Does anyone dispute the fact that the 'false allegations of rape are common' myth is dangerous?

[Ms. Toad]

213. When people trained in determining which cases are supported by evidence

have dramatically different conviction rates based on the nature of the crimes, it is indicative that the way the juries treat the crimes is different.

Conviction rates (in the UK where statistics are more complete and easier to find): Burglary 70%; theft 85%; violent offenses (which I believe excludes rape) 68%. Rape: 40%. In other words, of the crimes the limited pool of professionals evaluating the evidence deem appropriate to prosecute, the rate at which juries are willing to use that same evidence to deprive someone of their liberty is roughly half that of other crimes.

Juries of laymen are still, largely, reluctant to deprive someone of their liberty merely on the word of someone who accuses them of rape - even when those trained to objectively evaluate the evidence believe the accused raped the survivor.

So the lower conviction rate - relative trials for other crimes evaluated by the same prosecutors as trial-worthy - ought to at least make you ask the question, "Why do the (controlled and limited group of) prosecutors (with intense exposure to evidence and survivor statements) misjudge rape cases so badly in contrast to other crimes - or is it the juries (many of which, because of how juries are selected, are not exposed to crime on a systemic basis)?"