"This award makes clear that the enormous financial consequences of rape can be placed squarely where they belong: on the shoulders of those people who engage in sexual assault."

This is just bizarre. Prisons exist in the first place to isolate from others those who would do them harm. Rape constitutes actual, material, malicious harm to others. It's exactly the sort of crime people should be imprisoned for... and yet now what is important about rape is its "financial consequences?"

Some more background would be helpful. Is the rapist a wealthy person who can easily afford a $2.4 million penalty? If so, then this is tantamount to the courts letting him buy his way out of the consequences of his actions.

I don't know...I'm just wondering what people thought of this Gender Violence Act (I guess CA has one too):

Under the GVA, victims of rape and intimate battery can sue their perpetrators in state civil court, regardless of whether he was ever charged or prosecuted in criminal court.

"Some more background would be helpful. Is the rapist a wealthy person who can easily afford a $2.4 million penalty? If so, then this is tantamount to the courts letting him buy his way out of the consequences of his actions." Exactly, and doesn't that mean that if you are rich you can go ahead and rape as long as you can pay for it?

I also want to predict that this guy is going to apeal the decision and she is not gonna see any of tht money anytime soon. In the meanwhile this rapist is going to be running loose among us.

The fact that the rapist didn't go to jail is irrelevant to the question about the GVA...it allows a victim to sue him in a civil suit whether or not he was charged criminially. So the fact that he was not senenteced to jail time would be true whether or not the victim had sued under the GVA.

I think the quote about the "financial consequences of rape" is bizarre, but I think the GVA is good because it is simply offering another course of action for a victim. So if the case can't be prosecuted criminally (or not satisfactorily), the victim still has a line of recourse. Of course, you can question whether monetary payment does anything to teach the rapist a lesson or comepnsate the victim for what has occured, but at least it's SOMETHING, rather than nothing.

Also, I would be more interested in how much money the rapist has since if he's NOT rich, the victim will likely not receive any payment and the verdict will be merely symbolic.

Hmmm..suing a a young male for 2.4 million dollars sounds good in the grand scheme of things, but I doubt she will ever see much of that money. I like that the male would be severly punished financially, but I am not sure that it will ever actually happen.

I am not sure when the actual rape occurred, but my guess is that it was not that long ago. I know very few people in their twenties who have anywhere close to 2.4 million dollars. It seems somewhat odd to me...

Well, this looks like a happy ending, but I have to admit, civil court expansions scare the hell out of me. They exist specifically as an end-run around "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" so that potentially life-destroying penalties outside of imprisonment or death can be applied to someone just on the basis of "a preponderance of the evidence", with no state-provided legal defense for the defendant.

In this case, at least there was a criminal guilty verdict. I remember when this trick was used on O. J. Simpson after he was found not guilty, though, and no matter what you may think about the validity of that verdict, it demonstrates what can happen.

Whether or not it results in justice not being applied in specific cases where the criminal system falls down, I prefer my legal protections intact.

The fact that the rapist didn't go to jail is irrelevant to the question about the GVA...it allows a victim to sue him in a civil suit whether or not he was charged criminially. So the fact that he was not senenteced to jail time would be true whether or not the victim had sued under the GVA.

Ooooh ok. For some reason I had been under the impression that the $2.4 million was actually a criminal penalty. In that case I'd have to agree that the GVA probably can't hurt matters... at least until "men's rights" doofuses seize upon it as an indication of how "anti-male" our justice system is.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it's great to see public admittance that the emotional and physical consequences of rape are not isolated but permeate the entire life of the victim and their friends and family.
On the other hand, not having a prison sentence and relying only on the money as a deterrent is ludicrous. What better way to treat a woman as an object than making a man pay money to forcibly have sex with her?

The reality is that a civil case is much easier to win than a criminal case and is often a fall back when a criminal prosecution fails (i.e. OJ).

The harsher reality is that there is no government office responsible to collect the penalty. Collection is up to the plantiff. Wages cannot be garnished in civil cases and if the defendent does not pay, the plantiff is shit out of luck. In some counties, bench warrants can be issued for non-payment, but it usually results in a night in jail, then back home they go.

Sad, but true. Survivors tend to give it up before it ever gets this far.

I think it's a positive step. Like any legislation, it's certainly imperfect, but it's a step in the right direction. The problem is that the criminal sentences, if and when they're ever imposed, aren't getting through to these cretins and aren't preventing them from harming people. So if the risk (too slim as it is) of criminal sanctions doesn't deter the conduct, we'll try monetary sanctions, and we'll make them more likely. While it's a sad commentary on the state of affairs if some men care more about their pocketbook than about other human beings, if it helps, in my mind, that's a good thing.

Does this law seek to emulate the provision of the federal Violence against women act that was struck down by the supreme court?

I think its a great idea. it is very imperfect, but you have to start somewhere.

if cases like this become more common (and it doesnt really matter if they reduce the award on appeal- just imagaine the guy's legal fees) it is a deterrent for rapists. i wish the criminal justice system took care ofit properly, but it is what it is.

What Law Fairy said. And blahwoof.

Also, if this law actually is replacing the unconstitutional provision of VAWA, and all 50 states implemented similar legislation... *sigh* that'd be a happy day...

So long as most rapists are never caught, prosecuted, or convicted, the level of punishment isn't going to matter very much. A deterrent only deters if people think it will actually happen to them.

I'm wondering how exactly the rapist is going to pay that much money, though I think fining them is perfectly appropriate. But that's close to a lifetime's income for an average person. Also wondering how much of that will be eaten by legal fees, etc.

Hooray for the private right of action! The more vindication rape survivors can get, the better.

See, only a prosecutor can bring criminal charges. If they decide not to, then the victim can't make them. And a prosecutor can make a deal without the approval of the complaining witness (though especially in rape cases most prosecutors take the victim's view into account). And criminal cases are "beyond a reasonable doubt," and convictions are hard to get -- in part because people don't want to put men in prison and often don't consider anything but stranger rape "real rape."

It has usually been true that people can seek private compensation for interpersonal wrongs whether or not there is a criminal case: if some guy walks up to me and punches me, I can try to get him prosecuted, but whether that happens or not, I can sue and try to recover money.

This statute provides a clear avenue for women to prove civil liability for sexual assault, whether there is a prosecution or not (and if there is, whether it is successful or not). Suppose a jury thinks the crime lab tech is a lying piece of shit and rejects the evidence of identity in a criminal case? They acquit. But the woman can still sue, hire an independent lab to analyze the sample, and maybe win the civil trial. So if the guy is still walking around, what good does that do? (1) It's an adjudication. It may not be "beyond a reasonable doubt," but a court of competent jurisdiction hands down a judgment against him and it has been conclusively established for civil purposes that he did it. That has to have a lot of value to some survivors. (2) don't knock money judgments. Some rapists are "judgment proof" and can't pay, but I know one victim of sexual abuse who, as a teenager, sued and got her grandfather's interest in his house. She sold it on her grandmother's death and has a nice nest egg. Collection laws vary from state to state, but it may be possible to garnish wages -- I'm sure some survivors would find a lot of satisfaction in getting 10% of the rapist's every paycheck until $2.4 million was paid off. Don't like it, asshole? Quit and try to find work under the table. With no benefits, no security and no unemployment.

Good for her.

Any step towards harsher punishment for rape is a step in the right direction.

Though Squip's statement, "What better way to treat a woman as an object than making a man pay money to forcibly have sex with her?" really rings true.

The point is, we're leading up to harsher consequences and longer jail time sentences for rapists, which would realize the goal of gettin rapists off the streets and making the world a safer place in general. This, however, discourages rape at all, and it's been proven that rapists do consider the consequences of their actions (other than the damage to the victim, obviously) and if rape is "worth it." (see self defense tips on this riot grrrl website)

So I guess it doesn't disturb anybody that there wasn't any evidence to warrant a criminal rape charge against this guy, nor that the standards for a civil charge of "sexual assault" are significantly less than the standards for a criminal charge of "rape", nor that nobody commenting here has any information about what actions the man took that led this court (a court about which we know nothing) to find for the plaintiff - - - all of which have come together to cause this man to file for bankruptcy (she'll never see a dime, by the way) and to be labelled a "rapist" even though, once again, there is no actual evidence to suggest that he is a rapist.

No, no, no! That's all complex jibbah-jabbah!!! Guy deserves it, what with his penis and all! Hell, he's probably white, too. Filthy degenerate.

So I guess it doesn't disturb anybody that there wasn't any evidence to warrant a criminal rape charge against this guy, nor that the standards for a civil charge of "sexual assault" are significantly less than the standards for a criminal charge of "rape", nor that nobody commenting here has any information about what actions the man took that led this court (a court about which we know nothing) to find for the plaintiff - - - all of which have come together to cause this man to file for bankruptcy (she'll never see a dime, by the way) and to be labelled a "rapist" even though, once again, there is no actual evidence to suggest that he is a rapist.

No, no, no! That's all complex jibbah-jabbah!!! Guy deserves it, what with his penis and all! Hell, he's probably white, too. Filthy degenerate.

You'll forgive me if I'm not familiar with your legal system, but if it works like it would in the UK -

The guy was found guilty in a criminal court and sentence to the year's non reporting supervision (whatever that is).

Seperately, the victim sued for damages in a civil court and was awarded $2.4m dollars to cover compensation and real expenses.

Does anyone else see this possibly increasing false accusations of rape (e.g. after consensula intercourse), or if not, being used by Defense Attorneys in rape cases to intimate the victim is just after a payout?

I'm not trying to imply the victim in this case was suing for financial gain, just that this case appears to put that possibility on the table.

With the incredibly small amount that I know about this guy (see, everybody, sometimes it's okay to admit that you don't everything before condemning a guy as a rapist), the man was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of simple battery, which, in most states, is nothing but an unwanted touching upon the victim.

After that, the woman appears to have sued him in civil court for something - possibly sexual assault. It's hard to say because this "article" is written completely from the rather biased perspective of the woman's attorney. If it is sexual assault, then it was determined that a preponderance of the evidence (what is required in a civil case) found that he had committed this act. I'm not sure what the statutory requirements are for sexual assault in Illinois, but it is usually less than the requirements for rape.

The moral here being that nobody here has any idea what they are talking about - but that hasn't stopped anyone from getting out the pitchforks and the torches.

And yes, I can tell you from having defended people who were falsely accused of rape that payouts like this are dinnerbells being rung for those who would make false accusations.

I like civil penalties but as a lawyer who has occasoinally worked on defense they also make me uncomfortable in some circumstances.

The more closely that a civil charge resembles a criminal charge, the less appropriate I think it is for a civil penalty to exist.

If the problem is that convicted rapists are not sufficiently deterred, the obvious solution is to significantly enhance penaties for rape.

OTOH, if the problem is that it is too difficult to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt, the (quite obvious) moral conundrum is why it should be appropriate to have huge penalties (some people seem to think the fine is WORSE than jail time) with a lesser standard of proof.

It doesn't take much to realize that the reasonable doubt standard is generally biased towards the accused--it's hard to prove. So the vast vast majority of people who are criminally convicted of rape are in fact rapists. Nobody has ever put a value on "beyond a reasonable doubt" but many folks who have studies it think it falls somewhere between "75% sure the state is right" and "90% sure the state is right."

So the civil standard (51% is OK to find for the plaintiff) is MUCH more likely to produce a "conviction" even when it is not, actually, rape. Just like other civil penalties.

This is a problem for all civil cases of course. But it is more of a difficult problem with rape, largely because of the legal issues involved in proving/disproving rape.

The important thing to remember here are the vast differences between civil liability and criminal liability. The judgment for plaintiff in the civil case simply means that jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's conduct met the statutory or common law requirements of the cause of action. Tort law is meant to protect bodily integrity and provide private rights of actions when that bodily integrity is violated. The jury found what they found, by the standards imposed at civil trial. It's not the same as saying the defendant is "guilty" of rape; the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the damages the jury determines.

Ranja – The word rape gets thrown around a lot on this site regardless of fact in some cases, and despite lack of knowledge in others. Lack of knowledge is evident here, but I doubt that will deter anyone from assuming rape. I try not to get too riled up about it anymore (I have wasted too much time on other threads fighting this type of assumption).

I will say one thing, if I were a playboy type (rich, sleeps around, ect.) living in Illinois, I would most definitely consider moving. Easy money can be a very dangerous thing.

Right. Because there's no easier money than that gained by trumping up a rape charge and suing a rich guy with reams of lawyers at his disposal.

Given the fact that rape is a proverbially underreported crime, I always find it fascinating when people consider false accusations to be the most urgent issue on the table.

EG - What I always fascinating is zealots who refuse to look at things from all sides. (And yet I'm always drawn to blogs like this which just seem to breed those people - go figure).

Do you not think it's possible for people to be concerned about BOTH the underreporting of rape AND the false accusations of rape? And that we should be weary of any statute that would aggravate either of these problems?

Ah, nevermind. Penis=Guilty. Vagina=Pure, Honest and Innocent. That's gender equality for the neo-feminist, I suppose.

if i was raped, i would rather have the rapist be castrated than me get a penny out of it

Do you not think it's possible for people to be concerned about BOTH the underreporting of rape AND the false accusations of rape? And that we should be weary of any statute that would aggravate either of these problems?

Sure. I'm certainly concerned both about the fact that in the US, 43% of completed rapes don't get reported (no typo), and about the fact that 2% of reported rapes are false.

Though personally I'd much rather get the total number down.

Ranja:

Do you not think it's possible for people to be concerned about BOTH the underreporting of rape AND the false accusations of rape?

There may be exceptions. I haven't seen any demonstrated recently.

And that we should be weary of any statute that would aggravate either of these problems?

Guy deserves it, what with his penis and all! Hell, he's probably white, too.

and

Ah, nevermind. Penis=Guilty. Vagina=Pure, Honest and Innocent. That's gender equality for the neo-feminist, I suppose.

... your credibility and your motives have ended up highly suspect. If you expect anyone here to take you seriously, I advise you to greatly tone down the rhetoric. Offensive straw man arguments aren't going to get you very far.

Also, the rape / sexual assault distinction exists in legal parlance, but like many other legal terms, it doesn't match common usage, where sexual assault is simply a light special case of rape, and the offender is commonly referred to as a rapist. I asked once in another thread for the women present to respond as to whether or not penetration (generally the legal distinction between sexual assault/sexual abuse and rape) was even significant to the effect of the crime, and got about a 50/50 split even on that point. Nobody ever uses the term "sexual assaultist" for reasons I hope are obvious.

As to the issue of guilt itself, two juries have found the man guilty, the first confirming that at minimum a criminal attack took place beyond a reasonable doubt, and the second that they thought that the preponderance of the evidence showed that he was guilty of causing massive psychological and financial injury as a side effect of that attack (presumably a sexual assault legally, or a non-penetrative rape in common parlance, though it is neither specified nor significant). That's more than sufficient for a presumption that justice was done, though I would have been rather disturbed myself if the case had been so extreme that the criminal charge had come back not guilty. I'm not fond of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard on civil cases where the stakes exceed someone's yearly take-home income minus basic living expenses because I believe that the strongest protections should be afforded citizens against their government when the stakes are crushing -- but I'm also aware that only a small percent of juries are found to incorrectly reach guilty verdicts even in civil cases (about 1% of civil cases are fully reversed, according to a DoJ study, and only 2% are even partially reversed or modified, generally with respect to penalty or calculation of court costs, not findings of fact).

If you want to provide evidence for his innocence that you think is stronger than two juries, feel free. At the moment, however, it seems to me you're the one guilty of not knowing what you're talking about.

There is a big difference between what people ordinarily mean by "false accusations of rape" and what the term means in practice. I'm writing a post on it now, but the skinny is this:

-Probably only a tiny minority of rape accusations are MALICIOUSLY false--1%? 2%? These are ones where both parties know the sex was consensual, and one party is out to screw the other.

-A larger category in ADDITION to those above accusations are ones where there is no malicious intent on the part of the accuser... but it wasn't actually rape. Those accusations are also "false" insofar as they are wrong--though they lack the malice of the first group. (Oddly enough, not all nonconsensual sex is necessarily criminal rape.) It's my suspicion that a lot of the concern about "false accusations" focuses on THIS category. It is important to keep the two categories separate when discussing "false" accusations.

Zed, zed, zed. Where do I begin (knowing as I begin that it's all in desperation)?

Let's start with a complete reiteration of what I said in the last post - The criminal jury found the man guilty of battery, and that's all. Battery could be nothing more than his touching her on the breast when she did not want him to. A bad thing to do? Possibly, but it doesn't make him a rapist. And the fact that the neo-feminists who flood sites like this with their proud ignorance don't understand the difference between rape and sexual assault (or simple battery) doesn't make it okay. You seem to be arguing that a flag just be waved her and that we should all surrender to an incorrect interpretation of our laws. I just can't go along with that. Sorry.

More important is your other statement - "Your credibility and your motives have ended up highly suspect. If you expect anyone here to take you seriously, I advise you to greatly tone down the rhetoric. Offensive straw man arguments aren't going to get you very far."

You seem to think that I am a lunatic. At least that's what I get from reading something like that. Only a lunatic would come to an insanely hateful site such as this and actually expect to have a reasonable conversation with anybody. When you're dealing with a group of people who know nothing outside of their "Women's Studies" classes, and who cheer with the firing of every male CEO and the death of every unborn child . . . well, you can't really expect to do anything more than try to speak some reason every now and then and hope that maybe some potential neo-feminist might rethink her position and realize that the sane path is more in the tradition of the Susan B. Anthony's.

But we can only dream.

And, while it was a typo, I think I can truly say that I am "weary" of laws that seek to circumvent our criminal justice system and make a mockery of Double Jeopardy protections.

Ah yes, I knew there was more thing to say -

I love those statistics. The ones that say 2% of rape accusations are false and that 43% of rapes go unreported.

Those are just some fascinating numbers.

What this means is that -

(1) 98% of rape accusations result in a criminal conviction. How else could we be so certain that only 2% are false and that the defendant is therefore innocent?

(2) 43% of rapes go unreported? So this means that those 43% are never reported and yet they are found guilty in a court of law. Wait . . . that doesn't make sense! If a rape isn't reported, then it can't be tried and so there's no way of knowing that it even happened. Is there?

Hmmmm. I guess those figures are just total bullshit.

Ranj, try a little research.

Go read this, and then, if the numbers and terms are cunfusing, come back and ask sensible questions.

Drrrrrrr. I'm still confused. The research you told me to go to read actually just further supported my argument that these fiures are complete bullshit.

(1) Only 2% of rape accusations are false, and 8% are unwarranted (a nice way of saying that a false accusation was made, and that the facts simply didn't support a rape conviction). So that means that 10% of the accusations don't merit a rape conviction. So that means that 90% of rape trials must end with a guilty trial. So now we can move on and . . . but wait a minute . . .

That report said that 54% of rape accusations end in dismissal or acquital. So only about 46% are convicted. So that means the actual evidence at hand proves that 54% of rape accusations are false/unmerited - and that's why the case was dismissed or acquitted. To say anything beyond that is just speculation.

(2) 43% of rapes go unreported? Well, according to that report you sent me to, only 16% are reported, so that means 84% go unreported. That's a pretty damn big variance there and means that at least one of those figures is total bullshit. Possibly both. And, I still have to say that it is quite likely that both are bullshit. Why do I say that?

Because there is nothing explaining how they know that only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police. They cited a report from 1992, but I've yet to see anyone explain how this information can be concocted. If the rape charge has not been convicted, let alone reported, then how exactly do you know the rape actually existed?

No, no, no. You'll have to much better than that. These figures (especially the ones mentioned in (2) are still highly questionable and you need somethng more than a report that raises the same questions of validity.

Are those sensible questions, Kaethe? I'm open to admitting that I'm wrong if somebody can provide me with proof that I'm wrong (which you have not yet done). Are you willing to do the same?

Um, kaethe.... While I believe there are way, way, too many rapes in the U.S., and far too few of those result in convictions...

You DO realize, I hope that those commonly-cited stats may not be all that accurate, right?

Have you, for example, read the methodology for the National Crime Victimization Survey?

I am NOT saying rape isn't a huge problem--it is. And almost all rapes are man>>woman; and vastly more women than men are sexually assaulted. I agree with all those statements.

It is merely that the particular NUMBERS regarding rape bandied about by some groups make me squirm, largely because they appear to be cherry picked from the stats and are offered as gospel truth when they are not.

Everything in the NCVS suggests rape is an enormous and horrible issue. But if people miscite it their credibility suffers.

Only 2% of rape accusations are false, and 8% are unwarranted (a nice way of saying that a false accusation was made, and that the facts simply didn't support a rape conviction). So that means that 10% of the accusations don't merit a rape conviction. So that means that 90% of rape trials must end with a guilty trial. So now we can move on and . . . but wait a minute . . .

So when a rape takes place and is reported, and when the rapist is brought up on charges, the only possible outcome is conviction? That's it? It could never be the case that an accusation is made that is neither false nor unwarranted (ie, a rape actually did occur and the accused is actually the rapist), and yet the accused is subsequently acquitted?

It is simply patently false that "8% are unwarranted" is "a nice way of saying that a false accusation was made, and that the facts simply didn't support a rape conviction." The facts may not support a conviction, or there may be other legal issues involved that preclude a guilty verdict; but neither of these conditions automatically makes the accusation false.

I can't speak to the truth of the statistics, but any attack on them should probably be focused on the means by which they were obtained. Your above reasoning is pretty shoddy.

As I said, Squip, the problem with the statistics is that - from what I have seen of them - they are based only on speculation.

If a person is acquittted of rape, but you still believe that this person committed the crime of rape - then that's fine. However, this is speculation. It's not fact. And it's not evidence with which reliable statistics can be created.

Putting your faith in speculation in shoddy. Come up with something concrete.

As I said, Squip, the problem with the statistics is that - from what I have seen of them - they are based only on speculation.

If a person is acquittted of rape, but you still believe that this person committed the crime of rape - then that's fine. However, this is speculation. It's not fact. And it's not evidence with which reliable statistics can be created.

Putting your faith in speculation in shoddy. Come up with something concrete.

[T]he problem with the statistics is that - from what I have seen of them - they are based only on speculation.

Somebody doesn't know much about statistics. Statistics may be flawed. Sometimes statistics are out-and-out fabricated. But they're definitely not "based only on speculation." Good statistics are derived from a cogent analysis of empirical data. Empirical data are not speculation.

If statistics are speculation, then so are the sciences. All of them. The computer you're typing on works by virtue of speculation. Ooh hey, you think if I concentrate hard enough I can speculate myself a jetpack?

Sorry to be off topic (as in I am not really commenting on what I think of the post) but sciences are only speculation in a way. They are the most acurate speculations based on the available data, but nobody should mistake science as fact.

Things born from what we know about science (such as that computer or that jetpack) work based on applying what we have learnt from observation.

Point well taken. Scientific reasoning is most basically inductive, so in that sense you could call it speculative. But the sciences are united under a robust epistemological standard that provides us with a means, albeit an imperfect one, of separating the good speculations from the bad. Hence, why I don't think it's at all fair to characterize science as "speculative" without further qualification.

You came up with the 43% unreported rate yourself, Ranj. 84% of incidences are not reported to police. 2% of reports to police are false and a total of 8% are unfounded. The category of unfounded consists of both the false reports and baseless cases in which the elements of the crime were never met. Some police officers incorrectly think that a rape report is unfounded if the victim has a prior relationship with the offender (including having previously been intimate with him), the victim used alcohol or drugs at the time of the assault, there is no visible evidence of injury, the victim delays disclosure to the police and/or others and does not undergo a rape medical exam and/or if the victim fails to immediately label her assault as rape and/or blames herself. So really, false reports are about 2% of reported incidences to police.

squip - Hence, why I don't think it's at all fair to characterize science as "speculative" without further qualification.

very true

Wow, Squip. You are one easy customer. I've got a big bag of shit here that I've wrapped up in silver packaging and called chocolate. Do you want to buy some?

The fact that some numbers are thrown out at you and called "Statistics" does not make them valid. When it comes to bad statistics, Speculation pretty much runs the show and you have yet to provide me with ANY reason to believe that these aren't bad statistics. There is a TREMENDOUS hole in them - which I have attempted to explain to you. However, you overlook this hole and embrace these flawed statistics because you like the result that they provide you with. And, instead of realizing this, you make a desperate attempt to compare the hard sciences with the creation of statistics and . . . ah jesus, is it even worth it?

Stop drinking the kool-aid, Squib.

Just one more thing -

If I'm made to choose between Logic and Statistics, I'm always going to go with logic. And, for the reasons I originally stated, Logic beats the hell out of these flawed and speculative statistics.

Until somebody can provide me with reason to believe otherwise, that is all the qualification that I need, chemfem.

Just one more thing -

If I'm made to choose between Logic and Statistics, I'm always going to go with logic. And, for the reasons I originally stated, Logic beats the hell out of these flawed and speculative statistics.

Until somebody can provide me with reason to believe otherwise, that is all the qualification that I need, chemfem.

So, in your "logical" world, false rape accusations are a clear and present danger? That's not logic. It's willful blindness.

You can bring a civil suit for all kinds of criminal acts (OJ, remember?)--why not rape? Have an uncontrollable number of fake accusations of liability for death resulted from allowing families to seek damages in civil court?

Yes, in my logical world it is a clear and present danger for any individual to go to jail for a crime that they did not commit - even if they have a penis. They're nothing "blind" about that.

But that's not really the point, is it? The point is that the cited statistics are complete bullshit and have no merit to them. That's what I want to see addressed - not your hatred for men. (Why else would you be so willfully indifferent to the idea of one of them going to jail for a crime he didn't commit?)