Several things jump out from this article.
1. One wonders if Ms. Dunsmore was offered a deal for a reduction of her sentence for her testimony.
2. Almost 20 years between when this incident is supposed to have occurred and the trial for one of the men, and between 15 and 22 years for the other. How can anyone mount a defense after that amount of time?
The trial of two men accused of raping a 10-year-old girl at a Perthshire caravan park has been adjourned after a key witness retracted her testimony.
Caroline Dunsmore, 46, had told the High Court in Dunfermline that she had watched television as her daughter, Dana Fowley, was raped in a bedroom.
However, under cross-examination, she said her initial testimony in this case had been a "mistake" and was not true.
Neil Kendall and Ian Davidson deny raping Ms Fowley in 1990.
During the second day of the trial, Dunsmore told Mhairi Richards, QC for Mr Kendall, that he had not had sex with Ms Fowley.
She told Ian Paterson, solicitor advocate, for Mr Davidson: "I never saw anyone having sex with my daughter Dana."
On Friday, Dunsmore had described to prosecutor Joanna Cherry QC how Ms Fowley was raped by the two men after being encouraged to by her former husband William King.
She also told the court that she had had sex with Mr King while Dana was raped in the same room.
Dana Fowley has waived her right to anonymity in the case.
However, during re-examination, Ms Cherry asked Dunsmore: "Why have you changed your evidence?"
Dunsmore replied that she had made up the events at the caravan park "probably because I was scared of Paul" - a reference to Ms Fowley's current partner Paul Kernachan.
Ms Cherry asked her: "You have given two different accounts - which is the true version?"
Dunsmore replied: "I never seen it."
Special defence
Dunsmore, who is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence for her part in abuse of her daughter, broke down in tears as she recalled her own role.
She said she had gone to the police voluntarily at the start of 2006 to speak about events involving her daughter.
At the end of the interview she was arrested.
She agreed that she had said at the time that she wanted "it all out in the open", remarking afterwards "I'm so happy that it's over".
Mr Kendall, 44, of Citadel Place in Edinburgh, denies raping Dana Fowley while acting with others at the caravan park between 30 April 1990 and 27 June 1990.
He has lodged a special defence of alibi, claiming he was not within the caravan at the time of the rape, and a separate special defence of incrimination, claiming the attack was carried out by three other men.
Mr Davidson, 54, of Murrayburn Place, Edinburgh, denies two charges of rape and two of using lewd, indecent and libidinous practices towards the girl by having sex with Dunsmore in front of her, and forcing her to perform an oral sex act on him.
The alleged offences involving Mr Davidson happened between February 1987 and June 1994 at various addresses in Edinburgh.
He has lodged a special defence of alibi, claiming he was living at various addresses in Manchester at the time.
The trial, before Lady Stacey continues on Tuesday morning.Thanks to 'Anon for obvious reasons' for the tip.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8254109.stm
Posts
111 comments:
Thats what is so scary about girls now being able to get a swab of semen ( i don't like calling it a rape kit...because many are simply not rapes)..then being able to shelve it for years before they decide to strike.
This leads to many men / boys losing the ability to defend themselves...and this is another perversion of justice.
In my case, in which the alleged rape were part of a regular thing that allegedly lasted for years (yes, we did have sex for many years, always consensual) I was effectively asked to produce evidence proving that I did not rape someone in 2002.
Frankly, I couldn't even tell you what vehicle I owned in 2002 with any certainty, much less provide details from memory that prove that an act of consensual sex was not rape, as was alleged.
In effect, you are being asked to prove a negative, a logical impossibility.
This massive difficulty is made far worse when you consider that many false rape accusations are also accompanied by other allegations, so in my case all my computers were seized, which means that I did not have access to my records of correspondence and emails going back a decade, which was essentially my only hope of finding evidence to support my position.
As it stands for me currently the malicious false rape allegations have gone away, the Police don't believe them (but I shan't be holding my breath expecting them to charge my false accusers) and there is a lesser, equally false, allegation still to be dealt with.
The problem is that I have been arrested, fingerprinted, and had my DNA taken, for what was in principle a very, very serious sex crime.
This means that I will now utterly fail an enhanced CRB (http://www.crb.gov.uk/) which is now mandatory for ANY job that even remotely involves children or vulnerable adults, despite being a completely innocent man.
AfOR
(Anon for obvious reasons)
AFOR,
Is there any system set up for having the CRB cleared in a situation such as yours? There must be some way for your name to be officially cleared.
In my case, in which the alleged rape were part of a regular thing that allegedly lasted for years (yes, we did have sex for many years, always consensual)
Was the consensual sex worth what you are now having to go through?
I'm not being snarky, it is a serious question. In the absence of any legal protections, and absence of any concern whatsoever on the part of women for how destructive these lies are, men are left with little choice other than to take what measures are necessary to protect themselves from women and the culture at large.
In the Hofstra case, this self-protection took the form of videotaping the encounter. In a long term relationship this is obviously not practical, but an awareness that every act of sex is a criminal act for which a man can be prosecuted at any time of the woman's choosing, is possible.
I have no real concern about charges stemming from an argument over "consent" over the past 15 years, because I have chosen to be abstinent. The tired old business of "well, you should have kept it in your pants" made more and more sense the more lies I observed. At my age, it seems like an extremely good overall strategy, and - given both my age-induced reduced sex drive and the ghastly unappealing nature of my potential mate pool - by far the easiest one to pursue. The harassment by women to pay them attention is easily ignored because I have had years of practice in developing the habits of ignoring it.
I do, however, have concerns about consensual encounters 20-30-40 years ago which can be turned into crimes by feminist revisionism. And, the completely fabricated case where a woman claims intercourse occurred when it never did is a vulnerability which I can do nothing about.
Much is made about the role of the Hofstra boys in participating in whatever happened, and many are willing to hang them on that alone. Choosing not to participate is obviously a choice that gives a man a lot of power over his own life.
So, one question I think we men need to ponder is whether we have ever had sex, or reasonably expect that we might, which is worth losing that power and going through the hell of a false accusation?
For me, the answer is clearly no.
"Is there any system set up for having the CRB cleared in a situation such as yours? There must be some way for your name to be officially cleared."
No, you essentially have to take the State to Court, and even then there are stories that what the (private) national DNA database does is not delete your records, but simply places them under "lock" as inaccesible... until your next arrest...
============================
To Anon @10:17
"Was the consensual sex worth what you are now having to go through? "
I'm not going through this for having consensual sex.
I'm going through this because two women decided that it would be a good idea to tell a pack of lies.
Your argument is 100% fallacious, because you make a fundamental assumption that not ever having sex will somehow make you immune from being accused of rape, say in 2002.
The only 100% defence is to ensure you get sentenced to life in prison at a very early age.
The cure for this problem in my case is to simply accept that the problem here is 100% western women, so the solution is find yourself a woman who was not raised in the west, which ain't exactly hard.
cheers
AfOR
"In the Hofstra case, this self-protection took the form of videotaping the encounter."
My lawyer asked me if I had video of us having sex.
I said "no, unfortunately."
He said "Good, it would just be used to portray you as a pervert..."
Laymans's opinions on what should be in Court cases are usually worthless and often completely wrong...
AfOR
Your argument is 100% fallacious, because you make a fundamental assumption that not ever having sex will somehow make you immune from being accused of rape, say in 2002.
That is not true at all. I do have serious concerns myself about being accused of rape either by a woman that I actually did have consensual sex with years ago, or a woman who claims that sex occurred which never did in reality. Of course, Jeana will dismiss this as a "stupid sexist reason" for not convicting me, so the best I can hope for is that no one like her ends up on the jury.
The point I am trying to make is expand the dialogue and talk about ways individual men can decrease their vulnerability and exposure without waiting for massive cultural changes. Most of the sex I've had in my life hasn't even been worth going back for another helping, much less going to prison for. If we are going to get clobbered as men for "thinking with our little heads instead of our big ones", one way to address that is to start thinking more with that big head.
That chivalrist idiot, Daly, held the position that these boys "should have known" that her willingness to have sex with them was clear and convincing evidence that she was "seriously troubled." Ok, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, that is the point I have reached - when I see a woman giving signs of sexual interest and receptivity, I see her as a "seriously troubled" potential false accuser.
If a woman wants to do stupid things like "going in to a bar wearing sexy clothes and no panties" and blame the fact that something bad happens to her later on some mythical "rape culture", that still is not going to prevent me from strongly suggesting to every woman in my life that I care about to not do stupid things like that.
I am sure that no one ever told the Hofstra boys that 1) there are a lot of "seriously troubled" young women out there and 2) if a young woman shows signs of interest and receptivity toward sex with them that this is conclusinve evidence that she is "seriously troubled" and they had better stay the 'ell away from her. If someone had, perhaps their lives would be better today than they are.
Of course, it is a personal decision, but I think we owe it to other young men who might find themselves in that situation to give them some compelling reasons of self-interest why disbelieving a woman's signals of sexual interest could be to their advantage.
That is not true at all. I do have serious concerns myself about being accused of rape either by a woman that I actually did have consensual sex with years ago, or a woman who claims that sex occurred which never did in reality. Of course, Jeana will dismiss this as a "stupid sexist reason" for not convicting me, so the best I can hope for is that no one like her ends up on the jury."
I hate to burst your bubble dude...
... but consider these facts.
I was never charged before police lost interest, much less actually got to stand in front of a jury.
So far I have lost...
1/ My home
2/ home contents
3/ computers (work/income)
4/ about 15/20k US$ in miscellanous stuff that it will cost me to put things back together.
My capital at the moment is zero, and my employability is sub-zero.
I never raped, or even struck, anyone in my entire fucking life.
AfOR
I hate to burst your bubble dude...
I understand your anger, AfOR, but truly, I am not your enemy. Yes, I have grave concerns about being falsely accused. Your situation absolutely sucks. You will be hard-pressed to find anyone with more animosity toward feminists and feminism than I have.
The little I can do about the situation men are in today is to remove the entire gray area of "consent" and create a situation where the lie that intercourse actually happened must be believed. It certainly isn't any iron-clad guarantee, but it is something I can do stack the deck in my favor.
Unlike "sexual harassment", which doesn't even require that any sort of objective harassment took place and depends entirely on how the woman "feeee-yuhls" about it, "rape" (at least for the time being) does still require as a minimum condition that some sort of sexual activity did have to occur. (I am sure that Jeana is working, even as we speak about this, to come up with some way to get rid of that "stupid sexist reason" for not convicting a man).
While "consent" may hinge on what was going on inside the woman's head at the time, we are still not yet at the point where a woman can put you in prison for something she dreamed - although I am sure most men have experienced dealing with a woman who is mad as hell at you for something you did in one of her dreams.
It just seems to me to be a reasonable precaution some men can take if they choose to - kind of like choosing not to go into a bar wearing sexy clothes and no panties.
If you stop sleeping with women because of a false rape accuser then the liar wins, just like the terrorists win if they can force us to live in fear.
Statistically, you probably will not be the victim of a false rape accusation twice.
What I find remarkable about this story is how the UK judge actually cares about the contradiction in testimony. In the US the legal system is far more willing to steamroll the innocent, in my opinion -- which is not to say that the UK doesn't also have problems.
If you stop sleeping with women because of a false rape accuser then the liar wins, just like the terrorists win if they can force us to live in fear.
No, the biggest reason I stopped sleeping with women was because they were so miserably unpleasant to be around that a little bit of bad sex was nowhere near worth putting up with them.
The number of single women out there with STDs is absolutely staggering, and zero percent will give a man the chance to have "informed consent" to sex with them by warning him about it.
The liar "wins" nothing by me quitting something I had grown sick of doing because women were so messed up in the head about the issue. The cultural presumption that they had done me some sort of favor, when I percieved the situation as being similar to sitting through an awful dinner with their families was an inversion of reality - but the narrative would always paint me as the perp and her as an unwilling "victim."
No thanks.
"No, the biggest reason I stopped sleeping with women was because they were so miserably unpleasant to be around that a little bit of bad sex was nowhere near worth putting up with them."
YOI! What is happening to my site?!! Isn't this as bad as "all men are ____" [fill in the blank]? You know, stereotyping ALL people in a class based on what SOME do? I know you're not going to agree with that, but I need to go on record that we don't buy into that here. I think we all need to take a walk around the block once in a while.
While "consent" may hinge on what was going on inside the woman's head at the time, we are still not yet at the point where a woman can put you in prison for something she dreamed - although I am sure most men have experienced dealing with a woman who is mad as hell at you for something you did in one of her dreams.
I'm not pissed at you, I'm just wondering where you get your ideas from.
We are well past the stage where women can and do put me in prison for something they dreamed, as in dreamed up.
Somehow, I don't see an involuntary erotic dream as being and more or less substatial than a deliberate made up lie.
AfOR
You know, stereotyping ALL people in a class based on what SOME do?
Everyone here has their own experiences, and is entitled to them. The narrative that sex is always wonderful for the man, a chore and a burden for the woman, and that the man always gets more out of the interaction than the woman does needs to be addressed.
You will find plenty of women whose past bad experiences lead them to lead lives of their own - it can work both ways, men can do that,too - that is what "equality" really means.
This strange idea that all men want sex all the time and women must always have their "consent" cajoled out of them is part of what allows the problem of false accusations to continue.
"The only 100% defence is to ensure you get sentenced to life in prison at a very early age"
What a profound statement AFOR.
We can only hope that as more and more accusers recant their accusations that the judicial system will finally see the problem and do something about it.
I am willing to do something myself if there is something I can do.
It's all well and good venting and ranting but what can we actually do to change this epidemic of false accusations?
We need to be active in fixing this problem!
CBGirl
We are well past the stage where women can and do put me in prison for something they dreamed, as in dreamed up.
But, didn't a woman just -
"cause you to lose -
1/ your home
2/ home contents
3/ computers (work/income)
4/ about 15/20k US$ in
miscellanous stuff that it will cost to put things back together.
And take your capital at the moment to zero, and your employability to sub-zero."
- with something she dreamed up?
"The only 100% defence is to ensure you get sentenced to life in prison at a very early age"
Unfortunately, I read that the US prison system is dramatically lowering the standard of proof it uses to determine whether or not an inmate has been raped by another inmate, as a prison rape prevention measure.
Bye bye being raped in the shower, hello false accusations. (This is not a net gain for inmates' rights!)
"This strange idea that all men want sex all the time and women must always have their "consent" cajoled out of them is part of what allows the problem of false accusations to continue."
That, I agree with. Stereotyping members of a class is what I don't like.
"Unlike "sexual harassment", which doesn't even require that any sort of objective harassment took place and depends entirely on how the woman "feeee-yuhls" about it . . . . "
Not correct.
"While "consent" may hinge on what was going on inside the woman's head at the time . . . "
Completely wrong, from a legal perspective. Consent is based on whether a reasonable person in the male's position took her objective manifestions of outward assent to signal a willingness to proceed.
Trust me on that one.
Well said, Archivist.
Completely wrong, from a legal perspective. Consent is based on whether a reasonable person in the male's position took her objective manifestions of outward assent to signal a willingness to proceed.
Trust me on that one.
Well, you are the lawyer.
Could you explain then, how the legal perspective is working in AfOR's case? Or, how it worked in Gary Dotson's case? Or, a lot of the other cases showcased here? If "consent" is that cut and dried, why did AfOR lose all he has lost?
Also, even given the facts in the Hofstra case, where "consent" seems to be fairly clearly proven, why are so many women writing about this still taking the position that even though the young men are not guilty of rape, they still must be guilty of something which makes their experiences appropriate as punishment?
Stereotyping members of a class is what I don't like.
Reporting one's own personal experiences is not "stereotyping", even if those experiences do not fit the PC "narrative."
Anon at 1:07: Good points. The problem is credibility. We went from a system that required corroboration for rape to one that leaves it up the jury to decide which party they believe. We have seen innumerable examples of women who are able to wrongly convince police and even the trier of fact that there was no manifested consent. First point: justice shouldn't hinge on the acting ability of the accuser or the accused.
As for the cackling hens who insist "something" must have happened at Hofstra, I have a major piece coming on that -- I might given Glenn and Robert first crack at it over at Glenn Sacks. The idea is that these writers have learned the wrong lesson from Hofstra: you don't empower women by pretending they are powerless. That is what underlies all these screeds. That, and a very, very dim view of young males.
"although I am sure most men have experienced dealing with a woman who is mad as hell at you for something you did in one of her dreams."
I'd like to take a survey of how many men have experienced this, because, I swear to god, this seems like an extremely common event.
My ex-girlfriend was pissed off at me for a week because she had a dream I was having sex with "a blonde slut".
I was like "You're pissed off at me for something that happened in YOUR HEAD!?".
I thought for sure that my girlfriend was just a nutcase and that it was an isolated incident, but talking to other men,I've realized this scenario happens quite often.
We must raise the bar and require corroboration before charging anybody with rape. "Take her word for it" doesn't work.
"We must raise the bar and require corroboration before charging anybody with rape. "Take her word for it" doesn't work."
Even a year ago, I might have been hesitant about this. Now I am convinced, in he said/she said disputes, there should not be charges.
Especially if "he" has no criminal history.
I'm really not trying to be a prick, here, Archivist. But I'm trying to provoke some serious conversation that looks at the issues the way they really are - not the way we think they "should" be or wish they were.
So, first, you say -
" "While "consent" may hinge on what was going on inside the woman's head at the time . . . "
Completely wrong, from a legal perspective. Consent is based on whether a reasonable person in the male's position took her objective manifestions of outward assent to signal a willingness to proceed.
Trust me on that one."
And then you say -
"We went from a system that required corroboration for rape to one that leaves it up the jury to decide which party they believe. We have seen innumerable examples of women who are able to wrongly convince police and even the trier of fact that there was no manifested consent. First point: justice shouldn't hinge on the acting ability of the accuser or the accused.
Now, excuse a non-lawyer for being confused by all these legal terms, but doesn't it seem to imply that the term "legal perspective" refers to the basis on which cases are actually being decided? And, if they are being decided on the woman's view of events, isn't that exactly the same as -
" "consent" may hinge on what was going on inside the woman's head at the time . . ."
And, isn't the "reasonable woman standard" replacing the "reasonable man standard" for reasons I referenced in an earlier post? It seems that that view of "the world in color" might be shoving out that nasty male "black and white" view that invokes such "silly sexist reasoning" as the belief that there might be something like truth which is fundamentally different from a lie.
Maybe justice "shouldn't" hinge on the acting ability of the accuser or the accused, but it does seem to appear that that is exactly the case.
The idea is that these writers have learned the wrong lesson from Hofstra: you don't empower women by pretending they are powerless.
Oh, you silly "men", who insist on looking at the world in "black and white." You really do need to start looking at it in "color" the way women do. ;)
Is not the ability to point one's dainty little finger at one or more men, and say "He/they 'done me wrong', molested me" and set loose the chivalrous dogs of war (as Crystal Gayle Mangum, aka Jeanette Rivers, did) and have the mob go after those men in way that only million$$$ could keep them out of prison, an incredibly potent form of "power"?
For all my "male power and privilege", that is certainly something I can't do.
Anon at 1:41: I don't want to give your answer short shrift, but it would require a long time to fully explain. Let me see if I can do it quickly.
First, the reality is that very few men are convicted on the basis of a false rape allegation. That's not the real problem: the problem is even being arrested and charged, as in Hofsta and Duke lacrosse. For those men who are convicted, of course, it is devastating, so we must never minimize that.
Second, the "consent" standard I've posited is the law. It doesn't depend on her perspective at all. Once in a while, a jury will disbelieve a man when he says that she manifested signals that a reasonable person in his situation would interpret as consent. If a jury believes that her outward manifestations of assent indicated to a reasonble guy that she wanted to proceed, I would be astounded to learn that ANY jury ever went ahead and convicted him. Of course, anything's possible with a jury, which is why he said/she said cases never should get to a jury.
Third, as for the reasonable woman standard, that's a harassment standard invoked re: hostile work environment and has nothing to do with criminal rape law. Again, it's not based on the individual woman's perspective, but on the reasonable basis that, for example, women generally would be offended if a supervisor had a naked Penthouse centerfold hanging on the wall of his office.
First, the reality is that very few men are convicted on the basis of a false rape allegation.
******
Bologna. What evidence do you offer in support of this?
Innocent men are convicted all the time, and most of them never go to trial. They are steamrolled into accepting plea bargains.
Shelving a swab of semen is an issue that MANY men must protect themselves against?
That's what was indicated in the first comment.
C'mon now! How about if we ask that "you" prove that statement by backing it up with facts. Usually, it's only Jeana who is reprimanded for not having facts at her fingertips.
How many actual cases are there? Remember, you used the word, MANY.
I agree with the 11:06, except I feel that ANY women willing to have sex with 5 guys, one right after the other, is deeply troubled.
Problem is, too many men think with their "little" heads rather than the big heads (as you said).
"Bologna. What evidence do you offer in support of this?"
I made it up because I hate the falsely accused.
Gettin' like the feminists, are we? Pull anything you want out of your vagina because it sounds good and it supports your worldview. Great!
I was, of course, refrering to convicted after a trial conducted with due process of law, and I thought that was clear. Plea bargraining cuts both ways, and from what I can tell it's not all that common for purely he said/she said cases to get even that far. Too many do, of course, but from what I can see (you know, following this very closely for a long time -- but what the hell do I know, right?) it's not a common thing. Typically there's more evidence to it, and the defendant runs a real risk of conviction at trial. Sure, I can cite evidence where guys are railroaded into pleading without any more than her word. But not "all the time."
I think we all need to be careful about making blanket statements that we can't back up when we assume men are innocent just because they say they didn't do it. We don't know. One thing I am certain of, innocent men are NOT being convicted "all the time." Are they being convicted too often? You bet. Are they being unfairly charged frequently? From what I can tell, absolutely.
I don't need to resort to fantastic claims to know we've got a serious problem that isn't being addressed. The fantastic claims simply reduce my credibility.
I was talking wit a friend who is a prison officer here in the UK and the subject of rape came up. He thought over 50% of men sentenced for sex crimes were completely innocent. Just anecdotal I know but given the hysteria governing sex crimes he may just be right.
It's entirely possible that 50% of men convicted of "date rape" are innocent. In most of those cases it is just he said/she said, and he took a plea bargain to avoid the cost of going to trial.
Just look at the recidivism rate for date rape -- it's almost non-existent. By comparison the rate for stranger rape is much higher, but still significantly lower than for felons in general. This implies that more men are falsely convicted of rape than for other crimes.
And remember: when I say "recidivism," I'm not just talking about a convicted rapist being convicted of committing a second rape. I'm talking about being arrested for anything. The vast majority of convicted rapists who offend again do not commit another rape.
Raising the question: why do convicted rapists re-offend at a substantially lower rate than felons in general, if most convicted rapists who DO reoffend are arrested for something other than rape? That only makes sense if there are a lot of innocent men being convicted of rape.
And I'll put this another way: why do you have such confidence in these he said/she said convictions? We know for a fact that the system arrests innocent men all the time. What do you think would have happened if the Hofstra victims hadn't taped the orgy? We simply never hear about the men who have been falsely convicted -- but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_18/myths_facts_recidivism.htm
The Justice Department study of 9,691 men convicted of rape, sexual assault and child molestation who were released in 1994 found
43 percent were arrested for any type of crime within three years, compared with
68 percent for all other former inmates.
(Why so much lower? It couldn't be because one third of them are innocent, could it?)
How many actual cases are there? Remember, you used the word, MANY.
Women keep telling us that there are "MANY" unreported rapes. They can't tell us how many, because they are unreported.
What we have here is something of a case of "duelling belief systems." We do know that rape kits are being passed out, and we also know that many states have no statute of limitations for rape - Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. This means that evidence can be collected which conclusively proves that intercourse took place and be available for the rest of people's lives. In the Duke rape-lie case, intercourse did NOT take place, and it still cost the families of the accused $5 million to keep them out of prison. As Pierce said - it is less the chance of conviction than being accused, arrested, and charge that men need to be concerned about.
I know that you and Jeana flatly deny that false accusations are any sort of "real" problem, compared to all the hordes of unreported rapes, but they do exist. False accusations of child abuse, for example, are almost standard procedure in child custody litigation.
With the potential to provide proof of sexual activity, and the willingness of police and prosecutors to "always believe the victim", it amounts to handing someone a loaded gun. You have to trust someone quite a lot to do that, and if there is one thing this blog and the comments here should prove is that trust between men and women is at a very low point.
"And I'll put this another way: why do you have such confidence in these he said/she said convictions?"
Is this addressed to me? I DON'T. Do you read this blog? My position is, they shouldn't even be charged. And from what I can, they usually aren't charged without something more. When it reaches the jury, a lot of times the jury comes back very quickly due to the fact that they don't know either, so they exonerate.
"We simply never hear about the men who have been falsely convicted -- but that doesn't mean they don't exist."
I am certain they exist. Not "all the time."
Read this post where I debunk the feminists' certainy that most rape claims are true. An excerpt:
In the UK, a small percentage of rape claims -- perhaps 8% -- are very quickly dismissed, due usually to recantations. These are easily classified as "false" by any objective measure. (Why aren't there more? Most rape claims are of the he said/she said variety and don't lend themselves to certainty of this nature.)
On the other extreme, there are a small percentage of rape claims that are prosecuted and that lead to convictions.
In between the obviously false and the claims that lead to conviction, the majority of rape claims are dismissed somewhere along the way because of insufficient evidence (which means there was not enough evidence to make out one or more elements of the crime, even if a trier of fact believed the evidence -- hardly a technicality) or the accuser decides not to pursue the claim or the jury just doesn't buy it.
To suggest that all of these rape claims that fall between the obviously false (due primarily to recantation) and those that end in conviction are, by necessity, "rapes," is dishonest in the extreme. For example, is it fair, or honest, to assume that every man exonerated of a rape charge by a jury is, by necessity, a rapist just because the charge wasn't classified as "false" early on? The question scarcely survives its statement. And what of the claims that never even actually got to a jury -- the vast majority that are dismissed earlier, often due to fatal infirmities in the case -- how on earth can we say that these should be considered "rapes"? Why is it not just as logical -- in fact more logical -- to assume that most of the dismissed rape claims in this middle ground were not actual rapes?
Oh, I think that a lot of those rape claims are false.
And don't forget the monstrous difference between the US and the UK. In the US you can easily get life in prison if you dare to go to trial. A lot of people assume that no innocent person would ever accept that coerced plea-bargain, but that's just a myth.
"We simply never hear about the men who have been falsely convicted -- but that doesn't mean they don't exist."
I am certain they exist. Not "all the time."
I'm reminded of the scene from "Annie Hall" with the split screen and their therapists asking the Diane Keeton character and the Woody Allen character how often they had sex -
Her: "ALL THE TIME, sometimes as often as 3 times per week."
Him: "ALMOST NEVER, 2 times per week maybe, 3 at most!"
The "standpoint" issue is very salient here - from the perspective of the man whose risk is one of imprisonment due to false accusation, a percentage may seem very high - "an all the time" situation. From the perspective of a woman, that exact same number might seem to be "almost never", despite the fact that they are exact same number.
So, let's try some real numbers -
In your experience and from your research -
1) What % of accusations result in full convictions at trial?
2) What % are settled by a plea bargain to a lesser offense?
3) What % are dropped due to lack of evidence?
4) What % are dropped because the accuser recants?
5) What % are acquitted by the jury.
If I left out a common outcome, please feel free to supply it and the numbers.
In the US, it varies by county, but I think that an 80% conviction rate is typical, with only 10% of cases being dropped.
In the UK the situation is very different -- only around 1 in 20 reported rapes result in a conviction. Basically, if you live in the United States, you're screwed if you become a defendent.
You'd better have that orgy on tape, or the prosecution can put you in jail and sit on you until you cry uncle. Or you can blow tens of thousands of dollars on a trial.
In 1995, the conviction rate of rape case that went to trial was 1 in 3.
As you say, it is now 1 in 20 ish
However, the NUMBER of "rapes" reported has shot through the roof...
TRUE ANECDOTE.
When I was told by the custody sergeant that the police were not going to proceed against me, basically I started grumbling very loudly about a fucked up system where I must be lying because I have a penis, and my accusers must be telling the truth because they have vaginas...
His response.
"Blame New Labour"
(the polictical party in power, of whom Harriet Harman is a member)
From the horse's mouth....
AfOR
In the US, it varies by county, but I think that an 80% conviction rate is typical, with only 10% of cases being dropped.
Is that 80% full conviction of forcible rape, or a plea bargain to a lesser charge? I think we really need to look at the complete breakdown to get a good picture of what is going on. If the cops grab an 18 y/o kid, isolate him, scream at him, tell him he's going down for 10 counts of rape at 25 years each, or he can plead guilty to 1 and maybe get out on parole in 15, a lot of scared kids will sign away their freedom.
Two ghosts...
One of the things that the women here are up against are 2 ghosts from the past of this entire screaming match between men and women who some might term "dialogue."
The first is Susan Brownmiller, who is the person who really laid out the framework for what is called the "rape culture." Here is the money quote -
"Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times...[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear".
There you have it - even a man who has never laid a hand on a woman with ill will, who never would, and who would never allow another man to, is somehow guilty of this world-wide and history-long conspiracy to keep all women in a state of fear.
Sorry to disappoint you, grrls, but some of us men will flatly reject that nonsense, and will continue to reject it even if you repeat it 1,000,000 times.
And, the fact that you are willing to believe such a foul accusation against us makes our estimation of you as human beings drop a few hundred points.
The 2nd ghost is Mary Koss, the mother of the famous "1 in 4" statistic. However, her methodology has been severely criticized, and the finding that nearly 3 out of 4 of the women that she claimed had been raped themselves did not call the experience "rape."
So, when you gals keep throwing out all these massive numbers of "unreported rapes", are you talking about "Brownmiller rapes" or "Koss rapes" or something men would agree really was a rape.
Because, if you want to define a misunderstanding as a serious crime, we are simply not going to go along with it. And, if you base your assertions about numbers on definitions we won't accept, we will not give your numbers any credibility either.
All this "rape" business has so poisoned and destroyed my perception of sex, that I have come to hate it as much as women are claimed to. As a man who has had the chit harassed out of him by women to engage in sex he didn't want, it's pretty easy to view all women as playing a very vicious and dishonest game about the whole mess.
"Raising the question: why do convicted rapists re-offend at a substantially lower rate than felons in general, if most convicted rapists who DO reoffend are arrested for something other than rape? That only makes sense if there are a lot of innocent men being convicted of rape."
I disagree. Many college men are involved in rape as a result of "rape culture". When and if convicted, they are scared sh*tless to do it again. That's why your typical campus "date rapist" does not repeat the act once he is caught and convicted.
Many college men are involved in rape as a result of "rape culture". When and if convicted, they are scared sh*tless to do it again. That's why your typical campus "date rapist" does not repeat the act once he is caught and convicted.
Brownmiller wins, everyone else loses.
Atom: There is no "rape culture," madam. I am doing a major article on that right now. You trivialize actual rape when you talk about "rape culture." You would do well to focus on drinking because that leads to a lot of false rape claim situations. Please don't use that term "rape culture" term on my site, madam.
Anon at 6:34: A tiny percentage of all rape claims end in conviction, as it should be. I wish I had time to respond to your query in full. Plesse be careful dealing with rape figures becaues it is almost impossible to pin down anything with accuracy.
Every serious, unbiased study ever conducted shows false rape claims are a significant problem. That's all I care about. Are you a new reader? If so, welcome aboard.
"The first is Susan Brownmiller, who is the person who really laid out the framework for what is called the "rape culture." Here is the money quote ..."
Here's my translation of the author's words.
The male genitalia has been used [by some men] as a weapon since prehistoric times. Rape is a conscious decision by which the threat of intimidation is actually acted out.
Note, in her second sentence, Brownmiller defines RAPE -- not MEN.
All men have are equipped with male genitalia, thus potential rapists.
It's as simple to me as 1+1=2
Atom, you've been warned once -- no more use of that phrase "rape culture."
All women have tongues and vaginas so they are potential false rape claimants.
This is not a debating society. Sorry. That phrase is hateful, and we have a lot of readers who've been falsely accused. You just want to come on here and act like a fucking asshole, to irritate MRAs. Well, guess what? I'll bet you we have 100 regular readers who were falsely accused and none of them were MRAs -- at least until they were falsely accused.
Good for you, Archivist. What a prick.
Note, in her second sentence, Brownmiller defines RAPE -- not MEN.
Note - in her second sentence, Brownmiller FALSELY accuses ALL men of colloborating in a plot to keep ALL women in a state of fear. Your "take" is nothing more than that.
I will say this again - it is by these extremist positions and inflammatory hyperbole that women have undermined support they could have had and have alienated men who would have been happy to support women being safe from harm. But, if those of us who do that are still considered by you to be every bit as guilty as a real rapist, then don't be surprised that we do not join you in your hatred of us.
And, do not be surprised if we have the opportunity to help you out should you need it, but decide to look the other way and shrug our shoulders and say "what can we do, we live in "RAPE CULTURE".
It's not a point we should debate with her. There is no "rape culture," and while civil discourse is fine, this know-it-all, stick-it-in-the-face hatred is inflammatory on this site, since I know for a fact it is a home-away-from-home for a hell of a lot of falsely accused guys.
All men have are equipped with male genitalia, thus potential rapists.
It's as simple to me as 1+1=2
Yes, having male genitalia is one generally accepted definition of what "being male" means.
If you think this stunning bigotry on your part is helping the cause of women, it's no wonder that relations between the sexes are so strained.
I have found that the quality of my life improves in direct proportion to how much I avoid people like you in RL.
Now, don't you feel so much "safer"?
Let's make this point clear. We have posted literally thousands of posts that disagree with us. Civil discourse is welcome. Using our site to spread hatred is not allowed.
"All men have are equipped with male genitalia, thus potential rapists."
Except you keep forgetting one thing, it takes more than having a dick to rape somebody,it requires having a sociopathic personality that allows you to see someone else as merely a tool to be used for your own pleasure.
Most men are not sociopaths. No man is a "potential rapist" unless he is mentally ill and has a history of violence against women,even then, it is unfair to malign someone for something they have not done because they might do it.
End of story.
Anon at 8:52: exactly right. The attempt to paint all men as potential rapists, to suggest that men who view porn, who are aroused by women, who laugh at off-color jokes fall on a rape continuum . . . no, we're way beyond that on this site. We are focusing on real issues, not feminist hate bullshit.
Archivist said...
It's not a point we should debate with her. There is no "rape culture," and while civil discourse is fine, this know-it-all, stick-it-in-the-face hatred is inflammatory on this site, since I know for a fact it is a home-away-from-home for a hell of a lot of falsely accused guys.
What is your goal for this site, Archivist? I ask this for a purpose. If your goal is to show "reasonable women" that this anti-male "rape-lie" hysteria is being driven by this know-it-all, stick-it-in-the-face hatred, then showcasing it here and demonstrating that no amount of rational response makes any headway, is one way to do it.
If your goal is to wake men up to what they are up against, it also serves that purpose.
Yes, there is the chance that their baiting will sucker some guy into popping off foolishly, but those can be deleted.
But, somehow, the point has to be shown that there is a whole lot more going on with this issue than a simple misunderstanding. There is some unbelievable hatred fueling it, and until that is recognized I don't think anything effective can be done about it.
While it may be painful for some of the falsely accused guys, it could also be therapeutic to gaze on the bare face of Medusa and not have it turn them to stone.
Before we get enough people to change the culture and legal system, we've got to get a lot of guys to be able to survive the way it is. Seeing how evil what they are up against really is could give them some perspective and reason to keep working to change things rather than giving up.
And, it is always valuable to keep in mind that that cute woman giving you the eye might be one of the women who post here.
..to suggest that men who are aroused by women fall on a rape continuum...
See, that is the trap that they have built - it is the perfect setup. If a man finds attractive women attractive, that is proof that he is evil. This has been in the works for well over 30 years. The trap has been sprung on a lot of men.
And, some of us have lost our ability to find women attractive any more.
Are you a new reader?
No, I have been one of the most prolific commenters on this site for about the past week, and have been reading this blog for months. I'm just trying to stimulate dialogue in directions I think will be constructive and productive.
Anon at 9:05. Excellent point.
If I had to pick our most important goal, it's to avoid another Fed.R.Evid. 413. Men have been sleeping too long while vile lies have been spread about them. Slowly they are awakening.
Carry on. But my suggestion is to ignore Atom unless she is willing to engage in rational discourse.
Anon at 9:12: I recognize a lot of your stuff the past few days. Why not give yourself a name on the site?
Atom claimed...
Many college men are involved in rape as a result of "rape culture". When and if convicted, they are scared sh*tless to do it again. That's why your typical campus "date rapist" does not repeat the act once he is caught and convicted.
Many? There is ONE rape reported per campus per year in the US.
Hyperbole.
Let me explain the real "rape culture" to you Atom.
That's when rapists get to go on international TV and are applauded by huge adoring audiences.
It's when, no matter what, the rapist is the one treated as the victim.
It's when, over a decade, not one of dozens of rapists is actually punished.
It's when high circulation magazines pay the travel and living costs for sex tourists who chat up year eight kids for the purpose of sex.
It's when the victims are told how "lucky" they are. How "privileged".
It's when the victim is forced to pay money to their rapist for decades.
I posit that these things are very indicative of a very perverted "rape culture" . The common denominator here is that all of these things take place when the rapist is female and the victim male.
I've watched large numbers of women stand and shamelessly applaud women who've raped boys. You, Atom, come here talking about "rape culture"? You are correct. There is a rape culture alright.
Gwallan, please tell the audience how old a year eight boy is.
Why not give yourself a name on the site?
Because "names" imply personalities. People recognize a name, and pre-judge the content of the post based on that alone. For example, I tend to ignore anything that Jeana writes, unless I can use it in some way to advance one of the points I want to make.
"Anonymous" suits me quite well, because that is what I am - I am the content of what I say, and nothing more. I could be "Anyman" saying it, or "Everyman". If something I say resonates with some man, then it belongs to him.
That is how we spread the ideas we need to fight this. When I used to write under something of a known net name, guys would be afraid to use my ideas without giving me "credit." Well, if they want to give credit to "Anonymous" they can and be done with it.
Mr. Anon at 9:38: Assuming you make good points, your words will carry greater respect and people will treat your comments more seriously, and will read them more often, if you have a name that they come to know.
When it was determined that Rembrandt's "Man in a Golden Helmet" likely was not painted by the great master, its value plummeted. Exact same painting, but valued a lot more when people believed Rembrandt painted it.
I disagree. Many college men are involved in rape as a result of "rape culture". When and if convicted, they are scared sh*tless to do it again. That's why your typical campus "date rapist" does not repeat the act once he is caught and convicted.
*****
That doesn't make any sense. Nearly 70% of felons who are released from prison go back for something else within three years, so "scared shitless to do it again" doesn't apply to criminals.
The low recidivism rate for date rape is easily explained by a high number of false convictions, though. Can you think of a better explanation?
Anon at 10:32: Date rapists who plead and some who go to trial are often the ones who got drunk and had sex with a drunk girl. Under our very fair (sarcasm alert) law, if both get drunk, he's a rapist, she's a victim (why not the other way around if she was just as aggressive initiating sex?) Drinking is involved in most of those cases -- and the guy is the one held responsible. So why aren't there more repeat offenders? Because these guys aren't really criminals and don't have a criminal's heart, except for one technicality -- i.e., they're the ones with the penis.
@Pierce...
Thirteen or fourteen.
Mr. Anon at 9:38: Assuming you make good points, your words will carry greater respect and people will treat your comments more seriously, and will read them more often, if you have a name that they come to know.
It doesn't always work that way, Archivist. When people place too much value outside themselves, they tend to lose their own power. They look to someone else to tell them what to think, or to make their world ok. It's hard to conceive of the "value" of something plummeting because of the name on it, when the essence of what it is has not changed. If a man is hungry enough, I can't imagine that it matters whether something is called "tripe" or "cow guts."
There are lots of Moses wannabes in the MRM - here to lead men out of their wilderness - Glenn Sacks, Marc Rudov, Warren Farrell, etc. What you will notice is that each of them has a small following, but also an equal or larger number of detractors. Men tend to like to figure things out for themselves, and tend to be far more enthusiastic about ideas they think are their own. If I say something a guy has already thought but just hasn't yet been able to put into words, in a week he has forgotten that anyone else said it and owns it.
Notice how all feminists seem to own feminism. They believe the ideas are their own.
Cultural and legal change will follow a change in belief. I tried the other way, and my experience convinced me it does not work too well.
Mr. Anon, I don't know about the others -- I know what Glenn Sacks' following is, and it is huge. I'd love to have his advertisers. But ours is a niche blog, with a much bigger audience than I thought possible.
P.S. Take it from me, people pay more attention to the words someone utters if he has a good reputation. I can prove that to you.
You would do well to focus on drinking because that leads to a lot of false rape claim situations.
And lots and lots and lots of rapes.
So the mom is in jail for 12 years for taking part in the abuse of her daughter, and somehow we are to believe that the daughter was not raped? So why aren’t you demanding that the mother be released?
Or is that not the issue in this article; you are perhaps not passing judgement on whether a rape took place, just on the fairness of charging someone many years later?
It's bizarre when false rape collaborators try to rationalize refusing to prosecute false rape accusers on the grounds that the vast majority of rapes are never reported.
That probably isn't true -- if it was then you would expect the number of reported rapes to vary dramatically over time, and they don't -- but let's assume that it is.
If that's true, then there is even less reason to refuse to prosecute false rape accusers, and even less reason to deprive defendents of true due process rights --- BECAUSE IF THE VAST MAJORITY OF RAPES GO UNREPORTED, IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE, ANYWAY.
Glenn has earned his following, as have the others. I get more satisfaction from reading things I wrote years ago being presented somewhere as the person's own belief. It's nice to see people being their own leaders, and followers are a lot of responsibility - kind of like children.
To each his own, eh?
J-troll: I hereby demand the release of the mother!
"And lots and lots and lots of rapes."
How can one person be wrong as much as you are?
It leads to some rapes, and lots more false rape claims.
jeana said...
So the mom is in jail for 12 years for taking part in the abuse of her daughter, and somehow we are to believe that the daughter was not raped? So why aren’t you demanding that the mother be released?
Information not in evidence.
From the original article...
Dunsmore, who is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence for her part in abuse of her daughter, broke down in tears as she recalled her own role.
Her imprisonment may have nothing to do with the alleged rape.
How can one person be wrong as much as you are?
Hard work and diligent effort. It is not by accident.
I love the new Anon who chooses to remain anonymous. It's plain to see he's not type who wears a neon sign, yet there's a aura about him that commands respect. This firm, but subtle manner suggests he writes professionally.
Words of wisdom from the A-troll.
gwallan,
You are right, but I think she was arrested after telling the police how she was watching tv and her daughter was being raped in the next room. In which case she deserves her sentence. Why would she lie about something like that? In any case, the right people need to go to jail, not just any people, and waiting so long makes it near impossible for this to happen.
That's what statutes of limitations were such a good idea, and why it's so stupid that they've been eliminated in some states.
Why would she lie about something like that?
My guess, would be that she was involved in the abuse of her daughter, she was tried and convicted before the others, and was offered a deal for her testimony against the others. Only there was compelling evidence that she lied about her story, that one of the other defendants could disprove.
I'm sure that slwerner could corroborate this, but having a party to a crime testify against another party to that crime, especially for a reduced sentence, is ripe for abuse.
If I knew I could get less time, I'd sell out a co-conspirator and say whatever the prosecutor wanted.
So the mom is in jail for 12 years for taking part in the abuse of her daughter, and somehow we are to believe that the daughter was not raped?
I wanted to come back to this. What says that abuse has to include sexual abuse? As I mentioned in the comment above, testifying against one of the others in exchange for a reduced sentence happens all the time.
Granted, in this article, nowhere does it state that there is any other evidence to support that rape occurred, other than her testimony. So if that is the only evidence (and at this point, that's all we're aware of), and she states that now it was all made up, then we can't state for certain what is true, so none of it can be used.
What is most annoying, is that there is nothing from the daughter. No court transcripts, interviews.....nothing. Past accounts like this would tend to make me lean toward the fact that the mother pushed all of this, and the daughter knows it isn't true and is keeping her distance.
But based on everything we do know, absolutely NOONE should ever be convicted of rape, under these circumstances.
Oh my gosh, listen to this:
"If I knew I could get less time, I'd sell out a co-conspirator and say whatever the prosecutor wanted."
This goes to show that NO MAN will readily admit to raping a woman. And my feeble brain tells me "why should they if they can get away with it".
Have ANY of you "innocent" men heard of SOAR?
This goes to show that NO WOMAN will readily admit to falsely accusing a man of rape. And my feeble brain tells me "why should they if they can get away with it".
Have ANY of you "innocent" women heard of The Innocence Project?
Sorry atom, if the tactics that feminism has been touting for 40+ years now are being used against them. That equality thing sucks sometimes, doesn't it?
Oh, one more thing.
In cases where a man and woman are involved with the comission of a crime, who gets offered the deal to testify against thier partner more?
I'll let you figure that one out.
"Oh my gosh, listen to this:
"If I knew I could get less time, I'd sell out a co-conspirator and say whatever the prosecutor wanted."
This goes to show that NO MAN will readily admit to raping a woman. And my feeble brain tells me "why should they if they can get away with it"."
How do you infer that all men would behave in a certain way, based on what one man says?
Were you being sincere about having a feeble brain?
First of all, neither side condemns ALL men or ALL women. Why do we have to keep rehasing the issue of "ALL or SOME"?
Secondly, YES ... I'm being sincere about my feeble brain. Do you think it's "easy" keeping up with all you geniuses?
Thirdy, why won't anyone comment on the SOAR program? ... a program designed for convicted rapists who have admitted their wrong doing.
How can you talk about your crusade against false rape accusations without addressing RAPE and other related issues?
"How can you talk about your crusade against false rape accusations without addressing RAPE and other related issues?"
I thought rape was already a crime, and that it was punishable by imprisonment,and that when guilt was proven,rapists were given those sentences of imprisonment and then were sometimes themselves raped or killed in prison.
Would you like to compare that to how false rape accusers are treated? Having their accounts be believed and supported after they have already confessed to lying,near-celebrity status,being treated like the victim of a crime when they are in fact the perpetrator of a crime every bit as serious as rape. Indeed, they have raped their victim in every way except the physical.
Where are the long sentences of imprisonment for false accusers? Where is the ridicule and derision and threats of violence from their peers for committing this heinous crime?
The question I have, is how you can talk about a crime that is already punished so harshly that innocent people are being punished while ignoring a crime that is going completely unpunished and is even being rewarded.
@ 9:24 ... I happen to AGREE with your post, but it did NOT answer my question!
Anonymous is right in that rape is a crime that is punishable by law, but that doesn't mean that this is what happens all or even most of the time. I would bet that far more rapists get away with rape than false accusers get away with falsely accusing.
And I think something like the SOAR program, whatever it is, sounds like a good idea.
From what I can tell, Jeana, false rape claims are far more common than rape claims. Most are dealt with by police without a formal charge. I follow this very closely and am trying to be objective about it. My guess would be three times more false rape claims.
How can you talk about your crusade against false rape accusations without addressing RAPE and other related issues?
Because, as has been stated multiple times, this is not a rape advocacy site. There are too many to count that do that. There are a handful (really only 2 that I am aware of), that deal with false rape.
Again, you trot out the standard feminist tactic of, when the discussion is false rape accusations, trying to shift the topic to rape. Sorry, but that is not accepted here. That spits in the face of those falsely accused, such as scott, Anonymous for a reason, CBGirl's husband, and numerous others who have all had false allegations of rape levelled against them. If you are unable to grasp that, then this may not be the site for you to be at. While we appreciate commenting, if you are more concerned with rape, this isn't the place for you to be.
We would welcome your comments and insights into false accusers, why they do it, and ideas on righting the problem, the discussion will not be about rape or rapists. That isn't what we do.
Pierce,
Well, I actually don't know how many false rape claims there are. But apparently a lot more than I ever thought possible.
"Anonymous is right in that rape is a crime that is punishable by law, but that doesn't mean that this is what happens all or even most of the time."
No system is perfect. I acknowledge the fact that some rapists probably do slip through. However,this isn't what happens MOST of the time,as you say. Police zealously prosecute rapists,sometimes so zealously that innocent men wind up dead.
Can the same be said of false accusers? Has anyone heard of a alleged false accuser being beaten to death in prison? It doesn't happen.
"I would bet that far more rapists get away with rape than false accusers get away with falsely accusing."
Oh really? Are you talking about the mean old patriarchy and the big bad conspiracy by all men to keep all women in a state of fear through rape?
Ok. Run this through your head, there are plenty of people who have been hospitalized or beaten to DEATH because people in their neighborhoods THOUGHT they MIGHT be rapists. The stories are all over this site.
How does that square with what you said?
Rapists are already being punished to the full extent of the law AND of vigilante justice. False accusers receive NO punishment or a slap on the wrist.
"No system is perfect. I acknowledge the fact that some rapists probably do slip through. However,this isn't what happens MOST of the time,as you say."
Some "probably" slip thru the cracks? How about 65%!
Atom doesn't know what the fuck she is talking about.
Maybe not, but the American Medical Association does.
So the AMA knows how many rapists slip through the Justice system? Link or cite for that one please.
"Some "probably" slip thru the cracks? How about 65%!"
According to whom? The National Organization for Women?
As long as we're pulling statistics out of our asses, I'll go on record saying that 80% of women have falsely accused a man of rape.
You can quote me on that.
Then, after someone has published my quote in a book, we can call it a "genuine statistic", and maybe one day we'll see people echoing the sentiment that all women are false rape accusers,because that's how people get a lot of these "statistics" that they've been demonizing men with for over 40 years.
I would also like to append a "Fuck you,madam" to my earlier statement.
So the AMA knows how many rapists slip through the Justice system? Link or cite for that one please.
************
You know, we talk about these issues and the discussion often goes in circles. That's because we pretend that there is no such thing as statistics.
But there is truth in the numbers. It is a fact that the number of reported rapes has dropped by over 70% over the past fifteen years, along with a general reduction in crime. That means that there isn't a vast pool of unreported rapes -- if there was then that 70% reduction shouldn't have occurred, and there should be enormous volatility in the number of reported rapes. Just as an ocean produces powerful tides and currents, the 90% of rapes that feminists insist are never reported should produce massive flunctuations in the number of reported rapes.
We also know that the recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is hugely lower than for felons in general -- more than one third lower, which is incredible. The vast majority of convicted rapists who offend again commit crimes other than rape, since rapists are just common criminals.
That combined with the fact that the number of rapes has been substantially reduced suggests that rapists are not slipping through the cracks. It is the falsely accused and convicted who are being let down by the system.
The numbers are fully consistent with a very large number of false rape convictions, especially for "date rape."
"Maybe not, but the American Medical Association does."
Citation, please?
I am thinking of putting it to a vote: should we ban Atom?
Post a Comment