The following comment might seem to some people to be advocating for genuine fairness because of the tone of the comment, but even before I found out that the author of this comment posts at a blog called The False Rape Society, I knew it came from a rape denialist.
Archivist has left a new comment on your post "Solid Evidence Important In Rape and False Rape Ca...":
It is infuriating that some law enforcement officials bring preconceived biases to investigations of claims of sexual assault. Each case needs to be treated seriously, and objectively. It is not up to a police officer to "believe" or "disbelieve." He or she is supposed to gather facts and use his or her training to come to objectively verifiable conclusions.
Both the macho, instinctive disbelief of rape claimants exhibitted by less sophisticated police forces, and the knee-jerk uncritical acceptance of every word a rape claimant utters, as I see in my practice on college campus, are wrong and counter-productive. If we can get to the point where the only thing that matters is the truth and not someone's attempt to twist and pound every case to fit a political agenda, everybody - rape victims and the falsely accused would be much better off.
What he finds infuriating isn't preconceived biases as he claims, but preconceived biases which are in conflict with his preconceived biases or which give his preconceived biases a bad name. He ends with an attack on political agendas, but he clearly has a political agenda which is predicated on not believing those who report rape until they have proven themselves to be true crime victims and until they have disproven the possibility that they have committed a crime by reporting rape.
His proposed objective methodology is indeed sophisticated, but sophistication doesn't automatically make something right or effective. His demand for objectivity is a false one.
Unspoken but clear from his comment is that rapists are assumed innocent under this model. However, just as clear, rape victims are not assumed innocent, they are assumed to be likely false reporters until they are proven to be genuine rape victims. This is an intentionally imbalanced way of thinking about rape reports which "objectively" taints all rape victims who have not had their rapes proven in court.
Under his model the police must avoid treating rape victims as genuine crime victims until the crime has been proven. Not surprisingly this model is predicated on seeing us as a false rape society where all rape reports must be instantly doubted and the chances that someone was really raped is about 50-50.
If this model were a valid investigative model then it would be standard operating procedures for all crimes. When you call the police to report that you've been mugged, the investigating officer should neither believe you nor disbelieve you.
When you describe your mugger's tattoo which includes his first name, the officer should not assume you are describing a genuine mugger or even a stranger. Rather than being observant about the details of the tattoo, which smart muggers would hide, you might be able to describe it so well because you've seen it many times before.
The investigator must keep an open mind and not believe anything you say without proof of that statement.
If this mugger is found with your wallet, the mugger shouldn't be assumed to have stolen your wallet. The mugger should be approached in a non-judgmental way in case you were stupid and gave this man your wallet of your own free will and called the cops because you later regretted your actions.
If the mugger has drugs on him or in him, you must be viewed as someone who might have exchanged drugs with him. Instead of a mugging this might be a drug deal gone bad in which case this is really a breach of promise case, not a mugging. Remember, you are not yet believed.
This model says that you are simply being treated in a neutral manner, but that neutrality always injects doubt, even where there is zero evidence which indicates that your report of a mugging is in any way doubtful.
Rather than resulting in the truth which Archivist says is the only thing that matters, this model uses supposed objectivity to give criminals multiple opportunities to make baseless claims against you. Since you are not assumed to be a real crime victim these baseless claims leave you in limbo unless or until you can prove them all to be false.
This model is deliberately unfair and biased in the guise of being fair and unbiased.
Crime victims are far worse off under this model which directly contradicts Archivist's claim, but the rightfully accused are definitely better off. Because so many rightfully accused would be able to get away with calling themselves wrongfully accused this model doesn't make the genuinely wrongly accused any better off than they are when investigator begin with the belief in the report made against them.
If the truth of what happened is all that matters then all investigators need to believe all claims of rape until there is solid evidence that the claim is false.
If and when there is enough supporting evidence to bring charges, the suspect should be charged. If and when there is enough contradictory evidence showing that the crime never happened, the person who claimed to be a crime victim should be charged.