On Guardian Unlimited, David Cox wrote a post called Feminism's rape fallacy which includes:
In date-rape cases, it's his word against hers. Often, juries will be in no position to determine who's lying. Campaigners sometimes speak as if any man accused of rape must necessarily be guilty. Yet jurors know that some women make false accusations, and that others misinterpret or misremember events or even deceive themselves about what's occurred. In the face of uncertainty, our judicial system requires acquittal.
Since he isn't likely to be raped and he clearly fears rape accusations, it's understandable why he wants a quick and easy solution that meets his selfish needs. And he's willing to throw raped girls and women to the rapists to get what he wants.
When he talks in his post about women's behavior implying consent he proves that he doesn't know jack about true consent. That explains his motives.
Rape isn't the only crime that's unresponsive to law enforcement. We don't imagine that prosecuting drug dealers will solve the drugs problem. We urge their potential victims to "just say no".
I'm glad he makes this parallel between drugs and rape since that allows me to cross-check his logic. A drug dealer who ignores "no," forcefully injects drugs into his victim and then takes money for those drugs when the victim is incapacitated is the true parallel criminal.
You got the drugs you didn't want, he got the money he did want. Let's take Mr. Cox's words related to date-rape cases and substitute this drug crime where the victim claims there was no consent:
In forced-drug-injection cases, it's one man's word against another's. Often, juries will be in no position to determine who's lying. Campaigners sometimes speak as if any man accused of forcing drugs into another man must necessarily be guilty. Yet jurors know that some men make false accusations, and that others misinterpret or misremember events or even deceive themselves about what's occurred. In the face of uncertainty, our judicial system requires acquittal.
If Mr. Cox objects to this substitution, then that shows he doesn't truly believe in his own logic and is only using it as a cover.
For those who would blame anyone who ever happens to cross paths with a person who would commit this type of crime, substitute any crime where there are no witnesses. Just you and the mugger? Sorry, our judicial system requires acquittal. That gun-toting man was asking for a voluntary donation, you just misinterpreted his request. That's his story and the criminal justice system should stick to it.
Remember if anybody ever lied about being the victim of a particular crime, all those who commit that particular crime must be set free. David Cox's logic tells us so.
Further, his comparison between conviction rates for rape and burglary is a completely invalid comparison since in date rape the identity of the rapist is known 99% of the time where the identity of the burglar is unknown 99% of the time when those crimes are reported.
But if they were comparable then we would need to do much more to shame those who own anything stealable. 1) We need to scold people for having items which could be sold. If you didn't have nice stuff, nobody would want to steal it. 2) We need to scold people for ever opening their curtains or ever leaving their homes unattended. 3) We need to scold people for having items that are not clearly marked as theirs. Remember, if your couch has your name spray painted on it, nobody will steal it. Do the same to your Picasso and you won't have to worry about it going into the black market.
Property owners. Remember, David Cox told you that you can't depend on the government to bail you out. Since you are comparable to date-rape victims it's your own fault if you or your possessions are vulnerable in any way.
If you are a victim of theft, don't expect a professional investigation expect lectures. If it's good enough for rape victims, it's good enough for you.