Wednesday, November 11, 2009

It is time to bring back the rule requiring corroboration for rape charges

The following case underscores the principal problem confronting men and boys accused of rape: their accusers have the power to say whether they will be held for trial based on no other evidence.

The rape laws were changed in the past several decades to drop the requirement of corroboration based on the insistence of feminist legal scholars that women don't lie about rape. Now we know better. Women do lie about rape, and often, but the "no corroboration" rule remains in effect. Feminst scholars insist this rule merely makes rape like every other crime by not requiring two evidentiary sources to convict. But rape isn't like any other crime. The very physical evidence of the crime is the same as the physical evidence of one of the most basic human interactions -- an interaction of love, not criminality. It is simplicity itself to transform that act of love into a crime: all a women must do is say so. And many of them do exactly that.

"Corroboration" could include the flimsy statement of the accused that is riddled with misstatements of fact. We are not suggesting that any alleged rape that occurs with no witnesses should not be prosecuted. We are merely saying that where there are conflicting claims, both of them stated with plausibility, and no other significant evidence, there is no basis for proceeding to trial. It is unjust and immoral for a prosecutor who knows there is a plausible defense to "roll the dice" and hope the jury does something nutty like convicting the male. That, apparently, was the goal of a certain prosecutor in Durham, North Carolina who saw a chance to score political by prosecuting three "privileged" white college boys.

In the following case, the man might have done bad things to the woman, but she admits she cried rape because she was angry at him. In my book, what she did was worse than anything he is charged with, yet there is no indication that she will be charged. What a terrible, terrible system we have wrought, thanks to feminism, and thanks to the feminists' useful idiots, the law-and-order chivalrous males.

Rape Charge Dropped Against Estranged Husband

SAN DIEGO - A woman who told police her estranged husband raped her after abducting her and their 3-year-old son recanted her story Monday, prompting a judge to dismiss a sexual assault charge, but he still faces other felony counts.

Maria DelCarmen Carmona testified during a five-hour preliminary hearing that Adelaido Nunez -- the father of three of her children -- raped her in his San Diego home after abducting her and their son from the parking lot of the Northgate grocery store at 1410 S. 43rd St. last June 25.

Carmona, 24, testified that she was with Eduardo Bueno Salvidar and a 4-month child they had together when they drove her grandmother to the Southcrest market to do some shopping.

Carmona said she was loading the groceries into Salvidar's SUV when Nunez pulled up about 10:30 a.m., grabbed her, struck her with a cell phone and threw her into his pickup truck. She testified that Nunez drove her and their son to his nearby residence, then took her into a bedroom, locked the door and had sex with her while the boy watched Spiderman.

Monday afternoon, during questioning from Deputy District Attorney Dino Paraskevopoulos, Carmona said the truth was that she and Nunez had consensual sex that day, and that no rape occurred. She said she initially told police the opposite because she was mad at the defendant for abducting her from the store.

"He took me against my will, but we had sex because we both wanted (to)," Carmona told the prosecutor.

The woman told Paraskevopoulos that she didn't want to see Nunez do a lot of time in prison so he could be around for their children.

Judge John Thompson dismissed a charge of spousal rape, but said enough evidence had been presented for Nunez to stand trial on two counts of kidnapping and one count each of domestic violence, false imprisonment and misdemeanor child endangerment. Nunez faces a maximum of 11 years and four months in prison if convicted. His trial was set for Dec. 8.