A sudden moment of clarity regarding accusations of rape.

[frustrated_lefty]

I'm in the "wait and see the evidence" category. Sometimes it feels like we're a small group, not nearly so vocal and outraged as the "hang the bastard" crowd if the letters "r" and "a" appear within two meters of the guy's name. But, we're here, and, sometimes I think a little confused by the accusations which are thrown our way for the crime of waiting to see the evidence. We're NOT defending rapists. We're NOT defending rape. Rape is NOT sex and sex is NOT rape. Sex is consensual. If you want to nitpick at that, be my guest. Be damned if I'm wasting time defending a straightforward statement with clear intent.

I may be wrong in general, but suspect I'm right about this. Those of us waiting to see the evidence, I think, believe that the crime of rape should carry a harsh penalty. Personally, I think that beyond the age of 18 it should carry an automatic death penalty. Some of you won't agree with that, and I understand your perspective. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Rape is one of the most vile crimes which can ever be perpetrated. I think a person who does that is broken and can't be fixed. It's kinder and better in the long run just to put them down.

That said, I'm NOT a fan of capital punishment. Reaching the 'tipping point' in that judgment requires strong evidence. When the evidence is there, though, he or she is dogmeat imo. It deserves a harsh penalty. When that penalty is due, it's due. But, I'm not going there until there is evidence to support it, and 'he-said, she-said' crap just doesn't cut it.

I have a lot of tears for anyone who has ever experienced rape. It's a horrendous thing, you didn't deserve it, and you did the most important thing in the world: you survived. The people in your life love you for having that strength and courage. That's no small thing, and you are generous to share of yourself within this world.

This 'innocent until proven guilty' thing....I know some accusations seem pretty clear cut. But, if you personally don't have evidence to the contrary, c'mon. Every person deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Just thoughts.

-fl

[FreakinDJ]

1. I would advise caution

too many times the accusations have create too much hysteria. It is like incest it is so revolting to out inner self we tend to over react.

In the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit’s study of False Allegations conducted in 1983 of 556 rape investigations, a total of 220 (40%) of these reported rapes turned out to be false. Over one fourth of these 556 turned out to be hoaxes.

Linda Fairstein, who directs the prosecution of sexual assault in New York, says that there are approximately 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen. Says Fairstein, “It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”
http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaStats.html

According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (“Archives of Sexual Behavior,” Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/5075

But yes it is only right innocent until proven guilty

[DELUSIONAL]

2. Nice numbers -- except no mention of the rapes NOT reported

We know that the vast majority of rapes are never reported (and never will be) -- because it still is the tradition to treat the victim as a criminal. Not a whole lot has changed. Most date rapes are never reported -- and marital rapes are rarely reported.

So I find the official FBI numbers to be a load of crap -- Without a statement out of the estimated XX% rapes only X percent are reported of of the ones reported X percent are false -- or not meeting the criteria of evidence.

Many women after being re-raped by the system will say anything (including "the rape never happened") just to get out of the system. So was the first claim of rape a hoax or was the claim that the rape never happened a hoax??

I have a friend who was raped -- and she started the process but after being re-raped by the system she stopped the process by refusing to cooperate with the cops etc. She said that if she was ever raped again she would never report it.

[frustrated_lefty]

3. Save the hostility towards people who agree with you.

The only women I know for certain were not raped are my sister prior to her marriage, and my daughter who is 6.

Tell your fathers, your brother, your sons what happened. Let them know. Tell you mothers, your sisters, your daughters.

Fuck this rampany hostility issued from a closet. Fuck hiding from a pain. If you've been hurt, let those close to you know, let them care for you. You and they together will make the system change. In our lifetime? Hell if I know. I do know that change is NOT brought about by hiding secrets in the dark and being randomly unpleasant with those who agree with you.

-fl

[Moosepoop]

58. Why the hostile response to this poster?

DELUSIONAL was responding to FreakinDJ, not you. It doesn't look like the two of them share the same view at all, therefore "save your hostility towards people who agree with you" doesn't fit.
Did you think DELUSIONAL was responding to the original post, or what? :shrug:

[frustrated_lefty]

76. I understand that. This thread is not being hijacked.

You and Lizzy are welcome to do your drivebys wherever you want, but this is the last that either of you gets a response from me.

[rucky]

6. 73% - FBI

73% rapes not reported. 29% don't report for fear of reprisal.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/02crime2.pdf

[jarab]

25. Not to argue, but inquisitive, in passing -

I've often wondered.

In compiling these statistics on (unreported) rapes - and other (unreported) crimes too - every American from two to 102 must have been interviewed in order to establish the 73% ... and more specifically the whys of the 29%. And they must have all been thoroughly honest with the interviewer. And, then the FBI persons compiling the UCR must have been honest with us, too.
Too much hard work and honesty to expect from humans, it would appear.
How they do that?!!!

I don't deny that there are some "large and important numbers and people" involved in these situations (and other crimes, too), but the true stats are simply impossible to establsh.
I suppose one could use statistics in attempting to prove or disprove just about anything. Sorta like exit polls in 2004 ... so accurate!
jmho

...O...

[rucky]

34. That's the trouble with all statistics.

we can only really scrutinize the methods. In that case, we should hold these stats to the same standards as any other official stats that follow the agreed upon "proper" methodology.

Then there's the "smell test". That statistic seems legit to me. Then again, I have worked with victims of sexual and domestic assault, and personally know quite a few who haven't reported (or the police wouldn't/didn't do anything, citing lack of evidence).

[treestar]

17. Statistics aren't relevant to the individual case

An individual defendant won't get justice if he is to be convicted by the "aura" that statistics may create. He just may be that one case.

Cases that aren't reported, aren't reported. Unfortunate fact of reality, if you are raped, you have to have the guts to report and testify, there is nothing the rest of us can do to get away from that. If you don't report it, and therefore never prove it, it's not fair to complain that society did nothing about it.

If all those victims did report it, then the realities of the system would soften. It wouldn't be as unusual to have a rape case going.

[rucky]

43. Statistics can illuminate a situation as well.

In this case, it illuminates the public perception that has been affected by publicly blaming the victim in high-profile cases. Without the proper perspective that stats bring to the situation, we just may think that most rape accusations are false. When the media reports these unusual cases, there's a ripple effect that presents a serious problem in serving justice. Not only in an individual case, but in the media to demonstrate to anyone else what can happen if you come forward to report a rape.

I wish all the victims had the courage to report it, but it is equally up to society to create an environment that encourages reporting. We don't have that now.

NOTE: I am not even suggesting that you're blaming the victim. I'm discussing what's going on with this individual case (which happens to be a textbook defense tactic, because it works so darn well).

[FreakinDJ]

63. Problem with those Statistics

They include forms of rape most people would not consider rape.

Most folks believe rape involves penetration or in other cases actual violence. Rape now days includes forms of coercion that have no violent act.

[knitter4democracy]

9. My SIL was raped in Manhattan.

She was supported through the after process but decided not to press charges after she got back home to Ohio (she'd been studying at FIT for the summer term).

How many in Manhattan never progress to court, and how many of those really are false? I know my SIL wasn't faking it--the guy abducted her after drugging her, and her friends found her at his apartment and rescued her. He also left too many marks for there to be any question.

I agree with innocent until proven guilty, but I wonder how true those numbers are. How many women don't report it or don't press charges? How many are from out of the area and refuse to go back for any court stuff? Maybe someone faking the charge is more likely (or just as likely) to continue up on it, for whatever sick reason, than someone who actually went through it.

[rucky]

44. The act of testifying is traumatic as well.

that's the biggest deterrent, IMO.

[knitter4democracy]

69. She's refusing to go back to the state of New York entirely.

He really messed her up, and she's definitely still scared. I can't imagine how awful it would be for her to face him in court again after what she went through.

[Moosepoop]

59. I would advise caution, too...

Your first link is to a nutjob's website... the nutjob Swami Kriyananda, to be exact.

Your second link is to a conservative website. From the American Daily's own "About" page:

"American Daily was created in 2002 by Justin Heiser to provide news and commentary from the conservative side of things. In June 2005, Justin decided that the workload was just a bit too much due to life and work demands.
Thus American Daily is now operated by MoveOff, LLC. We intend to essentially maintain the look and feel created by Justin."

The MoveOff, LLC link takes us to their homepage, which says this:

"The MoveOff Network is here to keep you up-to-date on resources that allow you to examine political and social issues. Our bent is to the right, better government is our prime objective."

Before posting yet again about "hysteria" and how people tend to "over react" to rape, you might want to consider whether your information and sources are to be taken seriously by non-nutjobs on a progressive website.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hidden Stillness]

77. I Do Not Understand These Citations

I am completely unable to search for and verify these supposed "studies" and this strange quote. No matter how I try, I cannot find anything quoted for this odd "half simply did not happen," and what possible source there could have been for such a claim, but all I could find were a religious cultist, "Ananda Answers," some archcon male hate sites--a Glenn Sacks(?), hannity.com, etc., and some other screwy sites unrelated to crime or law enforcement, crime statistics, or anything else. Of course, since the woman-haters never provide evidence, the victim is convicted with not so much as a trial. Your two uncredited-source websites conflate the terms "did not happen," "falsely accused," "hoax" (?--how was that established), and the totally unrelated "recanted," which has nothing to do with a proved-false charge. Many cases are dropped on technicalities or because the rapist threatened the victim--no distinction is made here. No actual FBI study would officially call it "False Allegations," as that is a claim of proved fact with no trial or finding of fact. The FBI refers to cases which do not result with verdicts as "unfounded," meaning, cautiously, that they will not offer a claim as to what happened. The "hang the bitch crowd," loud as ever, has no problem with instant "victim is guilty" pronouncements. Please provide a source, as "oddly enough" I am unable to find what could possibly be the basis for anyone claiming that "half of all rape charges each year" are fake. I have never read this claim from anyone else and cannot trace this claim.

I do not understand your story about a 1983 FBI investigation of "556 rape investigations." Why was a group of crime investigations culled out of the general crime statistic, and "investigated" separately? What traits did they have that made these cases chosen, and how then can a non-random "study" of any kind produce anythnig but manufactured results? What was the basis of this study and who did it? Where was it reported? (Not Ananda, or the Moonie Washington Times, or Sean Hannity, please--a real crime statistics site.)

The idea that male police often do not believe victims who have been raped is as typical as it is with the woman-haters on this website. There is evidence--the rape kit, victim's injuries and frightened behavior, etc.--apart from the claims of males who were not there. For people who claim to be "cautious," then who judgmentally accuse the presumptive victim of only "accusing" the case--a word with no legal standing as the victim is referred to as a "witness" in court--the posture of waiting forever to judge against a male no matter what the evidence, is exposed for what it is.

[rucky]

4. Here's what needs to happen.

for rape and domestic violence.

Victims should be allowed to record their testimony, and have it be admissible in court.

The act of testifying is nearly as traumatic as the crime itself, and that discourages trial and convictions. I know this kills the right of the defendant to cross examine, but there's gotta be a way to do that - in this video/computer age - that doesn't require going face-to-face in a courtroom.

[LisaL]

5. Of course the little fact that constitution gives someone a right

to confront their accuser means nothing to you?

[rucky]

7. did you read my post?

i addressed that.

and yes, I line my birdcage with the Constitution.

[LisaL]

8. Actually, in your post you state that you know your

suggestion kills the right to cross-examine.
So, in fact you know your suggestion is un-constitutional, but don't want that little fact to stop you from suggesting it anyway?

[frustrated_lefty]

12. You're not being helpful.

[LisaL]

38. Did I ever say I want to be helpful?

Believe me, being helpful is not my goal.

[Lars39]

52. So just what is your goal here, lizzy?

'Cause you sure seem to have an agenda to promote.
I just love the way you seem to post in these threads round the clock.
That takes real devotion to duty.

[LisaL]

56. My goal is to express my opinion. Whether it helpful to

anyone's agenda, or not.
And funny you should be complaining about me posting around the clock.
Pot, meet kettle.
Aren't you a dedicated one yourself?

[Lars39]

57. No, I actually go to bed.

[rucky]

13. I have to do this for some of my slower 5th graders:

What is the main idea of this reading passage?

a) Fuck the constitution - kill the rapists!
b) There must be some way to get victims to testify that is fair to both accuser and accused.

[mondo joe]

15. There is a way that is fair. Trial by jury, with the right of the

accused to face his or her accuser.

[rucky]

21. We have to get to the root of a HUGE problem in America:

What is the reason for the incredibly low reporting AND conviction rates for rape and domestic assault? What can we do to improve these statistics?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/02crime2.pdf

[mondo joe]

24. Yes, but I'm unwilling to surrender constitutional protections to

do so, in precisely the same way I am unwilling to surrender them for the War on Terra.

[rucky]

29. It's a false dichotomy.

we can do it without jeopardizing the consitiution. Just like we can fight terror without losing our freedom.

[mondo joe]

31. If you have discovered a way, then by all means let's go ahead.

Unless I missed it, all I've seen is "there's got to be a way" - not the way itself.

[rucky]

32. Now you're not being honest...

because you responded to a post that described how they do it in juvenile court, and you responded "but these are adults".

Why wouldn't these methods be okay for adults? unless you're asserting that there is a different consitiutional standard that applies to children?

[mondo joe]

35. Incorrect - I'm being quite honest. Children do not have the same

rights or responsibilities as adults. There IS aa different constitutional standard that applies to children.

[rucky]

45. so you're for remote testimony in juvenille cases,

but against it in adult cases?

just so we're clear.

[mondo joe]

47. Not absolutely. Even in juvenile cases it is a contested issue, and

I'm conflicted about it as well.

That said, my conflict with regard to juvenile cases rests on 2 distinctions:
1. different legal status of juveniles;
2. different capacity of juveniles.

Even in light of those factors, my overwhelming preference would be to make it an extraordinary exception rather than the rule. And while - based on the 2 factors cited above - I can see a justification for some special treatment of juveniles, neither applies to adults.

Furthermore, it depends on what you mean by "remote". If you mean a recorded deposition without opportunity to cross examine, then no, I'm not for it.

[rucky]

50. Now we have something to talk about!

Just to illustrate a possible solution:

We're not face-to-face. We're not talking in real time. But we're responding to each other.

From what I've read and heard from actual victims, I feel this would help reduce the trauma that victims experience in the prospect of facing their accusers in court. This is why they don't report, or drop the case, and this is what we need to have happen for justice to occur. It's too easy to intimidate a rape victim, otherwise.

[mondo joe]

62. You've got a few problems there.

1. Legallly you'd be on shaky ground - it's typically required that the acccused is able to face the accuser, as you know. This has been challlenged before and has failed.

2. Your proposal violates the presumption of innocence.

3. Your proposal would be highly prejudicial against the accused, thus denying him a fair trial.

[JVS]

60. Avoid jeopardizing the constitution by getting rid of the right of ...

the defendent to confront the accuser?

:crazy:

[rucky]

78. We're confronting each other right now.

just not face to face, in real time.

[frustrated_lefty]

27. Yay, Rucky!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll say it again, tell your brothers, mothers, fathers, sisters, cousins, friends. Oh, they might be traumatized!!?? Sorry, you've been through worse, and YOU did the good thing and survived. Speak loud, speak proud, speak truth and know that it makes you stronger! Muttering in the dark and from the closet detracts from what you are trying to say.

There is much more to be said there, and rucky gets it. Maybe I'm wrong. Hiding these experiences, imo, is wrong. Maybe your family might reject you if they knew the truth. Then again, maybe they wouldn't. And, if they did, they don't deserve you or your love.

Yes, false claims are made, and you shouldn't support them by whispering your true reports.

Your brothers, mother, father, sisters, cousins and friends would want to sincerely punish anyone who hurt you in that way. Just help us in our surety, because the punishment will be damned severe.

[LisaL]

40. I would go with #1 being your idea of justice.

[rucky]

46. You would get an F. n/t

[LisaL]

48. An F? I am devastated.

[knitter4democracy]

10. They do it for children, though.

They put screens up so that the child doesn't have to actually see the accused, they interview the suspect over closed circuit tv if he's too violent to be in the actual courtroom, and they have ways to make this easier.

It's constitutional, yes, but there are ways to make it easier.

[mondo joe]

20. But that is BECAUSE they are children.

Children do not have the full rights OR responsibilities of adults.

[knitter4democracy]

68. True, but the precedent is there.

I'm just saying that it might be possible to work out a good compromise. That's all I'm saying.

[FreakinDJ]

64. Problem with the constitution?

I’m a constitutionalist. I believe firmly in the right to cross examine the accuser. Given the high incidence of false allegations I believe it irresponsible to suggest such a thing

[rucky]

72. oh for chrissakes.

just FUCKING READ.

i'm not going through this again.

[Lerkfish]

11. why isn't the accuser also "innocent until proven guilty"?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Lerkfish/10

"wait and see" is fine, as long as its applied equally to both accused and accuser.

[frustrated_lefty]

14. I don't care if he/she was a hooker walking naked in the Bronx.

If the claim of rape is made, it deserves serious investigation. Rape is rape. I won't cast judgment on either side until the evidence is in.

It's a serious claim which deserves serious thought and consideration, not the kangaroo court convictions which would be happily tossed around on this forum.

The claimant, imo, is also innocent until proven guilty. In fact, I think I've pretty clearly stated my position with regard to those who have been raped. So, where exactly does your question originate?

[Little Star]

22. I would just add

that anyone who accuses rape falsely should be charged with the crime. After all that accusation ruins someone's life and belittles real rape victims.

[Lerkfish]

28. chill, dude, if your "wait and see" is applied equally, then I"m not

talking about you...get it?

If you start a topic for discussion, you're going to have to realize people will be speaking in generalites and not necessarily about you personally.


am I a kangaroo court? you just called me that! oh no, wait, you were speaking in general. Good thing I can tell the difference.

[frustrated_lefty]

42. Yep, thanks for the reality check.

It's a hot topic, easy to drink your favorite flavor kool-aid. *wry grin*

Sincere thanks for the reality check.

[Kingshakabobo]

18. Because the accuser isn't facing 40 years to life......................

..........the accused is.

[LisaL]

39. Has she been arrested or charged with anything?

Cause I must have missed that.

[cally]

16. I'm appalled by the attacks on the vicim

in various discussions on rape. I do believe the accused is innocent until proven guilty but too many then believe every tidbit dropped into the media by the defense team. Too many of the arguments imply that a stripper can't be raped, nor a drug addict, or someone inebriated. It's the ultimate denial. Blame the victim (and she is a victim since someone ripped her vagina and left bruises whether it's the accused or not) for her crime. I believe it helps people feel less vulnerable in their own lives if they pretend that rape doesn't happen very often and it's the woman's fault for the crime. Unfortunately, that just not true.

[LisaL]

36. Ripped her vagina? You must have been listening too much

to Wendy Murphy, I am afraid.
And what about your second ridiculous comment?
She is a victim, and it doesn't matter if the accused did it or not?
So, I guess it does not matter to arrest and convict an actual rapist, if there was one, as long as you can just get someone? Doesn't matter who?

[treestar]

19. Even though you've announced your mind is closed on this

The death penalty is a bit much for something that can never be absolutely proven, as the intent is only known for sure within people's minds.

Misunderstanding is possible here. And before being accused of saying rapists should go free, that is not what I said. The punishment should never be death, for something which can only be proven to a point. Date rape is sometimes a case of false accusation. Since we can never know in every case for sure, the prison sentence is enough.

also the death penalty for rape motivates the rapist to go on and murder the victim, possibly. There is nothing to lose by killing the witness.

[mondo joe]

23. If anyone thinks rape is hard to convict on now, just make it a death

penalty crime and watch it get harder.

One of the most significant ways that rape is different from a lot of other crimes is that in many instances it comes down to he said/she said. It makes the credibility of the accused and the accuser more of an issue, which makes it more difficult.

If there is automatic death penalty, I predict a jury will more often opt for Not Guilty rather than kill an innocent.

[frustrated_lefty]

54. That's a real concern.

One of the ladies I knew who was raped was raped by her father and had to abort the offspring.

Another lady I knew was raped and burned with cigarettes when she didn't "respond properly."

Instances like those go beyond "he said/she said." Credibility is not an issue.

Would this solve the problem? No. But, it's a start.

[mondo joe]

61. You are not describing thhe majority of rape cases.

And in noting the exceptions you are ignoring the rule.

[frustrated_lefty]

74. No, I'm not.

I am describing far too many of the rape cases in America, though.

And, as I said, it won't solve the problem, but you have to start somewhere.

[American Tragedy]

71. Excellent point, mondo.

Were I on such a jury, in the face of any possibility of innocence, I would absolutely vote Not Guilty rather than risk guaranteeing an execution.

But of course, I'm ethically and practically opposed to capital punishment anyway.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Let us review the situatiion: Real rapes are under-reported

and a large portion of the reports actually made are false. To overgeneralize for a moment, let us say that real victims tend to be very afraid as a result of the terrible experience, and false-accusers tend to be operating out of anger at some hapless guy.

The fact of the matter is, only reported rapes tend to get prosecuted.

To put it in made-up numbers for purposes of example, let us say that there are 100 incidents of actual rape and 30 false accusations. 60 of the real rapes are never reported. 40 are reported and (in our idealized model) result in prosecutions. The 30 false accusations are also prosecuted.

Wow. 100 rapes occur, 60 perpetrators are not prosecuted, and of the 70 people who are prosecuted, 30 were falsely accused.


Incidentally, every male psychotherapist knows that certain personality types predominate among women who are likely to make false accusations, including false accusations of misbehavior by therapists. When I was in hospital practice and treating women of this sort, I always made sure a femaile aide or nurse or someone was present in the session, or at the very least made sure I was in a room that had a door with a large window so I was visible to passersby.

[Lerkfish]

30. hey! let me make up some statistics, too!

lets say 70 percent of people defending the accused over the accuser are actually rapists and have committed rape in their lifetimes!

pretty cool, huh? I can pull anything out of my butt and make it argument, if I want to.

[LisaL]

41. I guess being a female, I would fall into the other 30 %.

Or do you think women can be rapists too?

[Lerkfish]

49. apparently, I need to better label my sarcasm, or get better at being

sarcastic.

[LisaL]

51. I am not going to argue with that statement.

[frustrated_lefty]

55. Sorry to ask, but how

in any way, shape or form are you replying to the original post?

Or, are you just venting? It's ok if you are, I'm just asking for clarification.

[ima_sinnic]

33. they put waaay too much weight on "excited utterances"

a friend was once accused of kidnap & rape by a vengeance-seeking pathological liar crack head. It took a whole year for the DA finally to drop the case (& much to our anger he wouldn't charge her with false report), and he only did so after she made the same false accusation against another guy and even more people came out of the woodwork to testify what a liar she was. The holes and inconsistencies and outright absurdities in the case against my friend were glaring and obvious, yet the little strutting career-minded DA was hoping to exploit the situation for his own career advancement.

It was an incredibly stressful year. My friend's lawyer said the case was based almost entirely on the phony "excited utterances" the woman made, the statements she made immediately following the alleged incident. In other words, I can run out in the street and shriek that some guy just raped me and those few words can kill him no matter how contrary to evidence they are. It cost my friend $10,000 to clear himself. Part of that cost was a private detective to interview the woman's family members and boyfriend and any one of their statements showed the woman was lying, yet the DA ignored all that. Since my friend is from another country and not well educated, his lawyer was afraid he might not be the greatest witness in court so he couldn't assume a jury would clear him.

[FreakinDJ]

65. Problem with Rape Shield laws

Is even if the accuser has been found guilty of filling false accusations in the past it is forbidden from being introduced in the current case.

Given the circumstances I think psychological testing should be mandatory

[helderheid]

37. I think castration would be more appropriate and a better deterrent

[frustrated_lefty]

53. NO!

Rape is violence. Castration simply eliminates one element of one tool which can be used to express violence. Although castration may have an instinctive appeal for the crime, it fails to address the underlying psychosis.

[FreakinDJ]

67. What about the 35% proven innocent with DNA testing

What about the 35% proven innocent with DNA testing and FBI analys

Since Innocents Project was established 35% of men sitting in prison for Rape have been proven to be innocent of the crime.

What are you going to say then "Oops I'm sorry, here is some super glue"

[helderheid]

73. only those proven by DNA

[frustrated_lefty]

75. Moot point.

The thing is, we do have access to DNA evidence now. I happen to be one of those simpletons who believes in it. Its presence, in my mind, is conclusive. Its absence is mitigating and calls into question all claims to the contrary.

[omega minimo]

70. Rape is a Hate Crime