This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Many reasons. Perjury is extremely difficult to prove because of the knowledge element: someone has to make a statement that they knew was false at the time. How do we know that they didn't just misremember, or that they were mistaken, or that they were misled? Etc. Getting slam dunk evidence otherwise is very rare.
The other reason is that if the lying was self-evident, the negative consequences are already ensured. A lying defendant gets convicted. A lying victim gets their aggressor acquitted. A lying businessman loses the contract dispute lawsuit. A lying cop will likely never get to testify again, which means basically permanent desk duty or finding another job. And so on.
This approach seems different from how the law works in other areas. If you steal something and you are caught, the law doesn't say "it's enough that we took back what you have stolen and also everybody knows you're a thief". It you forge a check - the law doesn't say "enough that bank detected it and didn't pay out anything". Usually restitution and reversing the immediate consequences of a crime is only a small part of what happens, and there's a punitive aspect which is aimed to deter people from defecting. Usually the argument is because otherwise there's no deterrent for me to not commit the crime - i.e. if I lie on the stand, worst thing they catch me and I lose the case. But if I tell the truth, I'll lose the case anyway, so there's no downside for me not to lie - absent the punitive deterrent. Why doesn't it apply in the case of perjury?
But 95% of criminal convictions don't even see the trial - why nobody tries to at least get some guilty pleas on perjury?
As for knowledge - in the specific case Miller testified that the messages that she was part of don't exist. I think unless she proves she was struck by a bout of very convenient amnesia, it is pretty clear she knew the messages in fact existed. I mean, if somebody actually wanted to do it.
This is actually often the case. Shoplifting is a hassle to prosecute unless it involves high-value items or becomes enough of a nuisance for the store. My shoplifting clients (almost always drug addicts) have gotten caught perhaps a dozen times for each prosecution they face. I've personally seen security guards forcefully take back the items and then let the person go because it wasn't worth calling the cops over it. Same with many other low-level crimes like trespassing or whatnot. Unless the business or the local authority is willing to eat the costs of enforcement (and certain places are if they're rich enough) a lot of petty crime will go unpunished.
(Side note: a lot of places explicitly prohibit their security from placing hands on thieves for lawsuits reasons, but not from the thieves, but rather from their workers getting injured).
It's just unusually hard to prove. Specific intent crimes are hard, proving materiality is hard, and combine that with all the other rules of evidence hurdles and it's rarely worth it. If there's clear evidence of perjury, they likely also committed other more serious crimes, so why bother? One recent prominent exception involved the police officer who arrested Sandra Bland, probably because it was a high profile case and the only thing they could really nail him on. The link cites an article that found between 1966 to 1970 there were only 335 criminal perjury cases total.
Miller's case is a slam dunk example of perjury, she would have no defense. The only remaining question is whether the prosecutors will bother.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A lying "victim" using the legal system to harass their innocent alleged aggressor already at least partially achieved their goal however. Not securing a conviction is a negative consequence in the sense that the harassment wasn't as severe as it could have been, but just getting through the process without sanction is still a net positive for the harasser.
This is true, but it's a hard balance to strike. For example there's this case from 2009 in Washington state where a woman claimed to have been raped at knifepoint. The cops didn't believe her and threatened her with criminal charges for filing a false police report if she didn't retract her story. She retracted, and it wasn't until many years later that they caught the rapist in another state and found in his possession photos of the woman tied up in her apartment — exactly as she first reported it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link