Rape politics


Accusations are not always evidence
I haven't covered the Duke "rape" case in detail, probably because it's very hard for a male to say anything about it and not be accused of a bad attitude.

I have been following the details, LaShawn Barber has done an excellent job, linking to some of the high points.

But this piece by Jim Couri fills in some background on rape accusations in general.

Zepezauer concludes his indepth study with this: "Believing the self-proclaimed victim of sexual misconduct has thus evolved from ideological conviction to legal doctrine and, in some jurisdictions, into law. California now requires that jurors be explicitly told that a rape conviction can be based on the accuser's testimony alone, without corroboration. Canada is proposing that a man accused of rape must demonstrate that he received the willing consent of a sexual partner."

Rape is one of the most horrendous crimes possible.

But accusations are not the same as fact.

Just because someone is perceived as a victim doesn't mean that they are telling the truth.

I know of men who were accused of fathering children when they had never even met the mother. But under California law, they are stuck with child support.

I have known men who have been accused of rape. In some cases, I believe that they did it. In others, I know they did not. But the accusation is enough to ruin a man's life, despite the evidence one way or another.

Now I want rapists to be judged severely. But we should insist on evidence of a rape before convicting someone. Even if it is only in the press.

Too many times, it's back to the politics of victimhood.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Thu - December 21, 2006 at 05:19 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved