In Massachusetts last week, the state's highest court ruled that a law requiring GPS monitoring of people on probation for certain sex offenses applies only to offenders who have been convicted of the crimes, not to offenders who are awaiting trial. Colleen Tynan, one of the defense attorneys, said the problem with the previous interpretation of the law was that it imposed monitoring on people who were presumed innocent. "They haven't admitted they've done anything and they haven't been found guilty. ... So that's a problem," she said.
And, of course, some of the angriest comments under the story are from persons who identify themselves as men. By way of example only: "This shows you how ridiculous this state really is! Value the sex offenders so-called rights over the victims! Classic liberal BS!"
Some commentators "get" it: "Jason, Shane, Homer et al. - a simple question: Are people charged with crimes automatically guilty? If so, why even have a trial? Trying suspects before convicting them is not red or blue - it's called justice, and all 50 states use it. Do you know how many angry spouses allege false complaints of physical or sexual abuse out of simple spite? It happens all the time. And you would have all these people who are merely accused of a crime treated like criminals before their trials even begin? How about waiting until a 'guilty' verdict before calling anyone a monster."
And that comment sums up the mission of this blog. Yet some angry, misguided feminists insist that we are "rape apologists" because we believe the presumed innocent accused deserve protections -- and, in fact, the presumed innocent accused of rape and sexual assault need protections more than any other class of criminal accuseds because the stigma of such claims is so severe and so difficult to shake.
The only way such men and boys would not be entitled to such protections is if we automatically believed every accusation against them. That, of course, is the vile, despicable, loathsome goal of some in the rape industry. Many are up-front about it.
Why not just do away with the trial for men and boys accused of rape? The mere accusation will be its own conviction. That would save a lot of taxpayer time and expense, wouldn't it? And it would make some angry women a little happier.