Debate

Jury nullification debate part II

AVfM Nullification Debate Part II

Johann the Cabbie from his first post:

With the possible exception of the sexual molestation of a child, rape is a crime that evokes the most visceral of responses from the average person. And for good reason. Sex that is physically forced or obtained by threat of harm sadistically reduces victims to their most helpless state, and leaves lingering damage that may well last the remainder of a person’s life.

So says Paul Elam in the opening of his article on jury nullification and rape. This quote, from a man who has publicly stated that it he ever found himself on a jury a rape case that he would vote to acquit no matter the evidence.

He has his reasons, but first, an introduction to jury nullification. Juries in America have the right to disregard the evidence presented and still vote to acquit an obviously guilty defendant. In the 1850’s, many juries used nullification to disregard the Fugitive Slave Act. During Prohibition, juries frequently let bootleggers free.

Nullification also has had immoral applications, such as Southern juries refusing to convict white defendants for murders of black victims.

I could consider nullification myself in certain situations. For example, if I ever serve on a jury for any marijuana case, I’d vote to acquit despite the evidence. The government’s prohibition of marijuana is wrong and immoral, so a vote for not guilty is necessary and proper.

Elam calls for nullification in rape cases, and he has pledged to vote to acquit on any case no mater the evidence. His reasons are twofold – America’s corrupt criminal justice system and rape shield laws.

In his article, he lists the several processes in a rape case, from the police report to the trial, and details all the possible areas that mistakes can be made. He makes a compelling case, but he misses an important and obvious point.

The endemic problems with our criminal justice system do not pertain to rape cases only, but are problems in any type of case, whether it be murder, drugs, robbery, or whatnot. With the highest per capita prison population in the world, sloppy police work, over-zealous prosecutors, over-worked and under-paid public defenders, mandatory minimums, three strikes and you’re out laws, a reliance on fallible eyewitness reports, coerced confessions, and a disgraceful class imbalance, America’s justice system is woefully broken.

If Elam is to use America’s broken system as a reason to call for nullification in rape cases, then why not at any criminal trial? Why not set murderers and robbers free along with the rapists?

And, that query brings us to Elam’s second bit of reasoning – rape shield laws.

Elam defines rape shield laws well.

Ostensibly, rape shield laws were enacted to limit a defendants ability to cross examine a plaintiff regarding her past sexual conduct, the logic being that such information is not only irrelevant, but might prejudice jurors. For instance, if it were brought out that a married woman alleging rape had engaged in extramarital affairs, it might cause a bias in some jurors that strongly disapprove of such behavior and prompt them to acquit her alleged assailant.

He goes on to say that such laws “seem reasonable,” and he makes a poor attempt to disprove their reasonableness. His approach is to list two instances where rape shield laws were misapplied. That’s all. He makes no attempt to argue against the value or use of the laws. Such an attempt would be doomed to failure, for rape shield laws are important and necessary. Sadly, we still live in a time where many potential jurors could be biased against a sexually promiscuous victim, and those biases could easily lead to the conclusion in the mind of a juror that “the slut deserved it.” Back to my earlier query: why not vote to acquit in any and all criminal cases? Elam’s reasoning is just as applicable in murder trials as it is in rape trials. But, no reasonable person would wish to set any and all defendants free.Jury duty is an important and difficult task. If called to serve, one must look at the evidence carefully, disregard emotion and visceral reactions, and determine the facts as best as possible. If reasonable doubt exists, then by all means, acquit.

But, if a defendant is obviously guilty, a refusal to convict is morally unjustifiable.

♦♦♦

Elam Responds

First, a public thank you to Johann the Cabbie for contributing to this debate, and for his willingness to stand up to “gender” ideologues who have tainted the rational thought community with dogma of late, treating legitimate debate as an anathema — while surrendering all pretense of objectivity to feminist ideology.

I think we will see, however, during the course of this debate, that it is not just feminism that is the problem here. While Johann rejects the irrational and convoluted sycophancy of individuals like Matt Dillahunty, and even seems to understand the etiology of the problem, he also engages in a similarly robotic mentality when making his critique of jury nullification in the case of rape.

This is most plainly obvious in his concluding statement:

 

But, if a defendant is obviously guilty, a refusal to convict is morally unjustifiable.

The entire nullification argument hinges completely on the idea that obvious guilt is unattainable under the current system, specifically where “rape shield laws,” are concerned.

To ascertain guilt, relevant evidence must be weighed. If the accurate weighing of that evidence is not possible because relevant facts have been intentionally omitted, it amounts to nothing more than a magic show; smoke and mirrors from which no true picture can be gleaned. In that scenario, a fair trial is not possible. It is as easy to understand as it is logical.

Translation of Johann’s concluding remark: Yes, I just watched Mr. Teller saw Mr. Penn in half, with my own eyes. Mr. Teller is obviously guilty of people sawing. To say otherwise would be immoral.

Another part of his rebuttal depends on the implied fallacy that the problems with rape trials are essentially indistinguishable from the problems with other criminal prosecutions:

                                                           

The endemic problems with our criminal justice system do not pertain to rape cases only, but are problems in any type of case, whether it be murder, drugs, robbery, or whatnot.

This is just one of many non sequiturs in his argument, and it reveals a glaring failure to understand what rape shield laws are and what they actually do. There is no logical reason, in the face of the evidence, to lump all other criminal court proceedings in with rape trials. They are conducted differently, which is the point of this debate.

All Johann has done here is to momentarily pretend that the rape shield laws he was already minimizing now don’t exist at all. Rape trials are just like all other trials, and I am heartbroken over the horrific death of Mr. Penn.

When Johann does take on the rape shield issue more directly, he mounts an unsupported, somewhat emotional defense for the existence of those laws, but fails to rigorously examine, and indeed summarily dismisses, their deleterious effects on the rights of the defendant.  Said the Cabbie:

 

His [Elam’s] approach is to list two instances where rape shield laws were misapplied. That’s all. He makes no attempt to argue against the value or use of the laws.

First, whether laws are “misapplied” is only a matter of legal opinion at the moment, usually of one person. If the defendant is too poor to mount a challenge to the application of the law, then he is screwed. We will never know how many men are in prison right now because of “misapplied” laws that should not have been written in the first place.

If a bad law does not exist, it cannot be misapplied. I am sure that Johann would consider a marijuana case in the same light, as would I.

Johann was unsurprisingly critical of my position that rape shield laws were unreasonable, and asserts that “he [Elam] makes a poor attempt to disprove their reasonableness.”

There are two important things here. One, the lack of reason (though unreasonable they are) in these politically motivated laws is not so much the issue as is their impact on due process. The moment we  systematically deny a defendant the right to include evidence casting legitimate concern on the veracity of an accuser, or on possible motive to fabricate, we have not only denied them a Constitutionally guaranteed fair trial, but we have also eviscerated any opportunity to hold credible the evidence required to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

More on that in a moment (as if I have not said it enough), but the other fact here is that rape shield laws are not necessary to address the concerns proffered by Johann to begin with. That is right. Even if you take the protection of alleged female victims to be more important than due process, it was still never necessary. Johann states in his rebuttal:

 

Such an attempt [to argue against rape shield laws] would be doomed to failure, for rape shield laws are important and necessary. Sadly, we still live in a time where many potential jurors could be biased against a sexually promiscuous victim, and those biases could easily lead to the conclusion in the mind of a juror that “the slut deserved it.”

Let me take the more obvious point first, and this also directly applies to Johann’s assertion that the problem is not rape shield laws, but their proper application. Trials, at least those previous to rape shield laws, involve the examination of all relevant evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 declares that irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.  Federal Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence more probable or less probable than without the evidence.”

Information that is not relevant, as in the scenario presented by Johann, does not require rape shield laws to be excluded from a case. Let me repeat that. Information that is not relevant does not require rape shield laws to be excluded from a case.

Parts of a woman’s sexual history may or may not be relevant to a case. If a woman who was allegedly raped also happened to have 80 or 90 previous sexual partners, then that would be subject to being excluded from evidence on the basis of relevance. Being promiscuous is not evidence having any tendency to make any fact of consequence more or less probable.

If however, she had a long pattern of making false accusations against lovers she was angry with, as we saw in the Marv Albert case, then that is relevant as it goes to credibility. Had there been no rape shield law there to prompt that judge to rule against that evidence, Albert would very likely have been exonerated, as most everyone involved in the case thought he should have been.

As we saw with both the cases of Marv Albert and Oliver Jovanovic, relevant, exculpatory evidence was deemed inadmissible directly due to rape shield laws, and it cost both of those men severely, while protecting and enabling two known false accusers.

Simply allowing judges to do their jobs in the same way they do all other criminal matters is the reasonable solution to that problem in a world where no perfect solutions exist. But reasonable solutions have had little chance in an arena now governed by sexual politics. Forcing judges to play political football with court rulings does not help facilitate fair trials.

There is a larger, and I would say fatal problem here with Johann’s argument. His insistence on the legitimacy and need for rape shield laws is contingent on the fear that promiscuous women, or women who are portrayed as promiscuous will be penalized due to sexual bias in the jury.

But what of the prejudices that affect men in rape trials?

Take a look at the public reaction in the early days of the Duke Rape case, and Hofstra, and the endless string of men like Kobe Bryant and Dominique Strauss-Kahn who have been demonized and subjected to virtual public lynching by false accusations — because the prevailing public sentiment is to summarily convict men before a trial even happens.

You want to talk bias?

Let’s do, and first by stating flatly that sexual bias, which largely favors perceived female victims, does not suddenly evaporate with a jury summons.

If Johann the Cabbie is concerned with the impact on rape cases caused by sexual bias, why is he not advocating for rape shield laws, for the accused?

I will tell you why. It is because he is affected by the same one dimensional, irrational and lopsided thinking that afflicts Matt Dillahunty, just to a slightly lesser degree. He has surrendered reason for rote protective instinct that has no place in our criminal justice system where life and liberty depend on thoughtful analysis and an unfettered pursuit of the facts.

He sees women as primarily victims, in need of special treatment, yet he offers not one shred of evidence of why that special treatment is necessary, effective, reasonable or consistent with Constitutional demands. And he does not even speculate what the real impact of those special rules might be on the people they most affect.

Sound familiar?

About Paul Elam

Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio, the AVfM YouTube Channel, and appears weekly on AVFM Intelligence Report, Going Mental with Dr. Tara Palmatier and monthly on MANstream Media with Warren Farrell and Tom Golden.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com Jared White

    Boom.

    • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

      Ditto!

      The sad thing is, I knew Paul’s rebuttal was going to be brutal. No disrespect Johann the Cabbie; but even if you can see bias on our side by now you have to be able to see that most of us have come here through no fault of our own. We learned these truths the hard way, and by a blindsided broadside that surprised us from nowhere.

      I respect his honesty, and his willingness to come here!

      However, we don’t just have the facts on our side, plus moral highground, plus intellectual impetus; we have practical experience that at minimum 75% of the law is written for women.

      Hopefully, he never gets the “practical experience” like most of us have.

  • TPH

    Paul, a very concise and targeted rebuttal argument. I really look forward to the next argument by Johan The Cabbie.

    BTW: Did you know that in some states the courts actually have physical screens to prevent the court from actually seeing the accuser, especially in rape cases? Takes the concept of the rape screen to a new level. So much for confronting your accuser in a court of law. They could have a voice artist behind the screen saying what ever the prosecution wanted and no one would know.

    • dhanu

      That’s probably useful for hiding the facial expressions of the accuser while she is lying, which otherwise could be detected by optical means or the public. I’m not joking.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Honestly, if the entirety of the “rape shield” law was just that sort of screening and nothing else, I don’t think I’d have much objection. Indeed, I’d possibly be willing to let it be used in other forms of violent assault. If the reasoning is that the accuser is in fear, male or female, then a screen so that the jury may see the accuser but the accused may not see (but may hear) the accuser may not be that big a deal.

    • Bev

      In Australia the woman can give evidence by video link and does not have to appear in court. She can also have a screen to “shield” her. He may not cross examine or question her himself if he is conducting his own defence he can only write the question down and have a court employee ask questions. This is also the norm for DV in Specialist/magistrate DV courts. Further in some courts he cannot be in the court precincts or the women have a special waiting room. There have been cases were he is not informed his case is up and it is assumed he did not attend and orders are granted “ex parta”. Because more men were defending themselves instead of meekly accepting orders you must now apply in writing at least one week ahead if you wish to defend the case if you don’t men are not allowed to defend themselves in court and orders will be granted. The excuse: “the courts time were being clutter up/wasted by men defending themselves”

  • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

    Must feel good to finally get it out. How long has this article been brewing now?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      ’round about two years. It would have been sooner, but for all the people who screamed about the original article, no one wanted to debate it till now.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    Aaand scene.

    ‘Rape shield’ laws are creepy.
    ‘Shield’ the accuser, but not the accused. Hey that sounds like a great deal, can I be an accuser? I wanna be an accuser. Me me me me first !…..

    • Theseus

      Cut! Aaaand print!

  • Kimski

    ‘Sound familiar?’

    “What’s particularly repugnant about the ‘good’ man isn’t that he doesn’t care about his own civil rights (because that’s his choice) but that he’ll throw other men’s civil rights under the bus to earn the title ‘good’.”

    – Typhonblue.

    • Theseus

      Oh, they care all right, but ONLY when it happens to them: “But… but I-I’m one of the good ones. Why is this happening to ME”?

      • Kimski

        Yes, they mirror the female feminists pretty well, when it happens to one of their male relatives.

        Everybody seems to believe they’re some sort of holy cow, in the eyes of the law, because of their alleged ‘goodness’.

        I personally can’t wait to see the day when the dystopian laws they’ve helped create starts backfiring on themselves in rising numbers.
        What a serious wake up call that’s going to be.

        Imagine being put into a prison cell with 4 other innocent men, likewise framed on false rape accusations or any other of the new sexual crimes, when they find out that you’re one of the white knights that helped initiate these laws.
        *Shudders*

        • Theseus

          Yes. My sister (one of the coolest chicks on the planet ) worked in the Public Defenders office for a period of time in Las Vegas. I have talked to her about false rape allegations several times and she always rolls her eyes in disgust. Her advice: If you are EVER brought into that interrogation room as a suspect, remember, the cops are NOT your friends. At that point, for all intents and purposes, they are your enemy. Do not let them grill you. If you have to, stick your fingers in your ears and go,”la la la la I want my attorney la la la la I want my attorney”, fuckin’ do it.

          • http://patricestanton.com/ Patrice Stanton

            Here is the link to a video [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc ] that I watched a couple of years ago but lost track of ’til just now when this comment reminded me of it. It was in two approx. equal parts when I saw it, the first a lecture by a defense attorney, the second part by a cop more or less confessing how right the lawyer is to tell everyone (as the title of it on YouTube here…) “Don’t Talk to Police”. An invaluable use of 48 minutes.

            I see that this argument for Jury Nullification in rape trials is much stronger than I imagined it could be. I admit to having been skeptical but have changed my mind. I’m beginning to fear a fair trial in ANY type of case is near impossible anymore because the days of “a jury of my/your peers” is long gone…I mean, can you say, “Obama-phone?”

  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

    Compelling points. All emotions aside, isn’t a fair trial the bottom line? Also, if compassion for victims is a reason for rape shield laws, where is the compassion for victims of false accusations? And how does it serve a rape victim, or indeed justice itself, to convict the wrong man?

    • andybob

      Yes, Ms Suz. A fair trial is always the bottom line. No man accused of rape can possibly receive a fair trial if his legal defence is prevented from introducing eculpatory evidence.

      “Why not set murderers and robbers free along with the rapists?” asks Johann the Cabbie. If he is genuinely unaware that defendents in rape trials are treated differently from defendents of other crimes, then he’s in trouble. If he is just being disingenuous, then Dr Elam will have him for breakfast.

  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

    (p.s. Paul, I know you’ve been busy, but did you get my last two emails?)

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Yes, and I promise to get to them tomorrow. Sorry, between fundraiser and other things I have been buried.

      • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

        I know. It’s cool.

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

    OT: After some reflection and a very thoughtful email from a valued and trusted contributor I have opted to remove the SPLC article by Pamela Geller.

    I don’t take the decision to remove content from this site lightly, however, I have been made aware of some information about Geller that I was not aware of prior to posting her article.

    To be clear, and fair to Ms. Geller. I approached her about permission to reprint. She did not come here pushing her material.

    I maintain that the piece was a well researched overview of a corrupt and hateful group of ideologues that are clearly an enemy to men and boys, but I should have been more diligent in forming an opinion on whether Geller herself was appropriate for any sort of presence on this site.

    My apologies to anyone offended.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

      Oh, I think we’ll all be seeing quite a bit more of that sort of thing in the future. Our political climate has become so extreme, a lot of people with unorthodox and contradictory views are realizing that they have some very powerful enemies in common.

      I’m waiting for the far left and the far right to meet up around back.

    • TigerMan

      All kudos to you for that Paul. :-)

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

      Paul,

      We make mistakes all of us and nobody is spared.

      It’s not the mistake that defines us in ways, it’s how we respond. Your retraction of a post and your comment telling of this says more about you as a bloke than does your stuff up.

      You know?

    • Aimee McGee

      Paul, I thank you for this decision.

      I am not the biggest fan of some of the Quaker organisations that have become arms-length over the years and lost their core focus on testimonies, but I was somewhat bemused on the use of a Wiki as source material on the AFAS. It took little effort to find the FBI files on AFAS.

      As I said before, being called a socialist as a Quaker is a complement, 350 years of standing for equality is an act of socialism!

      As for the due dilagence…it is hard at the best of times to get this right and I am amazed you do so much on this site. I think the odd mistake is going to happen, but you show your integrity by changing your mind.

    • Theseus

      None taken. We all make errors in judgement from time to time. The fact that you re-evaluated your decision after careful consideration, goes a long way in showing what kind of person you are.

    • Astrokid

      Like I said in my comment there, the original article comes not from Geller, but James Simpson of Capital Research Center.

      Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate
      http://www.capitalresearch.org/2012/09/southern-poverty-law-center-wellspring-of-manufactured-hate/

  • Ex Machina

    “Such an attempt [to argue against rape shield laws] would be doomed to failure, for rape shield laws are important and necessary.”

    Important and necessary!? Rape shield laws are un-fucking-constitutional.

    Let’s say you took a woman home from a party,and let’s say she was indeed the kind of slut known to go home with men from parties and have consensual sex with them all the time. Ok,now let’s say next morning she decides it was rape even though it may have even been her idea to have sex at the time. It’s he said/she said,but wait, you’ve got exculpatory evidence. She’s done this before. In fact, she does it every weekend. There’s a line of 300 people just waiting to testify that yes, she does this all the time. Rape shield laws make ALLLLLLL that nasty evidence just go away,so princess can get her tort money just in time for the next drunken carousal. Meanwhile, you get fucked out of mounting ANY kind of defense because your defense,your hope,your freedom,your life rests on the fact that she has done this before.

    Why? Why are things like this? Because feminists have either decided or successfully bullied others into deciding that when a woman brings forth a complaint,society’s reaction is something like this “Hey,there’s a cute woman out here saying she’s a victim!” ,”Bah,ignore it”. I don’t even have to describe the reality because you all know what it looks like. Hell,Mary Winkler skipped off into the sunset being hailed as a hero after shooting a defenseless sleeping man in the back with a shotgun. You could take the above female victim scenario,reverse the genders, and arrive nearer the truth than the original way I posited it and no rational person can deny that after looking at it on a case-by-case basis.

    Rape shield laws are not only unnecessary,they are a violation of constitutional rights,essentially making a finding of guilt a foregone conclusion for poorer men falsely accused of sexual crimes,and the reason? To jack up conviction numbers so that radical feminists in law can both point to “victories” and the “large numbers of rapists” in our society as a means to extort even more public money and to be hailed as heroes for throwing innocent men in jail,solving a problem that they have in fact created. Jailing “rapists” they have created from innocent men and extorting money,that’s the only thing rape shield laws are “necessary” for.

    Feminist activists are a leech on the ass of our societies,in the courtroom,the boardroom,the bedroom, and every other room.

    I’ll leave you with the most important reason to come down against rape shield laws. The law was designed for the aggrieved to seek justice. If it does nothing but punish the innocent and uphold the guilty (false accusers),men will seek justice other ways, and not all of them will be peaceful. If feminists get everything they are asking for, I can easily foresee a day when courtship will no longer even be entertained. A man will simply grab a woman up off the street, rape her, kill her and then dump her body off,because one would get the same penalty for having consensual heterosexual sex if you are a man, as you would if you were a violent and criminal rapist. And all because feminists will not condescend to make a distinction between the two,because they are mentally unhinged.

    Do not allow them to make their delusions your laws,or very soon our nightmares will become our shared cultural reality.

  • Man

    I dont see the Cabbie making it through the standing 8 count after this knock down of reality. Good Job, Paul.

  • Tawil

    I was hoping for an intelligent and nuanced reply on this topic from Mr. Elam – expected no less. We got exactly that.

    The many naunces introduced in this reply are going to force JtC to work a lot harder than he had to with his initial assumptions. However he’s a clear reasoner and expect he’s up to the task.

    Looking forward to the next reply.

  • http://a-wayforward.blogspot.com/ caimis.vudnaus.

    In dealing with this type of question I always wonder how our legal system got so fucked up. Why do we as a society look at the accused as a perpetrator and the “victim” as a victim?

    “Innocent until proven guilty” is not supposed to be a bygone phrase only given any weight when teaching to school children. If a defendant (notice the word and its other meanings) is innocent until the state proves otherwise, then the defendant in every case is the victim of unfounded and malicious accusations until the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. If seen in that light then why would we as a society ever spare the feelings of the accusers in spite of the real victims.

    Again I remind you that by law those accused are not guilty and so are victims in every sense of the word at least until proven otherwise.

    So I agree with today’s judicial system and our feminized society the only fair choice is jury nullification, and I feel considering the American ideal that better ten guilty go free than one innocent be jailed, that it is hard to imagine those who framed our nations constitution and original laws would not agree.

  • George P

    Very eloquent rebuttal. A paraphrased explanation is:

    Forbidding people to raise the issue of self-defence in murder trials means the trials are inherently unfair. The only moral response to a kangaroo court is that you refuse to participate.

  • JinnBottle

    Right on, Ex Machina. Except in your astute warning against the “coming” of what was once legitimate mating ritual being considered by law as being the same as back-alley rape, you leave out “marital rape” – where such law is not coming – it’s here. Last time I checked, all but nine states in the US hold a husband taking his wife-with-a-headache just as punishable as a backalley rapist taking her at knifepoint – that is, up to 35 years imprisonment.

    And to any feminists who pooh-pooh this, saying that a conviction for 35 years for a husband in a ongoing marriage “would be very unlikely”, I say, “Then why did you *insist* on backalley sentencing for husbands?” When “marital rape” laws first came out, lawmakers in most states wanted to make an exception for married couples – “Ho NO!” shrieked the feminazis: “We want to put the fear of the Goddess in ALL heterosexual men!” And the lawmakers said, “Yes ma’am, sorry for the oversight.”

    Wonder what will happen when these hypersensitized females start coming forth with accusations on their *lesbian* husbands?

  • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

    Great discussion.

    But things are even worse then you state. Rape shield laws are just one of a dozen differences.

    Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step

    There are a dozen special rules that totally dismantled due process in rape court cases. Not just one. Systematically due process protections were dismantled. By the dozen, almost.

    And as a consequence of that, there are huge numbers of false rape accusations that actually pass. Because the word of a woman is enough if she looks credible.

    Are you aware that the president of France would be Strauss-Kahn, were it not for the unproven, most likely false accusations of Mrs. Diallo?

  • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

    we wrote a lot about false rape accusations. It looks like around 8% are clearly proven to be false, and over 50% are considered false, by police and law experts, but not false enough to be PROVEN

    http://human-stupidity.com/awareness/false-rape-accusations

    It is also interesting, that most false rape accusations are leveled by less educated and intelligent women. Our personal opinion is that more intelligent women don’t get caught that easily when lying.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      You don’t have to be intelligent to pull off a lie to a court system DESIGNED to convict at all cost.

  • http://none universe

    “He has surrendered reason for rote protective instinct that has no place in our criminal justice system where life and liberty depend on thoughtful analysis and an unfettered pursuit of the facts.

    He sees women as primarily victims, in need of special treatment, yet he offers not one shred of evidence of why that special treatment is necessary, effective, reasonable or consistent with Constitutional demands”.
    – There’s that darned ol’ patriarchy again.
    Once more deciding for women what is (or, what was once) fair, reasonable and balanced – a measure to the best of what is available at a given time, of what one thing truly is. Without blind bias, except for the (allowable) provable facts at hand.

    In a less balanced realm, the pursuit of all reasonable and provable evidences for matters all weigh heavily toward being met with denunciating cries of “Guilty (of the patriarchy) as charged” (Excepting instances of protecting lying or privileged sorry asses). Again, with no evidences of supporting such a claim. But, that, is a another debate for another time.

    This debate basis the rebuttal to the opening position has just gotten better.

  • scatmaster

    He sees women as primarily victims, in need of special treatment

    Webster called and is going to use your statement to define a white knight.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Of late I have been insanely occupied with personal matters that will be “processed” in a few days.

    I dip my wick in here and look at part 1 and 2 and Paul your riposte reeks of logic, precision and a compression of information that had me reading each line a few times to catch up.

    I got it now, and kudos to yourself and JTC for his being here for this. Thank you both, and I have to tell you it’s as a window opened and a fresh breeze coming in.

    At last. Real dialogue with no shaming, naming, blaming or screeching.

    You both come in at post number one. Good on you Paul and Johann the Cabbie.

  • Gamerp4

    Hats Off Prophet Paul!

    I am looking for the debate to cling on more, So where are the feminists debating Rape Trials here, Johann The Cabbie is an admissible foe but i think it would be lovely if a feminist or a minister of women rights jumps in :D but “they” never debate, they only cast doubts.

  • Carlos

    Cabbie has presented weak, and one-sided, arguments though he deserves credit for recognizing some of the fundamental flaws that already exist in our criminal justice system.

    Elam, as always, presents insightful and important points, presented clearly, effectively and directly tied to the Cabbie’s claims.

    In my mind, Paul has clearly won round one.

    I really hope to see Cabbie do better in his second response. I also disagree with Paul’s conclusions on this topic, but Cabbie is failing to make a strong case against his position; which is sad because he is failing to do the topic justice or force Paul to address the key issues.

  • Tim Legere

    Anyone remember the movie “12 Angry Men (1957)” with Henry Fonda? (One of my favorites).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_%281957_film%29

    One man on a jury votes against conviction in a murder trial. Slowly he proceeds to convince the others, on the evidence, to find the defendant innocent.

    In the movie it appeared that justice was done.

    However, in reality, if juries don’t have ALL the relevant evidence then how can even the most impartial jurors come to a fair verdict?

    In the end the juries simply “Don’t know, what they don’t know” and this could lead to an unjust decision.

  • Astrokid

    Skeptics and Atheist communities pride themselves as being evidence based, and attempt to overcome cognitive-biases when evaluating claims. Since JTC brings up bias, does he even acknowledge that we have innate biases that favour women, and that this can play a drastic role in the courts?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
    Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?
    Rudman LA, Goodwin SA.
    Source
    Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA. rudman@rci.rutgers.edu
    Abstract
    Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

    Even experienced judges have been noticing and saying this for over hundred years.
    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/06/womans-voice.html
    ►1916 – Agnes McHugh – Chicago attorney
    A man jury will not convict a woman murderer in this county, if the prosecutor is a man. I think this leniency may be traced to the chivalry latent in every man. The jurors see two or three big strong men sitting at the prosecutors’ table, and subconsciously feel that these fierce prosecutors are attacking the frail, pretty woman in the prisoner’s chair. Their instinct is to defend her. Perhaps their pity would not be stirred so profoundly if a woman was in the prosecutor’s chair. I believe the leniency of juries with feminine slayers is responsible for the wave of ‘affinity crimes’ sweeping Chicago. The woman criminal will receive justice only when there’s a woman in court to prosecute her. We demand justice for women — not maudlin sympathy or leniency.

    ►1922 – Judge Florence E. Allen – First Criminal Court Judge, in 1922 Elected to Ohio Supreme Court

    “Men have always sit on juries and men instinctively shrink from holding women strictly accountable for their misdeeds. Now that women sit on juries I expect the percentage of convictions in cases of women to be greater. Women are more clever than men in arousing sympathy. I had on a woman, a hardened criminal, stage a terrific fainting spell in my courtroom after the jury found her guilty. It took four men to carry her to jail. She continued having these spell, so long that I had to defer pronouncing sentence. Finally I sent her word that the longer she acted so, the longer she would be in jail. Within a few moments she sent up word that, she would be good and received her sentence meekly, with no trace of feeling

    • http://none universe

      Good find(s).

  • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

    Quote Mine Alert:

    “Being promiscuous is not evidence having any tendency to make any fact of consequence more or less probable.”

    I have to disagree, Paul. Being promiscuous does increase the likelihood of consent having been given freely. If you want to err on the side of not punishing the guilty, this is an important consideration.

    To use a less fraught analogy… let’s imagine there’s a bank that’s known to give loans rather freely.

    Let’s say one day a man walks into their loan office where he’s alone with the loan officer.

    Afterward the man says the loan officer offered him a loan and the loan officer says the man robbed him.

    Is the bank’s history of offering loans rather freely through their doors relevant or not?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Hate to do this, but, cite?

      • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

        It’s not something I can cite but the truth is that if a person commonly has promiscuous sex the likelihood that they consented to a sexual encounter is higher then a person who does not have promiscuous sex.

        That’s not to say they weren’t raped–that’s the unknown–however it’s more _probable_ that they consented relative to a non-promiscuous person.

        Since consent is the issue at the centre of a rape trial, isn’t that relevant?

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          Not saying I disagree with you, TB, just that if I were sitting on a bench I would not find the idea supportable enough to be sway me on relevance.

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA Greatest Hits

          A prostitute & a nun walk into a police station and both file rape accusations…..

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

            Which they are both welcome to do, especially as either person could be a victim of a rape.

            I should make myself clearer on this, evidently. I am not looking for reasons to exonerate accused rapists, other than the presence of reasonable doubt.

            I would vote to acquit the accused rapist of a nun as quickly as I would a prostitute, because the determinant is not their sexual history, but whether I can make a decision on reasonable doubt with confidence.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA Greatest Hits

            If he has consensual sex with the prostitute but then fails to pay her does that become rape or is a civil / fair trading issue?

        • sacha

          or perhaps,

          a woman who is *not* promiscuous would be *more* likely to accuse.

          Less experienced women seem to equate sex with love far more than those who are less puritanical.

          their consent is a “precious gift” for only the “most worthy” of men.

          they often need to believe that they would only consent to sex with the “perfect man” who has unconditional love and respect for them. Their “Knight in Shining Armour”.

          They are more likely create and believe a fantasy to rationalise spreading their legs.

          they are more likely to feel discarded and used after sex, when the reality of the situation is unavoidable, and their denial begins to fade.

          they are less likely to accept any responsibility for the way they feel, and cannot admit they deceived themselves.

          They are more likely to be ashamed, more likely to feel something was taken from them, and therefore they need someone besides themselves to blame.

          Accusing him of rape, makes her an unwilling victim, which causes her responsibility to simply disappear.

          It makes her feel better about herself.

          __________________________________________

          I’ve been a gender traitor my entire life.

          I’ve been around a long time

          what I know is simply unbelievable.

  • MrScruffles

    I have to that I disagree here with you Paul. Rape does happen, and the attitude of “it couldn’t possibly have been rape” is what I experienced when I was sexually assaulted by a woman a a minor.l

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA Greatest Hits

      Huh?

      • MrScruffles

        Okay, that made little sense, I must have been strung out or something at the time.

        The problem with taking the position:

        “The entire nullification argument hinges completely on the idea that obvious guilt is unattainable under the current system, specifically where “rape shield laws,” are concerned.
        To ascertain guilt, relevant evidence must be weighed. If the accurate weighing of that evidence is not possible because relevant facts have been intentionally omitted, it amounts to nothing more than a magic show; smoke and mirrors from which no true picture can be gleaned. In that scenario, a fair trial is not possible. It is as easy to understand as it is logical.”

        Is that while in many cases rape shield laws will be used to exclude evidence of consent, in some cases, rape still does occur. Just because relevant facts are often omitted doesn’t mean that they always are, and the fact that many rape trials are unfair to the alleged rapist does nothing to take away from the fact that in some other cases, a manipulative rapist can easily get a jury on her/his side.

        If you take the view that all rape trials are so unfair that the person accused couldn’t possibly have done it, you are merely becoming a mirror of the feminists who want alleged rapists to prove their innocence.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          I think you are missing the point. Surely, just because relevant facts have been omitted it does not prove that a rape did not occur. But you MUST understand that it is not the burden of the defendant to prove a rape did not happen. It is the burden of the state to prove a rape did happen, beyond a reasonable doubt.

          If exculpatory evidence has been withheld, that removes the possibility that reasonable doubt can be dependably ascertained.

          So I don’t take the view that rape trials are so unfair that the person accused could not possibly have done it. I take the view that the possibility that they did it is insufficient justification to convict them and send them to prison.

          I think you are missing the key concepts of presumed innocence and reasonable doubt.

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA Greatest Hits

          This makes as little or less sense. I’m sure you would get no argument from the likes of Jessica Valenti

          “Just because relevant facts are often omitted doesn’t mean that they always are, and the fact that many rape trials are unfair to the alleged rapist………………”

          “alleged” being the operative word.

          I would suggest you have a long think about that, it would seem that you really haven’t thought this through.

  • andybob

    If exculpatory evidence has been withheld, that removes the possibility that reasonable doubt can be dependably ascertained.

    You do not send any person to prison for any crime if you cannot dependably ascertain reasonable doubt. Not even for a day. This would never be permitted for any other crime.

    Feminists love to characterize the pro-nullification position as ‘legalizing rape’ in order to ensure that onlookers are too aghast to even consider that it is a deeply moral one. Removing a defendent’s fundamental rights and protections is an act of tyranny that must be opposed.

  • gateman

    Nobody has yet answered my question.
    If there is clear CCTV footage of the rape are you still going to vote not guilty?

    • cooterbee

      Yes. If any judge, lawyer, pig or public functionary is attached to any point in the controversy, then it is ipso facto corrupt and unreliable. Since all trials in the US tend to have one, more or all of the invalidating factors then any evidence is by extension tainted.

      In the cctv example…
      Trial is commenced by a judge — invalid
      The pigs obtained and cataloged the cctv footage — invalid.
      A lawyer asked that it be examined as evidence — invalid.
      Some tax swilling shill of the state acts as projectionist — invalid.

      At least four unassailable reasons to disregard not only the cctv but any other vile dog shit spewed by these agents of the lower regions.

      To have a crime you need a victim. With rape shield laws and only the assertion of proven liars, how do you even know there is one?

      As to the footage itself, it couldn’t be of a rape. Since everything that a prosecutor says is a bare assed lie and he is calling it rape, then it stands to reason that it depicts a consensual encounter.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Sorry, I missed this question till now. It is quite possible I could acquit with CCTV footage.

      If Marv Albert or Oliver Jovanovic had been captured on video, it may well have looked like rape, and brutal rape at that, but neither case was rape.

      Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is not as simple as a picture.

  • gateman

    Cooterbee, your sentiment seems to be that the entire world is conspiring against men.
    I don’t believe that is the case.

    Sure, a cultural blind-spot exists in regard to the suffering of men, and females are universally defined as victims whose word always trumps that of males.

    So in a case of he-says/she-says, the man will usually lose.
    In the case of subjective assessment of a case by police and the courts, the man will usually lose.
    In the media-eye, the man will be presumed guilty even before a trial commences.

    So in these circumstances, where there is at least some scope for a corrupted process and hence instilled doubt, I have no issue with No Means Nullify Not Guilty.

    But when the evidence is objective, overwhelming and irrefutable (eg clear CCTV) you have to convict. In all good conscience, I see no other choice. To do otherwise marks you as an ideologically-driven extremist. It’s like grabbing the swinging pendulum and smashing back against a wall. Not a solution that’s going to gain favor. A more moderate stance will open the public ear to what MRMs have to say instead of being hated or ignored.

    • Malestrom

      While I do not neccessarily disagree with your point about cctv footage and objective, irrefutable evidence, the idea that ”A more moderate stance will open the public ear to what MRMs have to say instead of being hated or ignored.” is simply preposterous and has been proven to be wrong time and time again. If at this late stage you still cling to the idea that if we only make our demands reasonable enough or put them across logically and fairly enough we will be listened to then you are simply a fool. MRAs have been making cast-iron, logically irrefutable cases against various forms of male mistreatment for decades and it has got us precisely nowhere, this isnt going to be solved by civil discussion just because we are objectively and obviously correct in basically everything we say.

    • Astrokid

      What if the CCTV coverage was from a case like this?
      ONE RAPE, PLEASE (TO GO)
      I PAID A MALE WHORE TO RAPE ME BECAUSE I WANTED TO
      Louis CK on Rape Fantasy..how this is not as rare as you may think

      The argument from our side is that rape shield laws are being used in such a way that you dont know what aspect of the story/accuser is being suppressed.

      IIRC, the Chet Evans case in England had elements where CCTV footage (or some similar camera recording) was used to convince people that she was not in a state to give consent to the second man..but was fine with the first man. And the second man was sent to 5 years in prison. The narrative is woven as the prosecutors wish.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      The OJ Simpson trial SHOULD have been the perfect example of jury nullification, but instead it devolved into a white people vs. black people division, and God only knows how many innocent people have gone to prison because OJ Simpson didn’t.

      The evidence against him was clear and compelling, yet there was that nasty little matter of police tampering with the evidence.

      The majority of white people felt THAT should have been overlooked since he as “obviously guilty”, the majority of black people did not.

      Instead of lessons learned, illegal “double jeopardy” tactics were used to appease the torches and pitchfork crowd…and convicting people on even more flimsy evidence has become the norm.

      …and that’s gotta stop.

      As long as the accused are named publicly while the accuser is not, as long as rape shield laws exist, as long as “guilty because you can’t prove you are innocent” prevails – jury nullification MUST be employed.

  • gateman

    You could always dig up some bizarre exception.
    I would assume the male whore involved would be wise enough to get the guy to sign a document or record video of consent.

    • Astrokid

      I dug up the bizarre exception in response to the bizarre exception you dug up :-) just to show that it is important to get at all the facts relevant to the case.. which is all we want.
      Your worry seems to be that “hey.. there is this case where its a slam dunk. why should we jury nullify in this case”? I am saying “I can never be sure given the current process”. And until the system is rectified, I will live with jury nullify and a modified version of Blackstone’s formulation “It is better to let 10 guilty persons escape than 10 innocent suffer” (given that allegations and convictions on false rape seem so high).

      In criminal law, Blackstone’s formulation (also known as Blackstone’s ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

  • Astrokid

    Well well well.. what do we have Mr Johann The Cabbie do now (as of Saturday Oct 6). Over at his site, he has a post (Part III) that concludes as quoted below. Has he submitted it to you Paul? So much for the integrity of our opponents.

    Anecdotes are not evidence. In a country of over 300 million people, some will be screwed by society. Some innocents will suffer in the criminal injustice system. Every travesty is a tragedy, but Elam’s listing of a few of those travesties is not evidence of an endemic problem. Elam needs to provide some actual data to prove that rape shield laws are a systemic, endemic problem.
    Until then, I will continue to view him as one of the Times Square nutters.

    • andybob

      I knew it.

      Johann the Cabbie’s opening effort was so weak and disjointed that he barely made any points at all. In contrast, Dr Elam’s rebuttal was logical, succinct and pretty much irrefutable. Mr Cabbie had to retreat because there was nowhere else for him to go.

      It is a shame that he is claiming that Dr Elam needed to “provide some actual data to prove that rape shield laws are a systemic, endemic problem.” He knows that no such data exists because it is impossible to collect. No data is necessary to demonstrate that you cannot dependably ascertain reasonable doubt without exculpatory evidence – only common sense.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Mr. Johann needs a refresher course on basic Constitutional Principles…it’s the STATE’S duty to prove guilt, not the accused’s duty to prove innocence.

        The STATE has the power to gather such facts – not some poor slob falsely accused. The STATE has the ability to gather such information – not the innocent men rotting in prison.

        Let’s face it – accomodating victims is all well and good, BUT – the person accusing is about to end the natural course of someone’s life. Until the day he dies.

        You bet your ASS some hard questions need to be asked, and some close scrutiny needs to be done. If the accuser is too “traumatized” or delicate to deal with stepping up and telling the truth, the WHOLE truth, an nothing BUT the truth – they don’t have any business being given the power to end another person’s life.

        I’m speaking as someone who has held a sobbing victim in my arms while she BEGGED the investigator to be polygraphed, BEGGED to be believed – while the shithead ended up getting away with it anyway because “We NEVER polygraph victims”.

        How heartless can I be to KNOW an actual rapist got away with it, and still support Jury Nullification?

        Because the victim was afforded her Constitutional rights to the “nth” degree.

        As harsh and bitter a pill that was to swallow, there was NO impropriety, there was NO bias against her, HER rights were fully respected.

  • gateman

    Astrokid, my position is that the standard of proof required to find guilty should be raised from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “almost certainly”. This will counter the corruption and bias against men in our legal system when it comes to sexual assault charges.

    Blackstone :
    “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

    My stance:
    “Better that 100 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

    Your (and AVfM) stance :
    “Better that all guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.

    • Astrokid

      my position is that the standard of proof required to find guilty should be raised from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “almost certainly”.
      This is just getting ridiculous. I dont know if you understand the levels of evidence needed at various stages of the legal process. You are talking about changing something thats the very foundation of the legal process, which has evolved over hundreds (if not thousands) of years of experience. The only level above ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is something called ‘Beyond the shadow of a doubt’.

      Non-legal standards
      Beyond the shadow of a doubt is the strictest standard of proof. It requires that there be no doubt as to the issue. Widely considered an impossible standard, a situation stemming from the nature of knowledge itself, it is valuable to mention only as a comment on the fact that evidence in a court never need (nor can) reach this level. This phrase, has, nonetheless, come to be associated with the law in popular culture.

      This will counter the corruption and bias against men in our legal system when it comes to sexual assault charges.
      Yeah.. Good luck changing the foundation of the system.. I am sure the executive, legislature and judiciary will co-operate with you in making this happen. You seem to fail to understand that what AVfM is proposing is a less earth-shaking, more pragmatic interim measure that can be adopted by some citizens to force the Govt into fixing its rape-related laws.

  • gateman

    “my position is that the standard of proof required to find guilty should be raised from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “almost certainly”.

    Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I’m talking about the burden of proof for a AVfM member on a jury, not about officially changing the foundation of the system.

    And by “interim measure”, how long will it take until you are satisfied that all bias against men has been removed from the legal system? 5 years? 25 years?

  • cooterbee

    [i]And by “interim measure”, how long will it take until you are satisfied that all bias against men has been removed from the legal system? 5 years? 25 years?[/i]

    I think I would be satisfied with a blanket “not guilty” for every male defendant until the heat death of the universe. Any thing less would be conceding that court systems have some sort of viable legitimacy that can be reconstructed. I won’t ever concede that until all jails and prisons are empty and all persons who have ever had any affirmative association with law enforcement have been severely punished

  • Jay

    One of the best responses I’ve ever read. Yet the media will look at these articles and continue with their completely false and untrue headlines “avfm supports the rape of women”. Incredible. avfm supports fair legal process.