Duke thoughts

Ho-Kay, I'm trying to understand something. Let's break it down systematically.

Women, we are told, NEVER lie about being raped. Never.
Unless, of course, they do.

Huh?

Well, it's simple - the feminist world divides accusers into 2 groups.

Women who are to be believed without reservation:

• Anita Hill
  
• The Duke stripper
  
• Those alleging rape by Republicans or other very, very bad men
  
• Anyone who accuses a Fundamentalist preacher
  
• Tawanna Brawley

Women who are, according to the feminist agenda, lying sluts:

• Juanita Broderick
  
• Paula Jones
  
• In fact, let's just make a special category for anyone who accuses Bill Clinton
  
• Desiree Washington, the beauty contestant who accused Mike Tyson

The National Organization for Women has long held that the rape stats show only 2% of allegations are proven false. Michelle Anderson, at Villanova University of Law, recently wrote a paper on rape on campuses.

there are no solid data to support the belief that false complaints of rape are more common than false complaints of any other crime

Again, from another section of the report:

there is no good empirical data on false rape complaints either historically or currently. A debate over the number of false complaints nevertheless continues.

Why the confusion? In part, the following may explain some of the fuzziness of the data:

In 2001, for example, only 39 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported, as compared to 61 percent of robberies and 59 percent of aggravated assaults. CALLIE RENNISON, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION 2001 10 (2002).

Most female college students who have an experience that meets the legal definition of rape do not even define that experience as rape, and so never recount it as such to the authorities. [emphasis mine] Fischer, Cullen, & Turner, supra note 197, at 15.

How many men may be affected? In 2002, there were 95136 reported forcible rapes. If 2% of the reports were false, that's 1,902 crimes that didn't happen. For those reports, 28,288 arrests werew made. If 2% of those men werely accused of a crime that didn't occur, 565 men were forced to defend themselves, and if no evidence backed up the allegation, they could still be convicted, and jailed. And labeld a sex offender for life.

See, in most crimes, there's some evidence. If you report a car stolen, and claim you know who did it, you generally have to produce evidence that you, at least, OWNED a car.

Not so in rape. There are men who have been convicted when the victim couldn't even remember anything, so impaired by alcohol was she. Yet, based on the alleged victim's personal belief that "I wouldn't have consented to sex", the man was convicted.

Reported complaints of rape on campus almost always involve acquaintances and alcohol.

So, why is an impaired man the one who takes all the blame for the sexual act taking place, when the women is the innocent victim. It seems to me that if both are drunk or otherwise impaired, if sex takes place, blame is a wash. How about educating young women that, if they drink to excess, they may find they had sex, willingly or not. If they don't want to risk that, don't drink.

Also, don't try to match the men drink for drink. There are MANY studies showing that women, even matched for body weight, get impaired faster, and sober up slower.

Part of being a grown-up is taking responsibility for one's actions, whether you anticipated the results or not. Do I know, one way or another, whether the rape charges are true or not? Nope, and I don't think it would be possible for a jury to decide on the evidence, either.

So, where is the presumption of innocence? It's a Constitutional right - except in rape cases. At least, when the alleged perps are white men. You don't have to be a Constitutional expert to know that's totally wrong.

Tags = News & Politics