On Jury Nullification and Rape

Editorial note: in the early years of A Voice for Men, when it first started, deliberately inflammatory articles were often written in order to shake people out of their comfortable sensibilities and confront brutal realities they just did not want to see. This tiny handful of old articles is cited time and again by dishonest critics of the Men’s Human Rights Movement’s literature as “typical” and the sort of thing you see “all the time” or in a “steady stream,” when, rather tellingly, these are almost always articles at least a few years old and actually rather unusual.

In this particularly controversial essay, Paul Elam asks a provocative question: if you truly believe you cannot trust cops, prosecutors, or judges to make sure you get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when you know indeed they may outright fabricate evidence as well as hide evidence that would set an innocent man free, how can you in good conscience trust anything you see in a court of law, no matter how damning the evidence might look? It is an uncomfortable question, but it is rather telling that in the years since this was written, almost everyone continues to bring up this old article without ever addressing the substance of it, but instead merely angrily and dishonestly characterizing it as “Paul Elam says men should get away with rape,” when what he actually says could not be more clear: cops, prosecutors, and judges lie, and until the system changes, how can you in good conscience convict a man of practically anything? Until the system is reformed, it would seem to us that a growing number of people are going to come to the same uncomfortable conclusions Elam does here, and although not everyone in the Men’s Human Rights movement endorses this view, it is telling that most reactions to it are emotional and not logical, and what most frequently happens is the whole thing is misinterpreted as “rape apologia’ rather than what it is: an indictment of a corrupt criminal justice system.

It is also telling that, once again, this unusual article, not typical at all of AVfM content, is still years later regularly cited as “typical” for the MHRM, instead of what it was: a provocative piece meant to force people to think about things they don’t like thinking about. Agree or disagree with Elam’s conclusions as you please, but ask yourself a question: do you really consider this provocative thesis to be unworthy of even exploring? And if so, why do you think that? And in any case, why would anyone uphold this as a “typical” argument that you see a ‘”steady stream” of in this publication, when in point of fact it is one old article, with a small handful of followups, that keeps getting cited over and over again as if it’s representative, rather than unusual, for this site.

The compete unaltered original article appears below. –Eds


 I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. ~ Thomas Jefferson


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 persons life.

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.

Regardless of the personal repugnance we may feel for any crime, including rape, we must remember that without an overarching concern for justice, laws invariably become nothing more than the instruments of tyranny.

Unfortunately, where it concerns the crime of rape, that tyranny has been upon us for quite some time. With the epidemic of false rape reports, poor and sometimes corrupt police work, prosecutors blind with power and ambition, and an unconscionable but successful feminist campaign to define rape in the most ludicrous terms possible, we have created a monstrous system of abject injustice, with rights of the accused routinely ground to dust in the name of convictions, and to our national disgrace, in the name of sexual politics.

Whereas feminists lament what they call a rape culture in today’s society, we actually live in a false rape culture, and it is in growth mode.

It seems every day there is a news story about a man freed from prison after being falsely convicted. Just recently, two Texas men were released from prison who had been falsely convicted of rape in separate incidents. One had served 27 years, the other 19.

That’s two men, at the same time, not just from the same state, but from the same city.

Both men were from Houston, and their stories are being repeated around the country, revealing a somber reality that continues unimpeded.

There are a lot of innocent men in prison for the crime of rape. And much worse, our capacity to identify and exonerate them is overwhelmingly exceeded by an unjust legal system that continues to put them there.

The Innocence Project, which seeks to free individuals falsely convicted and incarcerated has overwhelmingly had the most success with the crime of rape. In a review of the 251 cases in which they have succeeded in freeing innocent men, nearly all of them were for sex crimes, and their average length of incarceration was 17 years. Most of those were freed only because they were lucky enough to have DNA evidence that could be evaluated. Many others are not so fortunate.

While the laudable efforts to free the innocent must continue, it is clearly time to seek to understand how we got to such rampant injustice, and what we can do about it. And that begins with a candid examination of what happens in a rape prosecution, from beginning to end.

It all starts with a police report; a compliant filed by a private citizen alleging that a rape has occurred.

And that is where we encounter the first of many problems. As the facts would have it, the chances of a rape accusation being true are barely more predicable than the toss of a coin.

Former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman once opined, “For sixteen years I was a kick ass prosecutor who made the most of my reputation [by] vigorously prosecuting rapists. I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations made to the Denver Police Department. A command officer in the Denver Police Sex Assault Unity recently told me he put the false rape numbers at approximately 45%.”

Silverman’s experience is not isolated.

Just recently the Orlando Police Department made the public proclamation that false rape allegations have become an epidemic. Last June the Baltimore Sun reported that police claimed that more than 30% of rape accusations were deemed unfounded. Louisville and Pittsburgh reported similar numbers.

A longitudinal study conducted by Professor Eugene Kanin concluded that over a period of nine years, 41% of rape allegations studied were fraudulent, concocted by the alleged victim to either create an alibi, seek attention and sympathy, or to seek revenge.

And there is the McDowell Study cited by Warren Farrell in The Myth of Male Power, which concluded that of 1,218 reported rapes on Air Force Bases around the world, 45% were discovered to be fraudulent.

This 45% of cases are not ones that could not be proven or for which a suspect could not be apprehended, but cases that were proven to be fabricated by the person filing the complaint. 27% of the false claims were admitted after the accusers were asked to take a polygraph test, or having just failed one.

Keep in mind though, that these are good results. All these false claims were discovered by diligent investigators who were seeking the truth. But what happens when police are not so careful?

33 year old William McCaffery spent four years in a New York prison because a false rape claim from Biurny Perguero Gonzalez, who alleged McCaffery had raped her after she accepted a ride from him when she was intoxicated.

The truth was that her acceptance of the ride from McCaffery had angered her girlfriends, and she made up the rape story to turn their harsh feelings into sympathy.

When questioned about the events, McCaffery cast blame at the officials, including “the arresting officers, the prosecution.”

Everyone, he said, “wanted to believe the lie. The ADA (assistant district attorney) first and foremost.”

And that is the status quo. While arrests for making false allegations appear to be on the increase, the norm has been to treat the criminality of the reports as a mental health issue. Crystal Gayle Mangum, the notorious liar in the Duke Rape Case, was referred to counseling, as was Danmell Ndonye, the woman who falsely accused five men in the Hofstra Case of gang raping her in a men’s room at a school dorm.

The police themselves add to the problem. In the Orlando, Florida story, the NBC News affiliate reported statements by police saying that they do not want to arrest these women. In fact, they only seemed to notice the problem when it got so out of hand that it was causing a stress on resources within the police department. They also noted the deleterious effect on the “real victims” of rape, but did not utter a word about the men at risk for being wrongly placed behind bars as a result of the allegations.

This type of police complicity in the false rape culture, by ignoring and enabling this criminal activity, is a cornerstone in the current crisis. And while they now publicly bemoan the false allegations, they show no signs of recognizing that the epidemic they face is partly of their own making; that it is, quite literally, the chickens coming home to roost.

And where the police leave off, the prosecutors go into overdrive.

Mike Nifong, the supposedly “rogue” prosecutor who pursued the Duke rape suspects long after there was abundant evidence to exonerate them, has become the poster boy for false rape culture.

Nifong, while getting massive amounts of coverage from the media, was hardly the exception, and not even the most extreme. Mary N. Kellett, a prosecutor in Bar Harbor Maine, is making a career of rape cases. She is averaging one indictment a week, from a population of less than 60,000.

Her most notable case so far has been against Vladek Filler, who was convicted of raping his wife, with no forensic evidence, and only her word that the rape occurred. The conviction was overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct and Kellett is appealing the case to the Maine Supreme Court.

The chronology of this story is lengthy and the details somewhat complicated, but have a look, and a good listen, to the following recording of police interaction with Filler’s wife.

This is what passes for a credible complainant in a modern rape case. This is the compelling reason to put a man behind bars. Kellett is clearly a prosecutor out of control, but she is nonetheless still serving as an Assistant District Attorney, and rumor has it she has ambitions to run for the District Attorney when her boss retires.

The Innocence Project gives a detailed breakdown of the factors that play into bad convictions, both from police and prosecutors. Key factors range from coercion of defendants, to knowing use of false testimony (suborning perjury) and a host of other unscrupulous tactics.

Here first, is the breakdown for police actions, representing nearly half of the first 74 people exonerated by The Innocence Project.

And now the breakdown for prosecutorial misconduct on the same group.

In light of what is going on in our legal system, Kellett is no more a “rogue” than Mike Nifong.

It is the system that is rogue; Kellett and Nifong were/are just an unusually visible parts of it.

Even given the rampancy of false allegations and misconduct by law enforcement and prosecutors, this is still not justification for looking the other way when a crime is committed. Liars, whether shedding fake tears or wearing uniforms or arguing before a jury, cannot be allowed to so subvert justice that we abandon the law itself. For it is the law, when justly and rightly applied, that gives us the checks and balances to overcome those who abuse the system.

Enter, however, Rape Shield Laws; the final nail in the coffin that holds the remains of our presumed innocence and right to a fair trial.

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.

It would seem reasonable, until you go back and review the information provided by The Innocence Project and consider what this type of system does with these kinds of laws.

In 1998, Oliver Jovanovic was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life for kidnapping, sexual abuse and assault. It was alleged that he held 20 year old Jamie Rzucek in his apartment against her will for 20 hours while he brutalized her with sadomasochistic torture. Rzucek testified against him for six days in court.

During the trial, the judge, under the rape shield statutes, refused to allow email communications that she sent to Jovanovic after the incident, among other evidence.

Later an appeals court found that the judge had misapplied the laws and the conviction was overturned, but only after Jovanovich had served 20 months in prison, during which he was attacked and injured by another inmate.

The email from the woman that was excluded? In it, she described herself as “quite bruised mentally and physically, but never so happy to be alive.” And in another communication, she said, “the taste was so overpoweringly delicious, and at the same time, quite nauseating.”

It was also revealed that in the early part of the relationship the woman had expressed an interest in snuff films (films where actors are actually killed or death is simulated in a fashion as to appear real, for sexual stimulation).

Despite the conviction being overturned, and the prosecutor, Linda Fairnsteen, knowing about the exculpatory evidence, she still wanted to charge and retry Jovanovic. It was only when Rzucek, having to face the certainty of questions about her emails, refused to testify a second time that the case collapsed and was dismissed with prejudice.

In 2004, Jovanovic sued the city of New York, seeking $10 million for damage to his life and reputation, also asserting that the prosecution had prior knowledge of other false rape allegations made by the woman. An attempt by the city to have the case dismissed was denied by a federal judge.

A case grabbing even more headlines was that of Marv Albert, a formerly legendary sportscaster who pled guilty to assault stemming from an allegation made by his then girlfriend, Vanessa Perhatch. In a story that put Alpert’s admittedly unusual sexual proclivities in living rooms across the world, he was accused of sadistically biting Perhatch during a sexual assault.

Withheld from evidence by rape shield laws was Perhatch’s history of aggressive and vindictive actions against men who left her (Albert was about to be married) and the testimony of a former boyfriend that claimed that biting was a normal part of sex play for the woman.

Under the circumstances, Albert was compelled to either plead to a lesser charge or face very severe penalties at the conclusion of a trial. He opted for the former, was completely disgraced in the public eye, and in the process became nearly unemployable.

He was last seen playing a sidekick role on the television show Marriage Ref.

There are many more of these cases that are known, and undoubtedly many more that will never see the light of day. They are part an parcel to a system gone woefully astray, even if the original intent had some merit.

And there are more problems with many practices in courts during the course of a sexual assault trial. In some cases, the court will erect a partition; a screen that separates the alleged victim from the defendant, the logic being that the sight of the him will cause traumatic stress.

It has the prejudicial power of putting a sniper in the room with a gun trained on the defendant in case he decides to jump up and rape the plaintiff during proceedings.

It is clearly the presumption of guilt, legitimized by the same court that is supposed to protect the presumption of innocence.

These are all problems in need of a solution. And solutions are not forthcoming.

It would seem clear that reforming or eliminating these laws is in order. But neither is likely to happen. Imagine the professional life expectancy of a politician that tries to address this in the legislative sense. He, or even she, would be immediately branded as pro rape by feminist academics throughout the western world, and the pro-feminist machine we call the mainstream media would assassinate their image till they could not get a job alongside Marv Alpert.

Police are not going to help. They are a fundamental part of the problem.

Prosecutors? Who, Mary Kellett?

No. This is a problem so intractable and entrenched in the culture that any attempt to address it through conventional means is certain to result in failure and vilification.

So, what do you do within the system when the system is the problem? What do you do when laws that purport to serve the cause of justice can be so easily wielded as an instrument for revenge or the next rung up on a political ladder? And when there is all but impunity for those that do so?

What do you do when courts practice tyranny and innocent men are ground to dust along with their rights?

What do you do when these concerns are dismissed out of political expedience by a system that has built, with the majority of public support, a brick wall around its own systematic malfeasance?

Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. And there is no better example of extreme than in the way this false rape culture has run common decency and sacred rights into the ground.

One possible extreme is jury nullification. When a law or system of applying laws becomes the source of injustice, jury nullification has long been a viable option.

Nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him. It is legal and completely moral depending on the application.

For instance, a 1930’s white jury finding a white male not guilty of murdering a black man despite a mountain of evidence that points to a conviction would be an immoral application of this principle.

But on the other hand, what would you think if a cancer patient were on trial for possession of marijuana, and you knew that drug was the only resource they had to help them tolerate their chemotherapy? Would it be immoral to ignore the law and let them go?

The law is clear. Marijuana is illegal. If they were in possession of it they were breaking the law. Should we not then send them to jail?

Now, I am not comparing an accused rapist to a cancer patient, but simply pointing to the fact that when the legal system fails to seek justice, when it is, in fact, undermining the very concept of justice, juries are equipped to put a stop to it.

Now what if you are on a jury in a rape trial, and you know that it is highly likely that evidence that may be exculpatory has been deliberately hidden from you? What if you think there is a genuine possibility that the trial is more about the career of the prosecutor than about the pursuit of justice?

What if you know you cannot trust what you are seeing?

In your mind, here and now, I challenge you to ask yourself. What kind of impact do the answers to these questions have on the concept of reasonable doubt?

And I would argue that if you are aware of how the system actually works, then you must be aware that reasonable doubt cannot be ascertained in a rape trial. There is just not enough trustworthy information in many cases to make that judgment, and unfortunately as a juror, you are not able to discern if the case you are seeing is one of the ones that has been tainted.

There are perhaps exceptions to this. If the state is able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that breaking and entering, an abduction, the use of a weapon or extensive bodily harm occurred during the alleged attack, then a guilty vote may be justified.

But I say perhaps for a reason. Remember the Jovanovic case? He was convicted of kidnapping with the other charges. It never happened. The Albert case as well. There were “injuries” involved there. All consensual. And he was convicted anyway. So even with these possible exceptions the state could be running a political circus instead of a legitimate trial.

Now, as to nullification, it is easy to conclude that the chances of getting 12 people on a jury knowledgeable enough of the system to see it for the railroad that it is, are highly unlikely. Actual acquittal is out of the question.

Never happen.

But in most cases it still takes unanimity to convict. It ususally takes unanimity to convict on retrial as well. It takes only one to bring the system down, even if only for the time being. And it is a system so tainted that it quite clearly needs to be corrected- for the sake of justice.

There are people that will react to this with outrage and indignation. “How could you?” they will demand, “How could you let someone walk when the evidence shows you that they have committed something as heinous as rape?!”

It is understandable. These are horrendously difficult decisions that test the moral bearings of any human being.

But often the same people who would react to the idea of nullification with such outratge, after reading account after account of innocent men being imprisoned, raped, tortured; destroyed, killed, on lies, will reveal the utter depravity of their indifference by refusing to face what is happening or acknowledge that it even matters.

Their idea of justice is just as corrupt and selfish as the false accuser. They want only punishment, and only where it suits them, at any cost. They care less for the rights of men than Mike Niphong, and their objections should be discarded as quickly as they are raised.

Jury nullification may not be the appropriate route to take in a rape trial, but until society learns to approach this problem without pitchforks and torches, it must be an option that is on the table.

  • scatmster

    OJ walked because of a predominately black jury who did not care if he was innocent or not. I believe that men should nullify a jury whether the perp is guilty or not. Why? To prove a point!!

    • Bellator Nam Parilitas

      I understand the frustration here. However if we were to do what you say then all we would be doing is playing into the hands of the feminist agenda. There largest selling point is that all men are inherently evil and as such should be removed from any position of power. If we were to do what you say then we would only be proving their point.

      I am afraid that due to a lack of foresight by the majority of men over the past 30-50 years, we have now been backed into a corner by popular stereo-typing.

      i.e. if we speak out against these “perceived” injustices, then we are bigots and pro-rape. Any politician that attempts to make a difference in this will be labelled a masoginist and removed from office. Any man that takes matters into his own hands and attempts to rectify the situation through force then he will be doing nothing more than playing into the hands of the feminist agenda.

      So you see without a major overhaul of the social paradigm that surrounds the males of this planet, we are pretty well screwed. We can continue to non-violently protest the injustices that are being afflicted on all males. However those of us that do are seen as nothing more than fringe society crackpots.

      • tyciol

        I suspect scatmaster may have been speaking satyrically…

  • Bernard Chapin

    Excellent article. “False rape culture…” excellent description of the status quo. I’d nullify a lot of what they’re doing.

  • manwomanmyth

    A very impressive argument, here. Very thought provoking.

    • Terry

      @MWM, agreed!

      To the feminist jack-hole that feels the need to thumb down every first few comments on every new article on AVFM; you are nothing but a coward who refuses to engage in any debate whatsoever.

  • Mark

    “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 persons life.”

    Paul, with all due respect, I don’t think you’re doing a service to the men’s rights movement by buying into the “rape is worse than murder” myth. This kind of thinking is what fuels rape hysteria and causes innocent men to be sentenced to decades in prison. While rape is no doubt a criminal act, there is no reason it should be punished with more severity than a regular assault.

    Pretty much any crime in which an unarmed person is attacked with a weapon or is overpowered reduces the person to a helpless state. The fact that rape is a crime that is committed primarily against women doesn’t make it worse than crimes that are commonly committed against men. To think otherwise is to buy into feminist dogma.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    @ Mark

    I don’t understand how you could have inferred that I was buying into the idea that “rape is worse than murder,” so I think that you are reaching too far on that one.

    And that is reinforced by your inference that this piece could in some way be fueling rape hysteria. It takes, in my opinion, a leap in logic so broad and unreasonable to go in that direction that I am almost at a loss on how to respond to it.

    Let me ask you something though, and please answer honestly. If you had the choice between being beaten up or held down and sodomized, which would it be? And regardless of your answer, I’ll wager most men would opt for the ass whipping.

    Eincrou made some very good comments to the original piece on jury nullification regarding the factors of procreation that play into the crime of rape, and how this sets that crime aside from others. I think they are worth a read.

    But still, if you read this piece and concluded it was supportive of feminist dogma, all I can say is WOW!

    Fucking WOW!

    • Benjamin


      Hola, again.

      Paul, this response is to make a note to you, that your examples to Mark are simply incompatible.

      There is no comparison, or rather there is 90+% contrast and only 10-% comparison, between a woman being taken naturally, and a man’s being sodomized.

      These are simply not the same thing, and the question you asked him, “If you had the choice between being beaten up or held down and sodomized, which would it be?”, is not pointing us to any useful information.

      To avoid being sodomized is one of the prime directives (if you will excuse the phrase) to being a man. IMO, and from my observations, a man is put into an un-righteous and unnatural position of submission to other men who are trying to dominate him gruesomely. This particular crime, especially if allowed to spread throughout a society and become entrenched, will quickly lead to the absolute denigration and dissolution of the family, the extended family, and “civil” society. (Please see this element and its terrible results in prison societies, for reference.)

      In contrast, a woman who is similarly taken in the “exit”, has a very unpleasant time, I don’t much doubt. But, no danger is created to her place in society nor to the family itself nor to society itself, by that. In such a case, she is *rather roughly* put into her natural position of being submitted to a man. (Surprisingly, I actually worked with a man whose Granddad advised him to use this strategy with his wife! Granddad had, for decades, whenever his wife became altogether too b!tchy with guests or whomever, taken her upstairs and initiated sex with her via “an alternate route”, if you will. Granddad actually is reported to have said, and I am not making this up[!], that his wife would come back downstairs basically purring and back to being just as sweet as you would like, again.)

      It may not be any fun, OK! But it is a far cry from what you asked Mark, about a man’s being sodomized.

      To ask about the forced taking of a woman in the more natural mode, though, is WAY far away from the topic of the forced sodomy of a man! Those two are not even in the same ballpark.

      I’m not bickering with you, sir… I am just trying to bring that errant tangential shot you sent off, back into bounds again.

      Lastly, the question you posed to Mark… let’s pose a similar question to a woman who is thinking straight (not our crazy pampered American women). Do you remember the testimony you posted about the female American POW, in Iraq? She decided not to pay much mind to troubles if they didn’t lengthen her captivity nor inflict life-threatening injuries.

      So, from a very sober-minded woman (at the time) we have the answer to your question already. She would immediately prefer that an Iraqi guard come to her cell and have conjugal relations with her, against her will, rather than to beat her up, also against her will. Beating her could easily lead to her injury… and injuries often lead to death in this world. Enjoying her sexually, though, was not liable to threaten her life at all.

      I hope that you’re very well, Paul.

      • Bellator Nam Parilitas


        I do see the logic that you are using to make your points. However from a moral and ethical stand point I can not completely agree with your comments.

        We are not women, so there for in the attempt to understand the emotional and physical damage that can be inflicted through rape or sodomy, it is necessary to make the small empathetic leap from a woman being sodomized or raped to a man being sodomized or raped. Since I can not possibly “know” exactly what it is like to be raped as a women, this becomes necassary.

        “(Surprisingly, I actually worked with a man whose Granddad advised him to use this strategy with his wife! Granddad had, for decades, whenever his wife became altogether too b!tchy with guests or whomever, taken her upstairs and initiated sex with her via “an alternate route”, if you will. Granddad actually is reported to have said, and I am not making this up[!], that his wife would come back downstairs basically purring and back to being just as sweet as you would like, again.)”

        You used this as an example to lay the foundation for insinuating that rape or forced sodomy is not nearly as bad as what they make it out to be (Accepted point) but where you went wrong was to make the insinuation that this is an acceptable tool in correcting possible errors in how your significant other is acting.

        Not only is this a horrible train of thought but it is playing directly into the feminist agenda. They have used this sort of scenario as a banner to rally around since the beggining of their movement. So by suggesting that this as an acceptable tool in a married man’s arsenal you are not only adding fuel to the fire of femism but I would go so far as to say that you are adding credence to the though process that all mens rights activists are mearly masoginists that cannot bring themselves to change.

    • Chris K.

      Sorry Paul but he’s right about you buying the argument that rape is worse than death . You said so in your own way even if you don’t recognize it .

      By suggesting that rape was a crime that probably did the most to get people worked up and infuriated , you essentially endorse the notion that it’s a crime worse than , say , murder for the victim .

      Now look , I realize that in a way , you’re right . Rape DOES get people worked up far more than it should . However , you used the word “most” in describing how people negatively react to rape . You THEN went on to say that people SHOULD have the MOST visceral reaction to the crime . I mean , you can tell me that I read it wrong but if that’s not what you meant then you said it wrong .

      Secondly , I have no choice but to disagree with the premise of the article . It’s not that I have some lack of hatred for feminists and can’t recognize injustice when I’m surrounded by it . No , the problem is that I can’t accept an either/or situation such as that . We acknowledge that not ALL men convicted of rape actually are guilty but , by the same logic , we must recognize that some sizable portion of them ARE .

      The truth is that I could care less about how many women are raped . I used to care and maybe some day I will again but since women have made it a habit recently to have every man they dislike put on some registry after serving time for “offending” the bitch , I could care less about the health and well-being of ALL Western women . They treat us like shit despite all we’ve done and suffered for their benefit so fuck ’em . No , my problem is that men who violently rape are almost certainly capable of much more than that and sooner or later they’re bound to get innocent men hurt .

      • tyciol

        >By suggesting that rape was a crime that probably did the most to get people worked up and infuriated , you essentially endorse the notion that it’s a crime worse than , say , murder for the victim .

        That’s a load of strawmanning shit. Acknowledging that people often get more riled up about rape than murder is simply fucking realism because we recognize these attitudes in others.

        Speaking of others’ attitudes does not mean adopting them as our own.

  • http://menaregood.com Tom

    This is a landmark article. It pulls together the many strings of minsandry that make the rope on which men are hung in our present day fascist system. I don’t think I have ever seen an article that covers these different aspects and pulls them all together. Very well done.

    Brace yourself for repetitive chorus’s of emotional reactions and personal attacks. That’s literally all they have to defend the defenseless. This of course is solidified since the default “common knowledge” spouted by most all people is based on the expendability of males and the knee-jerk unconscious reaction from most all to protect women at all costs. If things are truly fair for men and relatively equal they have no standing. Thus the personal attacks and the emotional flailing.

  • Pingback: On Jury Nullification and Rape()

  • Snark

    This makes sense. There are a far higher number of people who will automatically find an accused man guilty than the converse. Plus, as Paul says, evidence in the accused’s favour is intentionally withheld.

    What we do is undermine the system by refusing to play by their rules. Until the justice system actually delivers justice and not undeserved punishment against innocent men.

  • Oliver

    Paul, I also read that part as supporting the ”rape is worse than murder” argument, that is just how it comes across.

    And I think you’re underestimating how viscious some beatings can be nowadays, if I knew in advance how bad an ass kicking was going to be, I’d choose the ass kicking over being raped. However, what if it’s going to be really bad? What if someone is going to stomp on your head and give you brain damage? Or kick your skull like a football and damage your vision permanently? In that case I’d definately rather be raped. Head kicking and stomping seems to be a more and more common part of assaults these days, especially by feral youths.

    Also, being raped is almost by definiton worse for a man since it neccessarily involves sodomy, a more burtal and physically painful act and also more likely to do lasting damage or transmit dangerous STDs.

  • Mark

    Another example of how perverted the justice system is. Here is a woman who was caught in a SECOND false rape accusation, but was spared jail because she was pregnant.


  • An Non
  • Mark

    Paul, trying to equate homosexual rape with heterosexual rape is really asinine. There really isn’t much to compare. There’s a lot more shame and humiliation involved with a man being buggered by a man than there is with a man forcing sex on a woman. Gay sex isn’t natural, and the chances of being infected with AIDS or some other STD is much higher when homosexual rape is committed.

    That be said, if I knew that my choice was to be sodomized or beaten to the point of near death, I would choose to be sodomized. Honestly, as revolting as it would be, I’d rather be anally violated then to live the rest of my life as a cripple or with permanent brain damage. Regardless of whether you consider me a liar or gay for saying that, that is my honest answer.

    • Bellator Nam Parilitas


      Paul is not willing to reply to your question but I for some reason cannot help it.

      In order to be able to attempt to understand the possible physical, mental and emotional consequences of a woman being raped or sodomised then one must use “Empathy”.

      em·pa·thy [em-puh-thee] Show IPA

      1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

      2. The imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

      Now that we have defined the word perhaps you can already see where it is I am going. In the instance that you can not I will make my point.

      In order to empathize with a woman being raped or sodomized it is necessary for a man to make the logical jump to a man being raped or sodomized. If you would preffer to use the scenario of a woman using a prosthetic falus on you, feel free. Now, perhaps you can see the logic behind the examples Paul was using.

      Now, on to another point. You made the insinuation that rape is akin to normal sex. You are utterly and horribly wrong in this. Concensual sex between a man and a woman is something that is thoroughly enjoyable by both parties. However when you remove one of the participants free will by forcing sex on them not only are you violating their rights but you are possibly destroying their ability to enjoy sex in the future.

      There is far more emotional and mental damage to rape or sodomy of any sort than you seem to be capable of comprehending. Perhaps this entire comment was a waste of my time. Only time will tell.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    @ Mark

    And rape is “normal” sex? Forget the question. To each his own. Your comments are ridiculous- too ridiculous to address further.

    • Bellator Nam Parilitas

      perhaps I should have listened to your comment. I just couldn’t let such ignorance go without some logical response. I might have just ignited a comment war though…lol

      • Paul Elam

        Luckily it is an old thread, but your comment comes at a fortuitous time. This article is about the resurrected with some additions this weekend.

        • Bellator Nam Parilitas

          Great, I can’t wait to read it!

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    @ Oliver,

    One of the things I found out a long time ago as a writer is that people will interpret what you say in their own way regardless of what you have actually written.

    My only advice to those who say I am saying something is to avail themselves of the fabulous technology of copy and paste on a computer and prove it.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    @ Tom

    Thank you. I do anticipate some backlash from some for this. So far though, I am just being taken to task for spreading feminist propaganda. :)

  • http://menaregood.com Tom

    Mark – While I think it might lead to an interesting discussion of the rape versus murder idea it seems more of a distraction from the actual content of the article which is about how men are screwed in the present system. Maybe you and Paul could discuss this via email?

  • B. R. Merrick

    Thanks for mentioning The Innocence Project, Paul. I’m always looking for good sources of charitable contributions. I’ll have to look into this one.

    And Mark, I’d be interested in your definition of “natural,” and why gay sex isn’t. Obviously, the only biological reason to have a penis is to insert it into a vagina. Based on some, uh… entertainment videos I’ve seen with straight men, some of the stuff they’re doing certainly isn’t biological, but I wonder what isn’t “natural” about wanting to explore the body of someone to whom you find yourself attracted. What’s not “natural” about certain attractions?

  • capt.k

    If the average “jury of ones peers” is fed by the legal system that only 2% of rape accusations are false, when in reality its more around 50% false, does this missinformation not prejudice a jury??

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    @ Capt. K

    I think it does. It was another aspect of this matter that I wanted to explore, but had already pushed the limit on the articles length.

    I would go a step further to say that juries are prejudiced because of misandry in general.

  • Introspectre

    Paul, this was an excellent and well structured article.

  • Pingback: On Jury Nullification and Rape « Antimisandry org()

  • @ Mark

    Mark: “Paul, trying to equate homosexual rape with heterosexual rape is really asinine. There really isn’t much to compare. There’s a lot more shame and humiliation involved with a man being buggered by a man than there is with a man forcing sex on a woman. ”

    Mark, that depends upon the culture. There are many areas of the world where this is simply not true.

  • Peggy Spencer

    Well-written, thorough and thoughtful article.

  • Eincrou

    Nice job, Paul. This article serves as an introduction to people who may not even know that there are problems with how the legal system deals with rape. It’s important that all people know about jury nullification; the system certainly isn’t eager tell us that we have power.

  • http://peter.zohrab.name Peter Zohrab

    Actually, “voir dire” is Norman French — not Latin. And, translated literally, it means “to see saying,” although the Oxford Dictionary of Law says that it actually means, in practice, (as Elam says) “to tell the truth.”

    Anyway, what it meant originally is totally irrelevant.

  • Pingback: On Jury Nullification and Rape | USA ADS()

  • NWOslave

    Paul, is there anyway to get pretty much all the stats of the destruction of society by feminism on one handy chart? Maybe everyone could write in the injustices facing men and slap them on a handy dandy chart of the top 101.

    They would need to be factual of course just pure number’s. A few suggestions would be;
    1) abortion, which is murder and men have no part in this, as opposed to war dead. (women always complaining about men make all wars)
    2) rape vs false rape, also in this needs to be a distinction between violent rape and date rape (which as we can see could be anything from jonny quarterback dumped me to I was late getting home)
    3) Finally put the false earnings wage myth to bed.
    4) How much money is spent on education for men as opposed to women (along with the names and costs of the myriad of grrll power groups promoting these)
    5) Who gets children, how often and who pays.
    6) How much money is given nation wide to collect money or jail deadbeat (unemployed dads) broken down by states.
    7) Percentage of men teachers ( the myth that men don’t take teaching jobs because they don’t pay enough is ludicrous when the average private sector job pays 45k which is about the starting pay for many tearches in grade school)
    8) there is a host of info on education about adding just 1 more man teaching adds some huge number in learning for both boys and girls, (also how the teaching style of rote learning is anethema to boys, they need a challenge).

    Obviously you wouldn’t be able to do all this on your own. I’m sure you could get many volunteer’s also contact other mens rights sights to enlist their assistance. This of course would need to be a purely empirical study, (which men are good at) I think this would be hugely beneficial and once every MRM site had this info it would be easy to draw from.

    You could call it MRM101: Itroduction to the truth

  • NWOslave

    Great I spelled Introduction wrong.
    A few others to add to the list, infanticide percentages (ya know those wonder nurturing women), the percentages on crime of children from female headed households (no one raises all those little monsters quite like single women) I’m sure the women will rant at that one but when numbers tell us upwards of 70% of divorce are initiated by women the numbers don’t lie.

    This is why I believe a chart would be massively informative and helpful.

  • Pingback: Shameless « A Voice for Men()

  • Eincrou

    This is basically the video version of this article by the interminably fired-up and vicious Barbarossa!!

  • Pingback: Blue Pill Withdrawal #2 False Rape Claims « A Voice for Men()

  • http://equalitythrouhghtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

    I think that as soon as jury nullification is used a few times the feminists will call it the backlash of the patriarchy and demand that anyone engaged in JN should be charged with a crime.

    Sadly, I’ve never been called up for a jury duty but I have long wished to have an opportunity to sit on a rape trial just for this purpose.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Tom

    A couple of Jury and Jury-Nullification-Related sites:
    From a Lawyer in Paul Elam’s neck of the woods: http://jurygeek.blogspot.com/

    Fully informed Jury Assocation: http://fija.org/

    Letters to the Editor, Instructions to Juries, Quotes on Jury Authority and Jury Nullification: http://fija.org/document-library/boilerplates/

  • Rachael

    So…. because of a few false convictions ALL rapes shouldn’t be prosecuted? You are ridiculous.

  • Quintapus

    To Mark, Benjamin and Oliver: (And anyone else who agrees with them)

    Whoa! What’s this crap about rape not being as bad for a woman as it is for a man? If women are more emotional than men, and they are, why would rape be less traumatic for them just because of the orifice that gets violated? I’ll warrant none of you scum have been raped as a man and then again as a woman and can tell me which was worse. I guess some rapes are worse than others. It’s not as bad to get raped while passed out as it is to be jumped, beaten to a pulp, and tormented with verbal abuse. It depends on the circumstances, but not the sex of the victim. I’m sorry, but I have to view any man, or woman for that matter, who says that rape is just a form of assault and should be treated as such, as a potential rapist. This is the type of diseased thinking that will only fuel hate against MRAs if it becomes part of our anti-feminist rhetoric. Idiots!

    Rape is vile, and depending on the situation, it IS as bad as murder and worse than a beating in most cases. What about someone who is raped AND beaten? Rape destroys lives. Broken bones heal stronger than before, but rape cannot be undone. Medical science will one day be able to heal any injury, but it will never be able to unrape someone. Rape is Soul Murder and should be punished without mercy. The only problem is making sure that the suspect is actually guilty, and as Paul so poignantly points out, it’s rather difficult to do. That is why we should be careful of who we send to prison. Regrettably, I rather let the guilty go free than condemn an innocent man.

    Men, women and children should be treated THE SAME under the law. Everyone should be guaranteed that if they are raped, be the perpetrator male or female, that the pervert NEVER harms them or anyone else again. Rapists are depraved. There is never an excuse for rape. I would never rape anyone, but I might beat the crap out of somebody, if I had a valid enough reason. I don’t see how physical assault and sexual assault are similar. There may be a rare excuse for one, but never the other.

    If being beaten is as bad as or worse than rape, as you guys claim, do you support tougher sentences for domestic violence? That would support the feminist cause. I suppose you’d rather have your wives or girlfriends get raped than mugged! What is wrong with you? If it wasn’t for pigs like you, feminism would have died out long ago. I see you as part of the problem. Stay away from the MRM! MRAs are about EQUALITY, not about male privilege, or treating women differently under the law. We are NOT simply a male version of feminism. All you do is give feminists a (semi) legitimate excuse to continue to seek female supremacy because there is still so much misogynistic filth like you around for them to point at in order to justify their agenda.

    And Mark, rape is NOT a crime committed primarily against women. The majority of rapes are committed against men, mostly in prison. And who sends innocent men to prison to get raped by the droves? WOMEN! Did you not read Paul’s articles? So now who’s buying into dogmatic feminist propaganda?! Stop spouting lies about women being the primary victims! Most female victims only get raped once, whereas men in prison get raped over and over again.

    Women also do plenty of raping themselves. They rape each other, they rape children and, admittedly very rarely, they rape men. According to the FBI, 10% of rapes are committed by women. However, 2/3 of the population live in a State where women are not legally able to be prosecuted for the crime as it isn’t even against the law! (I’m not sure, but I don’t think this statistic includes pedophilia.) In other words, the actually percentage of female rapists is undoubtedly much higher than meets the eye. But it gets worse. Who do you think raises male rapists anyway? Mostly single women. Most male rapists were abused as children, physically or sexually, by women. So who’s at the root of women getting raped by men? Women! (Oh, and men like you who trivialize it.) What happens to men falsely accused of rape by so many cold hearted bitches? They get raped in prison. These evil women are either completely heartless, or passive aggressive in the extreme. Either way, these women are RAPISTS BY PROXY.

    That’s it. I’m done with my rant. Remember folks, women are people too. They are just as evil as men. No more, no less. They just go about it differently. 😉

    • Bellator Nam Parilitas


      I think I might love you! LOL. See my comments to them above. I wrote them prior to reading your rant. Way to educate!

  • http://www.standyourground.com tonysprout

    I can’t believe the way this article has been picked at! Paul has an important point. If you’re on a jury for rape, read between the lines. Ask yourself what AREN’T they telling you. You don’t have to convict if you have the slightest doubt because they cannot do anything to you as a juror. Myself, I would never convict in a case that had DNA and her story as the only evidence. DNA can also be obtained from consensual sex. He also makes another point, @Rachael, and that is that it’s important to put actual rapists behind bars for public safety. On that note I want to reiterate Ben Franklin’s saying, it’s better to let 1000 guilty go free than to convict one innocent. Lastly, a very, very important point: WOMEN LIE about rape. It’s a lie used for many reasons, but the main one I’ve seen is fear of being caught at something. Usually it’s done when having a clandestine affair or quickie.
    With a crowd like this, I’m not sure the movement will last much longer. Hell, instead of having landed a man on the moon, we’d still be tying monkeys to the backs of chinese fire-works. Look at the big picture, people.

  • justicer

    On this question of how a woman responds to the act of “rape” versus a man, I’d express caution. This is a very complex issue that goes in many directions.
    A sexual assault (not the legal term) that is entirely forced and unanticipated by the victim can’t be compared with “unwelcome sex,” which the victim might later regret or complain about. Yet both are considered “rape” by most jurisdictions.
    There are many reasons why a woman will respond differently than a man; but I see no reason why it will be any less traumatic to the man.
    On the other hand, homosexual men report many instances of forced sex, entirely unwanted, which they later described as “enjoyable,” even though the experience was unpleasant and painful in inception.
    And so do many women. So I’d narrow down the word “rape” before attempting to tease out a gender difference.

    • Bellator Nam Parilitas

      I completely agree with you. However, to lessen the crime of rape based solely on gender is wrong and plays into the feminist ideology that “men care nothing for their issues.” I can not possibly say that any form of rape is worse than any other because I am physically not capable of experiencing all forms of rape or sodomy. So to make such a statement would be ignorant.

      • justicer

        Yes, I entirely agree.
        Any law that’s gender-specific would have to meet a pretty severe test of necessity. More importantly, so would any procedure or regulation — the area of policing and justice where men are consistently abused.

  • Pingback: Il NaziFemminismo » USA: una proposta per salvare gli uomini falsamente accusati()

  • tyciol

    >I am not comparing an accused rapist to a cancer patient

    I don’t think that’s a correct statement. I do see a comparison at work. But what you’re certainly not doing is equating them, you are clearly treating them as the distinct situations that they are. You are making a comparison and doing so to make a point, but in no way saying that the people or the alleged crimes are equal.

    I think we need to be in defense of language here. Just as “judging” is not prejudging, just as exploit/use can have neutral and not malicious uses, just as selfish people can be altruistic, just as sophists can speak truth (in spite of Aristotle and Plato made biases), we should not simply bow to those who twist ‘compare’ into meaning ‘equate’.

    Comparisons can be done between any 2 (or more) things in the universe. All things can be compared, and all things SHOULD be compared. Comparing is a major part of human thinking and how we understandd relative relationships between things in the massive shared existence that is life.

    So to all those who say shit like “you can’t compare rape to jaywalking” actually YES, I can compare them. I can compare whatever the fuck I want to compare. I might compare a you to another liar if you say I’m saying they’re the same thing for merit of pointing out similarities (and differences) in the process of comparing though, because that’s not what comparing is.

    10>9 is a comparison. So is 9>10 and 10=10 and 4=3. Some are right, some are wrong. Some allege differences, some allege equality. Some point out equal attributes (parts) while not alleging that things are equal in entirety. Some point out different attributes while not alleging that they are different in other respects.

    So yeah Elam fuck, it’s not a problem making a comparison between 2 different kinds of jury nullification. Comparing them is not equating them and we shouldn’t have to utter fucking “don’t worry I’m not comparing X and Y” shit. People see through that. The problem is when BS “you’re equating” shit enters in, and that should be directly confronted, instead of trying to sidestep it by sacrificing our language.

    It reminds me of having to remind women ‘not that I’m sexually objectifying you’ before offering a sexual compliment.

  • Daniel Kulkarni

    People don’t want to admit that it’s extremely difficult to prove rape. Bruises and scratches could come from consensual BDSM, sperm samples only prove that a man climaxed, even if the accuser recorded the so-called rape, it could be role-play. I completely understand the point of the original article. I could never feel comfortable voting “guilty” in a rape trial given the inconvenient truth of how challenging it is to have compelling evidence for said crime.

  • Astrokid NJ

    There is a remarkable case called The Norfolk Four” that was made into a PBS Frontline Documentary.
    A great illustration of “rogue” cops that extract (false) confessions, District Attorneys, and how juries are swayed by the selective evidence.

    Eight men charged. Five confessions. But only one DNA match. Why would four innocent men confess to a brutal crime they didn’t commit?
    In The Confessions, FRONTLINE producer Ofra Bikel(Innocence Lost, An Ordinary Crime) investigates the conviction of four men — current and former sailors in the U.S. Navy — for the rape and murder of a Norfolk, Va., woman in 1997. In the first television interviews with the “Norfolk Four” since their release, Bikel learns of some of the high-pressure police interrogation techniques — the threat of the death penalty, sleep deprivation, intimidation — that led each of the men to confess, despite the lack of any evidence linking them to the crime

  • http://www.asplint.com/ Jeffrey Deutsch

    You mean a certain crime is so terrible — in your case, false accusations — that anyone should automatically assume it’s happening and decide trials accordingly?

    As you said: “Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures.”

    Pot, meet Kettle.

    As for Marv Albert’s career…yes, he was fired after the story broke in 1997. Then, after three years’ hiatus, he got his old job back at NBC until 2002, when NBC lost its NBA coverage rights to ABC.

    Albert also continued to announce for the New York Knicks on MSG Network until 2004, when he was fired for making what they considered overly critical remarks about the Knicks’ record. (Also, they and he disagreed on his pay.) He called the New Jersey Nets’ games on YES Network 2005-2011, when he left to join CBS Sports (see below).

    Even before Albert’s NBC comeback, in 1999 he became — and remains — TNT’s lead NBA play-by-play announcer. He also calls NCAA tournament plays for Turner Sports and CBS Sports. Not to mention the whole scandal didn’t stop the Nassau County* Sports Hall of Fame and the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association Hall of Fame from inducting him (in 2006 and 2014, respectively).

    And the above is not a complete list of Mr. Albert’s sports work post-scandal.

    [*] Where I grew up, FWIW.

    Even you aren’t saying that Marv Albert’s accusation was necessarily false. Even if it was, he doesn’t seem to have become “nearly unemployable,” as you put it — not even in his own high-visibility profession. Why not focus on those whose careers and lives were destroyed by false accusations?