Being effectively branded, stamped with a scarlet letter is evil when it is done to men accused of rape, but it is a must when it is done to women accused of fabricating an allegation of rape.
The evidence in this case indicating that the report of a gang rape was fraudulent looks strong, but when evidence looks equally strong that a man accused of rape is guilty that is not enough to declare a man guilty. The accused rapist facing what looks to be overwhelming evidence must still be called an alleged rapist not a rapist.
No such caution is being demanded from the anti-feminists in this case even though those people frequently claim that committing rape and filing a fraudulent rape report are equivalent crimes. If their claim of equivalency is to be seen as a valid claim made in good faith then the equivalency must permeate everything they say and do about cases where the alleged victims is declared by the police to have filed a fraudulent police report.
The first failure of equivalency is that these people are not referring to the Hofstra woman as an alleged false accuser.
According to the anti-feminists this story opening from the NY Times should not cause people to assume that the police got it right:
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (AP) — A Hofstra University student trying to retrieve a stolen cellphone was lured into a men’s room in a campus dormitory and sexually assaulted by five men, the Nassau County police said on Tuesday.
Four of the five suspects, including the only Hofstra student among them, have been arrested on rape and other charges.
Detective Lt. John Allen of the Nassau County special victims squad said the rape occurred on the Hempstead campus about 3 a.m. Sunday.
While they believe headlines which say, "Prosecutors say Hofstra student fabricated rape charge," must cause people to assume that the police and prosecutors got it right.
When it is shown that the police have been sloppy in a rape investigations while the police assumed a report of rape to be genuine, we are to ignore this same sloppiness when the police believe the reported rape to be fraudulent.
Cases such as this one where the system ultimately worked in favor of those accused of rape are often positioned as undeniable proof that the system never ultimately works in favor of those accused of rape.
This contradictory claim is then used as the evidence for shouts of "The Laws Need To Change." The favorite proposed change is to disregard the testimony of all alleged rape victims. Those who report non-sex crimes also make fraudulent police reports but there is no similar call to disregard the testimony of all alleged crime victims.
Sometimes the testimony of alleged rape victims is viewed as suspect or as proof of that alleged victim's guilt because the described actions of the alleged rapist or rapists doesn't fit with the investigators assumptions about what rapists actually do before, during or after rape. This ignores the fact that different types of criminals can behave in ways which make no sense.What is positioned as hopelessly unreliable -- alleged victim testimony -- often gets glorified when the alleged victim is a man who was first accused of rape. The chorus of, "alleged victims lie," goes silent. Most of those who claim that believing alleged victims presumes the guilt of the alleged criminal drop this premise when the alleged victim is a man who was accused of rape. He can be believed -- no, he must be believed -- even though the alleged criminal in his case has not been convicted.
I've lost count of the times I've read, "Better for a thousand guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted," yet those who write this don't also write, "Better for a thousand false accusers to go free than for one innocent accuser to be convicted of filing a false police report." Their stated dedication to protecting innocent suspects evaporates.
Some people who want the names of rape suspects kept confidential unless or until they are convicted are rushing to publicize the name of the woman now accused of making a fraudulent rape report. She's a suspect but should not be treated as such.
Video evidence which allegedly proves a man to be guilty of rape is rarely accepted by anti-feminists based on the assessment of the police and prosecution. Everything about the video must be questioned. Yet these same people don't seem to be asking critical questions about the video in the Hofstra U. case. They don't seem to care whether or not the video recorded critical moments in the alleged interaction.
Those who refuse to make an absolute declaration of her guilt until that guilt is proven legally are painted as not caring about false accusations or false criminal charges. The truth that false accusations and false charges can go both ways is denied or ignored.
Any refusal to presume the guilt of those accused of filing a fraudulent rape report will be used to falsely declare that this is proof that the person believes that no girls or women ever lie about rape. Demanding due process is a must unless the person being denied due process rights first reported being raped.
If it is right to review and question the circumstances of some confessions to ensure that the confessions are true then it must be right to review and question all confessions even when those confessions are described as recantations.
If rushing to judgment is wrong then it is wrong no matter who is presumed guilty. Otherwise, the popular anti-feminist chant, "innocent until proven guilty" is nothing more than a sham designed to protect men accused of rape irregardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.
Labels: false rape