An Anonymous man who left a comment on my post "False Rape Investigation Model: Between Belief And..." wrote:
Marcella no police officer takes any side when a defendant denies his crime. It's pretty much standard for every crim [sic] to say "It wasn't me" or "I didn't do it". It's also pretty much standard that every cop assumes they're all lying. BTW, an "alleged rapist" by law, is an innocent man (or woman). He (or she) has not been proven guilty and must therefore be innocent.
If a woman accuses a man of rape, the statement is, by definition, assumed to be false. That is how presumption of innocence works: If you have to prove someone guilty then you can accomplish this by assuming every defendant innocent and the guilty ones are the ones where you proved it. The opposite has been done in human history before. France had guilty until proven innocent until quite recently. The Spanish Inquistion [sic] is another place where you were considered guilty until proven innocent. So you can plainly see the danger in any system where people are assumed guilty.....it's usually part of some kind of totalitarian government regime that opposes freedom. Horror stories from historical "guilty until proven innnocent" [sic] regimes are quite easy to see and it's obvious that that kind of system leads only to chaos (check out Carlyle's "The French Revolution" for a look at it in action).
Here's my responding comment (cleaned up slightly):
"Marcella no police officer takes any side when a defendant denies his crime."
This is false. My post Perverting Course of Justice Case Falls Apart shows just one of the many cases where police officers take sides as soon as the defendant denies his crime and then violate the legal rights of the person who reported rape.
To assume that when a woman accuses a man of rape that she is making a false statement is to assume her guilty of filing a false police report. That is a recipe for injustice.
But since this woman is most likely a rape victim many people -- like you have -- find that acceptable.
Like the first commenter you need to read the legal definition of innocent until proven guilty.
To equate investigators beginning with the belief in all rape reports -- until the evidence proves that an alleged victim has filed a false police report -- to the Spanish Inquisition is absurd.
That's the end of my comment, but I need to note that while guys like this one come out against Guilty Until Proven Innocent, they usually demand that people respond to acquittals, dropped charges or a lack of charges in rape cases as if the criminal justice system we have does in fact operate under the premise of Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
No wonder they spend so much time trying to equate investigators believing rape reports as evidence that the criminal justice system operates under a system of Guilty Until Proven Innocent. They need this distortion in order to make their claims that someone has been proven innocent when that's not what happened.
If a man is potentially coerced into confessing to rape and murder then anonymous would most likely support throwing out that confession and viewing all confessions by alleged rapists as suspect, but when a woman who was raped is coerced into recanting her valid rape report Anonymous and his ilk don't highlight this injustice.
Anonymous and others like him are predictable flip-floppers.
If a woman accuses a man of rape, the statement is, by definition, assumed to be false. [...]
So you can plainly see the danger in any system where people are assumed guilty.....it's usually part of some kind of totalitarian government regime that opposes freedom.
So according to Anonymous those who report rape must be assumed to be guilty of filing a false police report, but any system where people are assumed guilty is a dangerous one that opposes freedom.
That means freedom is for rapists but not for rape victims.