Tag: rape laws

Paul Elam’s Jury Nullification applies only to VIOLENT sex offenders?

The main stream of the men’s rights movement is not worried about men’s sexual freedom. Notable exceptions are the antifeminist and sites linked in his right side bar.

The following post is about the internal rift between the father’s rights main wing of MRA, and the few true men’s rights activists that want to free men from persecution for normal male sexuality.

Google "Paul Elam jury nullification" 1 2.3 4 6 7 You find Paul Elam at avoiceformen would want all of these forcible rapists set free, because in today’s climate they can get no due process. I thought he was pretty courageous to suggest jury nullification, because really, men can not get due process when accused of rape. Most likely Paul wants to make a provocative statement, to cast light on unjust *rape laws.

But I wonder:

Does Paul Elam’s Jury Nullification apply only to violent sex offenders?

The rest of the sex offenders also suffer from lack of due process . Rarely their "crimes" are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Non-forcible *rape, or child abuse, reported long after the fact are hard to prove with good corroborating evidence.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Paul Elam’s Jury Nullification applies only to VIOLENT sex offenders?” »
Paul Elam’s Jury Nullification applies only to VIOLENT sex o…
» continues here »

Women can prevent rape. Don’t drink, don’t dress provocatively, don’t be promiscuous: don’t get raped.

Misguided feminist ideology causes rape and suffering, "Men can stop rape" they teach. As if the average well behaved middle class chump had the power to prevent predatory rapists from attacking women.

Peer reviewed academic research has proven that common sense advice is correct.

Common sense advice (don’t drink, don’t behave slutty,dress modestly,  be careful of your surroundings) have been discredited as "blaming the victim" and opposed in slut walks.

Feminist ideology causes rape and child abuse

Antecedents of sexual victimization: factors discriminating victims from nonvictims. J Am Coll Health. 1998 Jan;46(4):151-8.

A sexual victimization survey was used to assess the factors that would discriminate between victims and nonvictims of sexual assault. The sample consisted of 241 female college students at a large Midwestern university. [,,,]  Discriminant function analysis was used to develop a set of variables that significantly identified victimization status. The variables found to be related to women’s being sexually victimized were (a) number of different lifetime sexual partners, (b) provocative dress, and (c) alcohol use.

I am amazed, that in spite of feminist control of our Universities, the above study and the more recent survey below swere allowed. Feminism curtails free academic research in order to foster its false ideology. Feminism is about ideology, about demonizing men, not about protecting women from rape.

Feminism actively encourages slut walks and encourages women to behave in ways that victimizes them. Professor Milton Diamond has shown that free access to child porn reduces child sexual abuse, and free access to porn reduces sex crimes. 

A review of the literature on women’s substance use and sexual victimization points to women’s heavy episodic drinking as a proximal risk factor, particularly among college samples. At least half of sexual victimization incidents involve alcohol use and the majority of rapes of college women occur when the victim is too intoxicated to resist (“incapacitated rape”). Despite the importance of women’s heavy episodic drinking as being a risk factor, existing rape prevention programs have rarely addressed women’s alcohol use and have shown little success in reducing rates of sexual victimization.
Alcohol consumption and women’s vulnerability to sexual victimization: can reducing women’s drinking prevent rape? Subst Use Misuse. 2009;44(9-10):1349-76. Full text of peer reviewed research paper

Everyone suffers, due to such ideology driven theories. Women get raped, usually with their *consent, sometimes forcibly and without consent.  Good men go to prison for *consensual rape.

Illegally drinking underage females, who drink themselves into stupor and unconsciousness are never held liable for their poor life choices.  Men are always responsible, no matter if they are drunk or sober.  MRA (men’s rights activists) call this the "pussy pass".

Ideology prevents school, parents, and police from education young women to take precautions.  Women are not told which behavior helps them to safely navigate the world with greatly reduced risk of being raped.

Men and society at large pay the price for expensive court cases and prison.

1) Consensual date rape is preventable and can be totally avoided.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Women can prevent rape. Don’t drink, don’t dress provocatively, don’t be promiscuous: don’t get raped.” »
Women can prevent rape. Don’t drink, don’t dress provo…
» continues here »

Prominent Victim of False Rape Accusations and Biased Court System Becomes Activist, Writes Book (Jörg Kachelmann in Germany)

A famous and highly popular TV weather anchor man languished in jail for months, suffered over year in court, spent a fortune in legal cost, lost his TV job and reputation. Because of a rape accusation that was unfounded. And now Jörg Kachelmann becomes an activist to fight unjust convictions due to false accusations.

Slander is a popular weapon, these days

"Verleumdungen sind heute eine beliebte Waffe"

– Joerg Kachelmann and Miriam are getting even – with "ill-trained" police officers, prosecutors, judges and expert witnesses, and a "habitual men sentencing justice". At the same time, they expect to establish "an informal network". Their goal: "That in the future is less innocent people are convicted because of false accusations." This they announce  in an interview with SPIEGEL.

"In the area of ​​abuse and rape false accusations have become a mass phenomenon," said Kachelmann ("tile man") who was acquitted about a year ago after a spectacular marathon process  charged with raping a former girlfriend.

Human-Stupidity covered the scandalous Jörg Kachelmann rape case . It was the German court case of 2011. The prominent TV weatherman, had been accused by his ex girl friend to have raped her, exactly on the day they split up because of her discovering his infidelity. A famous man, not only TV weather anchor but owner of the company that produced the weather reports. Attractive, well off, with several lovers and millions of women swooning after him.

Video: Lupine the cat comes into the weather forecast

is

Kachelmann would "really want every rapist behind bars". But for women, slander has become a popular and effective weapon." Kachelmann’s wife Miriam added: with abuse allegations women today can "very easily take revenge on bosses and life partners" and "easily obtain custody of children." There  a "victim industry, which in this sick form must definitely go," said the 26-year-old psychology student.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Prominent Victim of False Rape Accusations and Biased Court System Becomes Activist, Writes Book (Jörg Kachelmann in Germany)” »
Prominent Victim of False Rape Accusations and Biased Court System…
» continues here »

Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!” »
Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By…
» continues here »

Women can stop rape! Don’t drink, don’t get raped! Simple.

A woman drinks alcohol at a party. She has sex with a man. The next day she wakes up and feels raped. Modern *rape laws agree that she was raped. She can get the man convicted for consented-to-sex-but-consent-was-invalid-due-to-alcohol rape. 1  2 3

Consensual date rape can is preventable and can be totally avoided.

women-decides-about-reproductionThis rape could have been avoided with 100% certainty. Had she not consented, she would not have been raped. Had the woman not drunk, she would not have been raped.

  1. Either she might have consented, when sober, just as she consented when drunk. Sober consent would be valid (because she was totally sober). No-one else to blame but herself for having consented to the sex act. No rape would have happened.
  2. Or she would not have consented to sex, when sober, and the sex would not have happened. Thus no rape would have happened.
    1. If she insists on drinking, she could have an analogy to the "designated driver", a sober friend that has the instructions not to let her go home with anyone, rather to deliver her home safely. This can be easily enforced, the sober friend just can drop the message, to potential suitors, that she is unable to consent and any sexual act will be prosecuted as rape, to the fullest extent of the law.
    2. Does this sound confusing? Well, modern rape does not require the women to resist. It does not even require the woman to say "no". A woman that enthusiastically consents to sex, even a woman that takes initiative to have sex against a man’s wish, can be a rape victim if she was drunk (out of her own volition to drink) or if she is under the age of consent.

"Rape" was clearly defined for 2000 years, until re-definition 50 years ago

We should revert the feminist language abuse that confuses clear terms like *consent and creates such language monsters like "invalid consent rape",

Some of the 20 types of *rape are more difficult or impossible to eradicate. Forcible rape, which involves threat of true violence. Clear, explicit, true non-*consensual rape is harder to avoid. This confounding of forcible rape with other consensual forms of rape is an offense to victims of true forcible rape

We should scrap the patronizing laws that consider women un-empowered, not responsible for their own actions. So if a woman drinks, she still would be responsible for her actions. Unless if she could prove she was in a total stupor (which still is the consequence of very irresponsible behavior).

Raped men are responsible for child support

man-decides-about-his-financesMen, even when passed out drunk and raped by a women, still have to pay child support for decades.Similarly, immature boys that are statutorily raped have to pay child support. Or men whose sperm was stolen from a condom or from a sperm bank. Or when the woman "forgot" the pill on purpose or got impregnated by someone else. The man always pays child support. 

Women are not responsible for actions under their control (drinking, consenting when drunk). Men, on the other hand, are financially liable for pregnancies that arise out of none of their own fault but out of the pure fault of the woman.

Of course, in the above analysis, we resorted to logic, which is a patriarchic tool of female oppression by men.

Re-definition of the word "rape"

Discussions about rape have been obfuscated by feminist re-definition of the word "rape". "Rape" is not what it used to be.  So in discussion about rape, people usually think of real forcible rape-rape in the old sense of the word "rape". But force, or active clear non-consent have long ceased to be requirements to prove re-defined "rape".

Feminist re-definition has made our language totally confusing and changed the meaning of words like *child, *consent, sex, porn (copine scale), child porn and *rape.

Non-consensual date rape. Non-consensual forcible rape.

Not all types of *rape are totally preventable.  We will write about non-consensual rape or non-consensual date rape in another post.

French presidential election was decided by Nafissatou Diallo. And by feminist rape and harassment laws

hollande-strauss-kahnSocialist Hollande triumphs in French presidential poll, thanks to Nafissatou Diallo and feminist rape and harassment laws. Hollande had already declared he would run against Strauss-Kahn in the Socialist primary race last year when Strauss-Kahn’s political career was cut short by allegations he had assaulted and attempted to rape the New York hotel worker Nafissatou Diallo. Charges against Strauss-Kahn were eventually dropped, with prosecutors citing "substantial credibility issues" with the alleged victim. 1

Nafissatou Diallo had accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape. Feminist pressure ahs dismantled due process specifically in rape accusations. So Dominique Strauss-Kahn was imprisoned upon a mere unproven and uncorroborated accusation. Were he a mere mortal without a million dollar dream team of lawyers, investigators, and bail payments, he probably would not have escaped and spend decades in prison. But still, his career was over. Thanks to this unproven accusation by Nafissatou Diallo, a proven liar and embezzler. Add to this some other accusations of improper and somewhat aggressive pursuit of women. Such harassment laws, also espoused by feminists, protect women from the terrible trauma of being pursued with too much zeal by men.

Nafissatou-Diallo-menteuseHuman-Stupidity keeps wondering why feminism is not about female empowerment, about finding the inner strength so they could deal with verbal behavior without needing protection of a police state.

Were it not for Nafissatou Diallo, and feminist rape and harassment legislation, Strauss Kahn would have remained his party’s favorite and is likely to have been in the race and might have become French president. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest paved the way for a goal that had long eluded the political career of 57-year-old French Socialist François Hollande: to square off against President Nicolas Sarkozy in next month’s election. The international monetary fund got a different chief with different policy regarding the Euro. A hedge fund manager could have made Billions had he foreseen Strauss-Kahn‘s arrest and the subsequent fluctuations of the exchange rate.  Many powerful men have been marred and destroyed by women’s allegations.

Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant

The press decries systematic rape of women in African war zones while keeping quiet about the killing of even more men.

When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Women’s suffering emphasized, men’s suffering ignored. An evolutionary mechanism?

Women have a special talent to paint themselves as victims and engage men as "white knights" to help them in that endeavor. The even higher level suffering and plight of men is just getting ignored. Human-Stupidity suspects that this manipulation skill is due to evolutionary built in mechanisms that women learned in the gender war, to counter men’s superior strength. It is to be noted that the limiting factor for child production (and thus inclusive fitness) is the number of women’s wombs, not the number of men. As Angry Harry puts it: men are dispensable.

Women are always the victims. In rallies, women "take back the knight" at safe campuses, requesting safety for women no matter how drunk. Nobody mentions that statistically men are more frequently victims of violence and homicide. Women stress rape culture, re-defining rape to include ever more minute transgressions like 5 second rape (failure to instantly stop consensual sex).

Women, engaging the help of men, manage to raise public awareness about rape while ignoring prison rape. Prison rape is extremely violent, and often entails years of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Prisoners who "consent" to years of sex to avoid violence don’t even count as rape victims.

Media focus on rapes and other female miseries while ignoring male executions, worked-to-death laborers, tortured prisoners, and nine-year-old boy soldiers trained to kill and be killed.

An excerpt from Tim’s new book Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics

‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

A case in point is provided in an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, published June 5, 2005 in the New York Times under the heading, “A Policy of Rape.” Says Kristof, “More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp—a teeming squatter’s camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages—still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.” Now, of course, this is an abomination that demands attention. It is also an abomination that receives attention. My concern with this article comes from what’s missing—at least up until the very end. “I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped,” says Kristof. “‘It’s simple,’ one woman here explained. ‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

 

Inside Story – The silent victims of rape | Al Jazeera Video

The United Nations, even in security council resolutions, explicitly excludes men and boys when they talk about sexual violence against women and girls. The United Nations spokeswomen squirmed herself out of the topic, distracting but not recognizing the United Nation bias against male victims.

The above movie focuses on male rape. it still ignores other types of violence that is selectively anti-male.  It mentions that 20% of male combatants got raped, vs. 30% of women. It does not mention how many men got killed, nor that there probably are not many female combatants.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant” »
Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant
» continues here »

If mugging laws were like rape laws

Woman: I would like to report a mugging. Last year was drunk running around the street. I met a man who told me a sob story about her owing $1000 rent. He was very convincing. I felt so loving and caring that I just went with him to the ATM and gave him $1000. Now that I am sober, and after ruminating for a few months, I am sorry I gave the money and want to report this robbery. He deserves jail.

  • In a normal non-rape context, the receiving person might be asked to return the money. But never would he be jailed for robbery for accepting money from a lightly drunk stranger. Much less if she complained 6 months after the fact.

    This post is not meant to ridicule true victims of forcible rape. It is meant as a reminder that, unlike in muggers, those accused of rape are not guaranteed constitutional rights of due process.

    Alleged rapists are jailed based on unproven alccusations. Like Strauss-Kahn. This leads to suffering for the falsely accused. It also leads to waste of police time, and decreases the credibility of true victims of rape. It also encourages false accusations, see http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

Officer: You are very brave for coming forward. If you were drunk and driving, you would be arrested, but since you were just drunk and stupid, you’re a poor helpless victim. What monster could have done this to you?

Woman: His name is Joe Smith.

Officer: Well, we will go to his place of employment and very loudly announce that he is under arrest for such a terrible crime. He will probably lose his job just due to the accusation. If he is well known, even though he has not yet been tried, we will plaster his face over all newspapers and news channels. Luckily our society is one which no longer believes that “innocent until proven guilty” hogwash, we now have a “let’s hang him just to be safe” approach to crime. He will probably receive death threats, abuse from strangers in public, and may even be forced to move over this allegation.

Woman: Wow, that is great for revenge. What about the trial?

Officer: Even though we have no evidence other than your accusation, we will charge him, as no further evidence is needed thanks to new laws. If he takes it to trial, he will probably spend 15 years in prison, and will be the brunt of abuse of other inmates. Most likely however, the 15 year sentence will scare him enough that he will plead out. He will be in prison for 4-10 years, then when he get out and be on a public registry. If he has children he may never see them again. He will forever be ridiculed by the public and in a sense be a pariah.

Woman: And if after he has spent 7 years in prison, you find out I lied?

Officer: The DA will probably not even file charges, unless there is clear proof you knowingly and maliciously falsely accused the person. This is almost impossible, because you filed charges 6 months after the crime.  If there is absolutely convincing proof, or your confession, you will have to pay a $150 fine. If you have bad luck, we will sentence you to a year probation. We will try to keep it quiet, otherwise other mugging victims may not come forward. He may or may not be released. It helps us if he’s not because now our D.A. and police department can run around and show everyone that we’re doing a great job getting another violent, misanthropic criminal off of the street. It’s win win for everyone, and if he complains about how his life is ruined, he should just man up and get over it.

Woman: Oh no! But what happens if I want to report another mugging after you find out I have been lying?

Officer: Thanks to mugging shield laws, it can never be brought up at trial, you can put as many men in prison as you like.

786279aWoman: Well, if that’s the case, then I want to report another mugging. Bob Johnson, the cab driver, had mugged me a few nights ago. I know that he had me arrested because I had taken the ride and didn’t have any money to pay him, but it was really because he mugged me.

Officer: We will drop all charges against you and arrest Bob Johnson immediately.

Woman: A year ago I reported a (real) robbery. I had been walking around in a bad neighborhood, flashing my money around and someone threatened me with a knife and took my money. Police officer Miller took my report and actually brought the case to trial. But Miller also also told me that it is unwise to walk around drunk flashing cash at night in a bad neighborhood. That is victim blaming.  What sort of world is this where a woman can’t even run around drunk flashing all of his cash and become a victim of unwanted attention?

Woman: I would like to report a mugging. Last year was drunk running around the street. I met a man who told me a sob story about her owing $1000 rent. He was very convincing. I felt so loving and caring that I just went with her to the ATM and gave her $1000. Now that I am sober, and after ruminating for a few months, I am sorry I gave the money and want to report this robbery. He deserves jail.

  • In  a normal non-rape context, the receiving person might be asked to return the money. But never would he be jailed for robbery for accepting money from a lightly drunk stranger. Much less if she complained 6 months after the fact.

Officer: You are very brave for coming forward. If you were drunk and driving, you would be arrested, but since you were just drunk and stupid, you’re a poor helpless victim. What monster could have done this to you?

Woman: His name is Joe Smith.

Officer: Well, we will go to his place of employment and very loudly announce that he is under arrest for such a terrible crime. He will probably lose his job just due to the accusation. If he is well known, even though he has not yet been tried, we will plaster his face over all newspapers and news channels. Luckily our society is one which no longer believes that "innocent until proven guilty" hogwash, we now have a "let’s hang him just to be safe" approach to crime. He will probably receive death threats, abuse from strangers in public, and may even be forced to move over this allegation.

Woman: Wow, that is great for revenge. What about the trial?

Officer: Even though we have no evidence other than your accusation, we will charge him, as no further evidence is needed thanks to new laws. If he takes it to trial, he will probably spend 15 years in prison, and will be the brunt of abuse of other inmates. Most likely however, the 15 year sentence will scare him enough that he will plead out. He will be in prison for 4-10 years, then when he get out and be on a public registry. If he has children he may never see them again. He will forever be ridiculed by the public and in a sense be a pariah.

Woman: And if after he has spent 7 years in prison, you find out I lied?

Officer: The DA will probably not even file charges, unless there is clear proof you knowingly and maliciously falsely accused the person. This is almost impossible, because you filed charges 6 months after the crime.  If there is absolutely convincing proof, or your confession, you will have to pay a $150 fine. If you have bad luck, we will sentence you to a year probation. We will try to keep it quiet, otherwise other mugging victims may not come forward. He may or may not be released. It helps us if he’s not because now our D.A. and police department can run around and show everyone that we’re doing a great job getting another violent, misanthropic criminal off of the street. It’s win win for everyone, and if he complains about how his life is ruined, he should just man up and get over it.

Woman: Oh no! But what happens if I want to report another mugging after you find out I have been lying?

Officer: Thanks to mugging shield laws, it can never be brought up at trial, you can put as many men in prison as you like.

786279aWoman: Well, if that’s the case, then I want to report another mugging. Bob Johnson, the cab driver, had mugged me a few nights ago. I know that he had me arrested because I had taken the ride and didn’t have any money to pay him, but it was really because he mugged me.

Officer: We will drop all charges against you and arrest Bob Johnson immediately.

Woman: A year ago I reported a (real) robbery. I had been walking around in a bad neighborhood, flashing my money around and someone threatened me with a knife and took my money. Police officer Miller took my report and actually brought the case to trial. But Miller also also told me that it is unwise to walk around drunk flashing cash at night in a bad neighborhood. That is victim blaming.  What sort of world is this where a woman can’t even run around drunk flashing all of his cash and become a victim of unwanted attention?

Woman: I would like to report a mugging. Last year was drunk running around the street. I met a man who told me a sob story about her owing $1000 rent. He was very convincing. I felt so loving and caring that I just went with her to the ATM and gave her $1000. Now that I am sober, and after ruminating for a few months, I am sorry I gave the money and want to report this robbery. He deserves jail.

  • In  a normal non-rape context, the receiving person might be asked to return the money. But never would he be jailed for robbery for accepting money from a lightly drunk stranger. Much less if she complained 6 months after the fact.

Officer: You are very brave for coming forward. If you were drunk and driving, you would be arrested, but since you were just drunk and stupid, you’re a poor helpless victim. What monster could have done this to you?

Woman: His name is Joe Smith.

Officer: Well, we will go to his place of employment and very loudly announce that he is under arrest for such a terrible crime. He will probably lose his job just due to the accusation. If he is well known, even though he has not yet been tried, we will plaster his face over all newspapers and news channels. Luckily our society is one which no longer believes that "innocent until proven guilty" hogwash, we now have a "let’s hang him just to be safe" approach to crime. He will probably receive death threats, abuse from strangers in public, and may even be forced to move over this allegation.

Woman: Wow, that is great for revenge. What about the trial?

Officer: Even though we have no evidence other than your accusation, we will charge him, as no further evidence is needed thanks to new laws. If he takes it to trial, he will probably spend 15 years in prison, and will be the brunt of abuse of other inmates. Most likely however, the 15 year sentence will scare him enough that he will plead out. He will be in prison for 4-10 years, then when he get out and be on a public registry. If he has children he may never see them again. He will forever be ridiculed by the public and in a sense be a pariah.

Woman: And if after he has spent 7 years in prison, you find out I lied?

Officer: The DA will probably not even file charges, unless there is clear proof you knowingly and maliciously falsely accused the person. This is almost impossible, because you filed charges 6 months after the crime.  If there is absolutely convincing proof, or your confession, you will have to pay a $150 fine. If you have bad luck, we will sentence you to a year probation. We will try to keep it quiet, otherwise other mugging victims may not come forward. He may or may not be released. It helps us if he’s not because now our D.A. and police department can run around and show everyone that we’re doing a great job getting another violent, misanthropic criminal off of the street. It’s win win for everyone, and if he complains about how his life is ruined, he should just man up and get over it.

Woman: Oh no! But what happens if I want to report another mugging after you find out I have been lying?

Officer: Thanks to mugging shield laws, it can never be brought up at trial, you can put as many men in prison as you like.

786279aWoman: Well, if that’s the case, then I want to report another mugging. Bob Johnson, the cab driver, had mugged me a few nights ago. I know that he had me arrested because I had taken the ride and didn’t have any money to pay him, but it was really because he mugged me.

Officer: We will drop all charges against you and arrest Bob Johnson immediately.

Woman: A year ago I reported a (real) robbery. I had been walking around in a bad neighborhood, flashing my money around and someone threatened me with a knife and took my money. Police officer Miller took my report and actually brought the case to trial. But Miller also also told me that it is unwise to walk around drunk flashing cash at night in a bad neighborhood. That is victim blaming.  What sort of world is this where a woman can’t even run around drunk flashing all of his cash and become a victim of unwanted attention?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “If mugging laws were like rape laws” »
If mugging laws were like rape laws
» continues here »