Sunday, February 28, 2010
College women don't report rape because they don't know they have the right to report? Because of self blame? Puh-lease!
Indeed, "underreporting" is wielded either as a club to pass more and more reforms, or as an excuse to explain why there aren't a hell of a lot more rape claims. After all, sexual assault advocates are being paid to sit around and respond to few claims, so they need to justify their existence. The fact is, underreporting is the feminists' trump card to end all discussion about the prevalence of rape. The argument goes something like this: Rape is rampant, and we know this from all the rapes that are not being reported.
Sorry, ladies. Underreporting is entirely too politicized to be taken seriously. You are the ones who have politicized it, so you must assume responsibility for the fact it isn't taken seriously.
Yet, here's yet another report, this one from Spokane, that helps fan the flames of rape hysteria. It "explains" underreporting on campus: "And many college-age women may not understand they have a right to report it, or they’re afraid." And: "Perhaps the biggest deterrent to reporting, however, is self-blame. 'They think that if they went out to a party, and were drinking, they were somehow to blame for what happened,” said Shipman, of the Spokane sexual assault center. 'They need to understand they are the victim of a crime.'"
Allow me to pause to bang my head against the wall. In 2010, college women need to be told that rape is a crime? That they have a right to report it? Right. And I have some swamp land in Jersey to sell them.
That doesn't just strain credulity, it shatters it into a thousand pieces.
Allow me to posit the number one reason college women aren't reporting rape: because they know that whatever happened in bed with a male classmate wasn't rape. They might toss that word around to their girlfriends or to persons taking surveys, but when it comes to honestly answering that question, they know that they led the guy to believe that they wanted to have sex. They are not reporting more rapes because there aren't more rapes.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Speaking of real life and downers, one of my aged relatives just called to complain to me about this situation, displayed on the front page of this morning’s Dallas Morning News: Wrongfully convicted rapist gets exonerated after a 12-year hitch, and the Great State of Texas reimburses him $600,000. But along comes the IRS with jaws that bite and claws that catch, claiming non-rapist owes a third of the dough to the federal government.
Along with a sympathetic pang for the dude unjustly accused of rape, my relative harbors an abiding antipathy toward the IRS.
“Bastards!” says the aged relative, getting pretty fired up.
“Now see here,” I say, “you’d better give me the keys to the Cessna.”
No doubt the IRS are bastards, but one can’t help but note that there is no commensurate front-page public outpouring of outrage on behalf of the rape victims whose rapists are never convicted at all. Nobody’s payin’ them 50 grand a year for pain and suffering. No newspapers are running front-page articles spotlighting the government’s failure to render justice on their behalf. And for sure no relatives are callin’ me up to complain that the rape conviction rate in the UK is only 6%.
Wrongful conviction for rape strikes quite the chord of intense indignation. So melodious is this chord to the ears of patriarchy enthusiasts that there still rages, in 2010, a huge debate over whether a rape victim may be held responsible for her own rape.
FRS COMMENTS: First, I am conflicted about printing this because it only furnishes ammunition to misogynists who don't need any more ammunition than they think they already have. The "person" who writes this blog is not representative of women, of course, but I still feel conflicted.
Second, I would have to be that vile misogynist Shakespeare (he's a "vile misogynist" because he's male) to adequately describe the idiocy at work in her "reasoning." I will say this much: isn't it wonderful how radical feminism can't see the difference between (1) the negligence and sometimes intentional misconduct of the criminal justice system, operating at the behest of society as a whole, when it works in complicity with a false rape accuser to deprive an innocent man or boy of his liberty for years or decades, destroying his life in the process, and (2) the felonious, unilateral act of a lone criminal who rapes a woman? But, hey, why let little things like, oh, facts and reality, get in the way of a good woman-as-perpetual-victim metanarrative? Get it straight (and I know "straight" doesn't apply to you, lady): in the former, the harm was caused by the system acting for all of us; in the latter, the harm was caused by a criminal. Get it? Those rape "victims" who are deprived of justice can sue their "rapists" civilly (with its attendant reduced burden of proof). But before they can prevail, they need to prove it.
Third, isn't it also wonderful that radical feminism knows that when a man or boy accused of rape is cleared or exonerated or found "not guilty," the justice system by necessity has "failed" the "victim"? Never mind that such failure must be taken as a matter of faith by relying on the word of -- cough, cough -- radical feminists, who hate men like this "human being" seems to (again, don't take my word for it -- read her blog and decide for yourself).
Fourth, isn't it also wonderful that radical feminism truly, really thinks that when it comes to rape, the justice system is working at the behest of the rape accuser alone as opposed to society as a whole? You know, it's in no one's interest aside from the accuser to get rapists off the street. Right.
Fifth, isn't it astounding when radical feminists complain that there is widespread indignation for the falsely accused when they, themselves, spearheaded an avalanche of rape reforms in the past three decades to make it easier and easier and easier to convict innocent men and boys of rape? Because of "people" like this, society has handed women and girls unprecedented power to bring their rapists to justice, but it never bothered to consider what to do when when they abuse that power.
But enough of this. I have "misogny" I need to practice: I have to respond to some email from men falsely accused of rape.
The cousin of a mentally unstable woman accused a man of raping the woman. The accused man was arrested and jailed for a full month. Only after police received the medical report of the "victim" (that's what the story calls her) was the man cleared. The man alleged that police officers implicated him in the alleged crime because a relative of one of the police officers wanted to purchase land he owned.
What makes the story outrageous is that the falsely accused man is 90-years-old. That's right: a 90-year-old man was deemed sufficiently dangerous to be jailed for one month after being accused of raping a mentally unstable woman, and before the police even saw the medical test results.
According the news story: "A superintendent of the police in his investigation stated that no incident of the rape occurred as man was too old to commit rape and medical examination of the victim woman did not confirm the rape. Police suspended a deputy superintendent of police, the station house officer and three sub inspectors for implicating the old man in a false rape case and criminal proceedings were initiated against them."
See here: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/27-Feb-2010/90yearold-acquitted-in-rape-case
Full story: 90-year-old acquitted in rape case
RAWALPINDI - An Additional District and Sessions (ADS) judge Friday exonerated a 90-year-old accused from a rape case after the medical report of the victim confirmed that crime was not committed with the woman.
According to the details, ADS judge Malik Sajid Ali Awan acquitted Muhammad Akbar from the charges of raping a lunatic woman in a village of Kalar Syedan on June 26 2009 since the charges could not be proved against the accused.
Syed Manzoor Shah had complained to the police that Akbar raped his cousin who was not mentally fit as some people of the area witnessed the incident.
Police arrested the old man who was later granted bail by the Lahore High Court as he remained in the jail for a month. It was on his appeal that the Supreme Court took suo moto notice of implicating the old man in a rape case.
The subsequent inquiry into the case by district and sessions judge recommended reinvestigation in the case as many lacunas were detected.
A superintendent of the police in his investigation stated that no incident of the rape occurred as man was too old to commit rape and medical examination of the victim woman did not confirm the rape.
Police suspended a deputy superintendent of police, the station house officer and three sub inspectors for implicating the old man in a false rape case and criminal proceedings were initiated against them.
Muhammad Akbar had alleged that the DSP Khalid Jamil Paracha implicated him with the help of other police officers just to deprive him of a piece of land as a relative of the DSP wanted to purchase that land.
New Hanover County Sheriff's Office Detectives Charge Student with False Rape Report
NEW HANOVER - Detectives investigated the report of an alleged rape of a female Ashley High School student Wednesday February 24. The incident allegedly happened in a school bathroom adjacent to the football field at Ashley High School - and involved a male student as the alleged perpetrator.
The student reported the incident to a relative who notified the Sheriff's Office. As Detectives continued to investigate the alleged rape they determined the incident did not occur, as earlier reported.
On Friday, February 26, detectives arrested and charged the student who first reported she was raped by another student on Wednesday. Heather Marie Conklin, 17 of Wilmington, first told Detectives she was raped in a bathroom adjacent to the football fields at Ashley High School. Conklin later admitted the incident was consensual. Detectives have since charged Conklin with filing a false police report - a Class 2 Misdemeanor. Conklin was released from the New Hanover County Detention Facility after posting a $500 secured bond.
We do not tolerate comments that are insulting to the persons who comment or post here. Nor do we tolerate offensive comments, including but not limited to comments that are racist or that negatively characterize, attack, or degrade the characteristics of an entire gender. Comments that criticize or question social policies that favor one gender over another are, of course, not offensive. Example: saying "women are inherent liars" is offensive. Saying "laws enable women to lie about rape" is not.
This blog is dedicated to giving voice to, and raising awareness about the problems encountered by, persons falsely and wrongfly accused of rape and sexual assault. We welcome any comments consistent with that mission. We do not tolerate comments inconsistent with that mission or that minimize or trivialize the importance of that mission.
Off-topic comments consistent with the mission of this blog are welcome because they are often a valuable source of information about matters of importance to this blog.
Friday, February 26, 2010
I tried to locate Father Guberovic, because I want to write to him. He seems to have moved on from the parish where this incident occurred and I can't find him. If anyone knows his whereabouts, please let us know.
You see, Father Guverovic is a hero, and I want to thank him.
In an age when Catholic clergymen have been unfairly painted with a broad brush as child molestors (similar to the hateful attitude that declares "all men are rapists"), it is well to remember that countless clergymen are out in the trenches day in and day out, helping countless people in countless ways we never hear about. This particular priest knew that a terrible injustice had occurred, and that for every day a man sat in prison, a terrible justice was still occurring. He insisted that a young woman who had told a terrible lie make it right. This had to be painful for the good priest, and it would have been easier for him not to become involved.
The next time you hear some Catholic basher make an off-hand "jest" about Catholic priests and altar boys, kindly remember Father Zeljko Guberovic, and in his name, chide the "comedian" that the vast majority of priests, like the vast majority of men, are good people who do their jobs and try to do the right thing day in and day out. And sometimes, like Father Guberovic, they even do heroic things.
Read the news story below:
Rape Liar Didn't Want To Confess Because She Was Pregnant
The woman whose false rape accusations put an innocent man in prison for four years wouldn't have admitted her story was a lie if she knew she was pregnant at the time, according to court documents. Biurny Peguero Gonzalez told investigators she wouldn't have come forward during confessional with her priest if she knew she was going to have a child. "She said that had she been aware of her pregnancy, she probably would not have confessed when she did," the papers state.
According to the Post, the documents filed by the prosecution also reveal that after learning of her pregnancy, Gonzalez tried to avoid contacting authorities. The 27-year-old—who claimed she was raped in Upper Manhattan in 2005 to cover up a fight with her girlfriends and make them feel sorry for her—reportedly lied to her priest by saying she couldn't confess to her lawyer because she had lost her cellphone.
When she finally called her attorney, "it was from a church phone, with the priest watching to be sure she finished the job," the tabloid notes. Gonzalez's admission allowed Bronx construction worker William McCaffrey, 33, to have his 20-year sentence overturned. Gonzalez was sentenced yesterday 1 to 3 years behind bars for perjury.
This case was a crime: DAs must learn tough lessons from false rape conviction
Five years after crying rape and sending a man to prison for a crime that never happened, Biurney Peguero has been slapped with a one- to three-year sentence for committing perjury.
She deserves that much - and more. Peguero should have been required to spend at least as much time behind bars as did William McCaffrey, the innocent man she locked away.
That Peguero eventually admitted fabricating her account of a brutal assault by McCaffrey and two other men does not mitigate her offense. Nor was hers garden-variety perjury of the kind that witnesses perpetrate to, say, dodge an indictment.
Peguero's sworn words stole the freedom of a blameless individual as surely as if she had kidnapped and held him hostage for 50 months. Her eligibility to apply for parole in a year pales in comparison.
She also played the criminal justice system - the police, the Manhattan district attorney's office, a judge and two juries - for fools. They bought a story that in the clear light of hindsight had grounds for doubt.
And, so, the Peguero case must serve as an object lesson for law enforcement authorities and judges as to the makings of a wrongful conviction. It should also reinforce for them the need for speedy reconsideration when there is substantial evidence that an injustice has been done.
Peguero's tale was horrifying. She said she met McCaffrey after a long night of drinking in upper Manhattan and wound up with him and his friends in a van. In graphic detail, she described being raped at knifepoint by McCaffrey and two others. She offered as evidence a bite mark.
So convincing was Peguero that Supreme Court Justice Richard Carruthers slammed McCaffrey with a 20-year sentence - more than the recommended maximum - saying, "she gave up caring what you and your accomplices were doing in sexually assaulting her; hoping only that you would not take her life."
But a medical exam had turned up no evidence that Peguero had been raped at all, let alone by McCaffrey, let alone by three men.
But she had also told a friend there had been only one rapist.
But the men returned Peguero to her friends rather than dumping her on the street.
But police couldn't bring cases against the other two supposed attackers.
But a witness said Peguero had gotten into an unrelated fight with her friends, the melee in which she suffered the bite mark.
The DA's office says it investigated to the fullest extent possible. Still, this was that most dangerous of prosecutorial entities: the single-witness case. And it went horribly wrong.
Later, in 2007, after advances in DNA technology, McCaffrey's lawyers asked for access to DNA left with the bite mark. The material should have been provided forthwith, in keeping with then-DA Robert Morgenthau's stated policy. But a year passed before a DNA test proved that McCaffrey had not bitten Peguero, as had been presented at his trial.
Then, after Peguero recanted her story in March 2009, it took yet another nine months before he was freed.
When that day finally came, Carruthers apologized profusely and called the conviction a catastrophe for both McCaffrey and the criminal justice system..
The judge was right on both counts. Now, the goal must be never to stumble into another such disaster. New DA Cy Vance made a campaign issue of preventing wrongful convictions. He is moving to create a special unit for that purpose.
The horrible saga of McCaffrey's imprisonment must be part of the curriculum.
A further investigation by police concluded the student, whose identity has not been revealed, filed a false report, according to an e-mail from President Carol Moore to students and faculty. George Hacking, director of public safety, confirmed the report was false and said the state police will be filing charges against the student for filing a false report.
Jonathan Davis, associate dean of student affairs, sent out a campus warning to students and faculty Tuesday morning in regards to the reported sexual assault. The report claimed that an unidentified male had crawled through a first floor window in Stonehenge around 1:00 a.m. At the time of the reported assault, neither a description of the assaulter nor any other suspects were available. Jonathan Davis was not available for further comment at the time of publication.
Hacking stressed the need for students to understand the report filed by the student was false and said, "We are as safe today as we were before the report came in." Hacking acknowledged it would be unwise to not learn from the incident. "We recognize there are ways to get into the residence halls if you really want to," Hacking said, "we have some control over that but it's really the students responsibility to take control."
In order to prevent intruders from getting into the buildings, students need to report people who are propping open doors or leaving windows open, Hacking says. "We need the assistance of the community," he said.
Since the false sexual assault was reported, Public Safety has increased patrols in Stonehenge and specifically in the Crevecoeur area, Hacking said. "One of the more positive side effects of the incident," says Hacking, "is that the patrols are going into suites and finding the suite doors are now being locked."
In regards to handling reports of any kind, Hacking says you must always assume the report is real. When the call went out that an alleged sexual assault had taken place on campus, public safety officers, including two student officers, immediately responded to the area, where they contacted the RHD on duty. At the same time, the state police were notified and arrived on campus and began investigating the incident, Hacking said. Three uniformed officers, one with a canine to search for a possible suspect trail and four detectives were on campus, Hacking said.
"I came in as did Jonathan Davis as soon as we were notified," says Hacking.
Hacking did note the emergency texting system worked well but, "we're still working out some bugs with the email system."
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Rape "experts" have no difficulty tossing out a definite percentage of actual and false claims. Some are stuck on the two percent false claims (which is a lie); others say 9 percent. They thereby suggest that since 2 or 9 percent are false, the other 98 or 91 percent must be actual rapes.
Let's not mince words: it's a lie. But it's what they do, and we must be vigilant about it.
I repeatedly make the point that we are reasonably certain that some rape reports were actual rapes; and that some were false claims. However, the majority of rape claims fall in that big, gray area that defies certainty.
Rape advocates wrongly, and disingenuously, suggest that the big, gray area must be comprised of actual claims.
But let's talk reality. Let's pretend we are reasonbly certain that 15 percent are false, and that 15 percent were actual rapes -- we do not know about the rest. So how should we characterize the percentage of false claims? Should it be 15%? Only if we make clear that we only know that only 15% were likely actual rape. Rape advocates don't do that: they say that "only 15% of all rape claims are false," suggesting that the other 85% were actual rapes. So to avoid the lies, we should insist that they only talk about the ones of which we are reasonably certain. Thus, in my example: 50% of all rape claims of which we are reasonably certain are false.
To illustrate this big, gray area, here's a snapshot of one city, Saginaw, for 2009. It's not a typical American city because it is very violent. There were 119 incidents of criminal sexual conduct (which includes penetration) investigated in 2009: "Of those, the city pursued 22 arrest warrants, closed 22 for lack of leads, deemed 17 unfounded and continue to actively investigate 35. Another 13 involved uncooperative victims, while 10 await evidence analysis . . . ."
Of all those investigations, the city pursued arrest warrants for 18.5% of the reports. But 43.7% were closed for "lack of leads," or because they were "unfounded" (which usually include both claims that are false for which there were insufficient evidence) or involved uncooperative victims. About 37.8% are still being investigated.
How many of these are reasonably certain to be false? We can't tell from these stats. We would be speculating if we tossed out a figure.
But how many are reasonably certain to be actual rapes? Well, we don't know that, either. Perhaps some of the 18.5% referenced above, perhaps more, perhaps less.
You see where this is going: we have no idea how many actual rapes were committed, or the actual percentage. But it is grossly dishonest to suggest, for example, that "only" 14% of all rape claims are "unfounded" (thereby suggesting that the other 86% were actual rapes).
That is the kind of lie rape advocates tell.
". . . among college women, less than 5 percent of sexual assaults are reported. Moreover, only 2–3 percent of these reports are false, a percentage on par with the statistics on false reports of burglary or grand theft auto. With these numbers in mind, it is imperative to believe someone who reports a sexual assault."
From What constitutes consent? by Katie Rodriguez , Avital Ludomirsky, Amanda Yamasaki, and Jillian Hewitt (I am including their names here so that when they Google themselves, they will find this. Warning: excessive self-Googling can lead to blindness.)
Sigh. Where to begin? How much can we possibly write to debunk these grossly erroneous assertions?
I. ONLY TWO-TO-THREE PERCENT OF ALL RAPE CLAIMS ARE FALSE
I won't try to debunk this one -- we've been over this so many times.. I will direct them to these basic sources that furnish objectively verifiable information and that demonstrate the inaccuracy of their assertion:
First, it is grossly incorrect. This canard was one that led me to blog about false rape claims. I once believed the feminist two percent claim -- and I must be honest, I found it very comforting. But when I continued to research it, I found that it doesn't withstand the light of day. I realiced that much of their agenda was built on lies. I have long believed that rape advocates hurt their cause by insisting that this particular stat is true -- if they would admit the truth about this one stat, they'd have much more support.. But don't believe me, see the following:
*Bruce Gross, False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Associaton, Dec. 22, 2008 (a great summary of every major study). By the way, among other things it shows is that the FBI puts the number at KNOWN false claims at four to seven-and-one-half times greater than for all aother crimes. (This doesn't mean that we KNOW how many false claims there are -- rape claims do not lend themselves to that kind of certainty. We know there are AT LEAST that number of false claims exist.)
*False Rape Allegations by Eugene Kanin (Gross talks about this, but you need to read it for yourself to see how its detractors mischaracterize it). Professor Eugene Kanin’s landmark study of a mid-size Midwestern city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false.” Kanin, for the uninitiated, was a feminist icon until he blew the lid off of false rape claims. Then, when people like me started citing his rape study, he became a nitwit who didn't know the first thing about research. Sigh.
*E. Greer, The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim' Figure, 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947. Great scholarly article traces the two percent canard to its unreliable source.
*The Air Force study: In a 1985 study of 556 rape allegations, 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
*"Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers -- as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.)
II. ONLY FIVE PERCENT OF COLLEGE WOMEN REPORT THEIR ASSAULTS
Nonsense. A recent law review article that appeared in the New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement explains that the politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting even exists. J. Fennel, Punishment by Another Name: The Inherent Overreaching in Sexually Dangerous Person Commitments, 35 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 37, 49-51 (2009). Excerpt here.
As we recently demonstrated, the five percent figure shows that underreporting is WORSE than it was before all the rape reforms. This only proves that all of the rape reforms enacted to encourage women to come forward -- and that made it more likely to charge and convict innocent men -- were for nought (if you believe the feminist stats, what other possible conclusion could you reach?). Why not do away with the reforms since they don't help? The fact is, alleged underreporting is a lie -- nobody knows how much underreporting, if any, there is. It has always been wielded like a sword to continually push for more and more and more rape reforms, and some of the reformers won't be satisfied until rape accusers are permitted to act as both judge and jury in the trials of their own accusations.
III. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE WHO REPORTS A SEXUAL ASSAULT
This inanity deserves short shrift because, by any measure, it is morally grotesque. It does a grave disservice to the presumed innocent who are accused of such crimes since, by necessity, if we must believe any accusation of rape, then the men and boys accused mus t be presumed to be rapists. That sort of injustice might have been the norm in the Salem witch hunts, but it has no place in civilized society. This admonition also trivializes rape by including among its victims women who very possibly could be false accusers.
The City of Buffalo will likely pay $1.2 million to the estate of a man falsely accused of being the “Tifft Farm rapist” who spent 17 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.
The Common Council is expected to approve a settlement today authorizing payment to the family of the late Vincent H. Jenkins, who later changed his name to Warith Habib Abdal.
He was convicted in the 1982 rape and robbery of a 23-year-old Buffalo woman at what was then the Tifft Farm Nature Preserve. He was freed from prison 17 years later after DNA tests proved he wasn’t the rapist.
The state paid Abdal $2 million in 2002 to settle a wrongful- imprisonment suit.
Abdal died several years ago, but his family pursued a lawsuit he filed against the city alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution by the Buffalo Police Department. His attorneys alleged that investigators used suggestive and coercive tactics to prod the victim to identify him as the attacker.
“The police botched this case, and now we’re out $1.2 million,” said Niagara Council Member David A. Rivera, a retired Buffalo police officer.
Rivera heads the Council’s Claims Committee, which has met with city legal experts to discuss the proposed settlement. In reviewing the facts, Rivera said this should become a textbook case for new police recruits about how not to handle criminal investigations.
David A. Jay, a prominent civil rights attorney who represented Abdal in the lawsuit, could not be reached to comment. Jay worked on the case with some attorneys who were part of O. J. Simpson’s “Dream Team” during his murder trial, including Barry Scheck.
City attorneys are encouraging the Council to approve the $1.2 million settlement. They told members of the Claims Committee that if the case went to trial, the city could face damages and legal costs that approach $5 million. In a best-case scenario, attorneys argued, the city would likely be found responsible for the defendant’s 440-day incarceration from the date of wrongful arrest to the start of his trial.
While the city authorizes hundreds of settlements each year, settlements that hit the $1 million mark are quite rare.
Rivera said the rape case is an unfortunate case for all parties involved. “How do you compensate someone or his family for 17 years?” he asked.
Abdal was a former Lackawanna resident who had a previous criminal record. A jury convicted him of raping and robbing a woman during a bird-watching expedition at the South Buffalo nature preserve.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Must reading: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4611
I also linked it on reddit mensrights.
Anyone who would 'lie and paint somebody as a rapist is worse than a real rapist,' said man falsely imprisoned
Read the full story here: http://gothamist.com/2010/02/24/woman_who_lied_about_rape_sentenced.php
Despite this, the Democrats don't miss an opportunity to kick men in the balls while they are down: the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate has declared that men who don't have jobs tend to be abusive.
You heard me right. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaking on the floor of the Senate in support of the jobs bill, made this astounding comment: "I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs. Women don't have jobs, either, but women aren't abusive, most of the time. Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive. Domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed. That's the way it is all over the country."
The Washington Post sought out the opinion of "experts" to lend support the learned Senator: "Senator Reid is absolutely correct that high unemployment exacerbates domestic violence," said Peg J. Dierkers, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. "Abusers who lose their jobs are home more often. If they used their income as a means of controlling their victim, they may turn to violence when that source of control is gone. Victims who lose their jobs may feel more financially dependent on their abuser and less able to leave."
First, would any other group tolerate being negatively stereotyped in this manner? Men have become the official piñatas not only of the Democratic party but of their devotees in the sexual grievance industry.
Second, exactly what have these people done to keep men from being out of work?
Just a reminder, early last year, Obama economic advisor Robert Reich suggested where Mr. Obama should put stimulus money: ". . . if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out." And he's quoted here: "I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And, therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals." And see this op-ed, which lays out the feminist manifesto for making sure the stimulus monies are not focused on men.
Sadly, Mr. Obama dutifully complied: "The administration report projects that women would get about 42% of the jobs created or saved, even though they lost only 20% of the jobs in the recession." See here.
The result? Read this: "As the job market stabilizes, who is being hired back first? The answer: older white women. . . . . The unemployment rate for adult white women fell to 6.8 percent in January, down 0.6 percentage points from December, according to a report Friday from the Labor Department. . . . . Unemployment for white women has been falling since the fall of 2009, when it was 7.4 percent. . . . . By way of comparison, white adult males had an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent last month, down from a peak of 9.9 percent last fall. Industries that tend to hire white men, such as construction and manufacturing, have been suffering. According to the Labor Department, out of the 541,000 people who said they found work last month, 178,000 were over age 55. Of that group, 140,000 were women – 26 percent of all the hires that month."
Thank you, Democrats. You don't miss an opportunity to mug for your feminist constituents.
The "men's" movement, like it or not, is political. Countless laws need to be changed to insure gender equity where men's interests are not being protected, and that requires a political effort. However, unlike most other movements, this one seems hellbent on avoiding any suggestion that it is allied with a party that its members should support, and that will, in turn, support at least some of its members' goals. Neither party adequately supports the interests of males, but the Democratic party is beholden to NOW and its ilk, and it is extremely unlikely to do anything contrary to the feminist agenda. Democrats are at the forefront of every feminist initiative, from VAWA to rape reform to making gender discrimination easier to prove to funneling enormous economic support to women's causes. Far left Democratic intellectuals support initiatives as bizarre and as hateful as the "man tax." The Democratic party can never, ever embrace the interests of men, as a group. Repbulicans, too, have ill served men's interests in many areas, especially on law and order issues where the interests of the presumed innocent who have been wrongly accused of rape and allied offenses are not adequately protected. But, among many other things, the GOP has more respect for the "traditional" family, which is a code word for "families with fathers." And while the GOP hasn't embraced important men's initiatives, part of the reason is that the men's movement hasn't supported the GOP. Don't forget, before feminism became a political force to be reckoned with, the Democrats did not always serve its interests. Ted Kennedy once even opposed abortion rights.
As a lifelong Democrat, I say to my fellow men and to the women who grow weary of the women-as-victim metanarrative, especially those who belong to traditional Democratic-friendly groups (Jews, blacks, atheists, some Catholics, among others): it's time to back the only major party that might advance our interests, the Republican Party.
15 year old charged with filing a false report
FORT WALTON BEACH -- A 15-year-old Choctawhatchee High School student who told police she was sexually assaulted walking home from school has been charged with making a false report.
The girl said she stayed after school for tutoring on Dec. 10 and while she was on her way home at about 4:30, a vehicle with two males inside pulled up behind her. One of the males grabbed her around the neck and put her in the car kicking and screaming, according to an Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office arrest report.
They then took her to an unknown location and sexually assaulted her, she said.
During the investigation, it was learned that some of the facts were untrue. She had not stayed for tutoring that day and could not be seen on surveillance video leaving the school.
Deputies also couldn't find anyone who had seen the incident, despite there being a full parking lot at the time and there being heavy traffic on Racetrack Road. An examination at the Children's Advocacy Center showed no signs of sexual activity.
On Dec. 11, her mother called the Sheriff's Office to report her daughter had lied.
She was charged because her report raised the possibility that other children might be in danger, extra Sheriff's Office personnel and CAC personnel were deployed to deal with the incident.
The charge of filing a false report is a misdemeanor.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Woman who falsely accused man of rape, sending him to prison for 4 years, gets 1-3 years jail
A 27-year-old mother who falsely accused a man of rape - sending him to prison for nearly four years - was sentenced to one to ethree years behind bars yesterday.
"What happened in this case is one of the worst things that can happen in our criminal justice system," Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Charles Solomon said before shipping Biurny Peguero off to prison.
Peguero pleaded guilty to perjury last August, admitting that her claim of rape against William McCaffrey was fabricated.
McCaffrey, a Bronx contractor, was released from prison four months later.
"To Mr. McCaffrey, I am aware that nothing I can do or say can bring back the years he spent in jail," Peguero, a mother of two young sons, said prior to her sentencing.
"I want him to know that I will carry this guilt for the rest of my life, and words cannot describe how deeply sorry I am."
In court papers filed by her lawyers, Peguero said she was too drunk to remember the night of the alleged attack in September 2005 so she came to believe her lie.
Breaking news: Being drunk is no defense to rape, so why should it be a defense to making a false rape claim?
Why would she be permitted to raise this defense when a man or boy accused of rape couldn't? The simple legal answer is that rape is a general intent crime to which voluntary intoxication is no defense, but, presumably, making a false rape report is a specific intent crime for which voluntary intoxication is a defense. Pretty fair, isn't it? The more important question might be this: if she really was so drunk, why on earth was her rape lie believed in the first place? That's a really frightening thought, isn't it? That a drunk woman who has no idea what she's doing can run to the police and have you imprisoned for years. If her defense is valid, then the law enforcement officials responsible for this innocent man's incarceration ought to be jailed for stupidity, or malice, or both.
Second, it is wonderful that she recanted, but she waited a long time to do so, and she needs to be punished as a deterrent to other false accusers. An innocent man should not need to depend on a false accuser's whim as to whether she will, in her sole and unilateral discretion, free him from his false rape hell. False accusers need to be sent a powerful message before they lie that they can't destroy a man's life by falsely accusing him of rape, and if they do, the punishment will be severe. The only way to stop the false rape epidemic is to truly send a powerful message. Too many falsely accused men have sat in prison waiting for the recantation that never came, and it's time to stop depending on the good will of rape liars by hoping, often in vain, that they show mercy to the innocent men and boys whose lives they've already destroyed.
Here is the news story:
Lawyers: Woman Believed Her Made-Up Story About Rape
The woman whose false rape accusations sent an innocent man to prison for nearly four years claims she was so drunk that night that she started to believe her own lies. Lawyers representing Biurney Peguero Gonzalez—who is currently facing jail-time on perjury charges—say she was so inebriated when she falsely accused William McCaffrey of raping her in a van in Upper Manhattan in 2005 that she lost all memory of the incident and came to believe her own story.
After getting married and undergoing a religious conversion, Gonzalez confessed that she had invented the crime in an attempt to cover up a fight with her girlfriends and make them feel sorry for her. Gonzalez faces between two and seven years in prison for lying to a grand jury and lying during her trial, though she might be sentenced to less time. Her lawyers have asked that she be sentenced to probation, noting that if she didn't come forward, McCaffrey never would have been exonerated.
McCaffrey had his 20-year sentence cut short in December, and said it was "courageous of her to come forward and finally tell the truth."
Polygraphs are just fine for the men accused and convicted of rape claims; off-limits for the women who do the accusing
Polygraphs Just Fine For Men Accused Of, and On Parole for, Rape
Men accused of rape have little choice but to submit to polygraphs when requested, because a refusal could be used against them in deciding whether to charge them. And sometimes when men take polygraphs, they fail when they shouldn't, thus providing DA's with a possible justification to proceed with a case that should be dropped. And sometimes police tell men that they are failing a polygraph test, which elicits a false confession. See, e.g., this case from the Innocence Project ("Between sessions of questioning for the polygraph test, Deskovic [a 16-year--old boy] was questioned further by investigators, who told him he was failing the polygraph test. After six hours of questioning, Deskovic confessed to the crime" he did not commit.)
Moreover, persons on parole for sex offenses -- almost exclusively male -- are forced to submit to polygraphs as a condition of their parole. A recent news story highlighted one state's use of polygraphs to insure registered sex offenders are telling the truth: "Many sex offenders on parole or probation in New Hampshire take lie detector tests to help make sure they aren't violating their rules . . . . Each day, some of the state's 600 sex offenders on parole or probation go to an unassuming office in Concord to take a polygraph test. No questions about their lives are off limits, from their whereabouts to secret fantasies they may have. . . . . For some, even the threat of the test is sometimes enough to make them reveal information before a lie is exposed by the polygraph. . . . . When offenders show up for the test, they can choose not to go through with it, but they would then likely be in violation of their parole conditions. . . . . They said that about 10 percent of the time, the polygraph catches violations serious enough to send an offender back to prison. . . . . Most states now have sex offenders take polygraph tests, but in some locations, the offenders have to pay for it themselves."
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has upheld the use of polygraphs for this purpose, saying that polygraph testing "produces an incentive to tell the truth, and thereby advances the sentencing goals." The vast majority of states require polygraphs for sex offenders on parole.
The Women Who Accuse Men of Rape: Exempt From Polygraphs
Polygraphs are considered sufficiently reliable when men accused of rape and men convicted of rape and other sex offenses are asked to take them. But the women who did the accusing are exempt from taking polygraphs.
How did this double standard come about? Politics, of course. Rape victims' advocates lobbied state and local governments "to ban or discourage police from asking rape accusers to take polygraph tests. They have contended that women will be discouraged from reporting sexual assaults if police don't simply take them at their word, without question." S. Taylor, KC Johnson, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, 378 (2007).
We recently explained how this and the avalanche of other rape reforms that were supposedly intended to encourage women to come forward haven't worked. At all. Underreporting has gotten worse, not better. Alleged underreporting is wielded like a sword to continually push for more and more and more rape reforms, and some of the reformers won't be satisfied until rape accusers are permitted to be both judge and jury in the trials of their own accusations.
But the exemption has the force of Federal law behind it. To be eligible for VAWA funds, states and territories must certify that they prohibit polygraph testing of "victims." VAWA provides: "No law enforcement officer, prosecuting officer, or other government official shall ask or require an adult, youth, or child victim of an alleged sex offense ... to submit to a polygraph examination or other truth telling device."
(By the way, notice how the law is worded: it calls the accuser a "victim" of "an alleged sex offense." Not "an alleged victim.")
A Gross, Intellectually Dishonest, and Unjust Double Standard
The double standard cannot be justified on any rational basis. If polygraphs are sufficiently unreliable for rape accusers, they should be deemed sufficiently unreliable for the men accused and the men convicted of sex offenses. As noted above, innocent men sometimes lose their liberty because of polygraph tests. And it is repugnant that men on parole for a rape charge can be sent back to prison because they "failed" a test that is not good enough for the women who put them there in the first place, and that is not even admissible in a court of law. The mischief and evil caused by these tests in some cases may counsel against their use in any case.
But polygraphs seem to be here to stay. Since we insist that the men accused and the men convicted submit to them (and pay for them, too, in many instances), then we must insist the same of their accusers. Period. Let us be clear: no one is interested in causing undue stress to persons who have traumatized by a rape. But is a polygraph more stressful to a rape accuser than a stint in jail is to an innocent man falsely accused? The question scarcely survives its statement. And if you don't think it's common that innocent men are jailed for rapes they didn't commit, spend several weeks (that's how long it will take you) reading through this Web site to see the actual news accounts of that very thing happening, and read the objective studies that put false rape claims approaching fifty percent.
If a polygraph test can keep an innocent man from languishing in jail, accusers should not be exempt from taking them. And if the insistence that rape accusers submit to a polygraph test keeps some hypothetical rape victim from "coming forward" resulting in a rapist remaining at large (and there is no evidence that this would happen), as terrible as that is, that result is preferable to allowing an innocent man to be jailed for a crime he did not commit.
No valid, moral, or defensible rationale justifies exempting rape accusers from submitting to polygraphs if the men they accuse and the men their accusations convict have no real choice but to take them. Exempting rape accusers alone only serves to exalt a politicized agenda to jack up rape convictions over any concern for innocent men falsely accused of rape. But that, after is, is really the purpose of this immoral double double standard, isn't it? To jack up rape convictions, the wrongly accused be damned.
A teenage girl's false allegation of rape sparked off a 24-hour police investigation in Pembrokeshire at the weekend.
The girl reported to police on Saturday night that she had been the victim of the serious sexual assault in Narberth the previous week.
But following an extensive police enquiry, it was found that her claim was not true.
It is understood that she may now face a prosecution for wasting police time.
FRS Comment: Get that? She MAY face prosecution. NOT, she "will" face prosecution. If she ends up not being prosecuted, a message is sent that you can get away with falsely reporting sexual assault. How does this NOT increase the likelihood of more such claims?
Police issued an urgent appeal yesterday (Sunday) for witnesses and information relating to the alleged incident, which the girl had told them took place on Narberth's Town Moor, near the old primary school, on the evening of Saturday January 23rd. But within hours, her claims were established to be false.
A police spokesman confirmed today (Monday): "The female has withdawn her allegation. This followed a comprehensive investigation by local police CID, under the direction of a senior investigating officer.
"This allegation was subsequently found to be untrue."
FRS Comment: Nothing stating why the police determined the claim to be false. Just that they were.
The spokesman added: "Dyfed-Powys police, in line with national requirements, treats all allegations of sexual assaults seriously; this involves the use of specially-trained officers to support victims during what is a traumatic experience.
"Victims of sexual assaults should not suffer in silence, and we encourage them to contact us.
"Sexual Attack Referral Centres (Sarc) and other agencies provide independent support if the victim feels unable to speak to the police."
Monday, February 22, 2010
To her credit, Angelowicz isn't sympathetic to Mangum. Most of the mainstream media is avoiding any commentary on this story like the plague, and at least she is writing about it.
But Angelowicz certainly doesn't treat Mangum's malefactions with the seriousness they deserve, or would receive if the story were about a man's crimes against women. And that's flat-out wrong.
The problem is the tone of the piece more than anything else. First, the headline: "Guys: If You See This Girl, Run In The Opposite Direction." Nice, lighthearted title about a woman who, it appears, has now tried to destroy at least four adult male lives. It really conveys the gravity of the situation, don't you think? Then read the very first sentence: "Crystal Gail Mangum really knows how to stir up trouble. " And the end of the story: "All we can say is: Be afraid. Be very afraid."
Reverse the genders and pretend the story is about a man -- we'll call him "John Smith" -- who tried to murder his girlfriend and who previously raped three innocent women but got away with it because of some legal technicality. Now imagine this light-hearted headline: "Girls: If You See This Guy, Run In The Opposite Direction." And the first line: "John Smith really knows how to stir up trouble." And at the end the story, this admonition for female readers: "All we can say is: Be afraid. Be very afraid."
Get it? By any measure, the light-hearted treatment trivializes what my hypothetical male criminal did, and if somebody wrote such a story, women's groups would be justifiably outraged. What you'd see instead are outraged story after story after story about how our justice system fails women, and John Smith would be the poster boy for male oppression of females.
Angelowicz's piece trivializes what Mangum did, but hardly anybody notices because "it's just men." Look at the language Angelowicz uses: "stir up trouble" is what the office gossip does when she tattles on her colleague about leaving work early; it is in a different universe than the ruins Ms. Mangum made of several innocent male lives. And warning men to "be afraid. Be very afraid" is the kind of mocking admonition you'd give to a man whose mother-in-law is coming to visit. You'd never use this tone to women readers about my hypothetical rapist, John Smith. If the genders were reversed, you'd see a recognition of the injustice that John Smith is allowed to roam free to terrorize women without serving any time. The absence of any such recognition, the absence of any outrage whatsoever, might just be the biggest problem, the most glaring double standard, about Angelowicz's piece.
About Mangum's false rape claim, Angelowicz writes: ". . . rape is not really the kind of thing to lie about. " Nice understatement. Now reverse the genders: "Rape is not really the kind of thing to do." Now that's an appropriate level of outrage, don't you think?
And this: "Apparently Crystal didn’t learn her lesson . . . ." Well, I mean, how could she? She never served a second behind bars for it. She even published a book about her "ordeal," which some people treated seriously. I can't recall a single female commentator bemoaning the fact that Mangum did not serve any time behind bars, so I don't want to hear any of them wonder why Mangum didn't "learn her lesson."
You don't think it's fair to compare an actual rape with a measly false rape claim? Ask yourself, which harm is worse, the rape Mangum would have experienced if the Duke boys had done to her what she lied about, or the hell she put three innocent young men through for one full year, and beyond. If given the terrible choice between those two harms, I suspect most people would opt for the former. Yet the ordeal of those three innocent young men was given the light-hearted treatment by Angelowicz. But hey, it's just three "undeservedly privileged white boys."
If you think this post is an overreaction, you are not familiar with how false rape claims or female-on-male violence are treated in the mainstream media. They are trivialized in a multitude of ways. This is all the more glaring when contrasted with male-on-female violence, which too often is given the Chicken Little hysterical treatment and taken to absurd, almost surreal, extremes. Remember just a few weeks ago when the head of NOW claimed that the sweet Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother was a "celebration of violence against women." What universe are we living in?
Mangum allegedly tried to kill one man and she did attempt to destroy the lives of three others. Angelowicz should have bemoaned the fact that Mangum was permitted to get away with her initial crime without spending one second behind bars, and that this time, law enforcement needs to do the right and lock her away for a long time if she's convicted. What we needed here was the kind of angry piece women writers write when the genders are reversed.
Last time I checked, men bleed, men cry, men feel pain, anxiety, and hurt just like women do. Yet the victimization of innocent men is trivialized in comparison to the victimization of women. This, you see, is a twisted sort of payback for perceived injustice against women committed by persons the innocent men at issue never even met.
As troubling as Angelowicz's take is, the most inane statement appears in a comment under the story by a HermannM. I reprint it without comment because its idiocy speaks for itself:
"Since when did the Frisky become an agent of FoxNews’ propaganda? It strikes me as alarming that a site that advocates for women’s issues would side with that media giant against a sex worker & possible object of domestic violence. Did she lie about the rape case? Yes. Is she confused? Probably. Has she made good choices in life? It’s debatable. Does she need help? Definitely. Should women (and men) turn their backs to her, at the prompting of FoxNews? I don’t think so. Do you?"
Sigh. How very far we still have to go.
Man released after charges dropped
The district attorney's office has dismissed charges against a San Rafael man accused of raping a woman at Marin General Hospital.
Roy Anthony Herndon, 56, was released from jail last week after prosecutors dropped the case. His bail had been set at $500,000.
FRS Comment: So, once again, we see an arrest, and time spent in jail, BEFORE an investigation into the details was conducted.
The dismissal was prompted by doubts about the accuser's credibility, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Kathryn Mitchell. The case is no longer under investigation, Mitchell said.
Herndon had been charged with rape by a foreign object, assault with intent to commit rape, sexual battery by restraint and false imprisonment by violence.
"The evidence simply undermined her claims," said Herndon's lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Peter Arian. "This situation is a reminder that the government's allegations need to be scrutinized in every case."
FRS Comment: Again, if the evidence undermined her claim, why was he arrested in the first place? If one thing needs to be fixed, it is that the investigation must happen first, and the arrest should follow only if the charge is supported by evidence.
The woman reported her claims on Jan. 8, some five hours after the alleged incident occurred. The woman said she struck up a conversation with a man while waiting for a bus to Marin General Hospital, and he joined her on her trip, the sheriff's department said.
FRS Comment: The woman is not named, despite the fact that the evidence undermined her allegations. The man's name is splashed all over the story.
The woman told investigators that the man assaulted her after they had cigarettes together in a patio area at the hospital.
Based on the information provided by the accuser, sheriff's investigators identified Herndon as the suspect and arrested him early the next morning.
The public defender's office found evidence the accuser had been drinking excessively for days prior to the rape claim.
Thank to one of our readers for the tip.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. Rape was universally considered to be underreported, and everyone agreed that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape.
The statistics supporting the conclusion that underreporting existed were, of course, a moving target. In 1974, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration said there were somewhere around three times more rapes than were actually reported. But rape was not the most underreported crime -- larceny, burglary, aggravated assault, robbery and auto theft all had greater incidences of underreporting. As time went on, the rape advocates got their act together and made certain that their underreporting metanarrative became the official party line. A 1983 story in Time Magazine reported that the Department of Justice calculated that 56% of all rapes were reported. But rape "experts" deemed that number too high, Time said:
"Only 3.5% to 10% of rapes are reported, according to an aggregate of surveys done by the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI and the National Opinion Research Center." The one-in-ten figure gained widespread currency. See this 1977 report and this 1981 report.
The insistence that rape was underreported, and that women don't lie about rape, led to an avalanche of reforms in both law and public policy -- a cavalcade of changes applicable to no other alleged crime that made it much easier both to report the crime and to convict accused criminals. These included rape shield laws that forbid inquiring into the accuser's sexual past with persons other than the defendant; elimination of the requirement of corroboration, thus allowing a conviction for rape based on no evidence beyond the accuser's say so; the elimination of the requirements of force and resistance; the law allowing husbands to be convicted of raping their wives; the law eliminating use of polygraphs for sexual assault accusers but no other criminal complainant; lifetime anonymity for persons who make rape accusations; the law allowing admission in a rape trial of evidence that the defendant previously committed a rape (the prior rape is admitted if proven by just a preponderance of the evidence, and even if the defendant was previously acquitted of the charge); the trend to abolish and eliminate statutes of limitations for rape, thus allowing a purported victim to wait for an indefinite time to make a rape accusation; compensation for UK victims of even non-forcible rape, and "over the clothing" sex acts, no matter how slight their injuries, but not for men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their harm; all manner of counseling and assistance for rape accusers funded by tax and tuition dollars; and the rule on many college campuses that rape accusers can't be charged with underage drinking in connection with the accusation.
While these reforms made it easier to cry rape and to convict for rape, they also made it easier to falsely cry rape and to wrongly convict for rape. While these reforms were occurring, there were no reforms whatsoever to protect the presumed innocent who, too often, turn out to have been falsely accused. The typically minimal sentences for false rape reporting were not enlarged; no effort was made to insure that law enforcement charge false rape claims as crimes, and they rarely do; and no effort was made to protect men's reputations from false rape claims by maintaining their anonymity prior to conviction. Society handed women and girls unprecedented power not only to bring their rapists to justice, but to destroy the lives of innocent males merely by crying rape, but it didn't bother to consider what should be done if they abuse that power. The falsely accused were offered up on the altar of gender political correctness as a twisted sort of collateral damage in the war on rape.
But surely these massive reforms must have cut into underreporting of rape? Surely after decades of one reform after the next to encourage women to come forward, the women must be lining up, right? Well, no, we are told. By the early 90s, alleged underreporting was still a major problem: "In a large national survey of American women, only 16% of the rapes (approximately one out of every six) had ever been reported to the police. Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, National Victim Center, 1992 ." By the mid-90s, the picture wasn't any better: "In 1994-1995, only 251,560 rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials -- less than one in every three. (National Crime Victimization Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)"
Today, on college campuses, the supposed hotbed for modern rape, alleged underreporting could scarcely be worse. In fact, very few rape victims do report: "Ninety five percent of students who are sexually assaulted remain silent." And ". . . more than 95 percent of sexually victimized students don’t report to police or campus officials." See also here.
Underreporting has gotten worse, not better.
What is going on here? Society has bent over backwards to invent all manner of special rules applicable only to rape claims to make reporting easier than ever, yet women still aren't coming forward, we are told. Why not?
And if the reforms don't work, let's do away with them because they place innocent men at risk.
The fact is, no one knows the precise extent of underreporting, and they never did. The "proof" posited for underreporting ranges from unreliable to nonexistent. Yet underreporting is wielded like a sword to continually push for more and more and more rape reforms, and some of the reformers won't be satisfied until rape accusers are named both judge and jury in the trials of their accusations. While it makes sense that some actual rape victims don't report rape for a variety of reasons, it is by no means clear what that number might be, or if it even approaches the number of women who report false rapes. While it makes sense that some women don't want to undergo a "second rape" at the hands of the justice system by reporting (although that fear is by now wholly unwarranted), that fear certainly doesn't stop the false accusers from "coming forward," now does it? Why is that? All of the assertions that insist underreporting is a reality are premised on the assumption that every report of rape was an actual rape, and the same goes for every alleged unreported rape. That assumption doesn't just strain credulity, it shatters it into a thousand pieces. Let us be brutally frank: for many who insist underreporting is a reality, their proof is akin to asserting that underreporting must exist because no one is reporting all of these rapes that must be occurring -- thus proving rampant underreporting. Get it? Neither do I.
A recent law review article that appeared in the New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement explains that the politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting even exists. J. Fennel, Punishment by Another Name: The Inherent Overreaching in Sexually Dangerous Person Commitments 35 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 37, 49-51 (2009). Excerpt here.
Alleged rampant underreporting is touted as a fact in order to advance a politicized agenda. It is not based in reality. On campus, underreporting is trumpeted by the same angry, despicable forces of gender political correctness that vilify maleness itself, especially when maleness is packaged in white skin. The truth is being held hostage by radical feminist ideology. Let's have an honest, objective look at both rape and false rape claims, which, I am certain, will show that the former is not nearly as prevalent as the sexual grievance industry insists, and the latter not only is far more common, but becoming more and more prevalent because it is not deterred. An honest look at these issues will promote a greater respect for the rights of the presumed innocent, many of whom are, in fact, falsely accused; moreover, it will enhance the credibility of actual rape victims, which has been badly hurt by decades of doing nothing about false rape claims.
An example of how easy it is for women to use the unfair male-as-predator stereotype to destroy an innocent man
A father has spoken of his ordeal after being wrongly named as a paedophile on Facebook by a disgruntled neighbour.
Luke Chatfield was forced to leave his job, abused in the street and had a panic alarm installed at his home in Sale, Greater Manchester.
The father-of-three said his neighbour, Sally Pepper, posted the "evil lies" due to a dispute about her loud music.
A police spokesman said Ms Pepper was fined £80 for sending false messages likely to cause distress.
Ms Pepper posted the message on a Facebook vigilante site for sex offenders, which has since been removed.
She wrote: "I know another one, Luke Chatfield, he works in BBs cafe, Stretford Arndale."
Another user then responded with: "Anyone know his house number?"
Mr Chatfield only found out when someone told him about it at work.
"I had to leave my job," he said, "It was too much to cope with, she had posted where I worked and I was getting constant abuse.
"We had snowballs pelted at my house and my three young children were even too scared to go in the front garden in case they saw her."
Mr Chatfield's wife Karen said she felt Ms Pepper had "got away with her evil lies".
Mr Chatfield, who also volunteers at his children's school, has a clean criminal record bureau (CRB) check and has never broken the law.
"Two of my children are disabled, my wife is registered disabled, and I have to make sure my family is fed.
"Losing about £1,500 in earnings after being forced out of my job has made life even more difficult.
"She has almost destroyed my life."
Ms Pepper told the BBC that she "was a nervous wreck" and wants to move house. She said she did not regret what she did.
A Greater Manchester Police spokesman added: "Officers spoke to a woman... about the offence and issued her with a fixed penalty notice for sending false messages likely to cause distress under the Communications Act.
"Both parties were in agreement with this course of action.
"The Sale Neighbourhood Policing Team has also been working with the housing trust in an effort to resolve any long-term issues between the neighbours."
Friday, February 19, 2010
(1) You remember the news account of the teen boy who had consensual sex with an older girl, but who failed to withdraw, by her testimony, for five to ten seconds after she told him to do so? He was convicted of a felony. In contrast, in this case an innocent man was forced to rot in jail for two months while his false rape accuser held the keys to his release but never used them. She only came clean after she was advised that the DNA proved he was innocent. You do the math: five seconds versus two months. Which was a worse ordeal for the innocent person? But what are the odds that this false accuser will see the inside of a jail for even five seconds, much less two months?
(2) Wouldn't it be a great idea to get the DNA results back before you arrest a man and jail him on a he said/she said rape charge? What universe are we living in where a man can be deprived of his liberty on the say-so of a lone liar?
(3) Please note the reputational harm to this man. His life has been badly damaged if not destroyed because of a lie. In contrast, she is still afforded anonymity, despite the fact that the DNA evidence proved she lied and she has recanted her allegation. She was afforded anonymity in the first place because of her own criminal act, and reasonable people would think that she has forfeited whatever right to anonymity she might have had by committing a crime. Not so. The news outlets continue to shield her, and, in effect, reward her fraud solely because of the nature of the initial lie. Oh, and for reasons not known, they still claim she was raped by someone. Um, right. In any event, the innocent man's reputation = destroyed; the criminal's reputation = protected. The asymmetrical anonymity policies of our news outlets that allow this are the result of gender politicization run amok.
(4) Not mentioned in the story below, but noted in another account of this incident is this: "Officials say they believe[d] the [rape] story because the two had a history of domestic violence and at the time safety of the victim was at issue." See here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/stories/0210/707793.html This is a cautionary tale for men: you are at greater risk of having a false rape charge against you stick when you've been in trouble with the law previously, especially where the allegation is similar to the rape lie. It isn't fair, of course, but in these he said/she said rape cases, the police are looking for anything that would make them feel better about arresting you.
Here is the news story:
Innocent Man Spends 2 Months In Jail
An innocent man spends two months in jail, accused of rape. Now he is free after being cleared by a DNA test.
Investigators say this all stems from a false report. It turns out, the woman admitted to lying about the rape after the test results came back.
Now, after spending two months behind bars, all charges have been dropped, but the case is far from closed.
You might remember the name Michael Eulenstein, the Tuscaloosa man arrested and charged for rape in October 2009.
But DNA tests came back earlier this month, proving that Eulenstein's DNA did not match the evidence found in the investigation.
Since then, his name has been cleared, but he says his life has yet to return to normal.
"I've lost several friends. It's been hard for me to find gainful employment. Everybody looks at my name and is like, 'Whoa, you're that guy that's accused of rape. We don't want anything to do with you,'" said Michael Eulenstein.
"We're not sure exactly what happened," said Captain Lloyd Baker of the Tuscaloosa County Metro Homicide Unit. "She had obvious and substantial injuries that were indicative of being attacked. They did not appear to be self inflicted. The doctor we talked to in the emergency room believed that she had been assaulted by someone."
Investigators believe the victim was raped, but at this point, no other suspects have been named.
The victim admitted that she lied about Eulenstein's involvement in the case, and will now face charges for giving false information to law enforcement.