Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Duke Lacrosse Case Report Exposes Flaws In State's...":Sorry, but when your expert on DNA evidence is a comedian your credibility goes right in the toilet. The analogy isn't even slightly accurate but apparently inaccuracy is fine and dandy as long as you aren't an alleged rape victim. Then it is EVIL!
I'll repeat it again: not having credible evidence to support a criminal conviction isn't the same as having credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that no rape took place. The North Carolina AG seems have forgotten this basic truth
What a total crock!
There was all sorts of evidence in this case. The woman was, to use the words of Dennis Miller, the Louvre of DNA. The problem was that none of the DNA belonged to anyone that could have possibly been the perpetrator in any of her many stories.
If the DNA is unidentified and there isn't solid evidence (not just testimony) that proves beyond a reasonable doubt exactly who was there and for how long, then that evidence only tells us who it doesn't match. But again reasonable doubt is being applied selectively.
What this case DOES demonstrate is the fallacy of the feminist argument that women never lie about rape, in fact they lie frequently and even when they don't knowingly lie, are frequently tremendously unreliable. How many more people does The Innocence Project have to free by demonstrating that a large number of those convicted demonstrably could NOT have been the perpetrator to convince people of that?
Since this case's resolution is not based on any evidence of a lie committed by the alleged victim, this case doesn't demonstrate anything about women's honesty and it certainly doesn't prove that women lie frequently and it doesn't prove that when women are honest that they are frequently tremendously unreliable.
The only proven lie by anyone involved in this case is the lie made by the lacrosse player who ordered dancers for this party. He lied about his identity and he lied about how many people would be at the party and he lied about what type of party it was. But this case proves that it's women who lie. Right.
This case doesn't prove anything about women as a whole. Yet repeatedly men who insist on calling women as a class dishonest and unreliable say it does. To me these men sound unreliable and incapable of basic logic.
If they can judge all women based on only one woman, then I should be allowed to judge all men based on only one man. Since they get to select the woman who represents all women, I would get to select the man to make each of my points, I could say that men frequently murder, men frequently rape, men frequently attempt to kill witnesses in rape cases, men frequently lie, men frequently are unreliable witnesses, men frequently are serial murderers. The list of what I could assert about men as a group could go on endlessly and as long as I had one case as my prototype for each male characteristic, I'd be fine using the identical type of logic this man and many others like him are using.
Hey, I could even say that men frequently walk on the moon if all I need is one example to prove my assertion. Hopefully, we all know men don't frequently walk on the moon and that one example is just that.
What Mr. Anonymous is carefully avoiding mentioning is that many of the problems in this case were caused by men. The problems in some or possibly all of the Innocence Project exonerations were caused in whole or part by men but all exonerations prove women lie or are unreliable while men are honest and reliable. Right.
Some of the Innocence Project exonerations involve murder cases and those exonerations didn't magically reincarnate the victim. Other Innocence Project exonerations also didn't disprove the rapes men were convicted of committing. But the victims in those cases are the one and only problem.
Mr. Anonymous seems to believe that every time a man isn't found guilty or is exonerated that a woman is to blame. Personally, he sounds highly unreliable. But I don't judge all men based on him and others who share his opinion on the Duke case. I certainly don't judge all men by the vile things men have written in comments on my blog. I don't judge all men by what men have done in criminal cases or that lead to criminal cases. I understand that each of those men are not automatically representative of all men.
What this case DOES demonstrate rather conclusively is that the rape-shield laws and similar policies of the media need to be terminated. If an accused person's name is published, it is only fair that the accuser's name is also published.
Here we get to the heart of this comment. The wish to be able to attack all alleged rape victims without limit inside and outside of the criminal justice system from the moment a rape victim reports being raped.
He wants trials to be based on character assassination rather than evidence. The media should be encouraged to give out the alleged victim's name so every sicko in the world who believes that women frequently lie about rape can find her and harass her -- or worse.
This call for change has nothing to do with an honest desire for justice and everything to do with a desire to support all those accused of rape and to destroy most of those who report being raped. A few rape victims must be supported to prove that men like Mr. Anonymous are completely against all "real" rapes.
Enough of this compromising of justice in the interests of political correctness.
Mr. Anonymous doesn't want to compromise justice. And what is the compromise he's against but balance. He wants justice in rape cases to be tilted so far in the men's favor until one side of the scale touches the ground and stays there.
When justice in rape cases is for men only, it isn't justice at all. So what possible reason could so many men have for wanting this outcome which would benefit so many rapists?
Labels: defense excuses