~ archived since 2018 ~

It is better for ten rapists to escape punishment than for one innocent man to be imprisoned for a rape he did not commit

NoahSwayne

October 31, 2008

26 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/10/it-is-better-that-ten-rapists-escape.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	It is better for ten rapists to escape punishment than for one innocent man to be imprisoned for a rape he did not commit
Author	NoahSwayne
Upvotes	26
Comments	28
Date	October 31, 2008 4:16 PM UTC (17 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7ajnl/it_is_better_for_ten_rapists_to_escape_punishment/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/it-is-better-for-ten-rapists-to-escape-punishment.1056223 https://theredarchive.com/post/1056223

Comments

[–]dcb720 -3 points-2 points-1 points 17 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

What if those ten rapists commit more rapes? How many rapes does it take before it's better for the one innocent man to be imprisoned?

Would you say "it is better for all rapists to escape punishment than for one innocent man to be imprisoned for a rape he did not commit"? Easy to do, just make rape legal. And murder while you're at it, and anything else where there exists even the possibility of a wrongful conviction...

I believe we should punish people when their guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. That this will no doubt eventually imprison an innocent person is regrettable but it would only be when all the evidence does in fact seem to prove their guilt. If we have a punishment system AT ALL, this will be the case.

Were I wrongfully convicted, I would be able to recognize that it sure looked like I did it, and that would at least take a tiny bit of the sting out. It would suck, totally, but I wouldn't make rape legal just so I would be set free, when all available evidence made me seem completely guilty.

Now, if you ask if I think we are currently using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion I espouse, the answer is no, we are not. Certain crimes have a "guilty until proven innocent" element which results in a higher likelihood of a wrongful conviction, because everyone wants to believe (1) a crime took place and (2) we have the guilty party.

Personally I would like to: (a) restore stringent conviction requirements for ALL crimes, not have some crimes result in a predisposition to convict based on automatically believing the accuser, (b) consistently pursue convictions for false accusers (certainly not all occasions where an accused rapist is found not guilty, but when there is positive evidence that the accuser is lying), (d) consistently bring charges against prosecutors who proceed with a case when there is substantial evidence the accuser is lying, and (d) punish 1st degree rape by death / life-without-parole, once (a), (b) and (c) have been completed.

[–]NoahSwayne[S] 9 points10 points11 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The point of my Web post, and the point of the jurisprudential giants quoted -- Blackstone, Douglas, Harlan and many, many others -- is that we must never treat due process lightly when an innocent man's liberty is at stake. No system operated by human beings can will ever achieve perfection, but we must be always vigilant to insure they receive a fair trial in accorance with due process of law.

More specifically, the point of my Web post is this: we must stop treating innocent man who are wrongly accused of rape as unfortunate collateral damage in the war on rape, shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Oh, well. That's too bad but it had to be done." When 18 men in Dallas alone are shown to have been wrongly convicted, then due process has broken down and we need to figure out how to make it better.

The point of my web post is to acknowledge that rape is terrible, but the state must never be in the business of doing another terrible thing -- allowing an innocent man or boy to go to prison. And yes, it is better to let a guilty person go than to "sacrifice" an innocent person -- that innocent person could be you.

[–]SnakeJG 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Now, if you ask if I think we are currently using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion I espouse, the answer is no, we are not. Certain crimes have a "guilty until proven innocent" element which results in a higher likelihood of a wrongful conviction, because everyone wants to believe (1) a crime took place and (2) we have the guilty party.

Personally I would like to: (a) restore stringent conviction requirements for ALL crimes, not have some crimes result in a predisposition to convict based on automatically believing the accuser, (b) consistently pursue convictions for false accusers (certainly not all occasions where an accused rapist is found not guilty, but when there is positive evidence that the accuser is lying), (d) consistently bring charges against prosecutors who proceed with a case when there is substantial evidence the accuser is lying, and (d) punish 1st degree rape by death / life-without-parole, once (a), (b) and (c) have been completed.

I believe the article is arguing this point, that rape should not be held to a lower standard than "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". As for your

(d) punish 1st degree rape by death / life-without-parole

The death sentence is a horrible idea for any crime, especially when you said yourself

I believe we should punish people when their guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. That this will no doubt eventually imprison an innocent person is regrettable but it would only be when all the evidence does in fact seem to prove their guilt. If we have a punishment system AT ALL, this will be the case.

You can't make any system perfect, which is why, we should make the punishment for crimes as humane as possible. Rape shouldn't be committed in our prisons, and we shouldn't ever punish with the death penalty. There is enough tragedies in the world without having our government create more out of an overblown sense of righteousness.

[–]brunt2 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dcb720 -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dcb720 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Britslayer 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acglaphotis 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acglaphotis 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Britslayer 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acglaphotis 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dannomac 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Acglaphotis 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Britslayer 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dcb720 -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Britslayer 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dcb720 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I believe we should punish people when their guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree, but in the present system, people are punished when their guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt in the opinion of a jury which is different, and some people don't even get to a jury, having become convinced that the fact their guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt in the opinion of the prosecutor is enough, especially in the current political climate.

Personally I would like to: (a) restore stringent conviction requirements for ALL crimes, not have some crimes result in a predisposition to convict based on automatically believing the accuser, (b) consistently pursue convictions for false accusers (certainly not all occasions where an accused rapist is found not guilty, but when there is positive evidence that the accuser is lying), (d) consistently bring charges against prosecutors who proceed with a case when there is substantial evidence the accuser is lying, and (d) punish 1st degree rape by death / life-without-parole, once (a), (b) and (c) have been completed.

I agree with all but (d). I'd prefer a decade sentence or longer, with an additional extended stay at a halfway house. Give them the chance & obligation to earn their keep.

[–]dcb720 -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]dcb720 -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dcb720 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CommentMan 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link