Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Random mid-week thoughts
▲Whenever the people charged with solving a problem are dependent on the problem's continued existence for their livelihoods, you can be certain they will never admit when the problem goes away. We'll never hear that the so-called rape "epidemic" is no longer an "epidemic" because the sexual grievance industry has too much to lose by admitting it.
▲The reason that was most commonly given for scrapping the very modest anonymity proposal in Britain (it would have allowed men accused of rape to remain anonymous until they are charged) was that anonymity would "send a message" that rape accusers aren't to be believed, which would lead women to decide not to report their rapes. Has anyone seen even a scrap of evidence to support this epiphany? It rings especially hollow in light of RAINN chief Scott Berkowitz's recent U.S. Senate testimony that women are not failing to report due to fears that they won't be believed.
▲Finally, a few quotes from Prof. Alan Dershowitz:
•“Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime and women are not being punished for those crimes. I believe that being falsely accused of rape is as traumatic as being raped.”
•". . . the rules of evidence have been changed to make it easier to convict defendants of rape and harder to cross-examine alleged rape victims."
•"The idea that these youngsters should be branded rapists and the girl should be labeled a victim is preposterous." (Addressing a case where male teens who engaged in consensual sex with a female teen should be prosecuted for statutory rape while the girl was not charged)
•". . . objective data show that the problem of false rape reports is a serious one, and that the percentage of false reports in rape cases is considerably higher than the percentage of false reports for other violent felonies. One reason for this disparity is that the police rarely prosecute women who deliberately file false rape reports."
•"How can you publish the name of the presumptively innocent accused but not the name of the accuser?"
Posted by Archivist at Wednesday, November 17, 2010