Like many convictions, the young man plead guilty in order to avoid trial and a MUCH longer sentence.
The system works in a certain way: if you admit guilt and show remorse, you get a shorter sentence... if you're innocent & insist on that, you might as well forget parole.
I think the lady in question should serve at least the 5 years in prison the gentleman unfairly accused served, plus at least another 3...since girl prison is a lot easier than boy prison. My G/F did 2 1/2 years in girl prison & said it was like a sorority... my worst was 3 days in county for a cop being a prick and setting me up for not getting out til Monday (the charge was refusing to present ID to an officer... I was just outside my apartment and offered to let the officer inside to get my ID, but was refused. ((side note...the officer in question was killed 2 weeks later refusing backup on a call where the suspect was well-armed...he was retroactively fired and benefits refused to his widow))
Oh well... so it goes)

James F. Campbell: That's why I only have sex with people I've known for a long time. If she regrets having sex with you the morning after, what's to stop her from falsely accusing you of rape? Nothing. Anything you do will be construed as coerced because you are a man, even more so if you're physically intimidating.

That's one way to explain virginity.

lazyguineapig33: heres a little tidbit i found just now. seems pretty scary if true.

"In 1994, Dr. Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University investigated the incidences of false rape allegations made to the police in one small urban community between 1978 and 1987. He states that unlike those in many larger jurisdictions, this police department had the resources to "seriously record and pursue to closure all rape complaints, regardless of their merits." He further states each investigation "always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects" and "the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false." The number of false rape allegations in the studied period was 45; this was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed in this period.[9] The researchers verified, whenever possible, for all of the complainants who recanted their allegations, that their new account of the events matched the accused's version of events."

So you'll get back to us with something current and relevant?

What is this "Facebook" of which you speak?

When I went IN, Geocities was the thing. Are you saying Geocities DIDN'T take over the Interwebs? Can I at least still get them?

doglover: Simple rule: if you accuse someone of crime X falsely, crime X is inflicted on you by the state.

If you say Bob raped you, and you lied, the state sends you to the sexecutioner.

Now, if you accused Bob of murder...

See, it's crimes like this where I feel the U.S. should bring back the penalty of being declared an outlaw. I mentioned this in another thread weeks ago, but I'm pumped up on caffeine so I'm going to type it again.

I don't mean the new hipster "oooooh, lookitt me bein' all outlaw and rebellin' and stuff, I dun wanna follow yer rulez". "Outlaw" doesn't mean you don't follow rules.

I mean the original definition, way back in the bad old days: you no longer have the protection of law. Police are not required to help you. Courts no longer see you as having rights. Due process no longer applies to you.

If somebody walks up to you and shoots you in the head? That's no longer murder, or even manslaughter. Your family cannot sue, because you no longer count as a citizen, or a foreign national, or a human worth preserving.

For those of you thinking, "sweet, I'll just take everything I own, hole up, and live off of the grid," surprise! You can no longer own property, so everything you thought was yours, your family's, or your descendants, suddenly isn't. It's finders keepers.

That's what they should bring back. Specifically, and only, for jackasses who feel they can abuse the laws intended to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Think they're there to be taken advantage of? Let's see how you feel when they're taken away from you. We'll even give you one day's head start to make it to the nearest border. Start running.

Wait a minute! He served the time for rape. Shouldn't he get some rape?

If I was the judge, I'd say "OK son. Go ahead and rape her. You earned it!"

Amirite?

The Southern Dandy: Wait a minute! He served the time for rape. Shouldn't he get some rape?


I'm willing to bet he got some; but more the "in prison" kind, rather than the "go to prison" kind.

fracas: I'm late to this party, but here goes:

Oh My Jesus fark.

An ex-gf accused me of this once. Luckily for me, the judge put her on the stand for an hour, trying to get her to say that she'd said "no" or I'd forced myself on her. biatch couldn't lie to a judge. I'll never forget, "Ms. farkwit, what you're describing is not sexual assault." About goddamned time.

I lost twenty pounds. Out $5k to the bondsman. Out another $3k to the lawyer. Out another $2.5k to the shrink. Lost my job due to poor performance from stress. Out a weekend in the lock-up because you can't get a hearing on the weekend. Out any sense of fairness regarding the legal system after watching a clueless prosecutor lie about me in court.

She's out, you know, being mildly embarrassed in a courtroom, or something, I guess.

I don't even have a point here, other than "Oh My Jesus fark."

8 years ago. I remember it like yesterday. Oh My Jesus fark.

i have experienced this just enough offer my sincerest and heartfelt solidarity. i hope you recovered emotionally and financially. you went thru a terrible trauma and i felt panic well up inside me just reading this, remembering....

DogBoyTheCat: Like many convictions, the young man plead guilty in order to avoid trial and a MUCH longer sentence.
The system works in a certain way: if you admit guilt and show remorse, you get a shorter sentence... if you're innocent & insist on that, you might as well forget parole.
I think the lady in question should serve at least the 5 years in prison the gentleman unfairly accused served, plus at least another 3...since girl prison is a lot easier than boy prison. My G/F did 2 1/2 years in girl prison & said it was like a sorority... my worst was 3 days in county for a cop being a prick and setting me up for not getting out til Monday (the charge was refusing to present ID to an officer... I was just outside my apartment and offered to let the officer inside to get my ID, but was refused. ((side note...the officer in question was killed 2 weeks later refusing backup on a call where the suspect was well-armed...he was retroactively fired and benefits refused to his widow))
Oh well... so it goes)

this sounded like a CSB but all your embedded / nested parentheses made it hard to follow.

snowjack: FirstNationalBastard: violentsalvation: That b*tch should go to prison and be on the sex-offender registry for life.

Yep.

She should have to serve every day of the sentence he would have had to serve served, plus more for the added charges of perjury and whatever else can be thrown her way.

FTFY. She also should probably pay back the $1.5 million civil suit she was awarded from her school district. I'd say she owes him at least that much for farking up his NFL career too, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone...

Don't forget to put her on the sex offender registry. She might have gotten screwed, but she farked his life up good. What I don't get is why he didn't fight it. If I'm being accused of a rape I didn't commit, then 6 years + life on the registry isn't much better than 40 years to life in prison. My life is over regardless of the outcome.

MBK:
This world is filled with evil people that will lie, steal, cheat, rape and kill to get what they want. Putting the blame on victims will not make it go away.

Yet we should just ignore the real victim in this case because, well, he's a man and tough shiat? As you said, there's a difference between falsely accusing a person of a crime and lacking evidence. I agree that a lack of evidence shouldn't bring any charges against the victim, but the woman in this case is not the victim. She shouldn't be allowed to walk free because she went, "Yea, all that stuff I said you did to me? Hehe, just kidding. u mad bro?"

This is appalling. She needs to be criminally charged for bringing false accusations and he and the school need to sue her arse so that she is paying back this money for the rest of her life.

Rape is the most underreported crime. Psycotic coonts like this make it much harder for real victims to come forward.

Oh_Enough_Already: Presuming, of course, that the ridiculous notion that feminists parrot that "rape is about power and anger, not sex" is true, are not stories like this, and the tens of thousands of similar ones, not sufficient to generate such anger and desire for power?

I won't go full on "look at what she was wearing," but stories like this more than certainly influence many a man's animus towards women, and, by proxy, their desire or decision to commit rape.

As long as, ultimately, you'll be presumed guilty no matter what happens, why not commit the act?

Most men simply do not have the desire to rape women, they are not looking for excuses to. Thank you for showing why I will never attend a Fark party.

Now DIAF.

MBK: You know what? I hate these threads. A bunch of people coming in this thread and begging "this coont needs to die and raped" and all this shiat.

While this story is HORRIBLE and he should sue the shiat out the state, the girl, and everyone involved (and win), let's not get drastic and say "False accusations of rape need to be tortured and raped and killed".

Women who are raped have to deal with a lot of problems. If a girl was raped, and accuses her rapist, and the evidence doesn't support her claim, should we lock her up? These type of laws will scare the shiat out of women. And I know, there is a difference between no evidence vs false accusations, but I just see more harm coming from it than good. If a man rapes a young girl or boy, they will use the "No one will believe you, and you will be sent to jail if you tell" line to scare their victims even more.

Women will doubt themselves even more. More rapes will go unreported because of fear of being labeled a false accusation.

This world is filled with evil people that will lie, steal, cheat, rape and kill to get what they want. Putting the blame on victims will not make it go away.

I fully sympathize with where you are coming from. The RAINN website breaks down the statistics of how many rapes are reported vs. how many cases actually go to trial vs. how many of those cases get a conviction and it is only six percent of all incidences of rape that get a conviction because rape is the single most unreported crime and the lack of evidence makes the state leery of taking it to trial. (Though if it does get to trial, there is a 58% chance of conviction. The state makes very sure it has a case before they bring it.)

However, this case is not a matter of unproven charges. This is a woman who confessed to lying. She needs to be charged with bringing a false accusation, prejury, and fraud (for the civil suit), and this kid and the school need to sue her so that she spends the rest of her life paying this back. There are false accusations, and letting her get away with this only encourages them. A rape victim in a case that simply doesn't have evidence to convict should not be punished, but women who admit to lying to destroy someone's life and defraud the state should be punished to discourage others from trying the same thing.

KiplingKat872: Rape is the most underreported crime.

I know you're not the first person to quote that line, but it has to be a lie -- how could one possibly obtain such a statistic? Even if it were somehow factually accurate it would still a lie because the truth would just be happenstance, not the result of any valid statistical analysis.

Let's just assume you had an oracle that could accurately tell you how many rapes were unreported. In reality I suspect it's not easy to obtain that number with any meaningful amount of accuracy, but let's just assume it's somehow readily available and accurate.

What are you comparing that number against to determine that rape is the "most underreported" crime? How would you obtain underreporting statistics for every other crime on the books? How many DUIs go unreported? How many retail thefts? How many cases of tax fraud?

profplump: KiplingKat872: Rape is the most underreported crime.

I know you're not the first person to quote that line, but it has to be a lie -- how could one possibly obtain such a statistic? Even if it were somehow factually accurate it would still a lie because the truth would just be happenstance, not the result of any valid statistical analysis.

Let's just assume you had an oracle that could accurately tell you how many rapes were unreported. In reality I suspect it's not easy to obtain that number with any meaningful amount of accuracy, but let's just assume it's somehow readily available and accurate.

What are you comparing that number against to determine that rape is the "most underreported" crime? How would you obtain underreporting statistics for every other crime on the books? How many DUIs go unreported? How many retail thefts? How many cases of tax fraud?

I'm on my phone, but when I get to a PC later, I will cite the source. I'm pretty sure that is a DoJ statistic.

KiplingKat872: I'm on my phone, but when I get to a PC later, I will cite the source. I'm pretty sure that is a DoJ statistic.

It could come from the fraking pope -- it wouldn't make the methodology any more valid.

This "woman" should be raped by a million boars and then beaten with realistic dildos in public. Then give her another $1.5 million, only to take away $10 million from her while kicking her front teeth with spiked boots.

KiplingKat872: only six percent of all incidences of rape that get a conviction

Using the same statistics from RAINN, the actual numbers are:
26% of reported rapes result in an arrest
11% of reported rapes result in a felony conviction

I don't mean to suggest that underreporting isn't a problem -- it is a problem, and we should work to fix it. But it's as meaningless to talk about conviction rates for unreported crimes as it is to talk about glide ratios for automobiles.

Dreamless: doglover: Sthe sexecutioner.

Sexcuse me. But what good is all the violence in world..unless it is tempered with limitless sex?

/Somebody less lazy please post a pic.

You bring on the limitless sex object.
/If you didn't see Love Advice from Gwar in the entertainment section, it was amusing if you like them and it's worth a watch. They were in town last week, and didn't feel like going alone.

Even exonerated, that stigma is going to follow him around. He should really jump state. I bet his local media was FOOTBALLER RAPIST when he was convicted, and _{footballer exonerated of false charges} when this happened. People in his local community, or with passing acquaintance to him, probably won't get the memo.

shiat like this really sucks, one false finger pointing and your life is forever altered. On that note, I'd hate to be a teacher or work with children and have my life in the palm of a child's malicious whim.

profplump: KiplingKat872: I'm on my phone, but when I get to a PC later, I will cite the source. I'm pretty sure that is a DoJ statistic.

It could come from the fraking pope -- it wouldn't make the methodology any more valid.

Well, the DoJ isn't exactly known for cooking the books. Hopefully the cited source will explain thier methdology to your satifaction.

Original Article from 2002 - Interesting

Here (New Window)

Seems like they were in a relationship at the time?

profplump: KiplingKat872: only six percent of all incidences of rape that get a conviction

Using the same statistics from RAINN, the actual numbers are:
26% of reported rapes result in an arrest
11% of reported rapes result in a felony conviction

I don't mean to suggest that underreporting isn't a problem -- it is a problem, and we should work to fix it. But it's as meaningless to talk about conviction rates for unreported crimes as it is to talk about glide ratios for automobiles.

It is a meaningfull topic when discussing how to treat cases of flase accusation. If you are on the RAINN cite, then you can find the source of the underreporting number yourself rather than screaming, "LIARS!" without any understanding of how they got those numbers. All you have niw is "I don't understand." That does not mean their methodology was invalid, that just means you don't understand it which is difficult for you since you have no idea what their methodology was.

From both her actions it is clear that this woman doesn't have a strongly developed view on reality.

profplump: KiplingKat872: Rape is the most underreported crime.

I know you're not the first person to quote that line, but it has to be a lie -- how could one possibly obtain such a statistic? Even if it were somehow factually accurate it would still a lie because the truth would just be happenstance, not the result of any valid statistical analysis.

Let's just assume you had an oracle that could accurately tell you how many rapes were unreported. In reality I suspect it's not easy to obtain that number with any meaningful amount of accuracy, but let's just assume it's somehow readily available and accurate.

What are you comparing that number against to determine that rape is the "most underreported" crime? How would you obtain underreporting statistics for every other crime on the books? How many DUIs go unreported? How many retail thefts? How many cases of tax fraud?

I can't speak for other crimes, but in cases of rape someone may call into someplace like RAINN or visit a local rape crisis center and talk about it, but not report it to police because having to describe it over and over again for reports without knowing if it'll ever get to a trial or conviction would be too much to bear on top of the assault. That's where they can get a comparison.

KiplingKat872: Well, the DoJ isn't exactly known for cooking the books. Hopefully the cited source will explain thier methdology to your satifaction.

I'm assuming it's from the NCVS, which is the only study of the kind I'm aware from the from DoJ. If you find another source let me know.

Their methodology is self-reported data from the semi-annual NCVS. So if people decide to take the time report their victimization to the DoJ, but not the police, and they fall into one of the categories the DoJ is asking about, they would be included in those statistics. It's better than guessing, and it has useful applications, but I sure wouldn't assume the numbers that come out of it reflect reality to the tenth-of-a-percent precision displayed in the report.

But even accepting that data as a valid way to make comparisons like "most underreported", rape is not the most underreported crime. It's not even the most underreported violent crime. According to the 2009 NCVS only 55% of rapes are reported. Compared to only 39% of property crime, and 42% of simple assault. Even aggravated assault only just edges out rape with a 58% reporting rate. It's really only car theft that gets reliably reported to the police; rape seems to sit right in-line with reporting rates for other crimes.

National Crime Victimization Survey: 2009

KiplingKat872: If you are on the RAINN cite, then you can find the source of the underreporting number yourself rather than screaming, "LIARS!"

Like I said in my post, I did use the numbers from the RAINN site. If you go there you can make the same calculations I did -- out of 46 reported rapes there are 12 arrests, 9 prosecutions, and 5 felony convictions: RAINN Rape Reporting Statistics

But hey, if you'd rather read every third word of my post, make up the rest, and the berate me for your poor reading comprehension I'm sure FARK will be happy to indulge you.

KiplingKat872: It is a meaningfull topic when discussing how to treat cases of flase accusation.

No, it's not. The conviction rate for all forms of unreported crime is and can only be exactly 0%. Including that tautology in other statistics is intentionally misleading. It's like calculating the glide slope of automobiles as a comprehensive group, rather than calculating the glide slope only of automobiles that are also intended for use as planes.

Troublesome Strumpet: I can't speak for other crimes, but in cases of rape someone may call into someplace like RAINN or visit a local rape crisis center and talk about it, but not report it to police because having to describe it over and over again for reports without knowing if it'll ever get to a trial or conviction would be too much to bear on top of the assault. That's where they can get a comparison.

That's where they might get a statistics for underreporting on that specific crime. But to make the "most underreported" comparison you'd need that same statistic for every other crime, and you'd need those separate statistics to be collected in a methodologically compatible way.

profplump: KiplingKat872: If you are on the RAINN cite, then you can find the source of the underreporting number yourself rather than screaming, "LIARS!"

Like I said in my post, I did use the numbers from the RAINN site. If you go there you can make the same calculations I did -- out of 46 reported rapes there are 12 arrests, 9 prosecutions, and 5 felony convictions: RAINN Rape Reporting Statistics

But hey, if you'd rather read every third word of my post, make up the rest, and the berate me for your poor reading comprehension I'm sure FARK will be happy to indulge you.

KiplingKat872: It is a meaningfull topic when discussing how to treat cases of flase accusation.

No, it's not. The conviction rate for all forms of unreported crime is and can only be exactly 0%. Including that tautology in other statistics is intentionally misleading. It's like calculating the glide slope of automobiles as a comprehensive group, rather than calculating the glide slope only of automobiles that are also intended for use as planes.

Dude, I was raped by a guy I had been dating. And I never went to the cops because I thought, "It's my word against his. Who'd believe me after I was in his apartment of my own free will."

So discussing unreported rapes in in the face of false accusations is extremely relevant. I don't know what of axe you have to grind, but women and men (another vastly underreported crime, far less reported than women) being afraid to come forward after they have been sexually assaulted is relevant and pretty damn important.

profplump: KiplingKat872: If you are on the RAINN cite, then you can find the source of the underreporting number yourself rather than screaming, "LIARS!"

Like I said in my post, I did use the numbers from the RAINN site. If you go there you can make the same calculations I did -- out of 46 reported rapes there are 12 arrests, 9 prosecutions, and 5 felony convictions: RAINN Rape Reporting Statistics

But hey, if you'd rather read every third word of my post, make up the rest, and the berate me for your poor reading comprehension I'm sure FARK will be happy to indulge you.

KiplingKat872: It is a meaningfull topic when discussing how to treat cases of flase accusation.

No, it's not. The conviction rate for all forms of unreported crime is and can only be exactly 0%. Including that tautology in other statistics is intentionally misleading. It's like calculating the glide slope of automobiles as a comprehensive group, rather than calculating the glide slope only of automobiles that are also intended for use as planes.

The comparison you make here is if people were applying rape statistics to car theft, when we are applying rape statistics to rape cases.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty.

"LIAR!"

KiplingKat872: If you are on the RAINN cite, then you can find the source of the underreporting number yourself rather than screaming, "LIARS!" without any understanding of how they got those numbers.

Also, I wasn't questioning their number (which appears to be derived from the DoJ number, BTW). I was only questioning the claim of "most underreported", and I clearly explained why it's improbably that anyone can accurately make that claim.

I then went on to investigate the DoJ numbers to see how they were collected and if the bore out the claim. As my posting few minutes later details, the DoJ only collects such statistics for a small number of crime categories, and even using those numbers and categories the "most underreported" claim doesn't hold up.

So in addition to my general claim of "LIARS" on the methodology front, I'm adding a specific claim of "LIARS" on the technical accuracy front.

And again, I'm not saying underreporting isn't a problem. I've only every been saying that "most underreported" is a lie. It's also meaningless even if it were true, since the reporting rates for rape are higher than many crimes and similar to the reporting rates for things like aggravated assault. Hence there's probably no need to single out rape as an underreported crime, even if it did happen to be at the top of the list numerically.

9beers: Whatever happened to needing proof of a crime? Dude got Zimmermaned.

Being Trayvon'd trumps being Zimmerman'd

KiplingKat872: So discussing unreported rapes in in the face of false accusations is extremely relevant.

I don't understand how you get this from my complaints about statistical methodology. I am not now and never was making an argument about false accusations or increased reporting.

But I maintain that it's insane to include unreported crimes in statistics about conviction rates. Logically there can be no conviction without a reported crime. Calculating statistics that include such logical contradictions is intentionally misleading, and I am arguing against that.

profplump: KiplingKat872: If you are on the RAINN cite, then you can find the source of the underreporting number yourself rather than screaming, "LIARS!" without any understanding of how they got those numbers.

Also, I wasn't questioning their number (which appears to be derived from the DoJ number, BTW). I was only questioning the claim of "most underreported", and I clearly explained why it's improbably that anyone can accurately make that claim.

I then went on to investigate the DoJ numbers to see how they were collected and if the bore out the claim. As my posting few minutes later details, the DoJ only collects such statistics for a small number of crime categories, and even using those numbers and categories the "most underreported" claim doesn't hold up.

So in addition to my general claim of "LIARS" on the methodology front, I'm adding a specific claim of "LIARS" on the technical accuracy front.

And again, I'm not saying underreporting isn't a problem. I've only every been saying that "most underreported" is a lie. It's also meaningless even if it were true, since the reporting rates for rape are higher than many crimes and similar to the reporting rates for things like aggravated assault. Hence there's probably no need to single out rape as an underreported crime, even if it did happen to be at the top of the list numerically.

No, you specifically attacked the source of the numbers as your opening gambit, said those statistitics were impossible to collect so they must be "lies."

Now that you know they are possible, you are trying to claim the numbers aren't relevant to the discussion.

I don't know what your axe is, but after I get to a PC and back check the sources, I am done with you.

KiplingKat872: The comparison you make here is if people were applying rape statistics to car theft, when we are applying rape statistics to rape cases.

Are you sure? I can't seem to find that bit. I said that car theft is much more reported, and therefore *not* like rape in terms of reporting statistics. I said the rape was much like reporting statistics for other violent crimes, including aggravated assault, which seemed to me the most relevant comparison possible given the data in the DoJ study. Which I linked to so you could examine the data yourself if you wanted to refute me.

profplump: KiplingKat872: So discussing unreported rapes in in the face of false accusations is extremely relevant.

I don't understand how you get this from my complaints about statistical methodology. I am not now and never was making an argument about false accusations or increased reporting.

But I maintain that it's insane to include unreported crimes in statistics about conviction rates. Logically there can be no conviction without a reported crime. Calculating statistics that include such logical contradictions is intentionally misleading, and I am arguing against that.

The focus of this part of the discussion is false accusations of rape vs. unreported cases of rape and the enviroment of distrust false accusations cause.

But I'm sure that strawman will keep you warm if you burn it.

KiplingKat872: No, you specifically attacked the source of the numbers as your opening gambit, said those statistitics were impossible to collect so they must be "lies."

Now that you know they are possible, you are trying to claim the numbers aren't relevant to the discussion.

I don't know what your axe is, but after I get to a PC and back check the sources, I am done with you.

No, I was having two separate discussions about two separate statistics, or more accurately, the uncited comparison "most underreported crime" and the statistics from the RAINN site about conviction rates.

I made a fairly detailed object to the methodology behind the "most underreported" comparison, and a few minutes later posted an analysis of and links to the underlying data, which both supports my original objection to the methodology and refutes the truthfulness of the specific comparison.

I also re-clacualted the RAINN statistics about conviction rates by removing unreported crimes. Unreported crimes are not valid in statistics about conviction rates because there is no possibility for an unreported crime to result in a conviction.

KiplingKat872: The focus of this part of the discussion is false accusations of rape vs. unreported cases of rape and the enviroment of distrust false accusations cause.

The focus of my discussion was very specific, and well cited in my original posts. The fact that you drew broader conclusions about my intent from them is your own problem. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not making any argument that rape is always reported, or that we shouldn't encourage more reporting, or that unreported crime in general isn't a problem, or that a fear of retribution for false accusations might be related to underreport. I literally never said any of those things, and I've specifically disclaimed most or all of them at least once. You can check it. It's all here in text -- just search for "profplump".

profplump: KiplingKat872: No, you specifically attacked the source of the numbers as your opening gambit, said those statistitics were impossible to collect so they must be "lies."

Now that you know they are possible, you are trying to claim the numbers aren't relevant to the discussion.

I don't know what your axe is, but after I get to a PC and back check the sources, I am done with you.

No, I was having two separate discussions about two separate statistics, or more accurately, the uncited comparison "most underreported crime" and the statistics from the RAINN site about conviction rates.

I made a fairly detailed object to the methodology behind the "most underreported" comparison, and a few minutes later posted an analysis of and links to the underlying data, which both supports my original objection to the methodology and refutes the truthfulness of the specific comparison.

I also re-clacualted the RAINN statistics about conviction rates by removing unreported crimes. Unreported crimes are not valid in statistics about conviction rates because there is no possibility for an unreported crime to result in a conviction.

You leaped without looking and now you are wracking up argumentative fallacies and other forms of intellectual dishonesty to bail yourself out.

To those debating MBK in this thread - don't bother. If you check his profile you will see that he is "far left".

To say the left have an interest in feminism and rape issues is putting it mildly. They are the ones who co-ordinated the changes in law that allow women to use rape law as a weapon against men, and it is leftists who thought up all the propoganda that legitimises it (MBK is well versed in such wordplay).

The point is, if a woman wants to be able to use this weapon, and enjoy the power it gives her, she had better be a feminist, and that means a leftist.

If a woman rejects the creed of feminism-leftism, she will be denied these powers. Leftist-infiltrated courts and state prosecutors will no longer assume her accusations are automatically true. They will no longer give her advantages in the legal process. She will not automatically get custody and alimony in divorce cases. She will not be able to barge to the front of the queue for jobs or get rubber-stamp A grades. Her opinions will no longer get the automatic unquestioning approval of the right-on political class.

The whole thing is just left-wing lock-in politics. This is what Orwell was talking about in Animal Farm. It's also how fascism, communism and religious totalitarianism came into being.

By the way, do you really think MBK or any other politcally obsessed leftist propogandist really cares about womens' safety? Of course not. If their polemic feels like they're reading a script... most likely that's all they are doing.

Many women who cry rape do it for personal gain?! Tell us more!

So sad that the courts are biased against men the second a woman opens her mouth about anything.

THE GREAT NAME: To those debating MBK in this thread - don't bother. If you check his profile you will see that he is "far left".

To say the left have an interest in feminism and rape issues is putting it mildly. They are the ones who co-ordinated the changes in law that allow women to use rape law as a weapon against men, and it is leftists who thought up all the propoganda that legitimises it (MBK is well versed in such wordplay).

The point is, if a woman wants to be able to use this weapon, and enjoy the power it gives her, she had better be a feminist, and that means a leftist.

If a woman rejects the creed of feminism-leftism, she will be denied these powers. Leftist-infiltrated courts and state prosecutors will no longer assume her accusations are automatically true. They will no longer give her advantages in the legal process. She will not automatically get custody and alimony in divorce cases. She will not be able to barge to the front of the queue for jobs or get rubber-stamp A grades. Her opinions will no longer get the automatic unquestioning approval of the right-on political class.

The whole thing is just left-wing lock-in politics. This is what Orwell was talking about in Animal Farm. It's also how fascism, communism and religious totalitarianism came into being.

By the way, do you really think MBK or any other politcally obsessed leftist propogandist really cares about womens' safety? Of course not. If their polemic feels like they're reading a script... most likely that's all they are doing.

8/10

*golf clap*

This happens MORE than you think.

MmmmBacon:
I only hope this guy gets a chance in the NFL. Hell, at least the NFL could hire him to consult with rookies about the pitfalls they could encounter from evil people looking to destroy their lives for financial gain.

He's just spent his five most important years without doing much football practice...

/Yes, I did just call this chick evil.
//The shoe fits.

Yep. She's just spent five years living as a millionaire. New clothes, new shoes, nice house, a new car, all thanks to her evil. All that needs to be corrected. Publicly.

At the very least she needs to spend the next five years living in squalor and eating dirt. She also needs her picture posting all across the USA so we can see her.

KiplingKat872: The focus of this part of the discussion is false accusations of rape vs. unreported cases of rape and the enviroment of distrust false accusations cause..

A large part of the problem might vanish if there were no multi-million dollar payouts for false accusations.

MBK: You know what? I hate these threads. A bunch of people coming in this thread and begging "this coont needs to die and raped" and all this shiat.

While this story is HORRIBLE and he should sue the shiat out the state, the girl, and everyone involved (and win), let's not get drastic and say "False accusations of rape need to be tortured and raped and killed".

Women who are raped have to deal with a lot of problems. If a girl was raped, and accuses her rapist, and the evidence doesn't support her claim, should we lock her up? These type of laws will scare the shiat out of women. And I know, there is a difference between no evidence vs false accusations, but I just see more harm coming from it than good. If a man rapes a young girl or boy, they will use the "No one will believe you, and you will be sent to jail if you tell" line to scare their victims even more.

Women will doubt themselves even more. More rapes will go unreported because of fear of being labeled a false accusation.

This world is filled with evil people that will lie, steal, cheat, rape and kill to get what they want. Putting the blame on victims will not make it go away.

If someone accuses you of a crime, but they can't prove you committed it, you move on with your life. It's a major pain in the ass, but that's life.

But if you get convicted and imprisoned falsely, and it can be proven that the accusation was a deliberate lie, the accuser should be prosecuted for perjury and whatever else the state can come up with.

(And IMO, the victim in this case - the MAN who was falsely accused - should get the $1.5 million the girl won from her suit against the school system. As for her, no, she should not be cruelly punished for her lie, but she should serve the *maximum* sentence for perjury, etc.)

That this is about rape is incidental (but not unimportant).