Today there was a post in TwoXChromosomes that hit Popular, called “I Hung a Jury.” It recounts the story of a woman who was the lone holdout on a jury insisting that a man was guilty of rape when everyone else was convinced he was not guilty. In America’s legal system, this results in a mistrial and the prosecution can rebring the case, though in practice they almost never do.

As someone who routinely works on criminal legal matters and building criminal cases (disclaimer: I work in cybersecurity, I’m not a lawyer) it’s pretty obvious that some or all of this story is fake. In particular, what happens after the trial:

It was the victim's parents. The DA had told them who I was and what I had done…The woman asked if she could hug me and told me I was her angel

This is genuinely ridiculous and potential grounds for discipline or disbarment for the DA - there is almost no way it is true. And imagine telling a rape victim only one person out of 12 believed them? You’d have to be heartless.

Further, the jury deliberations sound as though they lasted a day, despite being hung - this is not how hung juries work in practice, especially if there was a lone holdout. Perhaps most egregiously, the reason the trial occurred three years after the incident?

[he] refused to turn himself in over the past three years since he raped her.

Oh, shit, you don’t want to be tried? Okay, we can wait until you turn yourself in.

Regardless, let us recount this story, so we can see what is worthy of dozens of awards and 20k+ upvotes.

No physical evidence, only the testimony of the two individuals involved

Classic he-said, she-said rape case.

We had to decide based solely on our own interpretations of the stories and credibility of the witnesses.

In this case, the only physically present witnesses were the accuser and the accused. There were no third party witnesses to the incident. Unless the guy basically admits to guilt on the stand, there is no way he should be convicted.

My decision? He raped her and he did it forcefully.

Whats interesting about this post is how the author says she “decided” this was true. Shes already admitted there is no evidence. She’s admitted it’s just the accusers testimony. But she’s made a decision to believe the accuser, and that is true wisdom these days.

the author goes on to talk about how the other men on the jury talk over her, the other women tell her that consent is implied, it’s basically a TwoX masturbation session of misogyny and patriarchy. But the interesting stuff comes in the edit, where she reveals why she thought he was guilty:

There were several things in his story that were inconsistent with what, from what my young friends have told me, a teenage boy would do during consensual sex

Personally, I always rely on anecdotes from teenage girls when making decisions. In fact, I think the most important question brought up by this post is why aren’t juries entirely consisting of teen girls? Some Mean Girls justice is what is really warranted here.

There were also far too many little details in his story that I doubted he would remember considering that almost a year had passed between the incident and when he found out he was being charged with rape for it

“Teen boy remembers too many details of sexual experience“ is not an argument I’d ever thought I’d hear.

Of course, this story ends with the author claiming the guy raped 3 other girls, including locking one in his basement for days, but did not receive any punishment due to a plea deal (???). She then imagines the comeuppance of all the other misogynistic jurors finding out this information (that’ll show them!). And another tidbit to undermine the author’s credibility, “none of the other victims would testify” - which, as a top comment points out - is absurd. Accusations that a defendant committed prior bad acts is explicitly prohibit by the rules of evidence, so these women couldn’t testify, not “refused to”

So, here we have a story where a women insists a guy is guilty, with no evidence and no witnesses, because “my friends say that’s not how teen boys act” and “he remembers too much”

What is the response in the comments:

Damn, you are a complete badass

Totally badass to fail to understand jury instructions and reasonable doubt

Thank you for doing the right thing

Making up shit on the internet is always doing the right thing. Words to live by.

I cried when I got to the end of this. Thank you so much!!

I shed a tear, too. The idea of early 2000s Lindsay Lohan and Rachel McAdams dishing justice really got me going

Hero

Yes folks, this is modern day heroism, right here.

Wow I was not expecting that, good job. You make me want to fulfill my civic duty

Expectation of jury duty: convicting rapists and murderers. Reality: imprisoning a guy for stealing 5 chocolate bars from Walmart

It was literally a his word Vs. her word case? How do you even go about deciding that? I would be so anxious that whatever I decided was wrong.
Good on you for sticking your ground.

This commenter is so close to understanding reasonable doubt, and yet, so far.

Look, this post is probably just a masturbatory fantasy of modern feminism, but considering it got thousands of upvotes, dozens of awards, and hundreds of supportive comments, it provides a valuable window into the hero fantasies of this sub culture.

A lot of men who are bored while out with their girlfriend start daydreaming that ninja come out of the ceiling and they have to fight them with a sword. This is a harmless hero fantasy. But others envision violently assaulting their political opponents - which can lead to dangerous real life outcomes. A few years ago, a Professor invited an academic he disagreed with to a debate at Middlebury college. The students didn’t want the invited academic to speak, and ended up violently assaulting the Professor (who was on their side ideologically!) forcing both speakers to flee the hall.

Here, we see the hero fantasy of many modern women. ”Believing and supporting” a rape accuser, with no evidence or witnesses. This is fine in your personal life, but the dream is to sanction the accused legally, potentially subjecting them to prison (where they may be raped) for years. They fantasize about standing up to misogynistic, overbearing, interrupting men who are all trying to shelter the rapists from harm! And those old shrew bitches with their problematic views on consent. In the end, they are showered with praise by the hapless victim and their families, and the evil misogynists get their due, having to live with the horror of following the jury instructions.

Realize that this is what you are facing in the wild. This is the hero narrative women tell themselves. This is what they daydream about. Good luck, gents.