Uber Banned In Delhi After Taxi Driver Accused of Rape 180
RockDoctor writes BBC News is reporting that a 26-year old Indian woman is alleging rape against a driver for the embattled Uber transport-managing company. In a post on the Uber blog, one "Saad Ahmed" implicitly admits that the driver was a Uber driver, that the lift was arranged through Uber's service, and that the full range of Uber's safety mechanisms had been applied to his employment, and by implication, that Uber accepts some culpability for putting this (alleged) rapist into contact with his (alleged) victim. "Our initial investigations have revealed shortcomings of the private cab company which didn't have GPS installed in its cabs and the staff wasn't verified," Delhi Special Commissioner Deepak Mishra said. But Uber says safety was paramount, and added it had GPS traces of all journeys. "We work with licensed driver-partners to provide a safe transportation option, with layers of safeguards such as driver and vehicle information, and ETA-sharing [estimated time of arrival] to ensure there is accountability and traceability of all trips that occur on the Uber platform," its statement added.
That's that sorted, no more rapes in India (Score:1)
That's sorted now, no more rapes in India.
rename it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:rename it (Score:4, Interesting)
So, hitch-hiking but with cooler technology?
Me, why I'd want to get a ride from someone who has neither the proper drivers license nor insurance to be doing this has always been a mystery.
Oooh, but it's an app, so it must be good, right?
Uber likes to try to frame this discussion of how it's trying to compete with the big bad taxi lobby. What they are actually doing is running unlicensed cabs operated by people who aren't very accountable, and if something goes wrong they'll claim "well, we just dispatch, we're not a cab company".
Sorry, but no.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, though, this is more like if Wal-mart wanted to sell a radio at half price that uses public frequency bands but doesn't meet the FCC regulations. Which Wal-mart would not be allowed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, they want to be like Wal-mart. Offer an inferior product at half price. But then the consumer is getting pissed off when the product doesn't perform as well as the full priced product.
Depends on the market. They want to do what it takes to get into a city. Here in Seattle, they're offering a superior service for more money. Too many people are pissed at regular taxis being dirty, never showing up, or late. Since the cities core is fairly wealthy, they are willing to pay more for a cleaner, quicker, and more reliable service.
Re: (Score:2)
So, since higher fares are available through Uber, the higher-standards (self-imposed) licensed taxi drivers are moonlighting to Uber and buying out their own tokens (or whatever the system is locally)?
It's a serious question. OP here, and locally we're debating whether to allow Uber into our country and city (an alternative would be to let one of Uber's competitors in, if they actually a
Re: (Score:2)
So, since higher fares are available through Uber, the higher-standards (self-imposed) licensed taxi drivers are moonlighting to Uber and buying out their own tokens (or whatever the system is locally)?
There's really no chance of that in Seattle. The number of token is limited, the city isn't releasing any more, and the people who own them don't want to sell because they're direct income. I know one guy that was a cab driver that bought his own token, but he only got one because an owner ran into some trouble, needed money fast, and he had the money to buy it. The law limits the sale of such tokens to $20k last I heard, but he also had to slip another $80k under the table to the guy. Once you have your to
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm having a problem here. Something doesn't add up. There is money in the system that you
Uh, no! (Score:2)
Uber likes to try to frame this discussion of how it's trying to compete with the big bad taxi lobby. What they are actually doing is running unlicensed cabs operated by people who aren't very accountable, and if something goes wrong they'll claim "well, we just dispatch, we're not a cab company".
Two separate arguments so keep them separate. First, Uber is fighting lobbyists from large firms that make a fortune paying drivers poor wages and historically not giving a rats ass about consumers. This _IS_ a real issue, and it should take about 2 minutes of investigation to determine that the cab monopolies have been harmful to both consumers and employees. It has only benefited large corporations who can afford the "fee" to Government offices, who have been the other beneficiary.
They are not a cab co
Re: (Score:2)
So, hitch-hiking but with cooler technology?
And a price tag... Which really makes it like a taxi with a driver who has a criminal record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this country, accepting payment for driving is "driving for hire". Regular vehicle insurance is for driving for "social, domestic and pleasure" purposes ("SDP"), which includes getting to and from work, but does not generally include driving as an essential part of your employment. So, you're OK for commuting to and from work ; you're OK for driving to the res
Re: (Score:2)
An example, I used to commute interstate 3 hours each way each week. I used to advertise on the local community website for anyone who wanted a lift could chip in $20 and save a bus/train/air fare. It worked out a couple of times, but the nature of connecting casual travelers doe
Re: rename it (Score:2)
The government (for all known values of "government") will want their pound of flesh or 20% VAT or 10% GST or whatever they call it. But they will want their tax, regardless of your wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
When I go hitch-hiking, I do my own security checks before getting into the punters car. As often as possible, I do it before the punter even approaches his (or her) car. (But then again, my hitching thumb is probably due for it's quarter-million km oil change, so what would I know?
Ohhh, sarcasm! could it possibly be that just like me, you are not convinced by the "new + shiny = good" argument that seems to pass wi
Re: (Score:3)
Uber. It means super in German. That's misleading. It should be called Rides with Strangers Without Background Checks.
I mentioned that once before, and was roundly shouted down by the all regulations are bad crowd.
Some times there are very good reasons for them, no matter what Rand Paul tells us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In your country, that may be the case. I simply do not think that is the case in my country, and certainly not in my city.
Re: (Score:3)
Uber. It means super in German. That's misleading. It should be called Rides with Strangers Without Background Checks.
It doesn't. Uber means "I am stupid fucker who tries to impress by using fake German but I'm too stupid to add an umlaut where it belongs". Well, the correct spelling is Ãoeber, but it's anyone guess what slashdot will make of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber. It means super in German. That's misleading. It should be called Rides with Strangers Without Background Checks.
It doesn't. Uber means "I am stupid fucker who tries to impress by using fake German but I'm too stupid to add an umlaut where it belongs". Well, the correct spelling is Ãoeber, but it's anyone guess what slashdot will make of it.
Kind of like the guys who get Chinese tattoos and it turns out actually translates to "Small Lo Mein with Egg Roll"?
Re: (Score:2)
Uber or Ueber or more correctly with two dots on the U does not mean 'super' but 'above' ... like in 'above the law' or 'a bird is flying above the lake'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just use Ueber, thats how we spell it in ASCII.
Shoudn't Slashdot support "Über"?
Giant Country (Score:1)
Culpability? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is the case, and the guy came up clean but yet still went on to do X, how is Uber any more culpable than a taxi company hiring a cabbie with no record, who subsequently goes out and does X, or a tour company hiring a bus driver with a spotless background, who nonetheless does X?
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the case, and the guy came up clean but yet still went on to do X, how is Uber any more culpable than a taxi company hiring a cabbie with no record, who subsequently goes out and does X, or a tour company hiring a bus driver with a spotless background, who nonetheless does X?
They aren't. But it seems like there's a new trend in town - when a foreign tech company could potentially have guessed that someone using their service might potentially have done something bad, they're automatically at faul
Re:Culpability? (Score:4, Informative)
W.R.T background checks, someone on Twitter has found a photo of a notarised police certificate stating the guy has no criminal record [twitter.com]. So either whoever reported he has one is lying, or the police verification process in India is as unreliable as people say it is.
Regardless, I expect it will make little difference in the court of public opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
More news (seems this story is unfolding right now) - apparently the driver did NOT have a prior conviction for rape at all, but in fact had only been arrested due to an accusation. So it seems that the first possibility was the correct one, and there's really nothing that could have been done here (unless you believe anyone should be able to ban anyone else from being a taxi driver for life with nothing more than an accusation).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. But it seems like there's a new trend in town - when a foreign tech company could potentially have guessed that someone using their service might potentially have done something bad, they're automatically at fault. See: Facebook and Lee Rigby in the UK.
That one is totally different. And we don't know actually if it's true. If you were looking for terrorists, the best situation would be to publicly scream at Facebook for not reporting suspicious post, so that the stupid bastards go on posting their plans on Facebook, while Facebook actually reports any suspicious post to the government so they can get arrested in time.
But in most places companies are responsible for the actions of their employees as long as they represent the company. There may be more
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the case, and the guy came up clean but yet still went on to do X, how is Uber any more culpable than a taxi company hiring a cabbie with no record, who subsequently goes out and does X, or a tour company hiring a bus driver with a spotless background, who nonetheless does X?
I wouldn't say they are more culpable, but obviously a company hiring taxi drivers should be on the hook for damages that their drivers cause as part of their taxi driving job, and Uber should be just as much on the hook. With the difference that apparently the company is valued as something over forty billion dollars, so I would suggest a high seven digit dollar payout to that lady.
It obviously depends on the situation. In Germany, a company is responsible for paying damages if an employee does somethin
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take Uber at its word and accept that the "full range of safety mechanisms" was truly applied, and those mechanisms comport with contemporary acceptable standards for background checks in India.
I don't think we can do this easily. India is a different sort of place:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
An Indian male can apparently be turned into a rapist by merely seeing a clothing store dummy. How on earth can they be expected to control themselves when a real live woman is in a car with them?
Perhaps Hannibal Lecter type restraints are needed for Indian men?
Re: (Score:2)
The author of "Jesus'n'Mo" has, ummm, covered this already. http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007... [jesusandmo.net]
Uber needs more checks and balances (Score:1)
The lack of transparency with Uber leaves one wondering if that in itself will eventually bring a end to the company. The ideal is great, but the sad part is that it leaves to many opportunity for bad people to take advantage of it. We see a rapid expansion of Uber and with that has come distrust, privacy concerns and now potentially hiring people who may have criminal pasts and criminal motives to become a driver for Uber. When you loose trust with the public in a big way. Your not going to survive in busi
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like this is a list of checks, which can be done in the US.
Criminal Responsibility (Score:1)
It should be law that the management of companies who place the lives of others in danger without performing due diligence to screen their subcontractors and employees will be subject to the same punishment as those that they subcontract to to provide services for the crimes their subcontractors or employees commit.
Re: (Score:3)
Due diligence can fail. Uber claims they did their background checks; apparently this is hard in India, as every police district has its own database: if you commit a crime in some other town, you're not on file locally. You have to physically walk to each precinct and request information about the person's criminal record--every city in India, every precinct--which could take years to verify the criminal history of one man.
You can cut this down by only looking into where he worked or lived before, which
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not.
Your line of thinking could be expanded: perhaps Uber should go around the entire country talking to every single individual. Perhaps they should interview every police officer. Perhaps they should subpoena all cell phone and e-mail records the person has, read all their personal stuff, and hire private investigators to infiltrate their office parties. 15 years and 36 million dollars later, they can decide if the person is safe.
To clear a person in a thousand jurisdictions would take ma
Questions (Score:3)
Re:Questions (Score:4, Interesting)
From what I can tell, they seem to accept none of that, and they claim since these people don't work for them they're exempt from all regulations, because they just dispatch.
Where I live, to be a cab you need a commercial drivers license, proper insurance, regular vehicle inspections, a tax license, and are legally required to have a camera installed in your car.
Uber is claiming they don't have to worry about any of those things, and that the laws don't apply.
I think Uber is full of shit, and are running a shady business where they're skirting around the law and calling it competition.
You can't simply decide the laws and regulations around a car-for-hire service don't apply to you. They're just telling people it's safe to ride in an unlicensed cab which may or may not have the proper insurance.
No thanks. I don't want to do business with a company who does that.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you count criminal or legal liability, and then it's really important.
Sorry, but bullshit [policygenius.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
It's a question that strikes at the heart of how these companies self-identify. If they are just facilitating a relationship between a third-party driver and a user, as they claim they do as "technology companies," then they shouldn't be liable for much, if anything.
That leaves much of the insurance burden on the drivers, who are using their own personal cars and their own personal car insurance (PCI). What these drivers may not know, however, is that their PCI policy may not cover them if they're driving for Uber, Lyft, or any other "ride-sharing" app.
They are the ones making claims which aren't supported in law.
Uber actually provides insurance to drivers (at least in some countries) specifically because their PCI policy may not cover them, which you are conveniently ignoring.
Using the same logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Police needs to be disbanded when policeman makes a violent crime.
Army needs to be disbanded when army people kill a person.
The medical profession and regulations need to be disbanded, when malpractice occurs, for it takes only one mistake to cause harm.
All the regulations need to be disbanded, because they do not make the crime disappear.
Most of the males need to be aborted, using the same logic, for all the males are statistically potential rapists. The remaining pool for the purposes of procreation should be kept all locked in the "Male camps" and used during scheduled conjugal visits.
In a most populous country with more than 1 billion people, statistically there will be all kind of mishaps, accidents and crimes. It is unavoidable.
If truly rapes and strangers are an issue, then most of the progress would be achieved in eliminating this type of crime closing all the night clubs and bar.
Also the night life is when a lot of crime happens, it is safer if all the people would be under curfew during the dark hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Go on....
Re: (Score:2)
There a reason certain speech is protected. Popular speech does not need protection.
Argument that the word is not black and white is as accurate that statistically you are 10,459,000 times more likely to die from cancer or heart disease than will end up assaulted by the taxi driver.
The are a lot of control freaks on this site, and nobody is calling to ban them.
embattled Uber transport-managing company (Score:3)
With a valuation of $40,000,000,000.00 [washingtonpost.com] "embattled" is hardly the adjective I'd use.
Re: (Score:3)
Fatal flaw was that Uber biz model (Score:2)
In Canada we should ban all cars (Score:2)
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-sev... [ctvnews.ca]
Re:Sadly,... (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, it appears that rapes are so common in India that they should also ban public parks, buses, trains and Starbucks.
While that may be true, I think that the point being made in this case is that Uber said one thing about their cars/drivers safety, yet post-indicdent it seems that they may not have told the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
yet post-indicdent it seems that they may not have told the truth
Could you then please sketch what an Uber advertorial should like like?
Re:Sadly,... (Score:5, Funny)
Could you then please sketch what an Uber advertorial should like like?
We aim to disrupt public transportation by skirting the law, through predatory price increases when the services are most needed, use drivers that are not bonded or properly insured, and if you dare to say anything we don't like, we'll threaten to harass you and your families.
Re: Sadly,... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
predatory price increases when the services are most needed
This is an unfair critisism. When demand is highest (rush hour on a rainy day) the prices should go up. The higher price will give an incentive for more drivers to provide the service. That is the way free markets work. The alternative is to have shortages or rationing when demand is high, and a glut when demand is low (which is how taxis work).
No economic system is going to give you everything you want, at the price you want to pay, but a free market is going to come closest.
Re: (Score:2)
Markets are good; free markets are bad. Free markets have never provided any consumer with any benefit that couldn't be enjoyed tenfold with regulation. Predatory pricing is a great example of this. Wow, is it possible to have an economy without price gouging AND without scarcity? Maybe not in your textbook, but look around, we have it today.
Re:Sadly,... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hello and welcome to Uber.
We are going to pretend that we offer you a service like a taxi, you know - licensed and regulated so that we manage to keep whack jobs out of the driving seat and you can feel a measure of safety in your journey.
But instead, for half the price we are going to send you some completely random fucker that we have no real record of. He could be anyone, and probably is. So basically you are hitchhiking with all of the associated risks, but you are paying us for the privilege.
Yay for Uber. Please feel free to call* and ask questions if you survive your trip.
* actually not really, this would push up costs. But you know, it's the thought that counts.
Re:Sadly,... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it's not like anyone's ever been raped by a 'licensed and regulated' taxi driver.
Being a convicted rapist doesn't even seem to be an impediment to getting a taxi license in the UK:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng... [bbc.com]
Re:Sadly,... (Score:5, Insightful)
So why don't do the same thing with police officers? Make an app so that people can sign up and when a real police is sick, some random guy gets a gun and a badge for a day. If he makes a mistake, it's not the end of the world, because real police officers also make mistakes. Right?
Hell, we could do it with surgeons too...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non-police don't have the training and experience required to allow them to perform the duties of a real police officer - there's substantial risk of donut overdose.
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't do the same thing with police officers? Make an app so that people can sign up and when a real police is sick, some random guy gets a gun and a badge for a day. If he makes a mistake, it's not the end of the world, because real police officers also make mistakes. Right?
You might have missed the last year or so of police reporting in the US but we're already there. Just sampling from last week:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new... [nydailynews.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12... [reason.com]
I could go on...
Re: (Score:3)
Woosh. GP is saying that even though real police officers make mistakes (or intentional transgressions), a random, untrained, unvetted person with a badge and a gun would easily make ten times the number of mistakes. The same applies to cab drivers.
I disagree. Cops have been trained to be violent, rights-abusing assholes who act without fear of repercussion. Cabbies have been trained to be terrible, aggressive, drivers.
A random person in either position would not be as cavalier. You may have fewer arrests and you may not make it to the airport on time, but society as a whole would be much better off.
Re: (Score:2)
How long before the Joe Random Person who starts working as a taxi driver has absorbed the culture of the job and become the arsehole that other posters describe as their typical taxi driver?
I must admit, the only aspect of their descriptions that I recognise is the poor to non-existent English. But even that only really applies to the taxi drivers in Benin and Gabon, where English isn't actually an official language and they have to put up with m
Re: (Score:3)
Woosh. GP is saying that even though real police officers make mistakes (or intentional transgressions), a random, untrained, unvetted person with a badge and a gun would easily make ten times the number of mistakes. The same applies to cab drivers.
Yes, and I disagree. Police work attracts a certain kind of person - the kind who needs to control others. Bringing in random people would actually make for a *better* police force.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good. They'd have to try hard to kill more innocent people than cops do... the last stats I saw on the subject showed cops were about twice as likely to kill an innocent bystander than someone on the scene with a gun was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't do the same thing with police officers? Make an app so that people can sign up and when a real police is sick, some random guy gets a gun and a badge for a day. If he makes a mistake, it's not the end of the world, because real police officers also make mistakes. Right?
Right. He's four times less likely to shoot an innocent, and he's no more likely to commit a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, when you realise this, you call the police and instruct the driver to stop the cab. then wait with the cab to make your case to the police officer and fill out the paperwork for pursuing the case?
Enforcement of regulation does actually require the assistance of the population (that means you). It can't all be done by th
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not like anyone's ever been raped by a 'licensed and regulated' taxi driver.
Well that's genius logic. Your link demonstrates the need for an even higher standard for background checks and a zero tolerance for drivers with convictions that could be a threat to the public. In this instance it would suggest that the decision should not have been entrusted to the council in the first place - they should be responsible for the paperwork but the police should ensure the driver is of good character and their say should be final.
It also does NOT suggest that we should loosen or do away b
Re: (Score:3)
'Our system utterly failed. Therefore we need more of it.'
A private company who intentionally allowed a convicted rapist to work for them in a situation where they could rape people would be sued into oblivion. When the government does it, the Mayor just gets to resign.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because the "regulated" taxi industry *never* has these problems. Oh, wait.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/ci... [ndtv.com]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes... [indiatimes.com]
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/s... [intoday.in]
Note the last one there is a gang rape.
The problem, as always, is that people like you think that "regulation" of the taxi industry has anything to do with the stuff that the regulators claim it's about. Look up "regulatory capture" when you have a spare hour or so. I'll warn you - your world view is about to get a dramatic ove
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the only kind of distinction that exists - the world is purely binary? Or could be that a regulated industry has fewer of these problems. Is that not better to a lesser extent?
So what is a person like me then? Is that something that you are capable of understanding based on a jokey response to a request for a sketch. Wow, your deductive power of reasoning must
Re: (Score:2)
Hitchhiking isn't that dangerous. I do it routinely and haven't had a problem since I was 14 (and I scared that guy off before continuing on my way).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
While I agree 100% with your statement, there is also the rising problem of false reporting. Now that rape is getting some attention, women in desperate situations are using it as a tool to blackmail men. What it comes down to is that people suck, no matter their gender, nationality, or religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Or she just did not have the money to pay the fare. But of course, this is misogynistic. Something like that NEVER happens.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, you're victim blaming, and have no clue what you're talking about because you've never been to India and are therefore oversimplifying the problem like a fucking idiot?
Re:Sadly,... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having spent many years living in Asia, I can tell you confidently how to solve *much* of the rape problem in India: Legalize and institutionalize prostitution.
Unlike every nation in Asia, India has a tiny sex-trade per capita. Smaller even than in the United States. Couple poverty with truly intense social mores, highly limited pre-marital sex and a defacto caste system (despite the propaganda) and you have a recipe for pent up male sexuality. The standard modern response mechanism is to demonize said sexuality and hope to preach morality and respect to a seething mass of adolescent male anger and hormones. To say this policy of condemnation has failed is an understatement. When policy fails, pursuing more of it is insane.
Prostitution is a rational free-market solution which carries many additional economic benefits besides reduced sexual violence.
Now cue scores of sexist, white-knight "do-gooders" who will say things like "sex-work endangers women" and other sexist statements that treat women like children. (If you're going to insist, show me the stats please, and then cross reference against miners, fishermen, industrial labor, law enforcement and the military).
Male sexuality is male sexuality. And in societies where it is deprived to hundreds of millions of men (for decades) until said men prove themselves worthy of marriage is an exercise in social disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
I totally agree with you for the reasons why rape is so common in India.
But there's no need to be a white-knight do-gooder to realize that (at least in Europe), many prostitutes aren't so happy about their job, and that many are there because of the mafia.
I never tried prostitution for this reason. Give me a "fair-trade pussy" label and I'd be happy to try it.
Re: (Score:2)
BlackPignouf, you're a fair-trade pussy.
But I'm with you on not wanting to support the sex trade, as too many participants would prefer other means of earning a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Building off your statement, which I agree with: (American) Football purposefully endangers men, having them slam against each other at higher-than-normal velocities, and yet, despite many recent medical revelations, there's no large trumpeting call to shut the whole thing down.
The only difference between football and prostitution is how they're u
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not. But you simplistic world-view apparently cannot cope with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the I guess we do nothing, since it is impossible to prevent all attacks. Some humans are violent assholes after all. And doing things which only reduce the magnitude of the problem is apparently just a bandaid and hence not worth doing.
Well I guess we could kill all the humans, but that would be attacking said victim and hence not actually solve the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
>No, I am not victim-blaming.
Except when you are.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are the fucking problem. Where in the goddam TFA did it say the woman simply went limp and let the man have his way?
Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
just sitting there and being a victim
That was the part where you are just victim-blaming. You have no idea what happened. For all you know, she was an expert in Krav Maga, which frankly, wouldn't be worth shit if she was a 110 lbs and trapped in a taxi. In any case, it seems they were looking for any excuse at all to ban Uber... considering this *MIGHT* have happened *ONCE* (hasn't even been a trial or arrest), but is still used as justification for an outright ban.
Re: (Score:2)
OP here.
As I wrote in the ORIGINAL submission (which, contrary to Slash-meme, samzenpus has substantially edited), I'm decidedly dubious about Uber in particular and less than convinced of the need for the entire concept in general. The second paragraph of my submission read :
Re:Sadly,... (Score:4, Interesting)
Per capita, there are 20 times more rape cases in the US than in India. But rapes sell newspapers so thats all you see on the front pages.
You have to take the law into consideration when looking at those statistics. In the U.S., the law allows for rape charges if a wife is forced to have sex with her husband. In India, the law can only be invoked if the husband and wife are separated.
Also, there are social reasons for underreporting of rape in India. If you file rape charges, then you are considered to have been raped. This can be cause for a future arranged marriage to be terminated, a marriage to be terminated and for the woman to be shunned.
It used to be similar in the U.S., but woman were empowered and encouraged to speak out. There are still a lot of rapes not reported, but there are also a lot of false reports as well.
In all, it is difficult to compare rates of a lawbreaking in countries where the law differs as do also the social implications of reporting the charge,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The law in India? Oh you mean like 498a? Which has been used *many* times by a wife to falsely accuse her husband or his family of trying to demand dowry from her which led to the husband *and his family* to all be arrested and jailed immediately with zero evidence needed. *Just* the accusation. It was only in June of this year that India's Supreme Court put a stop the mandatory arrest policy.
If you think for a second that the wives in India don't have a *very* strong weapon to use if they get raped (let al
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, U.S. has better reporting and higher standards of defining rape than India. Women are shamed and punished and shunned for life when raped in India
Re: (Score:2)
Women are shamed and punished and shunned for life when raped in India
If that's true, they are probably a lot more cautious. Impossible to be raped if you aren't within striking distance of the penis.
Re: (Score:2)
reality such as busload of jeering spectators while women being gang raped says your notion of reality may be flawed
Re: (Score:2)
What is your metric of comparison for definitions of rape that allows you to say, unambiguously, that one definition is "better" than another? "Different" is, I'm sure true (identity is easy to check for ; one comma moved and you're no longer identical), but you claim to have a metric that allows you to determine if one rape definition is "better" than another ; therefore you have a scoring or ranking system more complex than simply
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of rape is more fundamental then possession of a penis. Indeed, there have been cases of people without a penis committing rape against people with a penis.
Re: (Score:2)
So we have to work on your problem to the exclusion of all others?
I'm not signing up.