Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3
rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:
Misuse of anecdotal evidence (aka "the person who" fallacy) is one logical fallacy your posts continue to commit.
I think you are mixing up your terms. A logical fallacy is a mistaken conclusion reached via incorrect reasoning. When one person posts an opinion (e.g. - “They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.”) it is not a logical fallacy to respond with my own opinion. You obviously disagree with my opinion, but that does mean that my opinion was reached through illogical or flawed reasoning.
Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3
rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:
It was the arrest rate, not the clearance rate, that was at issue. We're not playing change the metric.
The quote to which I was referring was this: “They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.” Closing a case is synonymous with clearing a case. Cases can be closed in a variety of ways, only one of which is via arrest.
Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3
rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:
"Compelling physical evidence" is defined differently by the scientific community than by the law enforcement community. That's the issue.
The issue I was addressing was the original poster’s assertion that cops don’t work hard on sexual assault and domestic violence cases because they prefer to close cases quickly in order to get promoted. I believe you are correct in that the scientific community has a different idea of what is and what is not compelling physical evidence, but that really has little to do with the police. Legislators make the laws, including those laws that define evidence. For anyone who believes those laws are somehow lacking, that issue should be properly taken up with the legislature, not with the police.
Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3
rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:
Those stupid witnesses just can't do their jobs, and that's why police don't do theirs! I don't think so.
I never said (nor do I think) that victims or witnesses of violent crimes are stupid. Inability to recall relevant details after a physically violent, traumatic experience has little to do with intelligence. It is, however, a very likely possibility for both victims and witnesses.
Your post is actually a good example of a straw man argument, unlike my post you already misidentified as a straw man. In your post you alter my assertion (that victims of violent crimes often make poor witnesses) into an indefensible declaration that “witnesses are stupid.” It is easier to refute the “straw man” argument that witnesses are stupid than it is to refute the fact that victims of violent crimes often make poor witnesses because of the trauma they have suffered.
Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3
rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:
Asserting that domestic violence victims should not be arrested is obviously distinct from asking that laws against interpersonal violence be enforced.
I agree. However, my point was that over the past two decades the majority of complaints brought by women’s shelters and victim advocates has not been that cops are refusing to make arrests in domestic violence cases; it is that women were being arrested (along with their domestic partners) in cases where the woman claims she was only defending herself. Since the OP made an assertion that the former was the case (“They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.”) it was relevant and appropriate for me to post that information.
Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3
rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:
Are you in possession of the evidence in this case? If not, your statement lacks factual basis and has the potential to hurt a victim who has come here for support.
I am not in possession of the facts in this case. I was simply posting my opinion that, since it is in fact illegal for a police officer with probable cause to believe a crime was committed in a domestic violence case to fail to make an arrest, I feel quite comfortable stating that there obviously was not sufficient probable cause in this case or there would have been an arrest.
I don’t see how it could hurt a victim to tell them there was insufficient probable cause to make an arrest. It seems far more likely to cause emotional turmoil in a victim if you lead them to believe that the suspect would have been arrested but for that suspect’s ability to lie successfully to the polygraph operator. I think my assertion, that there was obviously insufficient probable cause to make an arrest before the polygraph, will actually comfort the victim to a greater degree because now she knows that the lack of arrest has nothing at all to do with passing or failing a “test” on a debunked piece of pseudoscientific equipment.
Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3
rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:
Straw-man strikes again. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that it doesn't take individual abuses (although they may happen) for the systematic abuse of bad forensic tools, and bad logic, to have aggregate discriminatory and unjust effects? I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not cops hate child molesters and terrorists – seriously.
Once again, this is not a straw man argument. The post to which I was responding asserted that: “They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.” I provided my opinion as to why I know that to be untrue, and then provided some examples as to why that is simply not the way cops think. One such example was that it is a violation of state law to fail to act when there is probable cause to make an arrest, which makes it unlikely cops are going to fail to make an arrest in order to get promoted. Another example was that cops have children, too, and feel just as terrible as the rest of civilized society when someone’s child is molested or attacked. Because of that cops will put in tremendous effort towards building a case and making an arrest when a child is molested, which also goes to refute the OP’s assertion that the opposite is true because cops are more concerned about clearing cases than they are with prosecuting child molesters.