I probably would have typed something else if I meant something else.

Please take a step back so I can understand you. How does "litigation is expensive" equate to sexual assault victims not reporting the crime(s)?

dude im not going to repeat myself for the third time, you've been given examples of financial disincentives to report which include the cost of litigation, both directly and indirectly. this **** isn't hard to understand.

what is "the opposite of an empty bag?"

I'm in Rapini's boat -- I don't understand how reporting a crime to the police creates a financial disincentive for the victim. Psychological disincentives, sure.

my one little aside about litigation being expensive was mostly in reference to seeking damages in civil court because the process is generally incredibly time consuming and expensive. it relates to criminal trials as well because you have to miss multiple days of work (they dont just go to trial on your first appearance), and there's no guarantee that you'll get the justice you think you deserve because prosecutors much prefer settling out of court for reduced/deferred sentences to actually going to trial, because it saves the state money. think about drug addicts, prostitutes, minwage workers, homeless, etc. i bet a lot of you take for granted that you could just take days off work basically whenever you want, and you'd be ok with that because you expect to be seen as credible enough that you could get some level of justice out of the ordeal (or you'd be getting paid as if they were vacation/sick days).

on top of that, rape victims are often forced to shoulder the costs of the rape kits/forensic analysis they received.

and then we get to the healthcare issue, which actually was a thing before obamacare too.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...on-not-exactly

that enough for you on the financial disincentives, or do we have to go round in circles some more? the **** undeniably costs money in many different ways if you wanna take something all the way to trial.

It probably depends on what field you're in, I doubt a bricklayer or bus driver is going to see employment opportunities dry up as a result of a trial like this one, but as an actor or someone working with the public, especially if many of the same people you interact with also interact or have interacted with the accused? Absolutely.

Jesus ****ing Christ thank you rapini for making my point for me. Less than a third of rapes are reported to anyone, 2% of rapists do jail time, congrats on the disgusting views that make that possible.

anyone else picture rapini as comic book guy from simpsons, only with maybe jet black hair, a longer pony tail and one of those mustaches that curls up at the tips?

Only two percent of convicted rapists do jail time!? That is truly outrageous. Where did you see that statistic? I'm interested in reading more. No wonder no one reports it.

Pretty much spot on.

Repeating yourself wouldn't help. You haven't established a link between "litigation is expensive" and lack of reporting.

"Opposite of an empty bag" means the litigation target has money.

Larry Nassar.

i've always pictured rapini as a semi-attractive female

God bless the people willing to put the effort into educating people on this topic. This dumb **** is in no way unique, sadly. I honestly don't know how people fight the good fight talking to people like this without giving up or going insane.

that's because you're not very good at exhibiting common sense/reading comprehension/critical thinking skills

I don't think that the pattern of (1) make outrageous claim, (2) make ad hominem attacks, and (3) repeat is useful.

Exactly what a sexy woman would say

Not a surprise here. C'mon, Trump was elected President.

1) it's not outrageous at all. like lol, on the most basic level, do you actually dispute that taking a case to trial would ever cause a victim to miss several days of work, which would cost him/her money?

2) nobody made an "ad hominem" against you, the argument was clearly presented and you're still here flailing about, not getting it, while everybody laughs at you because they all got it.

3) clearly it hasn't been useful ducy

The rates of reportage for all violent crime is low. Convicting violent offenders is difficult. Jailing people (as "penance") is expensive and ineffective. Sexual assault is still the only crime I see people get this frenzied over - complete with sweeping generalizations about society and the legal system.

We probably see having a penis inserted in you while you struggle to get away from the offender as being worse than getting punched in the face. Or at least, that's my stance on it.

(1) I do dispute it. http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/sup.../compcosts.jsf. I'm sure that somewhere there is a self-employed individual who would be affected negatively for the day or two it would take to testify in deposition and in court, but I don't think that's anywhere close to outweighing the benefit of making sure that there are no more victims of that perpetrator. Additionally, even if we were to assume that every single victim would lose a day or two of pay for the time it takes them to testify, your other points in those posts were silly.

(2) You should reread your previous post and Riverman's previous post. Riverman especially once again has made outrageous unsupported claims and then hand-waved using personal attacks. I guess I missed the "flailing about" part.

(3) Indeed.

Dude, like a page ago you were commenting on the rapeability of the victim. I'm pretty sure that invalidates any actual opinion you have on any of this.

A large portion of the "blame" for this goes to the structure of the American justice system. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In any he said/she said scenario, the accused has a huge structural advantage.

No, I think juries are pretty hopeless for trying this sort of case. A professional judge knows what's what and handle the ambiguities and uncertainties. But with a celebrity and ordinary people and expensive lawyers, it's just very difficult that there's not one intransigent legalist on the jury who can't see the forest for the trees.

Rape cases without DNA evidence are also just hard to prosecute. Witness testimony is in general pretty useless, probably more so when the witness is a traumatized victim. The Cosby case is a good illustration of how awful society used to be about rape, and how hard it was for women who were attacked to come forward. Sadly that's not changed as much as it needs to.

10-2 guilty on two counts, 11-1 not guilty on a third.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, a juror in the Bill Cosby sexual assault case said that after dozens of hours of grueling deliberations in a tiny room, 10 of the 12 jurors agreed he was guilty on two counts. On a third count, only one of the jurors believed he was guilty.

The final, intractable votes on the first of the three counts was 10 to two to find Cosby guilty of digitally penetrating accuser Andrea Constand without her consent, the juror said. On the second count, that she was unconscious or unaware during the incident, the juror said the vote was 11 to one to acquit. On the third count, that the alleged assault occurred after Cosby gave Constand drugs or intoxicants without her knowledge, substantially impairing her for the purpose of preventing her resistance, the jury was deadlocked at 10 to two, in favor of a guilty verdict, according to the juror.

On counts one and three, the two holdouts against finding Cosby guilty were “not moving, no matter what,” said the juror, who agreed to speak to ABC News only on the condition of anonymity.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/2-cosby-ho...opstories.html