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 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 just emotionally characterize 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,” 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. You may also want to read the expanded, more detailed article here. –Eds
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.
- Erin Pizzey legal defense fundraiser - July 21, 2016
- Dick Heart and the crazy cat lady - July 16, 2016
- Here’s your chance to reclaim free speech - July 15, 2016
- Where Exactly is the Army Hiding Major General Mark Stammer? - July 1, 2016
- Freedom Alternative: a conversation with Paul Elam - June 3, 2016