest, I find this to be a super weird distinction.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Oh, absolutely. I think any kind of rigor into the analysis is going to lower that number. Theres no real universal standard for what a "false claim" is, and it is impossible to include cases that go unreported. For example, EVAWI states:






Yeah, man. The link above is one. The three sources it uses cites between 2-8%.

Brown University citing 2-10%.

CNN citing a National Sexual Violence Resource Center study citing 2-10%.

Most sources I find lean into Dr Lisak's research, where he found 6% of cases to be false claims, but acknowledged/verified other studies that cited claims anywhere between 2% and 11%.

It sounds as though there is no universal standard on what makes a report “false.” I think it’s safe to conclude that “alleged victim lied about a thing that did not happen,” is a subset of “false” claims. How small a subset is not clear. Decided not to prosecute, or even victim recanted, is not necessarily “victim falsely accused.”

I also wonder what percent of false reports involve family members. I don’t know that those numbers are all that useful for determining how we feel about Kevin Spacey or Kobe Bryant.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

It sounds as though there is no universal standard on what makes a report “false.” I think it’s safe to conclude that “alleged victim lied about a thing that did not happen,” is a subset of “false” claims. How small a subset is not clear. Decided not to prosecute, or even victim recanted, is not necessarily “victim falsely accused.”

I also wonder what percent of false reports involve family members. I don’t know that those numbers are all that useful for determining how we feel about Kevin Spacey or Kobe Bryant.

I didn't really present them to make anyone feel anyway about anything. I thought it was relevant to the conversation since, even at the lower end of the estimate, 2-10% was higher than I would have assumed.

They arent my numbers and Im not trying to defend them. How those exact numbers are determined or any caveat applied may be a fair critique.

I suppose if people want me to take some questionable stance, I could give it a try:

In our good-natured haste to support the victims of sexual assault, many people overcompensate our shitty past treatment of women by waving away the possibility of false claims happening, "only an extremely small percentage of the time."

If the 2-10% range of false claims is accurate, that is a larger percentage than I would wager most people realize, and necessarily challenges that hand waving response.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

I didn't really present them to make anyone feel anyway about anything. I thought it was relevant to the conversation since, even at the lower end of the estimate, 2-10% was higher than I would have assumed.

They arent my numbers and Im not trying to defend them. How those exact numbers are determined or any caveat applied may be a fair critique.

I suppose if people want me to take some questionable stance, I could give it a try:

In our good-natured haste to support the victims of sexual assault, many people overcompensate our shitty past treatment of women by waving away the possibility of false claims happening, "only an extremely small percentage of the time."

If the 2-10% range of false claims is accurate, that is a larger percentage than I would wager most people realize, and necessarily challenges that hand waving response.

Those numbers are complete nonsense for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who actually thinks about this issue.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Those numbers are complete nonsense for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who actually thinks about this issue.

Got it.

What specifically did you not like about the way they came up with their numbers?

 

[mauf]

Someone posted something political. I deleted that post and a couple others that quoted it.

This is the MLB thread, and a discussion of the Trevor Bauer case. Due to the nature of Bauer’s case, the conversation will naturally drift into topics related to sexual assault. That's perfectly ok. But that doesn’t make the MLB forum the right place to debate, for example, the prevalence of false rape accusations in broader society. Anyone who wants to discuss those topics is welcome to start a new thread in the appropriate forum. Let's bring the discussion here back to Bauer.

 

[Rovin Romine]

What specifically did you not like about the way they came up with their numbers?

Sample size, sample age, sample homogeneity, sample's predictive value for general pop., admitted subjective criteria used, lack of transparency re: actual methodology. Plus study age.

Meaning - when and to whom were the reports of sexual assault made? What's the operative definition of sexual assault for each sample group and are there any sub-divisions that might distinguish between, say "groping" v. "gang rape?" What's the subjective definition of "valid" or "invalid" and how is it measured for each case by the report writer? How were the underlying facts the report writer relies on vetted, and by whom, and when, and to what standard?

Those fundamental flaws mean I'd hesitate to use this for descriptive purposes within the sample itself, much less predictive purposes re: society writ large.

I wouldn't mind looking at a rigorous study. . .but this is absolutely nowhere close to that.

 

[mauf]

The woman who accused Bauer in the case that prompted this discussion suffered physical injuries and has not recanted. I doubt any study would sort her complaint into a “false accusations” category. And that’s without getting into the other allegations against Bauer (which are inadmissible in court, but certainly are part of the evidence ordinary folks can consider in forming their opinions).

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Sample size, sample age, sample homogeneity, sample's predictive value for general pop., admitted subjective criteria used, lack of transparency re: actual methodology. Plus study age.

Meaning - when and to whom were the reports of sexual assault made? What's the operative definition of sexual assault for each sample group and are there any sub-divisions that might distinguish between, say "groping" v. "gang rape?" What's the subjective definition of "valid" or "invalid" and how is it measured for each case by the report writer? How were the underlying facts the report writer relies on vetted, and by whom, and when, and to what standard?

Those fundamental flaws mean I'd hesitate to use this for descriptive purposes within the sample itself, much less predictive purposes re: society writ large.

I wouldn't mind looking at a rigorous study. . .but this is absolutely nowhere close to that.

Right, but even before we get to all of that stuff there are more fundamental problems.

When somebody makes an accusation of rape or sexual assault and the police investigate, one of three things can happen: either the police make an arrest (~40% of cases), or the police determine that the alleged victim was lying or recanted (~5% of cases) or the police determine that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed or not (~55% of cases). When people say "false accusations represent only 2% of cases" what they are doing is taking the low end estimates of the second category and use that number to imply that the other 98% of rape accusations are true.

But what do we make of the majority of cases, where the evidence is insufficient to establish whether the claim is true or not? Obviously, we don't know. These cases are hard enough to prove on an individual basis, it doesn't suddenly become easier by aggregating the cases together. We simply lack the omniscience required to develop a study or a data point like this.

 

[mauf]

Someone posted something political. I deleted that post and a couple others that quoted it.

This is the MLB thread, and a discussion of the Trevor Bauer case. Due to the nature of Bauer’s case, the conversation will naturally drift into topics related to sexual assault. That's perfectly ok. But that doesn’t make the MLB forum the right place to debate, for example, the prevalence of false rape accusations in broader society. Anyone who wants to discuss those topics is welcome to start a new thread in the appropriate forum. Let's bring the discussion here back to Bauer.

Repeating this, as a couple folks seem to have missed it.

TIA.