View Tweet I liked a @YouTube video S.P.L.C. vs. M.R.A.'s

Jury Duty at a Rape Trial? Acquit!

Recently here in the comments section, the subject of jury duty at rape trials has come up. One of our readers commented that he voted “not guilty” while sitting on the jury at a rape trial simply because he could.

Another reader called that irresponsible. I imagine at least a 98% of the society would agree with her.

Well, 98% of society has been wrong before.

With this important subject in mind, I make the following pledge as an activist, and as an American that believes fully in the rule of law. Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

And I look forward to the opportunity to do so for very good reason.

Since the judicial system is patently untrustworthy when it comes to the offense of rape, any guilty vote is simply an enabling capitulation to systemic legal corruption. In this, the age of misandry, not one aspect of a rape case can be trusted. The accuser cannot be trusted. The police that take statements, gather evidence and make arrests cannot be trusted. The prosecutor trying the case cannot be trusted. The judge cannot be trusted.

With rape shield laws and their trampling of every defendants right to a fair trial, the law itself cannot be trusted. Indeed, even your fellow jurors, who can be assumed to be living unconsciously in the misandric matrix, and prepared to condemn men on accusation alone, cannot be trusted.

We have seen it over and over again. Women lie about being raped, judicial politicians make careers off of putting away sexual offenders, and a brainwashed public cheers it all on. That so many of the men caught up in this are innocent doesn’t stop the grinding wheels of all this injustice for even a moment.

A year ago I wrote a piece for Men’s News Daily on the False Accusation industry. It isn’t just an occasional news story about some college boys getting on the wrong side of some lying hookers pointing finger, it is a silent epidemic that has stained the legal system and destroyed any credibility that would normally be afforded to judicial process.

If the system is rigged, then the outcome must be assumed to be tainted.

Voting not guilty on any charge of rape is the only way to remain faithful to the concept of presumed innocence. And any participation in the system as it stands, other than with the intent to undermine it as much as possible, is taking part in the destruction of that sacred presumption.

If you are sitting on a jury hearing a case of rape, the only way to serve justice is to acquit.

Better a rapist would walk the streets than a system that merely mocks justice enslave another innocent man. And better a system that cannot be trusted as it is, be corrected from within by a single honest citizen in the name of real justice.

Tags: , , , , , ,


  1. I agree with you, but I don’t think you go far enough. Since the police, the prosecutors, and courts, and the corrections industry appear to be working in collusion to put as many “superfluous” males behind bars as possible, why should we only indulge in jury nullification at rape trials? I think, and I have attempted to do this each of the three times I’ve been obliged to serve on a jury, that no jury should convict for any reason. The charges don’t matter. The evidence doesn’t matter. The system is corrupt, the government has degenerated into tyranny, and the law enslaves individuals instead of protecting them.

    Jury nullification is the last non-violent weapon we possess. It’s time to use it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. About 5 years ago, I was selected as part of the first group to undergo questioning, for jury placement, by the prosecutor and defense lawyer in a drunk driving trial. If neither of them had rejected me, I would have been on the jury. During the questioning, I asked several questions not only of them but also of the judge. Though at that point I wouldn’t have minded serving, I was dismissed, and I haven’t been contacted again. I think my contempt for the “justice” system became obvious.

    If I’d been selected, jury nullification would have been front and center in my mind the whole time. A jury member is a minor deity. One doesn’t have to justify one’s decision regarding guilt or innocence to anyone. MRAs should always consider jury nullification, if not swear to engage in it whenever possible.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. “Since the judicial system is patently untrustworthy when it comes to the offense of rape, any guilty vote is simply an enabling capitulation to systemic legal corruption. In this, the age of misandry, not one aspect of a rape case can be trusted. The accuser cannot be trusted. The police that take statements, gather evidence and make arrests cannot be trusted. The prosecutor trying the case cannot be trusted. The judge cannot be trusted.”

    Truer words have never been spoken.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Eincrou

    My first reaction to this idea was alarm, but the wisdom of this matter cannot be found on the surface. A person in possession of knowledge regarding the infidelity of the US’ judicial system with regards to rape and other sexual crimes may not in good conscience say that he ever suspects guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.” If the accuser is hidden behind a rape shield law, the court’s proceedings are unconstitutional, obscene and an abrogation of humanity’s quest for justice. No guilty verdict can possibly be leveled in these circumstances.

    He might hang the jury and let a legitimate criminal go free, and this is terrible, but we must accept that a government using its unimpingable ability to use certain force is far worse than randomly occurring acts of non-lethal violence. When government itself becomes an unassailable criminal, you have tyranny. No horrible crime, not even rape, is worth violating due process. Unfortunately, I think most women would totally disagree.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. falsely accused soldier

    I think instead of just voting “not guilty” I would instead do my best to get on that jury. I would be very Machiavellian in this matter, even going so far as to misrepresent myself and be voted as the foreman.

    I wouldn’t vote not guilty if the evidence does indeed prove guilt. However I would do all of this to make sure the man gets a fair trial. That there isn’t some irrational female/mangina squawking her disgust behind the scenes; shaming other jurors into voting guilty because of the crime itself, not the act commited or evidence entered into record.

    Just deciding to vote “not guilty” because of the way feminists have maneuvered laws to bias men is not right, ever. This is our legal system, there was a time when it wasn’t broken. Where any man accused of any crime could get his day in court.

    I do agree that the current system is broken, however if my transmission is screwed up I don’t go “muddin” down a mountain trail. What I mean is, “don’t abuse the machine because an intregal part is broken, fix it.”

    This will take years to fix, I don’t have any allusions. However there will be a day, years from now, when VAWA will not be voted back into law, it is coming. There will be educated men who will not only have graduated having taken a male studies course, they will have a degree in it. Some politicians will make verbal slips or have conversations MRA leaning that will spark huge national debate. Studies will be done asking questions why is our GNP(gross national product) not as progressive as in later years?

    As someone falsely accused of this crime, it took me a year to get back to right. She recanted and luckily because I was in the military and overseas at the time my name wasn’t splashed through the press. I actually don’t even blame her, I blame the system.

    Even at the time of my accusation I still didn’t blame her. I knew at that moment that the system not only failed her, it failed me. She had been told over and over again that she wouldn’t get in trouble if she came forward with an allegation of any sexual abuse. She had been led to believe that it happens all the time, just by the fact that most senior leaders will not be in the same room with her if the door is closed. Her friends talked about nights of heavy drinking and regret because they had sex in a club bathroom or woke up spooning with swamp thing. Etc, etc. Of course she didn’t get in trouble in this instance either, she didn’t get disciplined for showing up to work drunk and late(a no-no in the military).

    Here is where the system really broke down, she recanted, I was honorably discharged because my time was up. She was dishonarably discharged and is now at home in some small town in the south.

    I am in college, she probaly lives with her parents working at a small time convience store because the big chains don’t hire the dishonarably discharged.

    Now alot of MRA’s would tell me I am being a mangina about being sad for her but I really am. If you look at numbers she will be a drag on my taxes for the rest of my life.

    Guess what, your paying for her too.

    So with that one night two human beings changed forever. One person became a liability and the other had his eyes opened to the inequality inherent in our legal system/culture.

    Back to the original point, I guess I did some freight train logic there. If I was on trial today, I would want the Jury to make there assessment based off the facts. I actually would not want someone to just vote “not guilty” just because I am a male. That is dangerous thinking, it is also the type feminists use to justify the change in law over the past 40 years.

    In a court of law you can never be found “innocent” you can only be found “not guilty.” I’ll leave it at that, i’m kind of all over the place at the moment.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Torbjörn Josefsson

    Honestly, I think this view smells of crazy – what if someone at a feminist blog made the same promise to “always vote guilty” in rape trials – wouldn’t we be rightously pissed off?

    If you have reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant (for example if you feel this specific case has been unfairly handled), by all means vote to acquit, but.. you know there Are men who rape women, and rape is one of the most serious crimes I can think of – are you really saying that even if you believe the defendant is guilty, he should be let go to rape again?

    I do not think the word “crazy” is too strong in this case

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. @ Torbjorn

  8. what if someone at a feminist blog made the same promise to “always vote guilty” in rape trials
  9. Man, are you ever out of touch with reality. What if someone on a feminist blog promised to always vote guilty? Man what a question! The entire frigging legal system promises to vote guilty without a fair trial as a matter of routine!

    And you are worried about not looking bad in order to do something?

    Ignorance and weakness are two of the main reasons this party is slow to launch.

    Wake up, Dude.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • falsely accused soldier

    I don’t necesarilly agree with you on this subject. While feminism would and has made statements like this in the past. It doesn’t mean that we as a movement have too do it as well.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Badger

    So falsely accused what you are saying is do not sink to their level.
    That strategy has not worked. Time to change.

    The Badger is back

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Joseph

    If nothing else, this approach is going to raise questions. People will wonder why you are doing what you are doing. Then you have a chance to share your view (not that they care). Who knows, feminists may pass laws requiring the names of jurors released who vote not guilty.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Charles

    If a woman gets drunk and has sex she can claim alcohol as an excuse and later yell rape. She has the pleasure and excitement of a party night and the reaffirmation that she is needed and important. At the same time, by yelling rape, she uses that as excuse to maintain her virtue. A man cannot use alcohol as an excuse.

    Even if a man is convicted of rape, in most cases the punishment is too much.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Joseph

    @ Charles

    The nooky is our sacred cow, didn’t you get the memo?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    You who advocate sabotaging the jury system: with what would you replace it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • It is not the jury system that needs to change, it is rape shield laws, as well as the need to put prosecutors under fire for bringing charges that hard evidence doesn’t support.

    Juries work pretty well when presented with good cases in a fair way.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    Then why sabotage them?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Peggy
    “You who advocate sabotaging the jury system: with what would you replace it?”

    First I’ll point out that I wrote above:
    “MRAs should always consider jury nullification, if not swear to engage in it whenever possible.”

    Personally, I would always consider jury nullification in a trial of anyone on any charges. I would not, however, know in advance that I was always going to use it. In addition, jury nullification is NOT a sabotaging of the jury system. Jury nullification exists for exactly the type of use being advocated by many here. If a juror considers a law or set of laws, including their prosecution, to be corrupt, that juror should engage in jury nullification. Again, that’s why jury nullification exists.

    As far as replacing the current system. I would like to see a return to due process. Rape shield laws and policies should be repealed. And, perhaps most important, false accusers should be severely punished. Anyone convicted of an intentional false accusation should be subject to the same punishment faced by the true victim — the falsely accused.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • However, from what you are saying, you’d vote not guilty even if they were indeed guilty so you’d be punishing a woman for being victimized, something that she couldn’t stop in the first place.

      And as for the courts always taking the girl’s side? That is NOT true. My niece was brutally raped a few years ago, nothing in the paper, prosecutor refused to take the case cause it tore her up so bad emotionally he didn’t think she’d be able to handle going through a trial. In that case my niece was the one shafted by the system, not the guy, that had nothing happen to him.

      So I ask, what if that were your mother, your sister, your cousin, your niece, or how about your wife?

      Sorry but I’ll listen to evidence and vote the way I see fit if ever given the chance. Our system is no where near perfect, but it’s what we have.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    Torbjörn Josefsson said: “If you have reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant (for example if you feel this specific case has been unfairly handled), by all means vote to acquit, but.. you know there Are men who rape women, and rape is one of the most serious crimes I can think of – are you really saying that even if you believe the defendant is guilty, he should be let go to rape again?”

    falsely accused soldier said: “Just deciding to vote “not guilty” because of the way feminists have maneuvered laws to bias men is not right, ever. This is our legal system, there was a time when it wasn’t broken. Where any man accused of any crime could get his day in court.

    I do agree that the current system is broken, however if my transmission is screwed up I don’t go “muddin” down a mountain trail. What I mean is, “don’t abuse the machine because an intregal part is broken, fix it.”

    I agree with both of you, and well said.

    If the jury system isn’t what is broken, then isn’t sabotaging it kind of like destroying the brakes when the transmission is out of whack?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I will add that district attorneys should be prosecuted for bringing forth cases that are clearly spurious. Mike Nifong belongs in prison.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Bob

    “Then why sabotage them?”

    You seem like a good gal, so I’ll attempt to explain. The jury is the only part of the legal process that invites civilian participation. A non-licensed man can’t get up and make a legal defense for a man accused of rape,he can’t make a ruling based on the evidence,either, that is the judge’s job. What he CAN do, is to get on a jury and vote “not guilty”,especially if the jury contains mangina men or feminist women.

    However, if I were a lawyer, such maneuvering would not be necessary as it is well known that women are more likely to disbelieve a woman’s rape story or vote “not guilty” on a rape case. Something tells me that this corresponds with another well known factoid about women and rape, namely that 41% of women fantasize about having it done to them.

    An all female jury would do the trick,methinks.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • A cross post of mine from Reddit

    To those here that say they are MRA’s but think the ideas in this post are over the line, I have to say please wake up and get a better understanding of what due legal process is supposed to mean. If your understanding of justice sucks then you will never be able to pursue it.

    Ask yourself this. What happens in a trial when evidence is found to be tainted? How about when testimony is found to be unreliable? That’s right, it is thrown out! Why? Because the defendant has a RIGHT to a just and fair trial. And if the trial itself is not just and fair, no sound decision can be made no matter what “evidence” you imagine you are seeing.

    Do you even get what that means?

    It means that if there is something amiss, something corrupt, it has to be thrown out. And in the case of rape with rape shield laws and such a high tolerance for false accusations, it is all corrupt.

    It all, for justice to be done, must be thrown out until the system is reformed enough to ensure that justice.

    Do not settle for corruption in your legal system. Do not say that you will just do the best with a bad system while innocent men are imprisoned, raped, tortured and murdered, all because someone told a lie, and a prosecutor cared more about a notch in his or her belt than in the truth.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • falsely accused soldier

    The flaw in your argument is that the trial system itself is not flawed. It is the laws enacted that change the crime of sexual abuse into something akin to a witch hunt.

    Some of the system continues to work, it is the “swing for the fences” mentality that most prosecutors bring to any sexual abuse case. They do this not with a hatred for men, but in knowledge that they were voted into office. So once again we are back with the feminist lobby that lets this happen.

    Victims of a false rape conviction who are exonerated by the Innocence Project are done so because of DNA evidence.

    I am a criminal justice major at my school. I am in my second year and currently on summer break. It was taught and examples shown that juries these days are not likely to convict a crime of sexual violence between adults without DNA evidence.

    There are several things you are now not allowed to do in rape cases. One case is bring the suspects sexual history into the case. However the majority of people in this forthcoming example will see it as bright as day.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If pictures of that night or after the alleged sexual abuse and she looks like a slut then she is probably a slut.

    A good example of this is the Roethlisberger case in Georgia these past couple of months. The woman wore a sign that said DTF(down to f***) I am not making some kind of joke about her clothes. She literally wore a nametag that said that. She flirted with Roethlisberger and flirtingly asked if he knew that meant. A lot of touching went on…

    A jury knows what means, and the prosecutors office knows that too. Notice the case was dropped, that doesn’t mean however that if it was a lesser known person it would have been dropped. The prosecutor would probably have swung for the fences, and lost.

    However, no group of 12, besides feminists would have convicted him of that crime. There was no DNA evidence either.

    In the Duke Lacrosse case the prosecutor was 40-50 years old. He wasn’t a spring chicken when it came to the legal profession. He knew those charges wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. He gambled with mens lives for political gain, he lost and now will never be able to practice law again.

    So even though the getting to that stage is broke, the final product these days is not. I am speaking of the days before DNA.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    It would be nice if the commenters posting with what are clearly their initial, gut reactions to this idea would not scroll right down to the “Leave A Comment” and miss reading the justifications I have posted. There is certainly the opportunity for them to completely disagree, but none of the posts indicate that the authors have done the analysis on why justice must be pursued with caution.

    Government’s use of force is manifest and obvious, while the truth of an accusation of wrongdoing against a defendant is not. Allowing true criminals to go free because there was not enough evidence found, or because of a violation of the proper and rational process to determine guilt is not something we do recklessly or for no purpose. When government can openly, publicly and systematically using force against people without following proper procedure it is not only obscene, but inevitably leads to arbitrary tyranny.

    Government is definitely going to be able to apply force and deprive people of their rights; this is the purpose for its existence. Don’t allow this capacity to be easily used for malice by liars. That is unacceptable at any cost. Yes, I will directly say to you: even if some genuine rapists go free.

    Anti Idiocy brings up a topic many people are unaware of with jury nullification. This is never spoken of, but the philosophy of juries includes the compulsion that jury members refuse to convict based on outrageous laws. A jury can and should level a “not guilty” verdict even if the case is made that the defendant did actually violate the law. A jury is one of the most powerful institutions in the land and people of good conscience should all vote “not guilty” in rape cases where the accuser is shrouded. This will force legislatures to repeal unconscionable rape shield laws, lest politicians be the ones blamed when rape convictions plummet.

    Those who think what we’re advocating is “sabotage” are riding on the negative connotations associated with the concept. If what is sabotaged is obscene laws and proceedings, then sabotage is exactly the purpose. This is carried out for the purpose of justice, and nothing else. I humbly admonish these people to sit down and really think about what justice is. Justice is more than just deciding if you think a person has committed a crime or not. You can do that anytime you want, however you want. But when the possibility of certainly depriving a person of their rights is present, the final verdict is an insignificant part of the pursuit. It’s the process that must be maintained, and the power of the jury is one way to do it.

    Readers of the original article are ultimately going to do whatever they want, but at least put in the effort to properly understand the reasons we’re giving. If you disagree, have the self-respect and intellectual honesty to consider the justifications, and then refute them. You don’t have to post it here, just at least practice rationality in your own mind. Don’t cheat yourself by just deciding you don’t like the idea and then not even face the arguments we’re making.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Eincrou

    100% slam dunk. Stellar post. Thank you. And I should add that I think it is a shame that so few understand the checks and balances written into our system to keep tyranny at bay.

    Luckily, all it takes on a jury is one person.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    I had never heard of jury nullification. Shows what a history student I am (not).

    Here is a good summary:

    The definition written on that UMKC site is “Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.”

    I think I understand what supporters of Paul’s plan are saying, that because the legal system around rape of women by men is weighted against a male defendant, they’ll basically boycott, by categorically nullifying any jury decision on the subject.

    I still have a lot of trouble with the concept of deciding ahead of time that you are going to vote “not guilty” even if the evidence convinces you the person is guilty of rape. Laws against rape aren’t immoral. And is it “wrongly applied” to the defendant if you think he is, in fact, guilty?

    Would you do the same in domestic violence cases? Women and men can both be batterers, but men are more likely to be brought to trial on it. Would you therefore decide ahead of time to acquit all accused batterers (men AND women) because the system is messed up?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Peggy

    “And is it “wrongly applied” to the defendant if you think he is, in fact, guilty?”

    Of course it is. The whole point is that when the system is rigged, when evidence to the accusers credibility is withheld, when the defendants right to face his accuser are all eliminated, it brings what you “think” about his guilt into question from the beginning.

    An unfair trial has no justice in it, no matter how “accurate” the outcome. That is the whole point here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Denis

    I have to admit, my initial thought was that this was a bad idea. However, after some thought and reading the discussion, I agree with the concept of such civil disobedience to deal with unjust and immoral laws.

    Yet, if in such a situation where there was a brutal assault and unequivocal physical evidence, my conscience would still lead me to vote guilty.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    @Paul. You didn’t answer my question about domestic violence cases.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • falsely accused soldier

    I understand where everyone is coming from in this article and the comments.

    I understand that you don’t mean the destruction of the legal system. I know what Jury nullification is and have studied several real life situations of this.

    The one that sticks out in my mind happened in Detroit. A deserted house that no one thought to destroy kept receiving crack dealers and crack addicts. It was literally a crack house. No matter how many times residents called the police they kept coming back. So two men in the community decided enough was enough and they burned it to the ground. While it was halfway on fire and clearly not a threat to adjoining houses they called the fire department. When the arson investigators discovered it was them, they brought them up on charges of Arson, endangerment etc. The Jury in the case nullified and they were found not guilty.

    However in cases of adult sexual abuse, if it makes it to trial I generally do not worry. I want to note I am not talking about child sexual abuse cases. That is a whole different issue.

    The fact that a man landed there in the first place is suspect(I mean suspect to outside motives I.E. political reasons to be hard on rape in that area). However the end result these days is usually justice(as in a verdict). I can’t admit that in modern times it happens 100% of the time, I would be lying if I did.

    However if you take a case to trial and “swing for the fence” like alot of prosecutors do, you are a defense lawyers dream.

    I don’t like this idea of just nullifying every case. It does send a strong message but I don’t believe it is conducive to the mens movement.

    This is war, plain and simple. It is a war against what we see is totally wrong in todays society.

    Alot of this happens, and it is wrong.

    However, our court system is one of the best in the world. We have an adversial system.

    What that means is, no matter if your attorney or the prosecutor thinks you are guilty. They have to make the best argument for your innocence or your guilt. This system works, but where it breaks down is in sexual crimes. The reason for that is politics/public opinion they go hand in hand.

    I enjoy the fact that if there is mountains of evidence stacked against me and I am guilty, my defense attorney will argue for me like I didn’t do what he/she knows I did.

    I also think that in this article we are being short-sighted. I want equal rights for men.

    However I don’t want to ever look back and know a criminal who doesn’t share my belief system(in equal rights); got a get-out-of-jail-free-card to further our movement.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • falsely accused soldier

    I will say this again because it is pretty good.

    I also think that in this article we are being short-sighted. I want equal rights for men.

    However I don’t want to ever look back and know a criminal who doesn’t share my belief system(in equal rights); got a get-out-of-jail-free-card to further our movement.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Peggy,

    You have not responded to many of the points made to you. In fact, I am watching you steadfastly avoid them and instead ask questions that are more minutia than substance, relieving you of the responsibility to lay out whatever case you are trying to make, but I will go for it anyway.

    If I am on a jury at a trial where I think that the defendant has been afforded due process and the right to a fair trial, I will vote according to the evidence.

    That being said, domestic violence is another area where the cases are rigged from the start, just not as badly as the routine violations of rights around rape cases (Rape Shield Laws). So I reserve the judgement to determine my vote on a case by case basis.

    But consider this, Peggy. I would also vote to acquit anyone of drug charges.

    There is a great deal wrong with the legal system.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ falsely accused soldier

    Is your handle an indication of personal experience with all this?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • falsely accused soldier

    Yes it is, if you read my first comment about fifth down in this comment series then you will see it.

    I also wrote the story of my false accusation at the false rape society: .

    I wrote this a few months before I gave it to the society to publish.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy, we’re not trying to sabotage the jury system. We’re trying to use our power as jurors to nonviolently sabotage a tyrannical government.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    @Matthew. Yes, I get that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • slwerner

    falsely accused soldier (July 20th, 2010 – 17:34) – “There are several things you are now not allowed to do in rape cases. One case is bring the suspects sexual history into the case.”

    I believe you meant that to read: “…the accusers sexual history…”. This is what the “Rape Shield” laws do (in most instances, it happens to be the correct thing to do, but does remain open to the abuse of hiding exculpatory evidence that can be even weakly or tangentially linked to that accusers sexual history).

    As to the suspect/defendants sexual history, the rules of evidence are rather lenient on allowing in even weakly or tangentially linked inculpatory evidence of any sexual(ized) behaviors which might go to suggest a proclivity which might (somehow) in turn suggest a greater likelihood that the defendant might be inclined to commit and act of sexual assault.

    Paul Elam – “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”

    One doesn’t necessarily need to sit on a rape trial jury to have the impact you intend (personally, I agree with falsely accused soldier that evidence, not ideology should drive such decisions – but, never-the-less).

    By the tenor of several of those posting here, I can only guess that the revelation that I am married to a prosecutor will likely draw ire, and insinuations that I’m “sleeping with the enemy”.

    However, I personally witnessed the successful “poisoning” of an entire jury pool for a rape trial earlier this year.

    It was a case of a troubled teenager allegedly raped by a family member (likely a real rape, in this case – pedophilic perps seem to be especially adept at targeting such victims – who’s troubled lives make them less likely to be believed). I t was a problematic case that she was reluctant to try, but that was being pushed to trial by other family members

    [As an aside, I’d point out that contrary to what many seem to believe, it is not always (nor often likely) that prosecutorial zeal is what is driving cases that should be dropped forward, but rather the insistence of victims, their families, and/or victim advocate groups.]

    During the voir dire process that I observed, the defense brought up the issue of false rape allegations. Men who were asked about it tended to be non-committal in their answers allowing that it might happen; but several women had no qualms about indicating that they firmly believed that such false allegations do occur.

    One woman, in particular, essentially “poisoned” (the term used by trial attorneys to describe a idea being planted in the minds of jury pool members) with her response. She was a middle aged woman, well dressed, well poised, and well spoken, who responded: “Oh, I know they happen way more often than people care to admit” (I was so taken with bother her response and the obvious gasps and nodding of heads amongst the courtroom full of people that I took down her words for posterity).

    She had the look of an intelligent, educated, and sophisticated woman – someone who could inspire confidence in others that she knew what she was talking about (of course, she was also absolutely correct).

    The case that had been weak enough to begin with ended with an acquittal after rather short deliberation. Afterward, my wife commented that she knew the case was lost (she was not terribly bothered by this particular outcome) the moment that this particular woman gave her answer to the question of false rape accusations.

    A person who can appear knowledgeable, confident, and objective can easily poison a jury pool just eh way this woman did.

    Just sayin’

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • slwerner

    I neglected to point out that the woman who “poisoned” the jury pool (of originally 48, minus a few who had already been dismissed) was also excused from service. She was not on the jury that was seated, but her words left an impression that almost certainly guided the deliberation of the jury in that case.

    The point is, really, that one doesn’t need to actually get on a jury. One need only have the fortitude to mention what is already widely known, but which people are afraid to admit to themselves that they know to be true.

    The sheer number of known false rape claims HAS made an impact on people. Most people have heard of instances, but comfort themselves by accepting the oft-repeated, yet un-researched and unsubstantiated claims that false rape accusations are rare compared to true claim (that 2% number you may well have heard was a pure fabrication by Susan Brownmiller, based not upon research, but, as she claims, the guess of someone else that it might be comparable to what they also guessed was the rate of falsification of other crimes – 2%. The media has run with that number ever since, even though it has never been substantiated by research of any kind. Real research has found percentage rates of rape reports that are subsequently determined to be false of anywhere between the teens up to over 50% of all such reports, depending on the particular sample-group investigated).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer is an interesting article on rape shield laws.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Well I must disagree! As I would vote guilty. That is if the victim was a male! Otherwise I too would vote NOT guilty for the simple reason that the law is lawless when it come to a woman having the power to put a man in jail on her word and her word alone without ANY evidence.

    One of the worst cases I know a war veteran was raped while incapacitated in an old aged home. He was in his late 70′s. The woman needed to be pregnant as that would help her immigration move ahead from the Philippines. She had a child, and get this, she got child support awarded leaving this ware veteran with ZERO to live on as his whole pension went to this rapist. It took a letter to the Queen of England with the assistance of Canada Court Watch to put an end to this insanity! THE WOMAN WAS NEVER EVEN CHARGED WITH RAPE!!!!

    There is a man set to got to trial in the fall in Southern Ontario because a step-daughter was not happy being told how to live her life and to stop substance abuse. What does a woman do when they can’t have their way, bring out the sexual abuse ploy, thats what!!! This innocent man could very well be going to jail for a long time based on a snot nosed girl who is barely old enough to vote!

    Check out to understand matters about false rape!

    Attila L. Vinczer

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • falsely accused soldier


    Yes I did type suspect instead of accuser, a BIG error on my part. I know that the system is biased but in the rape convictions I have noticed in my area there wasn’t any shred of doubt in my mind about “guilt.”

    However I have seen more false rape allegations in the past year than rapes in the time I was overseas(about 5 years) in the Army.

    This is a huge problem, and one of the biggest ones was the case of Austin Scott at my current university(google it). He is currently suing the state for compensation for his loss.

    A woman had consensual sex with him at his apartment, he even paid for he cab ride home. That morning she accused him of rape and he was woken up by several police officers. The case was very similar too the duke lacrosse case in the prosecutor mishandled things from the start, some say he actually hit on her, and he eventually resigned.

    Austin Scott was removed from the PSU football team because he violated the teams ban on drinking. Of course he wasn’t at all inoxicated, I can tell you without knowing for certain that the man probaly just had a buzz. I can say for sure that the only reason he was removed from the team was because of the public allegation, not the fact that he had a date at a bar with a woman and had a few drinks.

    Now here is where the allegation could have been disproven within a few hours or the next business day. Then formally deemed false a couple of weeks later just to tie up any loose ends. The first being the 10$ she accepted for a cab ride home and the length in time to report it.

    The State Supreme Court had to rule that the victims previous false rape claim at another university could be admitted into evidence in this claim. The court allowed it because they found 30 or so simularities between that case and the evidence in this case. That case had ended up in acquittal and the woman transferred to the next nearest school, PSU.

    Looking at all the evidence in that case I have no doubt that if it had been pushed through the jury would have voted “not guilty.” In about the time it took for them to be taken too and from deliberation.

    None of this excuses the fact that on both occassions the case was moved to trial. That is where the system is broken.

    For Example:

    #1 The accusers past sexual history not allowed to be entered into evidence.

    Which btw, is not even that hard to find out. All you have to do is go too and glance at their profile. Most women I know might lock their daily status updates, but leave there pictures completely public. A picture in this case is worth a thousand words. This is actually a tactic used by police in rape allegations. Of course they can’t use it in court, they can only use it to ascertain more knowledge about the accuser.

    If this were ever allowed again I imagine you could add interviews of friends/family members and co workers to the list.

    For example my nineteen year old cousin is a pretty looking woman.
    However she dresses like a proverbial slut

    Has an external hard drive full of porn

    One time she asked me to run upstairs and grab a towel out of her top drawer which to my dismay had a big bag of cock rings/vibrators and a small box full of condoms(I told her to get the towel, I wasn’t sticking my hand in there)

    Drinks to excess at parties at hotels where she doesn’t know anybody

    Generally has a manipulative personality

    I love her she is family, however if I got told tomorrow by my Aunt to come over and watch the little ones because she has to pick her up at the police station. Because she accused a man of rape I would not believe it for a second. Unless she was black and blue and instead of the police station my Aunt was picking her up from the hospital. As much as she is family I have no qualms about telling an investigating officer that, I would probaly volunteer the information.

    I can probaly say alot of other people if asked would volunteer some information. Or maybe the general consensus would be she is a good girl and would never do anything like that etc. It is a two way street.

    #2 The naming of the accused in local/national media.

    This one is a no brainer if you think about it. Both names should be kept a secret. Which is actually a law they are attempting to pass in the UK at the moment.

    Or both names should be public information. In most states in the US it is, however media outlets have banded together to never post the Accusers name. It is law in the UK that the Accusers name never be posted.

    #3 In the majority of media outlets, when publishing news on a rape accusation or rape etc. The accuser is always referred to as a Victim. So if your automatically a victim, before anyone is found “guilty.” Then the man is automatically the criminal. This of course violates your due process rights.

    #4 Losing your right of being about to face your accuser. I will go half and half on this one. As short as her skirt, as many holes as her shirt “artfully had,” the paint can of make-up, that third long island and the whisper of sexual innuendo that whateverr color hair girl had on that night. Might be a complete nightmare for you in court. Where that girl might have looked like trashy Lindsay Lohan(an anonym lol) that night. She might be dressed like Michelle Obama at court, crying every now and again on the stand.

    I believe it should be either testify in court or don’t testify at all. Only under extreme mitigating circumstances should someone be allowed to video tape testimony.

    I know I missed a few, but its late i’m going to bed. I stand behind everything I said earlier. You shouldn’t vote not guilty at a trial just because of ideaology.
    A feminist would do that based soley off the fact that your a man.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    Thank you for the posts, Falsely Accused Soldier. As often happens, the agreement to disagreement ratio shows near complete consensus on the problems/issues, but we just don’t agree on what actions to take. I am satisfied with your ideas, and support you in whatever avenues you use to bring forth a solution.

    I would just like to go back to your reminder to not vote according to ideology. The case I laid forth in my post was an appeal for us to observe the general requirements of the justice process. Indeed, doing so would benefit the MRM, but that was not the perspective I was operating from.

    The idea that we should apply good thinking, evidence, and a large amount of caution in dealing with crimes is but one ideology amongst infinitely numbered possible ways of structuring a justice system. This is an ideology many have seen fit to kill and die for, and after careful consideration of it I support it over any other alternatives. I have no doubt that we walk together in this, and would also be allies in blocking the justice system from unduly benefiting men, as well.

    Achieving justice for all, regardless of sex, is something that goes far beyond rape/DV cases, but this is one of few areas where injustice is so blatantly codified into not only procedure, but law. Paul is also concerned with drug laws, but the foolishness of the laws themselves, planting evidence and entrapment aside, to my knowledge, at least the judicial process seems to be mostly intact.

    Losing the integrity of the process is my main concern. This is the “ideology” I would vote with on a jury.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Trucker

    I too, vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

    Now, if we could just get a couple million more men to make the same bold (and slightly radical) declaration, I’ll bet we’d draw some attention to this significant issue. That would at least be a start. As it stands right now, I don’t feel the voices of the falsely or wrongly accused are being adequately heard.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • In rendering a verdict as a juror, I would be informed by an ideology. That ideology would be justice, not only in the particular case being tried, but also with respect to the overall justice system to the extent that the particular case can affect that system. As I have stated, jury nullification does not sabotage the jury system. It is a broadly recognized and understood (at least within the legal profession), generally accepted and to some extent deeply respected, fundamental part of the jury system. It is one of the facets of the jury system that enables at least the possibility of justice.

    Jury nullification is not something that I would, out of men’s rights ideology, be more likely to apply in rape cases, but I might be more likely to employ it in rape cases, since rape cases may currently be the greatest example of the need for jury nullification.

    If I believed that classical guitarists were socially biased against, because classical guitarists are fanatical about filing their nails to a certain form and smoothness and even do so in public (their nails are a critical part of their instrumentation), and a point were made by a prosecutor before the jury that the defendant fanatically filed his or her nails in public, I would be more inclined to judge not guilty because of what I would perceive as a prejudicial procedure in the legal process, even if the allegation was of grabbing money from a cash register. In fact, I would be particularly cautious about any charge brought against a classical guitarist.

    It’s been pointed out above, but I’ll repeat it for emphasis: Jury nullification is one of the few ways that individual citizens can rein in an overbearing and increasingly totalitarian government.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    The last sentence in the 4th paragraph of my most recent comment was outrageously difficult to understand, so I’m going to restate it:

    Setting aside the problems that come before an indictment on a drug charge, in this area of law they seem to at least follow the rule book for properly trying the cases. I’ve heard plenty about corruption the police engage in, but I haven’t heard too much about crookedness after cases are handed over to the criminal justice system. With charge for drugs and most other allegations, provided I was convinced the trial was proceeding fairly and lawfully, I would vote to deliver a verdict in whichever direction the evidence pointed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • falsely accused soldier

    @trucker If we become like that, then we lose everything else. Letting a true rapist go, in the argument that the crime bias against men is wrong

    I understand where the sentiment comes from and the reason for it.

    However, never let our ideals overcome our good sense. Feminism has done that for that past 40 years. Do not let a true criminal go to further the MRA movement.

    To do so is disgusting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I understand the voice of the “trucker” very well. I further believe that anyone who commits a heinous crime should be duly held accountable according to our laws of justice. But wait a minute! What if those laws of justice are unjust? What if those laws that govern our actions target men in a way that is nothing other than tyranny and an abuse of due process?

    I don’t think it is right to cast a net that hauls in an ocean of marine life just to capture the odd rare defect within. Moreover, I think it is most irresponsible and criminal for the women’s rights advocacy groups and our elected and appointed officials to turn a blind eye and ignore the vast abuse by women claiming they were raped to suit their personal agenda while destroying innocent men with impunity!

    Currently there is a father in Peterborough, Ontario who has been charged with sexually abusing his stepdaughter because he was a good step-father who didn’t think she should be doing drugs and hanging with the wrong cowed. Her answer, call the police, fabricate a false sexual abuse claim and have him removed from obstructing her partying lifestyle! This man even if he is lucky to clear his name in court has branded a paedophile that will haunt him till he dies!

    Maybe it will take the radical action of releasing a real rapist to send a very loud message as no matter what men do their voice and cries for help are falling on deaf ears.

    1,000 men should not be jailed on false rape charges to capture one who is a real rapist!!!

    Attila L. Vinczer

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • slwerner

    Attila L. Vinczer – ”I further believe that anyone who commits a heinous crime should be duly held accountable according to our laws of justice. But wait a minute! What if those laws of justice are unjust? What if those laws that govern our actions target men in a way that is nothing other than tyranny and an abuse of due process?”


    That’s a mighty big can-of-worms that you’re loosening the cap on.

    First off, the question of whether or not a law is just is a huge discussion that needs to take place, but, in the interest of brevity here, the laws against rape provide a very good example of how a given law can be both “just” and “unjust”.

    Few would argue that a woman grabbed by a violent stranger, pulled into a remote location, held down and threatened with a deadly weapon, raped and beaten; was anything other than the victim of a heinous crime – and that the perp out to be severely punished. In that way, the law is quite “just”.

    Yet, as one looks at the expanding definition of rape, it becomes quite clear that the application of the same law (and attendant punishments) to instances of date-rapes arising from honest misunderstandings would be/is quite “unjust”. And, “unjust” cannot even begin to describe putting a man in prison for years because he pretended to be Jewish in order to have sex with a Jewish slut he’d just met – yet, that’s exactly what has recently happened in Israel – “regret=rape” taken to the extremes that gender-feminists have been longing for.

    If we are to punish real, violent rapists, we are going to need to stop “lumping” all regretted sex into the same classification. In that light, I’d be inclined to simply vote to acquit if on the jury of a “he said/she said” ambiguous rape complaint with less regard to what the evidence (presented) seemed to show. The guy in such a case is not likely a rapist being released back into society to rape again, thus proper caution would seem to dictate that he NOT be convicted of the same crime as the guy who used a weapon and extreme force (the statutory definition of rape simply does not adequately distinguish between the two).

    Going further with the idea of simply voting to acquit in any rape case, while I’d prefer that the evidence be the stronger guide in violent rape cases, the mere threat that a significant pool of men (potential jurors) might behave this way might well be the best way to finally force women (in the aggregate) to address the issue of false rape accusations.

    Now, when presented the facts of any given false rape allegation, women will largely denounce the actions of the liar – and many will even sympathize with the plight of those (men) harmed by having been falsely accused. But, as to the question of false accusers being more severely punished, and the laws changed to allow for increased penalties, it quite clear that most women are reluctant to “take it that far”.

    I cannot say with any certainty, but it seems to me that most women intuitively understand that they all gain a measure of power over men simply from having a few false allegations occurring. It serves as a reminder to the men in their sphere’s that a woman holds their fate in her hands. It’s not that most women would ever actually do so, but the specter of it “possibility” remains in virtually any situation between men and women. (this is, of course, more prominent with regard to domestic violence allegation, but can easily transfer into realm of rape claims as well.)

    It’s my personal theory that while women would be willing to put an end to the injustices of false claims (especially those of rape), they are reluctant to take away power from women – and the possibility of making a false claim certainly gives them great power. Enacting punishments on the false accusers – as opposed to simply offering relief for their victims – would likely have a chilling effect on that female-based power.

    In that vein of thought, the threat of men, en masse, refusing to convict rapists would seem to be the proper counter-balance to the female threat of false allegations. It’s hardly a desirable option. But, at times, there simply aren’t any good options.

    Now, of course, if women would join in with effort to protect innocent and unjustly charged men, then it would obviate the very need for the threat of rape-jury nullification.

    But, since very few women are of a mind to seek true justice….

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    Outstanding post, slwerner. I’m very happy to see the concept of jury nullification being brought up even on a MRM webpage, just as an awareness is rising of 9th and 10th amendment state nullification.

    The United States has an incredible system of government. There are tools for “subordinate” entities to bypass the injustices of our official masters. We just need to dust them off and remind people that they have power over their own lives, and they need not stand in line with every other illegitimate special interest group to beg for observance of their rights.

    Thomas Woods of the Mises Institute has just released his latest book, called Nullification. It documents the history of the states ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, especially taking care to dispel the inevitable slavery or Confederacy objections.

    Here is an interview on his book just posted an hour ago. I’ll be watching it as soon as I complete this post.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Thomas Woods is good, I bought and read his “Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.” I then donated it to the local public library.

    Looking forward to “Nullification.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • uratrick2

    Fantastic article, and convincing comments I can’t wait until the day that this type of conversation becomes mainstream. I fully intend to read this book ‘’ Nullification’’.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • falsely accused soldier

    Well I do believe in Nullification, however it would be wrong to use it in this arena.

    It comes back to, if you Nullify at a rape trial you could possibly be setting a rapist free.

    Now I am not saying that nullification has no bearing on sex crimes.

    For example I would nullify any trial in which someone under the age of 18 is put on trial for child pornography. There have been alot of cases in the US of a young kid sexting a naked picture to another kid and then being put on trial for child pornography. Of course that would put you on the sex offender registry.

    I would nullify in cases where underage kids(note I am talking about two 11 year olds not a 17 year old and an 8 year old) are put on trial for rape. In our oversexed culture this happens every now and again and usually the boy is put on trial.

    I would nullify in cases where two kids are put on trial for playing a heavy handed game of doctor.

    I would nullify where the underage woman lied about her age in order to have sex with a man. For example just recently a friend of one of my cousins tried to get me to take her to a party. I knew she was underage and I told her, “No, you are too young.” She tried to tell me that she was about to turn 21 so knowing that she was lying I asked what her birthdate is and she told me 1991. If I had ended up having sex with her I could have gotten in trouble. So I would nullify in a case like this.

    However, in adult rape trials its hard for me to find anyone I know who would imprison someone based on a he say/she said rape accusation. These days people usually expect there to be DNA evidence and witnesses to an unwanted advance, or proof the man was where she was before the event happened. It is kinda hard to explain to a jury why she waited 3 days or even 4 hours to report an accusation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ FAS

    I think you are missing the point of nullification as a tool to fight tyranny. It isn’t about a single criminal going free. If that was the case, then you could never employ nullification at all.

    It is about the bigger picture of how justice is administered, and whether the state is out of bounds.

    Of course anyone can choose to types of cases they want to. That is part of the beauty of it. But the point is, are you willing to see innocent men continued to get railroaded in kangaroo courts en mass and suffer torture and loss of freedom because you don’t want to set one man free who is probably guilty?

    If that is your stance, I have to disagree most vehemently.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • calahan

    I totally agree 100%. Acquit the rapist!! Most of rapist charges are false, and are given by childlike women. Women have been given and inch and have taken a mile. Anything to ruin their rule over men is fine by me. They earned it. Let them squirm. Hahahahahahaahahaah

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Andie

    I stopped reading at “this world of misandry.” We clearly must be living in different worlds.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • RE: Andie

    Her email handle is supergrll- Walks like a duck

    She stopped reading when she read something she disagreed with- Talks like a duck.

    Anyone want to be that it quacks?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Phil

    “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”

    Regardless of what you think about the prosecution of rape cases in our justice system, your proposed method of combating these perceived inequities is ludicrous and vile. My only consolation is that you’re probably just being incendiary for the pageviews it’ll generate (and because of whatever fanciful ideas you have about what it means to be a man).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I just allowed Phil’s comment in lieu of about a dozen other name calling comments that I just spammed out. If yours was one of them, please see the page for feminists and manginas here:

    Phil, that page is where you will need to post in the future unless you clean up your act. The article was dead serious, and unless you can do better than some feminized and juvinile attempt to shame my masculinity, you won’t be able to cut it here.

    So if you have a valid argument, put up or shut up. Otherwise, I will hand your weak mind over to the Jabberwocky for retraining.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Phil

    You have publicly stated that you will abdicate your civic duty to convict a person when presented with overwhelming evidence they are guilty of rape. Your arguments about the justice system’s treatment of rape cases, while unpersuasive, is also irrelevant to the above fact. I have no desire to argue with you, because I have nothing but contempt for you. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t hold your masculinity in high esteem; your kind of radicalism is evidence of a pitiful sort of overcompensation. Anyway, hopefully you’ll get cancer soon. Meanwhile, enjoy being an irrelevant internet slob.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Sophia

    Let’s hope no one ever rapes your mother, sister, daughter, wife, niece, aunt, grandmother, godmother, or cousin. He will be able to repeat raping her as often as he likes after he is acquitted.

    Refusing to protect women who are strangers is one level of character expression. Refusing to protect the women of your family, your mothers and your own children, is a much different level of cowardice. You emasculate yourself with that behavior. No misandrist has to do it for you.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    Phil, you sell yourself short by failing to look far enough beyond the “radical” conclusion. This is a “big picture” type of argument we’re making, but your thought process has become snagged on how terrible it would be to let a criminal go. If that is as deep as you’re willing to give contemplation to the subject, of course we look like insane radicals.

    Your posts are swamped with emotion, and that is certainly not a proper state of mind to consider what has been said on this topic. The arguments are purely logical, so a proper analysis would not have produced the contempt and anger you have. If you legitimately thought we were wrong, you would have used rational argumentation, rather than obliterate the possibility of persuasiveness with insult.

    What is the point of insulting? You would think even less of us than you already do if we changed our minds based on your attacks. Reasonable debate would have worked, as you would have seen based on the dialogue with Falsely Accused Soldier.

    I, for one, am willing to converse with you on this subject, but you’re going to have to put in the effort. My posts have laid out the case for being concerned with the “big picture,” and I demand that you take the time and energy to understand them before emitting more posts into this thread.

    If it is not worth your time to have the strength of character and intellect to properly participate in this discussion, then you may shirk away without further condemnation from me. Just, for your own sake, know that you ought to work harder to develop your ability to consider new and strange ideas.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Phil

    I love how you’re talking about a “Big Picture” like this idea will ever move beyond the fantasies of a few low rent internet wingnuts.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    Alright, Phil. I accept your position, but I can’t be swayed by insults.

    You do not have the power to accomplish anything here, so don’t waste your time with us.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Phil

    So benevolent of you to accept my position when it’s the same as 99.9% of everyone you’re ever going to come across (except maybe in a country dictated by Sharia law). Anyway if that’s all you got, it was fun chattin!!!!!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • That’s the great thing about the men’s rights movement (unlike feminism), it is open to new ideas and intelligent debate.

    I still don’t entirely agree with acquital regardless of the circumstances. For a stranger rape, with credible witnesses and dna evidence, it should be viewed more like an assault.

    However, in the instance of verbal accusations (he said-she said) about a disagreement over the terms of consent, I think I would acquit every time. What do you think about that soldier?

    The important thing is for jurors to have a much higher standard of ethics and certainty than lawyers and judges and to not be swayed by emotional arguments and specious circumstantial evidence.

    The one thing that I especially like about this tactic is that it doesn’t require overwhelming popular support, just 1 in 6 jurors is needed to completely shut down the system and render it useless, thus requiring a change in legislation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Phil
    “your proposed method of combating these perceived inequities is ludicrous and vile. My only consolation is that you’re probably just being incendiary for the pageviews it’ll generate (and because of whatever fanciful ideas you have about what it means to be a man).”

    “I have no desire to argue with you, because I have nothing but contempt for you. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t hold your masculinity in high esteem; your kind of radicalism is evidence of a pitiful sort of overcompensation. Anyway, hopefully you’ll get cancer soon. Meanwhile, enjoy being an irrelevant internet slob.”

    “like this idea will ever move beyond the fantasies of a few low rent internet wingnuts.”

    Phil, I’m glad you dropped in to join the discussion. Some of the topics discussed here can lead to heated and emotional responses. It’s always good to read carefully considered and presented arguments based on equally carefully collected and presented facts. You’re true leader of real men, Phil. Keep up the brilliant and convincing work.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Question for the readers, here. I am tempted to just boot and ban people like Phil. (any relation to Donahue?) That would be per the feminist/mangina page.

    But I would like some input from the others here about how you would like this handled. Some of you may be having fun with them, so let me know.


    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • No, please do not ban. They are demonstrating how hate-filled they are.

      Eventually, they all say it too – “people like you deserve to be raped”, or “Hopefully, your mom will be raped!”

      They are so against rape – they hope people will be raped.

      Their clocks are striking 13!

      They are not playing with a full deck!

      They are a few cans short of a 6-pack.

      They are a couple marbles short of a full set.

      Their pancakes have too much syrup on them.

      They’re bonkers, crack-brained, kookoo, nutty – crazy see – plain and simple!

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Paul
    Either way is fine with me. People who doesn’t like your decision can create their own blogs.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Dragoon

    My God, you’re disgusting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • BTW. Yup. Sometimes they’re fun to play with, but, if I want, I can go to the feminist/mangina page for that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Don’t ban anybody! They expose themselves with their lack of intelligent discourse and reliance on rhetoric.

    Just don’t feed the trolls!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Here’s the deal, though. I just went through the admin after getting back from some shopping and there were about THIRTY comments from someone calling themselves “mangina” awaiting first time approval.

      They were all one liners, almost all of no substance and only intended to insult. I am not going to have that shit here.

      It is easy to say “don’t feed the trolls” much harder to stop everyone from feeding them. And in the end, I have to deal with all this every day while I am trying write articles and program a radio show.

      If I can get a known MRA, like well known and level headed to take over moderation of comments, then I am willing to consider changing course.

      But for now, once they establish that they only want to stir shit, I am shit canning them.

      We need to show people our message with our content in the articles and in the incredible commenting we have here from MRA’s, not from the negative example of some troll who turns out only to derail and cause headaches.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Ava

    Just because a girl dresses like a “whore,” is drunk, or possesses SEX TOYS does not mean she declares consent to every single sexual act in her lifetime. You don’t know what goes on behind closed doors. Maybe some of them didn’t want to and said no. Get the fuck over yourselves; just because someone’s got a reputation of being sexually promiscuous doesn’t mean they will try to “clean up” by falsely accusing someone of rape.

    I’m not going to even comment on the rest of this, because you are all so vile and despicable and clearly have NO idea what it is to be abused where it hurts the most. I hope all of you never get called for jury duty.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Phil

    @Anti Idiocy

    You’re welcome! No but seriously I’m not going to treat a movement to methodically acquit rapists as an idea that deserves serious consideration. This is because I don’t have huge character deficiencies!!!

    And Paul it’s nice to hear from you, I figured you were just sulking because I said you were overcompensating. If it makes you feel better, why don’t we just agree that you’re under-noncompensating? Anyway go ahead ban me if you like. But it’s been fun seeing the thoughts that have come out of your blighted and (hopefully) tumor-ridden brain!!!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Anne

    Myth: Women frequently cry rape; false reporting of rape is common.

    FACT The FBI reports that only 2% of rapes reports are given falsely. This is the same report rate for other felonies.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Anne

    Perhaps the FBI should tell the police forces who are doing the arrests. They are calling false accusations an “epidemic”

    ORLANDO, Fla. —

    Orlando police warned the public Tuesday morning that making a false claim is a crime after they said the 18-year-old woman who claimed she was raped Monday was lying.

    “We want victims to continue to report crime, we do not want to spend needless resources chasing ghosts,” Sgt. Art Eld said in a press conference.

    Police said false reporting has reached an epidemic level. They said they will arrest anyone who makes a false report about a crime because doing so is against the law.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Anne,
    Myth: only 2% of rapes reports are given falsely

    Glenn Sacks did a great blog on the real research. The truth is out there!

    “According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.

    Kanin’s findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false

    A Washington Post investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

    According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists “some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions.”"

    The real number of false accusations is somewhere between 20% and 60%, but there is no supporting evidence for 2%.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    You sir add to the broken, and corrupt justice system with this mentality. I hope any justice court that considers you for any trial does a quick Google search and finds this article.

    I am enraged by your broken mentality to sabotage things, thinking you are doing good, and the justice that is prevented because of it. You have an agenda, and that is not to “fix a corrupt justice system”. I wonder what you would do if the victim was male, and the suspect was female? Would you vote guilty then? Check mate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Anne

    You are not citing an FBI report; you are citing a claim made by jhamlin at umn. You cannot cite the FBI report stating the 2% rate of false rape reports, because it doesn’t exist. The mainstream media uses this “statistic” as do many others, but good luck finding the FBI report.

    You might want to take a look at this:
    which states, “As far as can be ascertained, no study has ever been published
    which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the ‘two percent false rape
    complaint’ thesis.”

    Note that the article was written by a Juris Doctor graduate of Yale and was published by Loyola Law School.

    Again, good luck finding that FBI report, and, after you fail, you might reconsider your feminist convictions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Getting back to the original thesis of this thread, it might be clear to anyone who has read my comments above that I would not necessarily render a not-guilty verdict in any and every rape case on which I found myself as a juror. On the other hand, I would consider jury nullification in any case regarding any crime on which I found myself a juror. I believe that it is a juror’s duty to do so. Remember, by undertaking this act, one does not nullify the jury; in the particular case, one nullifies the law. This is a critical, fundamental, and essential part of the legal process.

    If I found myself on a jury in a case in which I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant was guilty of a heinous crime — a vicious assault, serial murder, brutal child abuse, a violent rape — and I also believed that the prosecutor and/or police had engaged in prejudicial proceedings, while investigating and preparing the case (that the defendant’s right to due process had been violated), I would be sickened to the core of my soul, perhaps for the rest of my life, because of the choice that I had to make. Frankly, I can’t know now what my final decision would be. But I might acquit.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I should add that, as far as my understanding of the law (and I would request clarification from the judge), if I believed that the defendant’s right to due process had been violated, I should (and, perhaps, would be compelled to) acquit.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I am leaning toward Denis here. I think I will let them stay and make their “cases” like Anne did with her non existent FBI stats.

    Perhaps when people on the fence read through the comments, it will show them just what is going on.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Well, Paul, you can always reconsider later. This is your turf.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Phil

    Anti Idiocy– By doing so you would usurp your role as a juror. Judges make findings of law, jurors make findings of fact. When judges make determinations, they will likely see a much broader spectrum of evidence than that which eventually gets to a jury, allowing them to make more informed decisions about questions of law. Also, a judge actually knows what “Due Process” means and what is required to satisfy it.

    That said, I do recognize the distinction you make between blindly voting to acquit and advocating jury nullification when a defendant’s rights have been prejudiced. I dunno if I agree with it, but it makes your opinion less willfully immoral. Too bad Paul wasn’t able to insert such nuance into his post.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Phil

    I asserted clearly that the system was tainted and that a fair trial was unlikely, if not impossible.

    If you didn’t get that, how were going to grasp any “nuance?”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Phil

    Paul, I understood perfectly well what you were saying. It was too banal to be that complicated. Anti idiocy at least conceded that Due Process wouldn’t be violated in every single case, and that his vote for acquittal would depend on to what extent a defendant’s rights were prejudiced. You aren’t making this concession. Your position is not nuanced precisely because you take the extreme view that a fair trial is “unlikely, if not impossible.” This is the position of an anarchist. But whatever, you can dress up your opinions in whatever language you like, your basic contention is that “Wimmen be lyin.” But go ahead, keep fighting the battles you lost forty years ago. You’ll be dead soon and none of this will come to anything. Night.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Phil

    In engaging in jury nullification, as I described, I would not be usurping my role as a juror. I would be abiding by my duty as a juror. I am not a legal expert, but I have discussed jury nullification with a judge-friend. My understanding is that, if a defendant’s right to due process has been violated, a juror has the right and perhaps the duty to render a verdict of not guilty.

    You seem like someone who might heartily disagree with what is often stated here. Please note that I often disagree. You might consider staying and presenting arguments against those stated here. I’d like to read them, and, if nothing else, everyone could refine their arguments.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Phil

    This is where I have to conclude that you just don’t understand the system at all.

    With all respect to AI, at a rape trial, he has no way to determine how much the defendants rights have been violated. They do not tell jurors that this or that was excluded from evidence. They just exclude it and hand the remains over to the jury.

    Much of that evidence has to do with the plaintiffs credibility.

    Say a woman accuses a man of rape, but the thing is that 1 hour prior to the alleged incident, she was going down on three of his friends in front of him, and then went willingly into the bedroom with him. And say she had a known history of accusing several other men of rape, and of attempting to sue say, five employers for sexual harassment.

    Under rape shield laws, the only part of this that would ever reach the ears of the jury is eyewitness testimony that she went with him to a bedroom. They would have, as most juries have, her word against his that the sex was not consensual. And most state laws allow for conviction on such circumstantial evidence.

    EVIDENCE is something the is put under rigid control of the court before it is given to juroros. The point is, as long as unjust laws prevent evidence about a victims credibility from reaching the jury, then any idea of justice is just a roll of the dice.

    Convictions are supposed to be about certainty of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rape shield laws and the way rape trials are conducted (not to mention the fact that political careers are built on this stuff) prevent the idea of reasonable doubt from ever credibly being considered in the first place.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Has a totalitarian government ever been overthrown without collateral damage?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    The real “radical” Benjamin Franklin made this adaptation of Blackstone’s Formulation, and this was before it was possible to be an Internet wingjob:

    it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer

    [A shot in the dark on those block quote tags. Please remove them if it doesn't work.]

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • They look fine to me.

    This discussion has been very important, I think. I wrote the original article, while dead serious, to really be a bit provocative.

    I think a follow up is in order, and one with a good bit more meat for the detractors.

    Oh, and if only the average man could see the volumes of wisdom behind what Franklin said.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • smithea

    good to know that if a five year old girl is raped you’ll gladly vote “not guilty.” Slut totally had it coming, right?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Hmmmm

    Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of your course of action (as I severely doubt I’ll change your mind), I have to point a practical snag to you:

    During voir dire (i.e. jury selection process), lawyers for both sides get to ask questions to determine whether you are someone who has biases which would prevent you from properly evaluating the evidence. Deciding to acquit an accused rapist no matter what certainly qualifies. So either you tell the truth about your bias and get kicked off the jury, or you don’t and risk getting hauled in yourself for a violation if the court ever finds out.

    This is not to even mention the fact that unless you manage to convict 11 fellow jurors (or however many your state uses) of your opinion (which, unless the facts themselves favor acquittal does not seem very likely), your best case scenario is a hung jury. All that a hung jury means is that they are going to do a retrial. All that means, in practical terms, is that the accused gets to shell out more money for lawyers and the government spends more taxes on prosecution (or public defender for indigent accused). I don’t think the government will be deterred by the relatively miniscule cost.

    So basically, your stand has little point from a practical point of view.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Hmmmm

    I don’t think so. I have served on a couple of juries, and I was never asked anything that would have revealed my intentions. The fact is, that I do not have a bias where it comes to the law. I can vote guilty on anyone whom I think has been given due process, and if the evidence convinces me that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    And I have never had anyone ask me if I thought the system actually gave due process, but rather was asked things like “had I ever been affected by that crime,” “could I vote guilty knowing it would result in a long prison term,” and a few other personal questions that I don’t recall at the moment.

    Now it would present a dilemma if I were to be asked directly if I would practice nullification. I would have to answer honestly, which I am sure would get me disqualified.

    And while you are correct that it would most likely result in a hung jury, enough of those would generate some attention, especially if jurors who nullify notify the media after they do it and explain why.

    But I don’t at all get your point about the money. If the man is innocent and one juror gives him another shot by hanging the jury, then the money is the least of his problems.

    If he actually is guilty, who cares what it costs him?

    At any rate, my vote would not be determined financially.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Anyone interested in learning more about false statistics, the systemic spread of misandry, and the way those influence the courts and undermine our fundamental freedoms should read this:
    and this:

    The government is engaged in a process of destroying basic rights first of numerous men in the name of protecting children and then in the name of protecting women. (Who would dare oppose them?) What the individual citizens who support this process fail to realize is that the abuses and denial of rights will someday affect them.

    In words often attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller regarding the progressive crushing of rights in Nazi Germany:

    “THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

    THEN THEY CAME for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • JutGory

    I am a bit surprised by your thesis.
    As a lawyer, I completely agree about the problem with rape shield laws. They are a bad fix for a bad problem.
    But, you cannot be completely serious (okay, that was no big insight on my part after you already said you were being provocative).
    Another commenter already brought up statutory rape (30 year old and 15 year old)? What about a male victim (30 year old woman and 15 year old boy)? And, someone else brought up stranger rape.
    I would agree though: the typical “date rape” scenario has to be the most difficult case to prove, simply because the evidence is so subjective (despite feminist cries that “rape is rape”).
    The other problem I have with your thesis is that it sounds like just the opposite of something a feminist would say; they would always vote to convict (“believe women,” they say). So, while I do not want to sound like Phil and question your masculinity, I have to ask why you would want to sound like some crazy irrational feminist? (tongue in cheek, by the way)
    So, I understand, but I do not agree.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • M

    What if the victim is male?
    Men experience rape, too. At the hands of women, and at the hands of other men. Will you insist that a fellow man is lying when he tells of his abuse from another man?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Funny – I have never heard of any trial where a man is being tried for raping another man.

      I have no doubt that this happens.

      I have just never heard of any trials of this sort on any TV station I have ever watched – I wonder why…

      Oh yeah – That would mean that the feminists couldn’t claim rape as a “woman” issue…

      What a silly sausage I am!

      Stop muddling around the issue.

      Paul’s points are valid.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • You all deserved to be slapped with a cod fish.

    And you need to be educated on the reality of rape.

    Have a nice day.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • MadWorld

    Shouldn’t we do the same for child molesters? Those stupid kids are just crying out for attention! Or their parents are manipulating them to get something from the molester. And sometimes men are even put behind bars for molestations they didn’t commit! Let’s just throw out the whole messed up legal system. It is a sad day when men are held accountable to crimes. Men after all are just hormone driven animals who cannot control themselves when it comes to sex. Women and children should know that. Any kid who doesn’t want to be molested should be smart enough to carry mace and not wear such sexy shorts.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • B

    “despite overwhelming evidence”? WTF? So you feel justice is best served by voting not guilty in a case where the accuser is beaten up, has the guy’s bodily fluids in her and his DNA under her nails etc??

    Let’s hope ol’ Bubba takes a liking to you and someone on your jury decides to take this stance.

    People make false accusations of rape but not every case where rape is accused is it automatically assumed that a rape occurred. There are plenty of cases where the guilty walk free due to lack of evidence.

    I think it’s safe to assume the author has some pretty quirky ideas about what rape constitutes. I’d bet you’re the kind of guy that thinks it’s okay to do whatever you want if the woman is drunk or if you’ve had sex with her before- in fact, I’d bet that you are a rapist in this sense and that’s why you’re so sensitive about the issue in the wrong damn direction.

    For sure, people that make false accusations should DIAF. Same goes with any crime.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Hmmmm


    Re: money. I suppose I did not make my point as clearly about it as I could have. What I meant is that a possible deterrent to government from having hung jury is the cost of having to retry it. (i.e. now they have to spend extra prosecutor/expert time, pay additional court reporter fees). But a typical rape trial isn’t like some big huge corporate corruption trial which may take weeks and cost the government a gazillion dollars getting ready so having to retry it as a result of a hung jury is a pretty nasty deterrent even if it only happens a couple of times.

    A typical rape trial is, in most cases, a quick-and-dirty affair and even if you or someone who shares your views (or someone who disagrees with the majority of jurors and won’t budge for some other reason) will cause the trial to end in a hung jury, it won’t be much of a deterrent to prosecute rape cases unless there truly is a mass epidemic of hung juries on rape trials.

    So it goes back to my point that in order for your stand to work you will need to spread your cause far and wide so enough people feel both strongly enough about this issue AND are educated on the concept of nullification for there to be more than one hung jury in such type of case. In fact, you’d have to spread it so widely that it becomes a huge issue. That is rather hard to do – a number of hot-button issues have nullification advocates (I once saw a billboard explaining a concept in some state, I think it had to do with abortion protesters). I do not know of any groups that succeeded in creating this cascade of nullification supporters for whichever issue enough to make a court/prosecution back off. Look at drug penalty laws – a lot of people (especially in liberal areas) view criminalization of drugs as silly, and presumably at least some of these people know of the concept of nullification. Still, most of those prosecuted for drug offenses get convicted. Widespead support for nullification and that sort of action is pretty hard to create.

    Re: voir dire. Point taken. (I’ve been in voir dire situation a couple of times in robbery cases and they did ask questions which would have probably weeded out anyone strongly inclined to favor either the police or the accused, but as I have never been on a rape trial voir dire, I cannot address this point).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Just in for the troops, I have just posted a comment received by username Michelle to the feminist/mangina page. She said I would not approve it, but I posted it there anyway.

    She talked to me really bad. My feelings are hurt.

    Thorazine drip and a team of therapists, stat. Oh, and is there a lawyer in the house?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ M

    If the rape accusation fell against a woman and the trial was tainted by rape shield laws, then you bectcha, I’d nullify.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ JutGory

    My thanks at least for the respectful dissent. And yes, I wrote this piece with the intent of being as provocative as possible, but the spirit behind what I am saying is sincere.

    I have to say it is not fair to compare me to a feminist, though. It’s not because you said I sounded like one, however. The truth is that we are talking apples and oranges. Feminists have legislative power galore. As a lawyer, you know this. It was feminists, after all, that gave us rape shield laws and a slew of other sexist legislation of questionable constitutionality.

    As a men’s advocate, I have a website and my keyboard. That is it. I cannot successfully lobby for a change in the laws. I cannot write my congressman/woman and get anything but ignored. The only options I have as an activist is to write, and to promote the idea of peaceful civil disobedience, dissent and making full use of the checks and balances afforded to me by law.

    Trust me, if there were a more expedient, effective and practical way to approach this I would love to know about it. But that is the point. There isn’t, and even what I am doing is proposing something that is a long, long shot in the dark at raising public awareness and putting the issue in the light of day.

    There are a million scenarios I can’t answer to specifically. I can tell you that I have recently spent a great deal of time discrediting an MRA who proposed that age of consent laws were designed to prevent beta males from enjoying access to minors who are currently underage in our system.

    Just so we are clear, this is not about getting rapists or molesters off. It is about making a statement about the “bad fix” you pointed to in one of the very few ways available.

    I am going to do a follow up piece on this one, sans the provocateur approach, withing the next few days. I hope you will visit and offer your reactions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Hmmmm

    Understood. If you had asked me if I thought this strategy will actually work, I would say not very likely, for all the good reasons you stated.

    I am an MRA dealing with a small (but definitely growing) audience. And the good thing here for me is that in even writing this short piece, it has resulted in a flood of traffic (given what is normal here) and from people obviously on both sides of the fence. And in this small circle, at least, it has prompted some dialog.

    That is 24 carat in my corner of the world. And I can live with that. In the end, for the men who come here, many of them beaten down and trampled by a system that most people deny even exists, they may get a moment of reprieve and perhaps the feeling that there is some consideration for what their experiences has been.

    I can live with that one, too.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Hopefully, you would be honest about your point of view during the voir dire. :)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • And just out of curiosity, what if both the accuser and the accused were male? What if the accuser was male and the accused female? You would still vote not guilty?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    “Question for the readers, here. I am tempted to just boot and ban people like Phil. (any relation to Donahue?) That would be per the feminist/mangina page.

    But I would like some input from the others here about how you would like this handled. Some of you may be having fun with them, so let me know.”

    @Paul – I’m glad to see you allowing more dissenting posts here. Yes, this is your domain, and you can do whatever you want with it, but I think it’s useful to see the varying arguments and how people respond. I’m sure it’s no fun to be called names, but you seem to have a pretty thick skin, and some namecallers might keep coming back and keep reading, especially when engaged by rational minds like Denis.

    Your posts are provocative on purpose – you’re going to get some strong emotional responses. Isn’t that partly what you’re after? So when the snakes whose nest you have poked hiss and rattle, why hush them?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • It’s a fair enough point, Peggy, but keep in mind that I never intended to ban people for dissent. If you go look at the “feminist and mangina” page in the comment section, you will see the type of material I am talking about.

    When it gets that extreme, I am banning those users, but I am going to post their comments to the FAM page. FAM page, hmmm, I like that.

    Anyway, you are right. Anyone can see that I intend to provoke with the OP’s, but they can also see that I enjoy spirited and at least marginally respectful debate.

    This is an arena to vet ideas and play devils advocate, and I won’t silence anyone that can do that without saying they want my mother to be raped.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    I would make a distinction between “dissent” and “abuse.”

    The abusive posts are cheap imitations of heroism from people who think they’re fighting evil, as if they were the star of a film. They don’t actually have strength or honor, and in fact would be the useless drones who live within the corrupt system. They attempt to support their delusions of moral fortitude when they effect the tiny effort necessary to produce a thoughtless post, laden with emotionally derived fallacies.

    In their minds, that’s what the good guys do.

    I know that I would not allow my webspace to be used by the weak-willed to feign being on their digital feet, standing up to the treacherous Paul Elam and his villainous sycophants.

    Dissent is obviously acceptable, and indeed welcomed, by rational and open minded individuals, which I believe the community that has been developing here aims to be. There have been some excellent and challenging ideas brought up in this thread that have induced me to continually reevaluate my position, and I thank those posters for their contributions.

    As for the haters, they refuse to come out from beneath the crushing weight of their emotions to speak with us on the same terms. There can be no more meaningful communication with them than with the insectoid race of Erizacks from the Nepotu-Ursilan star system. Look at my exchange with Phil and see how neither of us could author a post that was meaningful to the other.

    These people have got to be aware that throwing insults with no supporting argumentation is morally and intellectually bankrupt, and guaranteed to convince no one. Don’t give them the petty satisfaction of knowing that their posturing for the side of “goodness” will be read!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Laura

    Yes, I will not lie in order to serve on a jury with a secret agenda. If asked I will tell.

    And just as it would be if the defendant were a woman, gay male, whatever, if the accuser were protected under a shield law, I would vote not guilty.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Jabberwocky

    Damn. I missed all this. Next time scary feminist man-haters…next time…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • JutGory

    No, I did not mean to say you sounded like a feminist (at least not in the way you were understanding it).

    As a frequent lurker at many different sites (MRA and feminist), you always struck me as a kind of “voice of reason” among MRAs; that is not to say you are the only one, but MRAs have their angry people, too, just like the feminists. You see very few “voices of reason” at feminist sites. There are some, but so many sites are designated “safe spaces” that it is difficult to determine if they can handle dissent.

    Anyway, your statement was a much more dogmatic statement than I would expected from you. The feminists have their dogma which they apply in an irrational manner (i.e. whenever it suits them).

    I do not like it when MRAs start sounding like feminists. The advantage (and downside) of our cause is that, as men, we are individuals who do not look at ourselves with a group mind-set. We can reason about things without taking it personally (I do not think I have ever seen a “trigger warning” on an MRA site). We are not confined by complicated dogmatic structures of “patriarchy,” “privilege,” “intersectionality,” and all of the word-policing that goes on there. Your position seemed to smack of that kind of thinking.

    Having seen your additional responses, I can see that, at least, you are being consistent. Your stance is not about protecting men as a group. It is about protecting everyone from an imperfect legal rule.


    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Kelly

    Better a rapist would walk the streets than a system that merely mocks justice enslave another innocent man. Makes my stomach turn, what of those who have been raped? No justice for them for the sake of the system? Gee Whiz too bad for you, get over it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    “This is an arena to vet ideas and play devils advocate, and I won’t silence anyone that can do that without saying they want my mother to be raped.”

    “These people have got to be aware that throwing insults with no supporting argumentation is morally and intellectually bankrupt, and guaranteed to convince no one. Don’t give them the petty satisfaction of knowing that their posturing for the side of “goodness” will be read!”

    I agree. Big difference between dissent and abuse, for sure.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Snark

    Heh, even I thought this piece was extreme.

    Withholding further comment for fear of reprisals.

    You are a brave man, Paul.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Snark

    To clarify, me thinking it’s “extreme” is a relative matter.

    Perhaps the movement is heading in a direction which is “extreme” relative to where it is right now.

    This is certainly -not- to say that you should not have posted it, or anything like that.

    Double negatives are friends in intentional ambiguity …

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Tom

    Pretty irrelevant since you would be immediately weeded out of any jury.

    Really strikes me as a sort of reverse George Carlin method of avoiding jury duty – I can spot a guilty person just like that.

    But hey – I have a question for you. What if you are in a rape trial, and you’re the one who was raped?

    I would assume that if you are raped, you won’t press charges, because of the horrifyingly skewed legal system you would have to operate under, yes?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • scatmaster

    First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
    by Mahatma Gandhi.
    Payback is going to be a bitch.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Snark

    “I would assume that if you are raped, you won’t press charges, because of the horrifyingly skewed legal system you would have to operate under, yes?”

    It’s skewed against the (falsely) accused, not against the accuser (often lying).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Unassumption

    I would vote Not guilty for the same reason people acquitted obvious murderers before the death penalty was thankfully repealed – the punishment is too harsh. Rapists are treated like the scum of the prison, when they are often troubled or poor men who need help, and are usually repeatedly raped in the prison. The ever-expanding definition of rape (applying fraud laws to rape in some states so if you lie to get her in bed you get a rape conviction, having sex with someone of 16 when your 18 in America, co-ercing her emotionally, etc, that would never fly with men) does what feminists have accused porn of for decades, demeans rape.

    I don’t want to provide something to quotemine here but I have to say it. Since a lack of consent is not in itself harmful, and is almost impossible to prove to a reasonable standard of evidence, “rape” should be struck from the law books, since everything surrounding a rape (threats, force, violence in the act itself, diseases transmitted, restraint) are legitimate provable crimes. Rape can be a horrific crime, but the definition has expanded to include so many tangential topics it falls under its own weight. Maybe just wipe the slate clean and get a new more objectively testable rape law?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • “Yes, I will not lie in order to serve on a jury with a secret agenda. If asked I will tell.”

    Well, I give you credit, at least, for being forthcoming in your views, reprehensible as I may find them.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Snark

    “Well, I give you credit, at least, for being forthcoming in your views, reprehensible as I may find them.”

    I would imagine – and this is just a guess, nothing more – that for every Paul Elam who comes clean when asked, there will be a dozen more who are sympathetic to the problems men face because of the rape industry, who do not admit to it.

    Again, just a guess. I have no idea really.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Snark

    My bet is that you are wrong. I would say that for every man who tells women what he thinks, at the “cost” of their disapproval, there are about ten thousand who sit up an beg.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Case study…a tough one. I’m watching local news about a 61 yro grandma who was brutally raped in a cemetary while she was visiting a grave.

    Here’s where it gets hypothetical because they just caught the perp (young guy) and there aren’t anymore details.

    Consider that the only evidence is visual identifcation in a police line-up and dna evidence. There is no prior relationship between these two and rape-shield is seems kinda irrelevant with a 61 yro grandma and 20 something yro guy. I suppose she could be a cougar, but in a cemetary?

    Is there any reasonable doubt to acquit?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Here is the problem, and it is worth it to me to investigate. Unless I know that rape shield laws are not in play, then I don’t know that I have heard all the evidence. There are plenty of 61 year old “grandmas” that would love to play cougar.

    Here is the real point though. Jury nullification STIPULATES that some guilty people will go free. It is an unfortunate reality. But the point of the whole thing is to push for the reform of laws that render ALL men vulnerable to a false conviction. It is not about grandma or any one case, but about all of them.

    I can find a thousand scenarios that make a guilty verdict seem like the only sensible and decent thing to do. But the point is that on the other side of it, there are men in prison right now, getting raped and beaten, whose only crime was being accused by the wrong woman. And I firmly believe that many of them ended up there because real evidence of their accusers credibility was withheld.

    So for me it is in for a dime, in for a dollar.

    All of this would be resolved if all men accused in rape cases were given due process and a fair trial.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • “it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”

    There really is no other way to protect against a totalitarian state.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    I was reading the Wikipedia page on Presumption of Innocence, and it seems that there is another neat little trick they pull off in rape trials. The court will erect a screen in the courtroom so that the accuser is out the line of sight of the defendant, since seeing him could be a ‘trigger’.

    This is a questionable practice, since if the court allows this it gives the impression that the court does not assume that the defendant is innocent. The accuser wouldn’t freak out if he wasn’t really the attacker, right?

    The rule-bending that goes on at all levels in rape cases is extraordinary. I guess that’s why it’s handled by divisions called the “Special Crimes Unit.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Snark

    ‘Special’ in the way that ‘special ed’ is special …

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Eincrou

    Very interesting point you bring up. I am about 1,500 words into a much expanded exploration of this topic, and the more I write, the more it seems apparent that, legally speaking, we have shifted to a thinly disguised sort of mob mentality where it concerns rape.

    Sitting behind a screen? How prejudicial can you get?!? Why don’t they just keep a sniper trained on the suspect while the trial is in session in case he decides to make a move for her.

    Therapeutic hand holding is for the therapists office, not for a court of law where our entire justice system is at stake.

    Thanks for that find, it is going into the next piece on this subject.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peter

    Comment deleted.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer


    Are you going to let that post stay, Paul? I sure hope not.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    From the site’s mission and values statement:


    1. We reject any kind, however indirect, of denigration,
    of offensiveness and devaluation, of the ethical, aesthetic,
    and intellectual worth of the female gender; we repudiate
    any diminution of the symbolic importance of the
    feminine, and of the historical importance of female
    endeavors visible and invisible, past present and future.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • She got a good point there, “bitch” is a denigrating comparison to an animal and without substance, other synonyms would be more appropriate. Liar-likely, whore-maybe, bitch-not a dog.

    Such insults against men would be directed to the FAM page. Is peter a saboteur? The least he could do is make a better effort or just STFU.

    Anger is a natural human emotion, not to be denied or ignored, it is a powerful motivator. The only good or bad is how that anger is used.

    Don’t give in to the dark side, use the force peter.

    Peggy, you should be satisfied that other men have already critisized peter. On feminist sites and even the mainstream media, “pig”, “dog” and stories of violence against men are common and at times encouraged. Check out some comments on Mel Gibson.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy Spencer

    Denis, I don’t think name-calling of either gender is appropriate for a website that purports to support mature, intelligent dialog. If a woman is selling sex for money, “whore” or “prostitute” is appropriate. Otherwise, not.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    I agree that men are not more valuable than women, but it really is a shame that this would even be brought up in this topic. It is a complete and total irrelevancy, and I say that with no tone of sarcasm or exaggeration.

    To think that the jury nullification argument has anything to do with the value of men vs. women is to fail to understand the argument at all.

    The locus of this argument is something that truly needs to be explained to people, and I hope Paul will in some way treat this in the new essay. The way he and I think about the potential of government-sponsored abuse is not obvious to most people who erroneously believe that benevolent democracy exists anywhere on the planet. People are oblivious to the greater concern of what justice is, and how we must take into account our epistemological limitations.

    Government is, by my essential definition, those people within a society who are allowed to use coercive force- and get away with it. Unfortunately, such people are needed to maintain a society that is free in most other areas.

    By virtue of this ability to get away with depriving citizens of their fundamental rights, this capacity must be carefully monitored and must only be used within a strictly predefined process. The rules must be set in moments of peace and calm, without emotional distractions.

    In my view, the worst application of this capacity is when a malicious citizen can use government force to destroy another person legally and with impunity. Rather than facing their enemy in a direct confrontation, they cowardly try to get someone bigger and stronger to do this for them; government, in this case. This is why bringing forward an accusation against another person cannot be cheap and trivial to the accuser, especially when the stakes are high. The Constitutional mandate for public trials is intended to, in addition to preventing secret abuses, raise the cost of bringing forward an accusation. Perjury laws serve this function as well, and we’ve seen a clear unwillingness to enforce them against false accusers of rape.

    Women alone are given several routes with which they can interface with the liberty-destroying powers of government, supposedly intended to empower them against men. I have said before, in the name of protecting women, governments gained new powers they never had before, and they gave women access to these illegitimate functions. Governments cleverly contracted out its desire to oppress and displace men by making it possible for them to be imprisoned at a woman’s word. And society found it unacceptable that the proper justice process would get in the way of ‘protecting’ women.

    I’m not entirely sure of it at this point, but I believe there is a good chance that women are intentionally being used as weapons to destroy freedom in the US. By eroding protections against government abuse because government claims to act in the defense of powerless women, and by forcibly transferring the wealth of men to women, men gradually lose both the capability and incentive to defend the principles of a free society. All delusions of equality aside, it is men who collectively allow a certain state of affairs within societies, and it is men who can forcibly change them. But, if changing them is perceived as hurting women, they will stand down- no questions asked. I am certain of the viability of this scenario, as proven by society’s willingness to violate due process if it would help women. The question that remains is, is this happening intentionally?

    I know that there are probably people happening upon this article who don’t really care much for thinking about the philosophy of government. They care more about the emotional impact of punishing a man on behalf of a woman who has been “violated in the most horrible way imaginable.” If how we deal with real rapists is as deep as they want to look into the issue, then it’s necessary that what Paul and I are saying doesn’t make any damned sense. Of course we seem evil, if all they’re looking at is the surface of the situation.

    This is why I think this topic is functionally dead-on-arrival for most people, and I understand and accept that. However, if the nature of the opposition’s arguments completely fails to address the greater issue of governmental power and how justice is properly administered, then we are not even thinking about the issue on the same plane. They are in fact talking about something I am not talking about at all. We all know rape is bad, and we legitimate know perpetrators getting away is bad.

    It’s not enough to be willing to walk hand-in-hand with morality straight off a cliff; I have a sense of morality just as strong as anyone, but the eminently moral don’t just thoughtless repeat what it means to be a good person when faced with difficult and complex realities.

    But, echoing Richard, punishing the innocent is bad too. The evil of this is magnified by us intentionally and willfully breaking the tenets of justice to make it easier to send real rapists to prison. The innocent get caught up in it, too, and often at the behest of liars and other ‘bad’ people. Government force being used by people who want to destroy each other is unacceptable and tyrannical.

    I’m sorry that this is another really long post from me, but it reflects how serious and complex this issue is. If someone were to respond to all of this with simply, “Rape is the worst crime ever, and that it. It scares me and makes me angry, and that’s all I care about. You’re bad for uttering words that aren’t single-mindlessly against rape,” they would be intentionally refusing the deal with the arguments Paul and I are presenting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    Wow…… I typed that out in notepad and I knew it was long, but the small margins on this web page make it appear ten times longer.

    Sorry, Paul, 978 word comments don’t help the appearance of your website. LOL! I won’t do that again. My post probably won’t convince anyone to think further on the issue, anyway. I mainly author posts here because I need something to do to pass my time, and the topics discussed on this website are challenging to both understand, and to explain to others. It’s good intellectual fodder, indeed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    And…..reading it again, I caught some errors that are remnants from when I restructured my sentences. Is there any way I can edit my posts? If not, please flip the positions of “legitimate” and “know” at the end of the paragraph that’s 4th from the bottom. That’s the only error I can’t survive with, haha.

    Oh, and change “thoughtless” to “thoughtlessly” in the next paragraph down. That one is severely degrading the quality of my life :-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Snark

    Eincrou, PLEASE post that comment on false rape society. They accept guest submissions and are looking for writers at present.

    Email them here, I talk to them often and they would be happy to run with a comment as good as that:

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Peggy,

    No, I am not. I had to delete another one of his that was even worse. I just missed that one.


    I am a big believer in free speech. I don’t like banning anyone, and I even took the most vile of the feminists rants and posted them to the FAM page, and then allowed them to post once they started acting with w little more dignity.

    But here is the deal, justification or glorification or minimizing acts of violence isn’t gonna fly here. I hope you consider that activists in this realm have a hard enough time with getting the message out without this kind of crap. But whether you consider it or not, care about it or not, hurting other human beings is not a part of my agenda and won’t be allowed here.

    Take it elsewhere.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Eincrou

    Au contraire, mon frare!!

    Post comments that are as long as you like. Such well thought out posts, and so well articulated make me look good. :)

    Seriously though, I do hope at some point you will grace us with an article here, or ten.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy,

    I agree that insults are not conducive to constructive debate, but neither is political correctness. This article is about false accusers and this site is called “A Voice for Men”. There is also a mangina page…so insults are already on the menu. Powerful condemnation of false accusers is entirely appropriate and anger is justified. These false accusers are not representative of women and they are a small minority of women, so insults directed at false accusers do not denigrate women. Whore is also applicable to some men.

    Dehuminization is dangerous ground. Two good examples are popular feminist icon Valerie Solernas advocating for male genocide and feminist professor Michael Kimmel describing men as sub-human. There are many more.

    While your only thinking about those poor women whose rapists get away free, there are also innocent men who are sent to jail and get jail-raped. They don’t get any justice. There are some who even think that jail-rape is appropriate punishment for convicts.

    I’m still not convinced that acquiting in every instance is conscionable, maybe:

    “it is better [ninety-nine] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Eincrou

    We are on the same page. The new essay is turning in to a bit of long read so I will have to work with it some more, but I am pretty sure you are going to like what you see.

    Thanks for adding your considerable voice to this very important subject.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Denis,

    You bring up a valuable point. Insults are indeed on the menu, and a lot of other things. The only thing I have a problem with is violence.

    I knew when things started picking up here that I would have to face making choices about things like this. I don’t like this part of it at all. And I certainly welcome feedback from contributors about how these matters should be handled.

    But I will claim edict power in some matters. On another post, Peter advocated murdering a woman for making a false accusation.

    I’d rather shut the site down than have that here.

    His other stuff is borderline, and may have not needed to be censored, but I also don’t want to get into a situation where I have to dedicate time to playing hall monitor for some people because I never know what they are going to say.

    Suggestion box is wide open here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Peggy

    “Denis, I don’t think name-calling of either gender is appropriate for a website that purports to support mature, intelligent dialog.”

    Let’s try to be more realistic than that. Gender is a hot, hot topic and tempers will flare. I am drawing the line at advocacy for violence, but this is not Oprah, and never will be.

    Men take off the gloves sometimes. I don’t intend to stop them here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    To Snark:
    Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll restructure the comment into an article format, fix the errors, and hopefully cut it down a bit. I will see if they find it worthy of posting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I don’t think there should be any censorship. There will be mishaps and hurt men. As a suggestion for these hurt men, Dr. Tara Palmatier, perhaps a weblink on the side bar and an article.

    It is important to restate that these examples of extremely hurt men and false accusing women are a very small minority and not representative of the norm. Rather than outright censorship, they should be challenged and corrected. It is the only way that they or others will learn. So far, mission accomplished.

    If a woman who was raped said some really hateful things about her rapist, people would understand her hurt. Yet, justice does not heal her pain or solve her problems.

    For a man who is falsely convicted, justice is the only solution to his pain and his problems.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Peggy, stop whining at Paul to condemn the posts of others. You could have easily done it yourself in the same number of words.

    Paul has lots of work to do.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    At this point it seems like I would be piling on to Peggy, but my lengthy comment from yesterday was inspired by her post addressed to Michelle. There was actually more I had written; a section was directly responding to Peggy, but I ended up removing it. I think the focus of that section might be worth returning to in yet another post that has turned out to be way too long. :-)

    Peggy, I don’t want you to think I’m also drawing my sword against you along with the others, but I do want to show where I have a serious problem.

    You said this:

    And I’m not trying to minimize your experience by pointing this out, but criminal sexual penetration is a different experience. If you ever get raped, and I hope you never do, you might sing a different tune.

    Now, I do believe that sexual abuse does have a unique and massive significance when compared to all other abuses one person can do to another. A proper process of sexual selection by females is essential to the survival of all sexually reproducing species. As such, the female brain brutally punishes her psychologically for having her reproductive volition violated. This is something she cannot allow or accept. Men are also severely disturbed as well, and will go to extreme lengths to both prevent rape and punish males who commit it. Men enforce the unacceptability of rape. (I wish feminists would acknowledge that.)

    With that said, the problem arises when Peggy makes the claim that Paul can gain wisdom in how to handle rape in the justice system by being a victim of violent sexual abuse.


    Peggy has called herself a scientist (though of a description unknown to me) so she must know that moments of passion are the worst time to attempt rational thought. I define justice as “a rational and scientific approach to the proper application of force.” This is why we use a predefined and passionless procedure that must be followed with impeccable fidelity before any force can be applied to a person. Ignoring elements of the process produces bad results just as certainly as failing to properly control variables in a lab experiment.

    The sentences I quoted from Peggy are the famous and obvious fallacy of appealing to emotion. Emotion is fine to get your audience to feel that your arguments are important, but it cannot be the argument itself.

    Even if Paul did change his mind after being viciously raped, he would also be committing a fallacy.

    The proper way to deal with this situation will only be found by people with calm nerves, steady hands, and normal blood pressure. All manners of foolishness springs from the emotional turbulence caused by horrible traumas.

    We have an abundance of sympathy for both true rape victims and the wrongly punished, but we are attempting to make the rational case for why it’s more important that the innocent are not violated by our intentional refusal to stick to the justice process. The accuser may have been a victim of evil, but if the defendant is convicted, he will certainly become a victim of evil.

    If an innocent went to jail even though the process was properly followed, that would be unfortunate, but not a reason to impugn the entire system. This would be an immensely rare occurrence, but it is an acceptable loss in an universe where our knowledge is limited. There is further possibility for him to eventually be released after conviction, as there should be.

    Making this argument is a daunting task, because people usually feel far more affinity toward the possible rape victim than the definitely wrongly punished, but we are promised a rational system of justice, and this is an area where timeless logic must beat transitory passions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Denis,

    I am going to add the link to Tara today. Good call.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Go Fuck Yourself

    Paul, there’s a level of hell just for you.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I don’t believe in hell. But I have to wonder if there was such a place, would it be anything like being in prison for something you didn’t do.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • V_Simberly

    But surely, punishing every (innocent) woman for the ones who lie is just as bad as punishing every (innocent) man for the ones who are actually guilty?

    You can’t make pre-formed assumtions about this, you have to take into account the evidence or you are as bad as the people you’re critisising.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • V_Simberly

    Also, is this just in cases of men raping women? What if it involved a child, a woman raping a man or two people of the same gender?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Nice. This is a good shaming tactic. It’s also used by politicians.

      Yes – you care – about those who matter the most…

      …the children.

      More like you are exploiting children to make your points against Paul’s essay – which is clearly aimed at full grown women accusing MEN of rape.

      Re-occurring theme.

      They are trying to label you a sociopath Paul.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    V_Simberly, the sexes and ages of the people involved with any specific case has no bearing in any fashion on this argument; at least not as put forward by me, Paul, or anybody else who has commented on this topic.

    A person’s sex should have no undue effect on how justice is administered, and this is what a person who understands justice will support. I am happy to report to you that though this issue is on our radar because it disproportionately affects men, we are not irrational ideologues bent on promoting men at the expense of all other considerations. However, the people we are up against, which is the vast majority of the Western population, does want to promote and protect women at the expense of men, children, justice, and rationality.

    We are here trying to reclaim the concept of justice from the foolish people who have no idea what it is. You will not find us advocating treating any of the rape scenarios you provided with anything less than our utmost respect. We are the people who really understand what “justice for all” means, and how to properly pursue it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Eincrou

    V_Simberly, I missed your first comment. I will replace your use of the word ‘innocent’ to describe a legitimate rape victim, because comparing her to the wrongly punished innocent man is a false comparison.

    We have a culture that for some reason exalts victims and rarely gives this respect to those who actually deserve it: people who prevent crimes against themselves. If we put as much effort into preventing crime as we do fighting to bend the rules so women falsely feel safer by the existence of Big Man Government’s promises to punish rapists, then rape would be far less of a problem. Women would both feel and truly be safer. But this would mean telling women they need to limit themselves, and that’s unacceptable to do because they’re ‘innocent’ and deserve to be able to do whatever the hell they want. I believe women should have more respect for themselves and take their protection into their own hands, rather than putting so much concern into distorting the legal system.

    An ‘innocent’ woman who has been raped has already been punished. The damage has been done. That is where the evil lies in her experience. The purpose of a justice system is to provide a deterrent to crime, and to punish criminals when possible. It is not to provide relief to the suffering, though people’s desires for revenge are usually satiated if the person who did them wrong is punished. It is not punishment, in any sense of the concept, to the legitimate victim when their attacker is not convicted. Nothing has actually been done to her. She just will not receive fulfillment of her revenge desire.

    Unfortunately, people who truly do wrong will often get off free and clear after a fair trial. It happens all the time, and it is fully intended. Look for some of my posts in this thread if this seems like an outrageous concept to you, hopefully I succeeded in explaining why this is the best we can hope for until humanity gains omniscience.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • V_Simberly

    Eincrou, thank you for the reply. I was simply asking about instances of different types of rape as the author seems to only be talking about a case of a man raping a woman, would he automatically vote to aquit a man accused of raping another man? I am just curious as to what his opinion is.

    I agree that deterring crime in the first place is important and that the powers that be should aim to do this as much as possible. However, part of deterrance is punishment. People will be less likely to commit a crime if they know they are likely to be punished for it. Sending criminals to prison also (obviously) means that the individuals are not able to commit any more crimes.

    Surely, for society to be fairer for everybody, guilty people should not be freed intentionally which seems to be the intent of the articles writer.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • At V_Simberly,

    As I have already said in the comments, I vote not guilty on anyone in a case that involved rape shield laws.

    As to this, from you: “Surely, for society to be fairer for everybody, guilty people should not be freed intentionally which seems to be the intent of the articles writer.”

    For a society to be fairer to everybody, it requires a fair trial. The intent is not to free guilty people but to keep the innocent from going to prison. When rape defendants are getting the presumption of innocence, are allowed to face their accusers, and have the right to all relevant evidence to be presented at their trial, then there would be no need for nullification.

    The problem isn’t the one who nullifies, it is an system that is already unfair and unjust to begin with.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • My daughter was raped, was yours?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Nancy

    Is it your contention that an entire legal system governing over 300 million people should be corrupted for the sake of your daughter? Or more accurately, for you?

    People should not be denied a fair trial because your daughter got raped.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Gunner Retired

    The odds are better than good I’ll never be selected for Jury simply because I’m a Consitutionlaist and an avowed Anti-Misandrist (Anti-Misandry does not equate to woman hater… it equates to hater of the lies women tell about men (and I’d love to know why women hate the truth about men?). Also, I’m a firm believer in the US Constitutional RIGHT of the Jury to Null!!!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Morgaine

    Seriously? What if your daughter was raped? Your wife, your sister or your mother? You wouldn’t be sitting on the jury, but I can bet you wouldn’t want her rapist to walk. Sick.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Seriously. What if your husband or son or father or brother were falsely accused and the evidence that would exonerate them was being withheld from the jury?

    My money is on the idea that you would thank your lucky stars for someone to stand up to it and nullify. And something tells me you would not think the idea so sick at the time.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Donna-Lee

    You obviously don’t know any women well or have a daughter. If a rape were to happen to someone ( anyone, male or female) you know, you’d be screaming for justice, not printing this misogynistic crap to justify your inability to sit and actually listen to a court case and make your judgement on facts. I’m happy you are not my husband, father or friend. You should be ashamed of yourself

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Donna-Lee

    You obviously don’t know any men well or have a son. If a false rape conviction were to happen to someone (anyone, male or female) you know, you’d be screaming for justice, not printing this misandric crap to justify your inability to sit and actually listen to a the truth about rape shield laws and make your judgement on facts. I’m happy you are not my wife, mother or friend. You should be ashamed of yourself

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Cermet

    If you change every instance of the word guilty to innocent and vice versa this article makes a hell of a lot more sense – so I’m just going to assume that’s what the writer had intended. I fully agree that the justice system is unfairly biased towards adult men and the percentage of men that go unpunished for rape is appalling.

    Unless those weren’t typos and you intended to say something ridiculously far fetched and absurd. If that’s the case you must have been intending to troll everyone who would take you seriously – and I would have to commend you on a fine troll good sir. Well done.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Jaxataxa

    This is very disappointing. If someone is incontrovertably guitly they should be convicted. I recognize your concerns about the legal system but your statment in bold is not very politically savvy, notwithstanding your later arguments and explainations. It will be used against the mens rights movement by anyone with a shred of hostility to our cause and you have given them this ammunition.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • @ Jaxataxa

    The whole point of this is that under the current system incontrovertable guilt is impossible to establish, because due process has been denied and evidence is systemically withheld.

    Under the rule of law, you must acquit. It isn’t even a moral or legal choice to convict.

    As to holding it against the MRM. Hell, they hold the MRM against the MRM.

    Not much I can do about that. Supporting corrupted convictions won’t help.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Cooterbee

    A few odd and unconnected points:

    It is not wrong to apply jury nullification. It IS an intentional part and parcel of the system itself. It is no less a part of the system than witnesses swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    It needs to be remembered that the defense attorney has practical limits placed on the rigor and type of defense that he can present. Even if the judge and prosecutor grossly violate the law or the prisoner’s rights, he is not allowed to say so.

    Forget DNA and other prosecutorial crapola. Any mercenary jerk can be paid to shoot his mouth off that there is a DNA match when the DNA really comes from a rose bush. I sure can’t tell the difference. Can you tell or will you rely upon the rantings of the prosecutor’s paid stooge?

    Knowing that the Reid technique is a widespread interrogation technique, even a confession is no evidence of guilt. How can any evidence in any case be trusted?

    The law demands a not guilty verdict be delivered when there is reasonable doubt. It would be wrong to disregard this injunction. Since the evidence can never be trusted, it is morally indefensible to find anyone, male or female, guilty of anything.

    Problem with saying that deciding not guilty in any case is that there are people who are inclined to find guilty in all cases. They drastically out-number those who will actually consider the alleged evidence. I would go so far as to say that the main reason that blacks are over represented in prisons is not racism but the idea that jurors in cases against minorities tend to be intentionally loaded with people who are predisposed toward convicting someone-anyone.

    It does not help that there is an appeals process. The damage is already done. The state is obligated to uphold every conviction — even if it means resorting to the distortion of a known truth. If you don’t get a fair trial the first time, then you won’t ever get one. Overturning a conviction is not really a legal process but a political one. On the rare occasions when a conviction is over turned it is almost always due to political pressure.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Sara W

    When I was in grade two, at seven years old, I was raped by an eighteen year old man. He was found guilty but because of his age he only spent some time in a juvenile detention center. I on the other hand am now 21 years old and I still deal with what he did today. I have not since been able to walk through forests, with or without others with me, I am terrified of the dark and to this day I still have nightmares about him. I am looking into my case now but there is little doubt in my mind or in the mind of the police officer who is helping me look into it, that he offended again as I was not his first, I was only the first whose mother decided to take the trial to court. This man, or one like him, could be the man at the rape trial you sit at and I only ask that you take the evidence into consideration because it is not better to have a rapist walk the streets then a system that mocks justice. There are innocent people who are mistakenly put away but much more often then that there are guilty men who go free because of ignorance like this.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • @Sara…

      Sorry about the tough time that you had. And, it is really terrible that in this feminazi age we live in (here in the west at least), that men have been reduced to pulling nasty stunts like that guy did… according to what you wrote.

      It isn’t good for men to be having relations like that, with girls who haven’t reached puberty. It’s terrible; and shows us the imbalance in our society that has been caused by feminism and statism.

      A real tragedy is that your father and mother allowed you to walk alone through a forest where other people might be, at the age of 7.

      Pray tell… this didn’t have anything to do with commuting to a school, did it?

      I hope that, over time, you’ll be able to let this troublesome day to fade into the past.

      However, at this time it is much more important that we end the violence against men (being perpetrated by the governments and the women), than it is to re-hash old memories of sadness for unsupervised young girls.

      The critical thing is that Paul Elam is kind enough to offer up a non-violent action for our consideration: jury nullification. Jury nullification didn’t always exist… but it was fought for and came into being so that the men of a country could dis-empower the government, without having to resort to violence, when the government was doing them wrong. Now, it is time to use that power, non-violent power… because the moment is soon coming when these issues will boil over into unspeakable years of violence, if we fail to un-wind the problems now.


      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • in memory of lucy

    My boyfriend and I have been reading these blog posts in utter disbelief.

    I am truly, genuinely shocked that anyone with a heart and a conscience would knowingly allow a rapist to walk free, to hurt other innocent young girls like Sara W.

    If you disagree with the legal system in your country then you should write letters to your political parties and put forward your case. That is what you do in a liberal democracy. Your tactics are horrifying.

    To the men on this blog post who think you should return a verdict of non guilty in a rape trial in all circumstances:

    My boyfriend would like to tell you that he thinks that you are undermining the male rights movement, and as a man, he is thoroughly disgusted.

    I would like to tell you that I am truly, wholly shocked and sickened by you all.

    I’ll tell you why.

    My best friend was raped, and then she killed herself. Her physcial injuries were horrific, but it was the mental scars that would never heal. She went from being a beautiful, confident woman to a frightened, anxious, deeply depressed, suicidal girl.

    At her trial, the jury acquitted the accused, despite the DNA, the witnesses and her very brave testimony.

    Why did the jury acquitt him?

    Because men like you put your stupid ideas onto the internet and cast doubt in the minds of those who can’t think for themselves.

    She killed herself two days after the trial.

    You should be disgusted with yourselves.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • My boyfriend would like to tell you that he thinks that you are undermining the male rights movement, and as a man, he is thoroughly disgusted.

      Maybe, as a man, he should speak up for himself.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Madam,

      You think we should be disgusted with ourselves? For someone else’s decision to end her life? Well, I am disgusted.. but not for some woman killed herself, but for the thousands of men who have committed suicide, killed and died, while women stood still, even cheered.

      There is simply no disgust room left in my mind at the moment, if some clears up, I will consider your suggestion.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • Besides, not much will change anyway. Feminists have been claiming that this is the case for decades. No one told them to put up or shut up while they cried “wolf!”

        What if the wolf really did come this time?

        As to “Your tactics are horrifying.” So are those of the TSA! Have you wrote to your congressman yet?

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • @InMemoryOfLucy,
      You make a good point that many women in “liberal democracies” are horribly shaken, emotionally, by lousy sexual experiences.

      The big, big problem is that they have been raised with a lie. That is, they have been raised in a foolish fairy-tale that says that they are the leading gender, and that the men are there to serve them and make them happy, and that they have the right to go wherever they want, say whatever they want, and do whatever they want, in safety… and that sex is under their control. They have been raised and “educated” to believe that it is the boys who will suffer emotionally, and get the short end of the stick; while they girls decide when and whether the boys get any sex…. let alone any service.

      Such girls are sometimes horribly shaken and saddened when this silly fairy-tale comes to a close. In the real world, it’s the other way around.

      Strangely enough, though, folks don’t make the same mistake on other topics. For example, the news reported this week on a school which visited the zoo (the zoological park).

      Many of the students were looking at some sort of large cat (a jaguar or something).

      Now, 99% of the students stayed behind the railing, and looked at the beautiful animal. But, one student climbed the rail, and walked right up to the cage, where he could pet the animal.

      Look at the situation again. 99% of the students had the right to be more-or-less safe, standing at a distance behind the railing. However, in order to keep their right to safety, they gave up their right to touch the animal and see it up close.

      But, the one boy exercised his right to go right up to the cage and touch the animal. To do that, he gave up his right to be protected and safe.

      The boy’s head was seriously mauled by the cat.

      I hope you’ll understand, @InMemoryOfLucy… if you don’t want women to bear the emotional “scars” of unpleasant sexual experiences, teach them not to expect both unlimited freedom AND safety. Once you (or she) chooses to do/say/go in ways that make you likely to come under the sexual influence of a strange man… you have stepped outside of our ability to protect you. And, in being so faithless, you have stepped outside of our desire to protect you.

      We’re not liable to give up our time and money to pay other men to keep you safe, while you do stupid things in exercise of your freedom.

      Women in many countries do much better than you do and Lucy did. They know how to stay close with family and friends, how not to go to the bad places, how to cover themselves in a way that isn’t a sex-invitation display, and how to put bad sexual experiences behind them, if they are foolish enough to put themselves in harm’s way.

      Reality is coming back like a freight-train, boyfriend-having girl. Prepare yourself now, so that you will not likewise be shaken by having to start fulfilling the role of a woman, yourself, sometime soon.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Derek Mottley

    i was falsely accused of vaginal & anal rape…i did nothing of the kind.
    the trial was a joke & i didnt even take the stand !
    i could tell you things that would make your hair curl !
    Please contact me , i need to tell my story of injustice & warn other men of how to beat false rape allegations.
    All that is required to have rape charges pressed against you is a person to approach the police & make whatever allegations the desire & the ‘system’ picks up the tab.
    Police are NOT doing their job & interrogation the ‘alledged’ victim before deciding on pressing charges.
    It is my belief that their is a monotary ‘kickback’ system in place & ‘accused’ are processed regardless with lawyers giving kickbacks to detectives.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Derek Mottley

    after a massive legal bill , & the mental exhaustion of such disgraceful allegation , i would find it hard not to overscrutinise these kind of allegations.
    A typical ‘american’ crime now levelled at the creator of the wikileaks.
    Typical american propoganda.When assage is found not guilty , his life will be changed forever.
    The horrific crime committed is the women that make these kind of false allegations make it so difficult for the women that ARE genuinely raped you morons.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Pankaj

    Paul, I would love to buy you a beer (if you drink).. two if you agree with my stance on Jury votes.

    ALWAYS vote “not guilty”. I have theological backing for this, and I do consider jury “service” as slave labor. Any slave is entitled to resist with every means possible.

    By the way, Jury nullification does not involve “not guilty”, but a “Bad law” verdict. There are 3 true choice of verdicts are “Guilty”, “Not guilty and “Bad law”.
    The third option is a verdict that most judges will deny even exists!.. even though it is law of the land, and the right of the jurors.
    This fact alone disqualifies all judges, except those that have accepted such a verdict in the past, even if you ignore the theological stuff.

    Again.. love you for this! Go Paul!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • @Pankaj, slavery (temporary at least), is in fact the right ruling for various crimes (particularly theft) that involve re-compensation.

      The problem with our slavery in the western world, is that the person is enslaved to the government, and grouped with thousands of other such convicts, and any profit from their labor goes to the state. (This is called “Prisons”.)

      The right form of slavery (or indentured servitude) would be that a thief who owed recompense, if he could not pay, would be sold to someone who could pay it; and he would serve the payor for perhaps up to 6 years.

      The recompense money goes to the one from whom he stole… not to the people in government.

      You wrote that a slave always has the right to resist by whatever means… but that is untrue. What rights an indentured servant does have are:
      1) The one who paid his debts must accept repayment (and discount it pro-rated), if one of the servant’s relatives want to pay his way out of servitude (this is what “redemption” means).
      2) If the servant runs away, he has the right not to be forced to return to his hometown where he was in servitude… but then he is in exile. If he returns, he will probably have to be scourged and sent back to his servitude, until he has paid off his debt. NOT DEBT TO SOCIETY, but debt to the one from whom he stole.

      I hope you’re very well.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • @Panjak… I see now that I misunderstood your post.

        I thought you were comparing prison to enslavement. (Probably because I make that comparison myself.)

        I see now that you were comparing jury “duty” to enslavement.

        I apologize. :-)

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • I forgot my favorite shaming that I have received over this…


      You are just upset because your penis fell off and now you can’t rape women anymore.


      Ah – those wacky wacky feminized women!

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Ellen

    Quite frankly, I feel that this post is of the highest immorality that I have so far seen while researching this topic. It actually appalls me. Yes, I agree that some cases will involve false allegations, but others do not, and to think that the victim must see their rapist walk free is an utter disgrace. You should listen to the points of the case and decide accordingly based on the evidence, you should NOT automatically decide to acquit a defendant.
    Let me pose you this question- how would you feel if the victim were male and the defendant female? Would you still have the same view? This is just another example of male, misogynistic comments on serious issues.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Quite frankly, judging by the nature of your question, I don’t think you really understood the article. And if I am not mistaken that has been asked and answered before, here in the comments.

      I tell you what, just so I give you an opportunity to rein in your clearly emotional response to this post, try reading this:

      Then if you still have questions, I will be happy to answer them. Perhaps a more emotionally composed reaction from you will allow you see that it is injustice, not women, that I hate.

      I have similar feelings about typical, shallow, uninformed misandric evaluations, but since I am not a bigot, I don’t assign those things to one sex exclusively, as you have done here.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • James

    Here I was thinking the system was a mess because it couldn’t convict even the guiltiest of the guilty and its just a bunch of men screwing up the system that they invented! Keep it in your pants & you won’t have to worry about being falsely accused! Learn your prospective partner’s sexual history BEFORE you have sex with them! It is very hard to be accused or convicted of rape if your careful about the people you sleep with & don’t take strangers home from bars. Try actual dating instead of just hooking up. & why not suggest that to men instead of just setting out to further break an already broken system. You have no idea the courage it takes a woman who has been brutalized to even tell anyone at all, much less show up in court! This is just an awful movement to put ones stamp on, deplorable really, I feel sorry for your mother, she must be so sad.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Benjamin


    Peace to each of you.

    In our discussion there is a huge amount of back-and-forth, coupled with many, many ideas and approaches about how this “rape” issue ought to be handled.

    There’s a good reason why there is so much impassioned disagreement.

    The truth is that rape is not a crime at all. That’s why there is so much argument about it. We don’t see discussions quite like this about issues such as “stealing” or “murder”.

    Denis put it rightly, in his comment above, when he wrote that “it should be viewed more like an assault.” “Rape” is usually an assault… and assault is also not a crime.

    It is the physical damage (the injury) that is done to the man or woman, which is the crime in an assault (including the so-called “rape” of a woman). If a woman is beaten up by an assailant; then the assailant ought to be beaten as badly. That’s the right judgment.

    An important point, that is lost on most of us westerners, is that the woman’s so-called “consent” is irrelevant. Similarly, a man’s consent to being mugged / beaten up is not relevant at all. If a man agrees to fight another man by “stepping outside”, then each man is still morally/legally accountable for whatever lasting physical injury he causes the other… consent or no consent. Consent is not even a worthy question.

    Two men agree to fight one another, and one man snaps the other man’s arm… repay him break for break. Or, he takes a knife and slashes his opponent. Repay him cut for cut. (The right-ruling is not to put him in a cage for a few years, to be sodomized by criminals more hardened than he.)

    A woman seduces a man, and he breaks her arm during the sex… repay him break for break. Or, a woman does not verbally agree to sex, and the man takes her sexually and breaks her arm while doing it… repay him with the same break. That is the right ruling.

    As many have pointed out, a woman who is “raped” after she parties hardy at the frat house, and falls asleep from drink right there among everybody, wearing her mini-skirt and belly-shirt, possibly may not be injured by the sex at all! If she wants to complain about her emotional distress, the right answer is: learn from your foolish mistake, and don’t put yourself into such an emotionally troubling situation again.

    Same thing with a man who walks through the ghetto alone at night wearing his fancy watch, and counting his fistful of $100-dollar bills, out loud. If you feel emotionally distressed by the outcome, then don’t do that again. But the crimes of someone’s stealing from you and injuring you ought to be punished in the normal fashion… no matter your “consent” to having put yourself in such jeopardy.

    There are a few caveats…
    1) If a man has sex with a woman who is married to another man, then that is a crime (again, her consent is irrelevant); and every man knows in his heart and mind that the right-ruling for that is: his death. In this case, the only time consent is a question, the jury must decide whether she cried out for help, etc, to determine whether she too is an adulterous and must be punished, or is a victim.
    2) If a man has sex with a virgin, the right ruling is that he must marry her and perform a husband’s duty to her and her father, unless her father refuses the marriage. He has taken her virginity, which she can no longer honorably offer to another suitor.
    3) If a man has sex with a man, consent or not (again, “rape” is a fiction, something akin to “involuntary exposure to air”), then that is a crime itself… not whether the other man agreed!

    The most anyone can legitimately and rightly be punished for any other so-called “rape”, is a good beating (for example, the caning they do to folks in Asia). That gives him (or her) a good dose of pain and disgrace, for their socially disruptive behaviour, but doesn’t injure him. And, the severity of that beating (within righteous bounds) depends on the judgement of the jurors/judges.

    That’s it. It isn’t complicated. And, with clear, easy-to-understand, right, and good laws, folks would change their behaviour accordingly. Women would think a little more about how they dressed… and they would stay close to their fathers or brothers or groups of relatives and friends, much more often. (Just as men and women, who don’t want to be assaulted and injured, already do.)

    To tie this matter up (in terms of my post, that is to say), it is my personal opinion that only men above the age of 40 or 50 ought to be allowed onto juries (the elders of a town). Absolutely not females (the whole idea is ludicrous on its face). And not young men, of course. A man on a jury ought to be old enough to have lived through his own youth, and that of his sons and daughters, so that he knows how things really go down, and to have studied to learn what is straight and right, prior to being on a jury. (By the way, this criterion excludes me, personally, from jury membership at this time, due to my relative youth.)

    [Aside...] I was called for jury duty once; and when during voir dire, I was asked whether I would judge only the facts and not the law, and accept whatever instructions of law the judge told us, even if he told us that we had to find someone guilty if we found certain facts to be true, I responded that as a juror I would judge both the law and the facts. I brought up some historic jury nullification, judging the law, such as the Fugitive Slave Act (I live in an Underground Railroad state). I was excused from jury duty.

    But, who was not excused from duty? A teeny-bopper blonde college girl with her college sports sweatshirt on. No no, she became a juror. I went to work and home that day and spoke about what a dread thing it would be to find yourself as the defendant when that girl was empowered as a worse-than-worthless “juror”.

    Sure enough, a couple years later there was a perfectly similar case in the news. A college girl was put onto a jury, and after voir dire alone(!!)… the case evidence hadn’t even begun to be presented yet… the girly wrote on Facebook (or some social website) that she couldn’t wait to vote “guilty” and punish that man and send him to prison. She said that this being on a jury thing was really kinda fun.

    Yah have mercy on us all, and deliver us.

    The conclusion of the matter, all having been heard: Fear Elohim, and guard His commands, for this applies to all men. For Elohim shall bring every work into judgment, including all that is hidden, whether good or evil. (Kohelet 12:13-14)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Evelle

    “…it is injustice, not women, that I hate.”

    Quite frankly, judging by the nature of your answer, I don’t think “injustice” means what you think it means.

    What you want is petty revenge exacted against the easiest targets you can find, rather than those that actually deserve it. You are a coward and a liar and the very thing that causes injustice.

    You are a coward for admitting an utter refusal to acknowledge reality, were it handed to you on a platter by a prosecutor.

    You admit that you would knowingly lie about this. Hence liar.

    And you are the cause of injustice by admitting honestly that you would rather free a criminal than help the victims of that criminal. For your own personal satisfaction, no less. At least some people admit to having financial gain. No. You are even lower than that. You’re so delusional that you’d sell a victim out and let a criminal go free for nothing more than the satisfaction of sticking it to some imaginary enemy.

    Meaning not only do you deny that victim justice, but you’d let a criminal go free thus putting *us all* in harm’s way. So you’re basically saying you’d sell out anyone, including yourself, to make a political point that no one would even know about, because you could never admit any of this this without the veil of anonymity to protect you.

    Coward. Liar. Hypocrite.


    There is so much wrong with your comment it’s hard to know where to begin.

    ” “Rape” is usually an assault… and assault is also not a crime.”

    Assault is a crime, idiot.

    “An important point, that is lost on most of us westerners, is that the woman’s so-called “consent” is irrelevant. Similarly, a man’s consent to being mugged / beaten up is not relevant at all.”

    Actually it is, you moron. It’s the difference between giving a gift (or a loan, or a consensual exchange of money) and theft. The fact that the person is helping themselves to your money without your consent (possibly under threat of force) is *exactly* what makes it a crime.

    This is why boxing is not a crime but battery is. How stupid are you that you don’t get this?

    “If a man agrees to fight another man by “stepping outside”, then each man is still morally/legally accountable for whatever lasting physical injury he causes the other… consent or no consent. Consent is not even a worthy question.”

    Rape and mugging victims don’t agree to be raped or mugged. They get raped and/or mugged without their consent. Don’t give up your day job, because your law skills suck. As do your basic ethics and philosophy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Lol, quite the temper there. Abuser, maybe?

      Is there a point in all this? Really, I will give you a chance to make it, after you figure out that I am unaffected by your name calling or attempts to shame. So try your post again, like a grown up, and I will give you some grown up answers.

      Persist with all the personal insults and I will just cut you off. I don’t have time to babysit you. Too busy spreading the word about the option to nullify.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Evelle

    Mr. Elam, I remind you that you said:

    “It is fitting then, that we seek to justly punish those guilty of the crime, but also that we proceed with caution and diligence, ever observing the rule of law in the process. That rule of law is integral to maintaining order; to preventing justice from being circumvented by political motives or mob rule; to ensure, as should be ensured in a just society, that the rights of the accused are protected with vigor and transparency.”


    “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”

    Which is it? You care about justice, or don’t?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • It is exactly as I said. And I care about justice, which is why I would never vote to convict in a rape trial. Diligence in understanding the law informs me that rape trials are often rigged, and I cannot determine, even on a jury, what evidence is being withheld or how much of the real story I am seeing. I cannot trust in any reasonable way that the “overwhelming evidence” is actually that. That means that certainty of guilt to the standard of a reasonable doubt is an impossibility.

      There is no dichotomy here, except of your imagining.

      Until rape shield laws are dispensed with, a fair trial or any man accused of rape is an impossibility.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • I’d have to agree. Long time ago when you made that statement before about mandatory aquittal, I thought you were kind of a flake. In the subsequent years’ reading books like Taken Into Custody and The Woman Racket among loads of articles and news reports, I now agree that, alongside Family Court, there is a backroom quasi-cottage industry in jacking up the numbers of rape convictions…and the evidence be damned.

        Our court system is fucked up, and I would literally see a rapist put back on the street than an innocent man thrown into the gaping maw of our mindless feminized legal system so he can be raped in prison!

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • billywms

    Acquitting someone regardless of the evidence of the case? Hey!-It’s better than having an innocent man being sent to prison for decades for a rape he did not commit.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • billywms

    I will second your not guilty verdict Paul!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Leave a Reply


    Talking out of their vaginas

    AVfM is proud to introduce yet another sterling addition to the team. This gent goes by Blueface, and today he talks about talking vaginas.

    Your Money is Debt

    "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... The banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered"~ Thomas Jefferson


    Evolution of Understanding

    The continually escalating narrative of “protecting” women by affording them ever greater protection and privilege above and beyond the legal rights of “bad” men is designed to produce a society in which nobody has legal rights except for the members of a few banking families. Not even women will have human rights in that world, because the men who would have protected them will be, and are being reduced to the legal status of furniture and appliances.


    AVfM Radio: Understanding the Blue Pill

    AVFM Radio introduces GirlWritesWhat as new co-host with John the Other, and examines male identity in an increasingly feminized world.

    Ice Cream

    Ben and Jerry’s is a radical hate group

    Misogyny and hate are everywhere these days. You can find them online, in dark corners of your government, in ice cream. No, really, check the ice cream.


    Mississippi State students forced to “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes”

    MSU uses administrative and social coercion to force male students to participate in a humiliating and degrading demonstration. Victims not helped.