Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Giving Rapists A Get Out Of Jail Free Card":
In other words, every man is either a rapist or a potential rapist, and every woman is a victim of sexual violence, even if she only has a 'repressed memory' which surfaces 30 years after the alleged fact, undoubtedly with the help of somd dubiously qualified psychotherapist using discredited theories and techniques that reputable members of the profession have long since discarded.
This is a typical jump which has nothing to do with logic or reason. If I believe that there can be enough reliable evidence and testimony after 32 years to try some rape cases where the victim has repressed the memory, then I must believe that every man is either a rapist or a potential rapist and every woman is a victim of sexual violence.
There has been nothing in the stories about the Rhode Island rape case that I can find which indicated that a psychotherapist induced this woman into remembering. But that doesn't stop people like this man from putting forth the assumption that this woman was subjected to discredited techniques and couldn't have been raped as alleged by the man charged.
So why is he trying to characterize me as a wacko in his own mind and in the minds of others?
I received another anonymous comment on this same post which included the question: "And just how does one defend oneself against an allegation of a criminal act that occurred at a barely specified time (sometime in a several month span) over three decades previously?"
This is a ridiculous question given the number of rapes that are reported immediately and still end in acquittal or never result in any charges. It is predicated on the myth that getting a conviction in a rape trial is easy and that jurors couldn't see reasonable doubt in a rape case if it hit them in the head.
Everyone knows that hearing the word "rape" during a rape trial turns jurors into false conviction machines. Right?
The assumptions behind this man's question is a handy way of giving a blanket excuse to those convicted of so-called non-violent rape so they will be viewed as people who are defenseless victims of the criminal justice system when they are guilty as charged.
His question tells me he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he is deliberately trying to paint a false picture of rape trials.
With the number of rapists who have -- at least so far -- escaped any legal accountability for their crimes, I'm not surprised to get comments like these. I'm sure this case, now dropped, has made many rapists who thought they were home free very nervous.
And, no, I'm not alleging that these anonymous men are rapists. I have no idea whether they are or not. Many non-rapists support systems which benefit rapists and hurt rape victims.
Update: I received the following anonymous comment which follows a familiar theme:
[I wrote:] "It seems that many people who know the statistics on the number of unreported rapes want to keep those numbers high and will do everything they can to protect those unreported rapists from ever being charged and from being convicted for the crimes they committed."
How can there be statistics on any things that are unreported? It's possible to count the number of reports, but there is no way to know the true number of events that are not reported. Any numbers proffered can be nothing more than speculations with no possibility of validation or refutation.
This "no way to know" patter is a convenient method of rape denial.
How can we know anyone is planning to vote in 2008 and who the favorite candidates really are?
Same goes for the US census. They don't collect all of the census data from every single person in the US.
Same goes for the number of people with undiagnosed heart disease, diabetes and any other medical condition. I assume that obesity estimates are not based on the weights reported on people's drivers licenses.
Same goes for illegal aliens and undocumented workers in the USA. Only the number of documented workers and the number of immigration arrests are reported.
According to this man's statement, any numbers that don't come from direct reports which are proffered on upcoming elections, health, census data, illegal aliens, and so on and so forth, can be nothing more than speculations with no possibility of validation or refutation.
If he only challenges estimates when they estimate events he wants to deny then the problem doesn't have anything to do with the estimating methodology, the problem is within him.
Then we get the next anonymous comment:
Well, oh shrill one, let's just all be glad that you are not in a position of power in the legal system. Why don't you give Amanda Marcotte a call as you two have much to discuss...
Finally, we get someone who doesn't even bother to try to hide his attack behind logic. I wonder who the "let's just all be glad" is referring to? I'm sure all rapists are glad I'm not in a position of power. Who all share that gladness with the rapists?
It's not surprising that so many of these people hide their identities.
Labels: Violence Against Women