[fabricexpert]

Self incrimination is not the same as a false accusation.

Imagine if the person raped committed a different crime, unrelated to the rape, for which there was evidence of that on their phone.

In order to report the rape, they have to self incriminate themself for that crime as well? In this scenario any drug user, prostitute or other criminal has no protection from the law against being raped.

[coherentpony]

Or even more simply, even if there's no "other" crime: it's my personal data. I have a right to privacy.

[ryanm101]

You also have an obligation to help the police solve the crime you reported by providing all and any relevant information.

The issue is that people don't always know what information is relevant / they think stuff is too minor to mention.

You wouldn't go to a doctors appointment and then say my body is private you cant examine me and expect them to go off just the info you provide. If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't say er no thanks that's too private. You assume he has a good medical reason that he wants to do that and you let him confirm that you are healthy.

[esarbe]

I think this is a rather bad analogy, since in the case of a crime, it's not only your anus that's going to be probed.

[jbarberu]

"If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't say er no thanks that's too private"

If you don't want your doctor to stick his finger up your butt, then that's exactly what you do. They don't have a right to finger your prostate, even though it might be beneficial to you.

[eindiran]

Yes, but then you don't get to be checked for prostate cancer.

[coherentpony]

That's 100% correct, and 100% not the conversation we are having.

If you don't want a medical procedure, even if it would be beneficial to you, you can refuse it. It is your right (at least in the US).

[tracker1]

And like the doctor that cannot diagnose you with appropriate information, the police can't prosecute the accused without potentially backing or detracting details.

[ryanm101]

Isn't that the same though as if you have ill gotten funds / drugs, I steal them from you but you cant report that. I've still committed a crime against you but you cant report it due to the fact you committed a crime in the first place.

Kinda hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime.....

[kennywinker]

I don’t even know where to start.

You don’t feel sympathy for sex workers, who in many places are unable to report being assaulted?

Your example is having something you stole stolen from you. That’s not the same as doing something illegal, and having a completely different crime done to you. “I was jaywalking, and someone robbed me when i arrived on the other side of the street”. I can’t report it because I would have to explain why I was in the middle of the street without having walked past the shops on that side.

[coldtea]

>You don’t feel sympathy for sex workers, who in many places are unable to report being assaulted?

I do, but then again, I don't consider sex workers criminals.

[js2]

The law does.

[ptaipale]

I know discussions here are often America-centric, but note that this depends on jurisdiction. E.g. in Sweden, the one selling sex is not a criminal, the one buying is.

[coldtea]

That's on the law.

[js2]

I can’t make sense of your line of reasoning on this comment thread.

I thought we were discussing why society would want to incentivize (or at least not disincentive) reporting a crime, even if the reporter is themselves a criminal. The idea is to eliminate at least one act of criminality instead of none.

You’re argument seems to be: people who commit crimes shouldn’t expect protection under the law from other crimes. And when it was pointed out that not all crimes are equal, your reply is “but I don’t consider some of those things as crimes.”

[coldtea]

>Imagine if the person raped committed a different crime, unrelated to the rape, for which there was evidence of that on their phone.

Yeah, so a second crime was solved too. That's bad because?

[fabricexpert]

But that won't happen. If you have evidence on your phone of a crime you committed you're not going to give the phone to the police to look at. Therefor we end up with no crimes solved instead of one. Ontop of that, because everyone knows that a criminal can no longer report a rape, there's a carte blanche to rape anyone who falls into that category without consequence.

[manfredo]

I'm not sure how this criticism is supposed to be valid. If someone robs a heroin dealer of their product, and the heroin dealer calls the police and honestly explains their situation then of course the police are going to arrest and charge both the third and the dealer - regardless of the fact that the latter was a victim of theft.

Yeah, it does mean crime becomes carte blanche to do against criminals of a certain caliber. But that's the consequence of deciding to live one's life outside the law.

If the crimes discussed on the phone are trivia in relation to rape (e.g. shop lifting, drug use) I highly doubt the police would bother prosecuting those crimes. How many minors who were raped while.drunk got charged with consu ing alcohol underage? I don't know of any, and the outrage over doing so would be immense.

[coldtea]

>Ontop of that, because everyone knows that a criminal can no longer report a rape, there's a carte blanche to rape anyone who falls into that category without consequence.

Could this serve as an incentive for less crime?

Frivolity aside, "raping criminals" doesn't seem a very viable endeavor. They are, you know, criminals to begin with, and they, or their criminal friends, can perhaps do your head in...

(Plus, blackmailing a criminal with evidence of their crime, sometimes for sex too, has happened since time immemorial - even between corrupt policemen and criminals-, it's not something uniquely enabled by mobile phones).

[saagarjha]

> Could this serve as an incentive for less crime?

Was this sarcasm, or are you actually suggesting that criminals should fear extrajudicial "justice" of having crimes committed against them and being unable to report them?

[coldtea]

Neither, it's a fact of life: criminals do fear extrajudicial "justice" of having crimes committed against them and being unable to report them (and have it happen to them frequently, as I say on the second paragraph above).