Saturday, April 18, 2009

Feminist scholar's new book proposes most dangerous idea ever: turn sex into a presumed crime when a woman cries 'rape'

We post a variety of articles about all manner of false rape news. Some posts are more important than others. Put this one in the "most important" category.

In Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice (2008), Professor Susan Caringella of Western Michigan University's Sociology Department, says: "It is high time to give victims a fair shake, to dismantle the zealous overprotections for men accused of this crime, which have been buoyed up by the myths about false accusations, ulterior motives, and so on, commonly embraced when rape charges are levied."

Did you see that? The "zealous overprotections for men." Do you know what those are? Of course not, because there aren't any. Rather, there are numerous double standards to make it easier than ever to report rape and to convict men and boys accused of rape. The presumed innocent, on the other hand, are already treated as flotsam, even before Professor Caringella got a hold of them.

Wait. It gets worse. Much worse.

Among other things, she lays out an elaborate legislative scheme to reverse the presumption of consent for rape. Most rapes are of the acquaintance variety, and consent often is the sole issue in dispute in a rape trial. Under this professor's plan, if a woman alleges rape, nonconsent would be presumed, and the man would be required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was consensual. In most of those cases, there is no significant evidence aside from the testimony of the accuser and the accused. If the jury doesn't know who to believe, as is often the case, the male will go to prison for many years. (And we have reported innumerable cases on this website where false rape accusers were found to be very credible.) The male will have lost the trial before it has begun. This rule also means that the accused in a criminal trial will be forced to testify on his own behalf if he wants to stay out of prison -- as in many dictatorships that have no regard for due process.

It would be the single most unfair rule in our entire jurisprudence.

This feminist scholar wants to turn the most fundamental act of love, the act of procreation, that has been performed countless times every minute of every day of every year since the beginning of time the world over -- into a presumed crime. And that's not hyperbole -- that's the effect of what she's proposing.

Read from the book yourself:

"What all this means is a shift in the burden of proof to the defense would entail that the defense establish, with a preponderance of the evidence, that it was more likely than not that the woman alleging the rape did give clear indications of freely chosen agreement to engage in the sex acts. Affirmative consent constitutes the kind of consent that would be . . . necessary to overcome the presumptive or implied nonagreement in the law. . . . . What the defense would be required to do would be to introduce adequate evidence to show that the alleged victim did openly and affirmatively express a yes of her own free accord.

Page 178.

For this professor and her ilk, there are far too few young men rotting away in prisons for rapes they surely must have committed. (Even though the young women are not reporting all these rapes that must be occurring because they refuse to characterize what occurred to them as "rape -- surely the young men must have known their conduct was rape, right?)

The misandry underlying this entire "scholarship" is so vile, so breathtaking, that it is downright frightening. Reversing the presumption of innocence for consent is, of course, the radical feminists' Holy Grail. Linda Brookover Bourque's Defining Rape said in 1989 that the ultimate objective of rape reform is shifting the burden of proof from "the victim" to "the offender." It is the most dangerous, most radical proposal in this entire field, and this new book is a very serious effort to change the hearts and souls of the persons who craft our criminal laws.

This issue requires our intense vigilance to insure it never happens. It is akin to the CIA acquiring plans of a terrorist attack before it occurs. We know what the plan is, and we need to combat it. We'll be addressing this very vigorously.