Friday, July 25, 2008

Police should be cheerleaders for rape accusers. Say what?

Yesterday, I responded to a hate post about me on a radical feminist site. Fidelbogen at The Counter-Feminist responded as well. I don't link to hate sites, but sometimes I use their inanity to make a point. (If I started "arguing" with people not interested in rational discourse, that is all I would be doing, trust me.) A comment posted under the hate post about me provides an opportunity for a valuable teaching moment. The comment includes the following:

"The system as a whole presumes a suspect innocent, and that is as it should be. But the *investigators* can start out with the belief that a rape report is true without harming this principle."

Where to begin?

First, see my previous post.

Second, investigators should start off by automatically believing the rape accuser -- in other words, being a cheerleader, an advocate for the accuser -- because, let me guess, um, women don't lie about rape and men accused of rape do? The commentator would do well to read my Web site before making that hateful assumption. That is hard-core misandry.

If a woman presents corroborating evidence, then obviously a police officer will understand that a case against the accused is stronger. But the vast majority of rape claims are of the acquaintance/date-rape variety and hinge on the issue of whether there was consent, not whether the physical sex act occurred.

Here is why a police officer must never toss his objectivity to the winds and automatically become a cheerleader, an advocate for a rape accuser. A man or a boy can be accused and arrested for allegedly committing the most vile crime short of murder on the basis of nothing more than the naked, unsubstantiated allegation of a woman or a girl. Legion are the cases where men and boys have been jailed, their lives turned upside down -- sometimes forever, on no more evidence that that. He can claim his accuser is the real criminal for making a false report (and in many cases it turns out she is), but she will not be charged, at least not at that point, and probably never.

The commentator is missing the most obvious point: the very physical act that constitutes the alleged crime is precisely the same act that has been performed countless times every minute of every day of every year, since the beginning of time, the world over. And in the vast majority of those literally innumerable cases, the woman welcomes the act. It is not a criminal act, it is an act of love.

But all she need do is recharacterize that same act as nonconsensual to claim rape.

And the commentator thinks that's enough, even if the male vehemently denies that the act was nonconsensual, for the police to become her advocate, her cheerleader? That's enough to toss objectivity to the winds? That's enough to assume the man or boy is a felon who should be locked away for decades?

And exactly who is looking out for the rights of innocent men and boys? Or are they collateral damage in your war on rape? What if the man or boy swears in the most believable fashion that the act was consensual -- who will be his advocate, his cheerleader?

Nobody, according to that commentator.

And how in the name of hell will there ever be a proper police investigation without objectivity?

I now realize that this is all too inane to even be discussing. The commentator might have fit in well in Salem at the time of the witch hunts, where an allegation was deemed sufficient to destroy another human being. Read my Web site, you'll see modern-day reenactments of that very thing, but the victims are exclusively male.