Decorative Scales of Justice in the Courtroom

Jury duty at a rape trial? Acquit!

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

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

Well, 98% of society has been wrong before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum: This is the remedial version of a much larger position statement. If you want a more substantive, less “sound bitey” expansion of this article, please read here

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
  • onca747

    EDIT: Kudos to Paul for reposting this piece after it was OT mentioned in the comments of another article, in an attempt to troll and derail the topic.

    For one of Krista’s fans (or Krista herself) to dredge up this old article in an attempt to get Paul to blurt, “I used to say I’d acquit a rapist, but I don’t advocate that any more!” was as transparent as it was pitiful. I’m surprised she fell short of declaring, “I even had to goto webarchive to find it, therefore Elam was obviously trying to bury it!”

    But I am psychic… I predict that in the next 24 hours at least 3 radfem sites will link to this article as proof of AVFM’s pathological hatin’ on the wymynz, along with a few cherry picked comments that show that the entire men’s rights movement is nothing but Rape Apologetics.

    Let’s see if we do our best with our comments, huh folks =)

  • Shrek6

    Man, I don’t need to read this post again.

    This post would have to be, in my opinion, put up as an anthem to all that is anathema in the world today, when considering the many layers of injustice and discrimination committed against men.

    This is where lying cunning women get to use their pussy privilege to destroy a man or men. And where any number of manginas/white knights out there who have hitched their blood money making schemes to this one bullshit crime, are ready to assist this woman in her hateful intent to carry out this crime.

    As they say in the CSI shows on TV. If the right procedures of handling evidence is not followed, then the evidence is deemed tainted, thus being inadmissible in court.

    Well, the sheer overwhelming truth AND FACT that the whole system of collecting evidence, starting with the huge number of false allegations, is tainted.

    Therefore, no outcome from this system can be deemed as legal or indeed admissible to the rule of law. Every single case should be dismissed, because there is no possibility of the case not being tainted.

    Paul, glad to see you put this up again. I think you should do it every quarter, just to keep the message alive!

    • Fredrik

      Wow. I never thought of it like that before, but yeah, there’s a legal principle called “fruit of a poisoned tree.” (IANAL and this is not legal advice, yadda yadda.) It isn’t just chain of custody issues and things like that; in a U.S. court of law, you can’t use evidence that was obtained by officers of the law breaking the law, such as by violating the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

      So, logically, with the chipping away at due process requirements in DV and SV cases, every single one has the potential to be fruit of a poisoned tree. That’s really disturbing to think about having to deal with that as a juror. I don’t know what I would do.

      Thank goodness I don’t have to worry about it! As a past victim of partner violence and a false rape accusation, I’m frankly biased, and I assume that wouldn’t be acceptable in a juror.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Link to a LARGE list of INTENTIONAL FBI forensic lab frauds:

      http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html

      These aren’t “FBI” labs, they are “FIB” labs!

      Cynthia Orr, president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, charges that crime-lab directors are the last ones to turn to for accreditation. “We do a better job of testing dog-food labs than forensic labs,” she insists. The problem, Orr says, is with the mind-set of technicians. “Many labs are associated with law enforcement,” she says. “Their job is not objective science. They are part of the ‘cop shop.’ They are out to get crooks.”

      http://www.truthinjustice.com: “… In fact the FBI recently said it no longer will collect DNA samples from either Houston or Fort Worth because the cities’ crime labs are run so poorly. Texas forensic scientists are said either to have misinterpreted data or outright lied about test results under intense pressure to close cases and win convictions.

      “Houston, we have a problem,” no longer refers to Apollo 13 but to the mad science of examiners who are not fully trained. The result is that hundreds of cases, dating as far back as 1992, are under review following a report by Houston news station KHOU-TV detailing shoddy practices at the lab. Among those in question are 17 death-row cases. KHOU’s report claimed that technicians couldn’t perform the simplest of tests, deliberately misinterpreted data and stored evidence in a room where the ceiling leaked so badly that during a severe storm 34 DNA samples were contaminated by rain. It prompted a state grand-jury investigation.

      In the meantime the Houston police crime lab that operated untouched for 12 years was shut down in January by the police chief. Fort Worth’s crime lab was closed as well and is under investigation following admissions by Karla Carmichael, a senior technician who stands accused of ignoring DNA procedures to help prosecutors. Carmichael was placed on paid administrative leave. Neither lab is accredited, sparking the state House of Representatives to approve a bill that would restrict admission of forensic evidence at trial unless it was examined by an accredited lab.

      Texas is not alone. Crime labs nationwide are besieged with problems. Consider the following:

      In Florida, DNA lab worker John Fitzpatrick recently admitted to falsifying DNA data in a test designed to check the quality of work. The state, however, refused to retest any of the cases on which he worked, claiming the falsification was an isolated incident that did not affect criminal cases. Fitzpatrick since has been fired.

      In Arizona, technicians made errors while analyzing DNA evidence in nine criminal cases currently under review. State audits reveal that only 26 percent of 8,000 blood samples from convicted offenders have been analyzed.

      In Baltimore, police are reviewing 480 criminal cases because former chemist Concepcion Bacasnot, who quit in 1987, wrongfully implicated a defendant by failing properly to analyze blood.

      In West Virginia, forensic expert Fred Salem Zain testified in dozens of rape cases about test results he never obtained. He didn’t even do the tests. Zain then moved to the Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office in San Antonio, becoming the head of serology there in 1989. Zain again testified about blood evidence when no blood had been found; in other cases he reported performing tests his lab was incapable of doing. At least five men were convicted of rape and murder because of his testimony. Their convictions were overturned; Zain was fired.

      In Illinois, lab technician Pamela Fish was accused of helping to convict six defendants on false evidence, four of whom have been exonerated. She since has been promoted to oversee biochemistry testing at the Illinois State Police crime laboratory.

      In Montana and Washington state, DNA labs find themselves in the midst of accusations of wrongdoing because of Arnold Melnikoff, who worked in both states and is alleged to have made serious errors in dozens of cases. FBI tests proved the scientist had misidentified hair samples that 15 years ago helped convict a man of raping an 8-year-old girl. Melnikoff still is employed in Washington state.

      In Oklahoma, forensic scientist Joyce Gilchrist’s work came under scrutiny after evidence indicated she provided allegedly false testimony that led to the wrongful conviction of a death-row inmate who eventually was freed. She had been involved in 3,000 cases, including 23 in which defendants were sentenced to death. Eleven were executed. Defense attorneys are wondering if any of those 11 inmates was innocent. It may be difficult to find out because, in many instances, the technician destroyed or used up all the DNA or blood evidence. Gilchrist was fired in 2001 and since has filed a $20 million lawsuit.

      In California, tens of thousands of samples sit in refrigerators from which they have yet to be placed in an offender database. The state has released thousands of violent offenders without collecting their DNA, although recently it has improved, nearly doubling the number of convicts it has tested to about 78,000 – far behind Virginia’s 123,000 DNA profiles.

      Another troubling trend appears to be that forensic scientists who levy charges of incompetence or corruption against their labs often find themselves unemployed. Former FBI forensic expert Whitehurst was suspended, then fired, before settling in 1997 for a $1.46 million payment in a lawsuit for wrongful discharge. Elizabeth Johnson, former director of a DNA lab in the Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office in Texas, now often works as a consultant for criminal-defense teams, but she found herself unemployed in 1997 after failing to be a “team player” and link a murder suspect’s blood to the scene of a crime. She was vindicated in a jury trial and settled for $375,000. When DNA lab worker Laura Schile called attention to serious problems in Oklahoma, she found herself under investigation and resigned in 2001 because of a “hostile work situation.”

      • Astrokid

        OHPC,
        The forensic fraud archive has stunning cases.
        Its easy to lose faith in humanity reading those cases.
        I am not sure where the rest of the text you cut+pasted, starting from “Cynthia Orr…” comes from, but I could see the individual cases mentioned in that text covered in great detail on the site.

        There’s a http://www.truthinjustice.org (not .com). One case is this guy locked up in prison for a murder he didnt commit, ample prosecutorial misconduct to suppress evidence to the contrary.

  • alibaba

    Vote to acquit a man you are certain beyond a reasonable doubt is guilty of rape? You can’t be serious. Is this site feminist COINTELPRO?

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

      Although I don’t think I agree with Paul, do you not understand the idea that you can be lied to and be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that you are being told the truth?

      Can a magician fool you into seeing something that isn’t there?

      If you feel you cannot believe one word that police, prosecutors, or judges tell you, then how can you have anything BUT reasonable doubt?

      In my own case I would not take the position as stark as Paul’s, but it would be difficult not to consider his words: “The case here is compelling… but how can I know if the cops, the prosecutor, and/or the judge are lying?”

      When complete faith is lost in the system–and I’m afraid I must admit I’ve pretty much lost all my faith in it–then how can there be anything but reasonable doubt?

      Add on to this that most cases don’t even get to trial because US prosecutors usually offer a plea deal to save time and money. So only the most determined defendant even insists on going to trial.

      Shit man. I’ve been seeing Paul write on this for years and I have never known quite what to think, but when no one can respond to him with anything but emotion, when no one can say “no, Paul, you should trust the system, and here’s why you should trust it,” it’s harder and harder for me to say I think he’s wrong.

      I mean, seriously, all you’re doing here is giving an emotional argument. Let me ask you: do YOU believe that cops and prosecutors and judges could or would lie to you? Would all the cases we’ve seen of guys railroaded NOT cause you to have doubts right on its face?

      I’m not claiming I know the answers but I know that when all I see are emotional responses to what someone says, there’s a problem.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        If you have ever been put through The System, Dean, you would know Paul is 1000% correct in his assessment.

        The injustice MUST be stopped at all costs.

        Before my own experience with the legal system I adamantly believed the OJ jurists were inhuman indecent animals.

        AFTER viewing up close exactly what transpires in the evil and broken mess we call a Justice System, I now believe those jurists were 1000% correct in taking a stance against evidence tampering – even though I totally believe OJ was, indeed, guilty.

        I’m sure every last one of the over 300 men exonerated by DNA technology after DECADES in prison would agree 1000% with Paul.

        It takes guts and courage to speak up as Paul did. Not even I, who had first hand experience of the WORST kind, had the where with all to laser in on the solution to this problem.

        This article needs to be circulated far and wide – the Greatest Justice System In The World is a broken mess, a horror show of injustice.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      How can you be “certain” of anything when dealing with a corrupt system?

      Trusting the current Justice System is like trusting the current political system.

      The only thing you can “trust” is the fact you are mostly being lied to.

    • Nickycky

      “Vote to acquit a man you are certain beyond a reasonable doubt is guilty of rape? ”

      Nope. That’s not it at all. It’s “Vote to acquit a man because you CAN NEVER be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of rape under the current system.”

      This is really simple to me. It boils down to this: a juror should only vote guilty if they believe ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the defendant is guilty. If they believe that it is reasonable to doubt the veracity of the evidence presented to the jury, then the evidence, no matter how overwhelming, is irrelevant. There is ALWAYS reasonable doubt. Therefore, there is no choice but to acquit.

      I’m not saying I agree with the premise that one can’t trust the evidence (I wouldn’t know one way or the other). I’m saying it’s a logical, moral position if one DOES agree with the premise.

      • Paul

        Exactly. Remember, it was pretty much a guarantee in the book “To Kill a Mockingbird” that Tom Robinson was guilty. However, it was that *slight* detail about his arm that showed the reader he was innocent.

        (It’s too bad the jury didn’t buy it, though).

  • Shrek6

    The problem is, and as OHPC has pointed out, the evidence trail is so tainted that it affects all types of crimes. There is no way anyone can trust these crime labs anywhere in your country or in Aus, because they are all the same.

    In my opinion, any system attached to or associated with The British Bar Association, is as corrupt and as evil as the BBA, to its very core. This includes any country whose legal system models itself off of the BBA, because the corruption is deep with these people.

    Most people don’t realise that ‘Common Law’ was removed from each country a long time ago and ‘Maritime Admiralty Law’ was introduced. This is why they can get away with having Kangaroo Courts, where men are convicted and sent to prison without due process being observed or adhered to. Only the captain of a ship can convict and sentence without a jury of our peers. This is what we have in place now with magistrate courts and the family courts.

    Their evil knows no bounds and in knowing this, how can anyone disagree with what Paul has stated. In fact, I would disagree with him on one point. He didn’t go far enough!

  • alibaba

    You guys are as bad as the feminists you claim to hate.

    I have not denied that the legal system is slanted against men.

    But real women are really raped by real men every day. I don’t want these men on the streets.

    We can be skeptical of the legal system and still convict dangerous men.

    “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

    -F. Scott Fitzgerald

    By this definition, I don’t think there’s many individuals of first-rate intelligence on this site.

    • stillasamountain

      We can be skeptical of the legal system and still convict innocent men.

      Fixed that for ya.

      “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” – Sir William Blackstone

      Also, if the whole system is tainted I don’t see how you can keep insisting that anyone can KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt, exactly whom is guilty and whom is not. Which is sort of the whole point of the article.

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

      “By this definition, I don’t think there’s many individuals of first-rate intelligence on this site.”

      Of course you don’t, but then again you are not very bright.

      Here is your problem. Quotes, insults and emotional reasoning don’t make an argument. And it is the argument that you are missing here.

      Where is your argument?

      And “just because” doesn’t count. There is a link at the bottom of the article that provides the research and details supporting the position.

      If you have counter arguments against it I am all ears. But so far you don’t have anything here even worth noting.

    • Nickycky

      “We can be skeptical of the legal system and still convict dangerous men.” Only if we can identify them. How do you suggest that is done, if we don’t trust the legal system to be honest?

      And that quote just makes me think that F. Scott Fitzgerald must’ve LOVED feminists.

  • Astrokid

    You guys will like this woman losing her shit
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWHyoG8SFuo
    PS: Dont bother commenting on her channel. we already know what level of reasoning she’s capable of.

    • Shrek6

      Wow, what a mouth full. Something’s got up her nose. Maybe she’s on the rags? Hmm, yep could be!

      Note how she blabs on about principles at the end of that rant, when she obviously doesn’t know what having principles means, or she’s never heard of them.

      If she did have any principles to live by, she would have just as angrily berated her sisters for making all those false rape claims and false allegations of all kinds of assault that they make against men. But no, just like the white knights and ALL FEMINISTS, she simply side stepped the truth and blamed the system.

      Oh wait, she probably is a feminist. That would explain a lot!

      As I have said before and I always get attacked by white knights when I say this:

      The system is just a machine. It sits there in a standby or off mode doing absolutely nothing, until someone comes along and pushes the big green button. Once that button is pushed, it is often hard to stop that machine, but it CAN BE STOPPED, if the person who pushed the green button so wishes.

      So, if a marriage breaks down and the parents split up, what happens in the overwhelming number of cases is the woman goes ahead and pushes the big green button. This also applies to all false allegations of any abuse, including rape.

      The idiots out there attack me and scream at me and say that the system railroads or coerces the women into pushing the big green button, even when they don’t want to.
      I just scoff and laugh at these fools and just call what they say, Bullshit!

      If that is the case, then please explain the small number of cases in every country around the world, where there is an honourable ex wife and mother, who has her children’s “TRUE WELFARE” first and foremost in her mind, and once the marriage breaks down, this woman never pushes the big green button, no matter what is said to her and the now broken family goes on to live separated, but much happier than all those others where the women have turned to evil behaviour do.

      The one single person who is the architect and has full control over all these bad things that happen to men, IS THE DAMN WOMEN!!!

      The bloody machine cannot start by itself, so stop blaming the system!

      • Astrokid

        Shrek,
        She’s not a feminist. She’s even an anti-feminist, as per her videos. (She apparently got thrown out of the Sisterhood a few years ago when she question them).
        If you have been following the YouTube MGTOW scene, she’s been in a argument with us over the last several months, making several Anti-MGTOW vids. It was only a matter of time before she ran into the Jury Nullification issue.

        IMO, the Jury Nullification post is the best PE has put out there. This woman’s reaction to it is priceless to me (I cant bear to listen to her, but I managed to get through this one).

        Its not just Paul Elam.. JN is proposed by people in several movements for their own causes, as the last resort in combating Govt tyranny. What other peaceful means remains to “bring a Govt to its knees” and force a reconsideration of laws? People who dont understand this or the importance of Blackstone’s formulation.. and freak out like this woman did.. Its best to keep our distance from them.

        • Shrek6

          No Mate, I hadn’t been following the MGTOW YouTube scene lately.

          I didn’t know this sheila was an anti-feminist. Ha, you could have fooled me with the attitude coming out of her mouth.
          Okay, so let’s say she is a ‘radical Traditionalist instead,’ because she is radical about some damn thing, that’s for sure. And I don’t know how anyone could listen to that mouth for very long. Gosh, I had my finger on the kill button the whole way through that video. Even my hearing aid was screeching at me to stop the noise. I endured just the same.

          I think I’ve said it before. I would like to see this thread re-posted once a month, because it embodies pretty much all the issues we have with the system at large, which by the way includes individual women and their behaviour, not just the legal system, the police force and the judiciary.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    You’ve no idea how welcome you are. :) Cheers.

  • biochemists_are_sexy

    So, if a man is the rape victim, acquit the rapist then too?

    • Peter Wright

      Only if the entire legal/court system were systemically biased in favor of conducting unfair trials against women (which of course it isn’t).

      Seems simple.

  • Mick Price

    Ok, so if I understand this right, it’s like if you had a legal system that was chronically biased against blacks. So biased, with so much deception that you could not feel that you could trust information used against a black person. So then no matter how apparently “iron-clad” the case against a black person you might acquit anyway, because the case brought simply couldn’t be trusted. Replace the word “black person” with “accused rapist” and you basically have your argument. Is that about it?

  • driversuz

    How do you feel about your future son being a victim of rape? Or about him being falsely accused and then railroaded and falsely convicted by a system that profits from prosecuting men who commit “Violence Against Women,” pretty much ensuring that he would become a rape victim?

  • Astrokid

    young White Knight.. There are things more “pathetic” than someone who is a rapist. Get off your high horse and read some Maggie McNeill, a sex-worker rights activist.
    http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/a-fate-worse-than-death/

    I’ve written on numerous occasions about the way Western culture has returned in many ways to the Victorian Era; we have seen a return of that time’s extreme sexual prudishness, its affection for polysyllabic euphemisms, its dedication to prohibition of drugs and sexual activities and its “white man’s burden” colonialism, and the popular Victorian myths about the “innocence” of children (including adolescents), “white slavery” and the moral superiority of women over men have returned as powerfully as if they had not lain dormant for most of the 20th century. But while I am not alone in decrying all of these things, I have until recently felt relatively isolated in my resistance to one of the most damaging and perfidious of all Victorian revivals: the belief that rape is a “fate worse than death”.

    Before we go any further, let me assure you that I know whereof I speak: I have been raped several times, and the first instance (in May of 1995) was rape by even the strictest, most unforgiving and most legalistic standard. It was a terrifying experience, but it did not destroy me and was not the worst thing ever to happen to me; in fact, it wasn’t even the worst thing to happen to methat year. Yet nearly every time someone finds out about it for the first time, he or she acts as though it happened last night, as though this one kind of trauma had the unique ability to cause permanent and irremediable damage. The dominant cultural narrative is that both men and women can get over just about any personal tragedy – financial ruin, the loss of a limb or a loved one, persecution by governmental authorities, etc – except rape, which if it doesn’t leave a woman a psychological wreck is supposed to at least cast a dark pall over the rest of her life.

  • Astrokid

    lot of things can ruin ones life. That doesnt make a rapist the most “pathetic” thing out there.
    stay on topic and If you have anything to say about the arguments made in this article.. i.e jury nullification.. say it. I couldnt give a fuck about your imagined daughter, and your white knightery gets more pathetic with each comment (by dragging in PTSD).

  • Shae

    You guys sound similar to ISIS and other extremists forms of Sharia law. I think you degenerates would feel very comfortable there.

    • driversuz

      Bet you’re a feminist who couldn’t care less about due process violations as long as the victims are male. Right?

      Now go decorate your dorm room; it’s a brand new school year!

      • Shae

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

        • driversuz

          By “doll,” did you mean “dole,” Mr. Smug Smart Guy?

          Rape shield laws violate the US constitution, and VAWA pays for the prosecution and imprisonment of ANY accused man, guilty or innocent. Corruption in prosecution has always been a problem and now it’s an epidemic. Do you think it’s better for a hundred guilty men to go free to prevent one innocent man being falsely imprisoned, or do you prefer that a hundred innocent men be falsely imprisoned to prevent than one guilty man going free?

          Do you have an actual argument against Paul’s statement, or are you just here to insult us?
          Oh, and fuck you.

          • Shae

            Yeah got me on the spelling error.

            Anyways the constitution is the stupidest most antiquated piece of legislature there is. It’s the reason the US is so far behind the times. I don’t really understand your question. Especially since for the most part women are the ones who are usually disenfranchised in rape trials. And I don’t really have an argument for because you people like this asshole are too intellectually behind the times that there is nothing you can really retort with that is relevant in todays age. The whole MRA movement is a complete and utter joke. It’s just a bunch of sexist middle aged neaderthals listening to a bunch of elderly novelists trying to justify sexual violence. It’s pathetic.

          • driversuz

            Here’s another error – the Constitution is not a “piece of legislature;” it is the foundation on which all “legislature,” and indeed all US government is built. Please take your silly ad homs and your obvious ignorance and shove them up your ass. We don’t need any more trolls.

  • Inkarus S

    I considered suicide tonight after reading this post.

    Thought you might like to know.

    • Astrokid

      And then?

  • deer fang

    fuck this guy, fuck anyone who believes him, fuck the rapists walking these streets. they deserve to rot.

    • Astrokid M57

      Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about trolling.

  • Frodo

    http://i.imgur.com/i3Lnb.png some real research on rape

  • Frodo
  • Frodo
  • Frodo

  • Frodo

    CDC NISVS 2010 .not hard to look up

  • Frodo

    No i didnt.

  • Frodo
  • Frodo