Lesson Learned From Feminism: Never Sympathize With Women

I’m an idiot.

I should know better by now than to read the New York Times, but I do it anyway. I should have more self-control than to be taken in by clickbait titles. But, my curiosity overwhelms my reasoning and I’m drawn in.

That’s how I came across an Op-Ed piece entitled, “Who Gets to Define Campus Rape?” written by two Sociology students, Miriam Gleckman-Krut and Nicole Bedera of the University of Michigan. It is a reaction to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos deciding to review a 2011 decision by the Office of Civil Rights to impose a “preponderance of the evidence” on colleges that adjudicate claims of sexual impropriety as civil rights violations.

The general premise is that men don’t matter and that women should have the power to freely accuse and destroy men without any checks or barriers.

Who should have the right to define rape: survivors who have experienced sexual violence or those who are accused of perpetrating it?

Correction: Who should have the right to define “rape”? The accuser, who is not placed at hazard by the process? Or the accused, who is placed at hazard by the process?

The correct answer is neither one. The party that defines rape is the party that enforces the rule against rape. Feminists like to jump out of the box and frame the argument in a way that they cannot lose.

That is the core question raised by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s decision this month to replace Obama-era guidelines on how universities handle sexual misconduct complaints. In a strongly worded speech, Ms. DeVos made clear that she believed the previous administration had used “intimidation and coercion” to force colleges to adopt disciplinary procedures that deprived accused students of their rights.

The Obama-era guidelines were likely issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, which requires notice and hearing via a period in which the public can comment on the proposed rule before the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights can issue the rule.

Why do feminists have such trouble with due process?

To come to these conclusions, Ms. DeVos and her staff appear to have given special consideration to the concerns of men accused of sexual assault. After one hearing about campus rape policies, Candice Jackson, the top civil rights official in the Department of Education, said, “The accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk, we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right.’ ”

Special consideration for men accused of sexual misconduct? Apprently that is any consideration at all if the pearl-clutching by ThinkProgress, Vox, and Slate are indicators.

Ms. Jackson has since called these remarks “flippant,” but they reveal a gross misunderstanding of sexual assault. Ms. Jackson essentially intimated that she believes either that alcohol-facilitated sexual assault and intimate partner violence are not real or that, at the very least, they are not harmful enough to merit disciplinary action. No wonder Ms. DeVos thinks many sexual assault complaints on campus are baseless. According to Ms. Jackson’s incorrect logic, almost any college man facing disciplinary proceedings would be falsely accused. And yet there is plenty of evidence that false accusations of rape are rare.

Stating that 90% of rape claims surveyed were the result of a drunken tumble and hurt feelings is “flippant.” Rattling off that “false accusations of rape are rare” is not flippant because it’s not like you go to prison, have your rights stripped away, are forever branded a felon and a sex offender.

Obama-era policies did not malign men. What they did was make it easier for victims to come forward. A 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter from the Obama administration advised universities to change the standard for how to determine guilt from proof that was “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a “preponderance of evidence” — or, more colloquially, more likely than not.

Publicly accusing someone of a felony without proof of their guilt is defamation per se. Despite the feminist whining about “rape culture” in a country that, for a large part of its history made rape punishable by death, having one’s name associated with felonious crimes is inherently detrimental to a man’s reputation.

Before 2011, most colleges had already voluntarily made these changes. There are several good reasons for that. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard usually applies to criminal charges — and college tribunals are not criminal courts. Colleges can’t determine whether or not an assailant will go to prison. But they are required to keep students safe and promote equal access to education under Title IX, the civil rights law that secures nondiscrimination on the basis of sex or gender in federally funded educational programs. Sexual assault complaints are essentially civil rights disputes, and a preponderance of evidence standard is what is legally appropriate in civil rights cases.

Colleges shouldn’t adjudicate felonies. If a college suspects a felony has been committed, they should contact the police. College is not its own little pocket universe. A person kicked out of college for a “civil rights dispute” based on a woman saying “he raped me” will not be dealt with by the public as a “civil rights violator”; he will be regarded as a “rapist” without ever having received the benefit of the protections that defendants are entitled to before having that label attached to them (to use the subpoena power, to take depositions, to call witnesses in his own defense, to speak on his own behalf, to submit evidence in his own defense, and a neutral trier of fact).

Feminists are calling Brock Turner a rapist, even though he was never convicted of rape and did not commit rape as defined by the state of California (finger-popping is not sexual intercourse).

The preponderance of evidence standard is also survivor-centered. When judging whether someone has been raped, it’s almost impossible to assert that a sex act constituted violence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Many survivors struggle to produce what campus hearing boards would consider evidence, especially when it comes to acquaintance- or date-based sexual assaults in which alcohol made it impossible for someone to physically resist. Sexual assaults also commonly occur away from third-party witnesses, limiting the potential for corroborating testimonies. Finally, trauma can make survivors seem disorganized to campus administrators who are untrained.

The standard for rape is not “violence beyond a reasonable doubt”; The standard at common law is sexual intercourse, obtained by force or coercion, and lack of consent by the victim. Physical resistance is not required to prove a rape.

The burden of proof affixed to a crime is typically commensurate with the weight of the crime and the severity of the penalty associated with the crime. A man is not carried off to prison when he is falsely accused of rape and kicked out of college, but feminists, as pointed out with Brock Turner above, have no problem playing fast and loose with the label of “rapist.” The ordinary person will not distinguish “rape as a civil rights violation” from “rape as a felony.” And that’s a problem. Even taking the typical penalty for rape off of the table doesn’t address the social stigma sufficiently to justify a reduced burden of proof.

The difficulty in providing hard evidence has long presented a devastating barrier for victims’ access to recourse and remedies, and it discouraged survivors from coming forward. The Obama administration responded to survivors’ needs by lowering the burden of proof necessary to gain access to institutional support. That more survivors than ever are reporting their sexual assaults to their universities shouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that more college students are being raped or that more students are lying — just that more feel comfortable coming forward.

Feminist Barbie: Evidence is harder than math.

Of course, being accused of sexual assault hurts. And there are things that we can and should do to help accused students — namely, providing them with psychological counsel. But accused men’s pain does not excuse rape, and men shouldn’t be the ones defining it. Most rapists, even those who have been criminally convicted, will never label themselves as such. More broadly, there is a tendency on the part of college-age men to define sexual assault according to their own standards, not according to campus guidelines.

Psychological counsel? Are you fucking kidding me? How about providing the accused with a lawyer, you miserable fucking assholes? How about protecting a man’s rights before torpedoing his college career and his reputation? It doesn’t matter whether or not a criminally-convicted rapist labels himself as such or if any felon personally rejects the idea that they are a felon. The law and the state have attached the label to him AFTER it overcame the presumption of his innocence and AFTER he had the opportunity to defend himself against being labeled as a rapist.

The ramifications of sexual assault are severe. Especially when they don’t receive services, survivors often experience post-traumatic stress, depression and suicidal ideation. They are at a higher risk of chronic health conditions, future sexual victimization and lowered academic achievement. Though they vary, the approximations of how many women have been sexually assaulted in college are always high.

That should be the education secretary’s biggest concern.

And the ramifications of a false accusation of rape are severe. The accused experience post-traumatic stress, depression, and ACTUAL suicide.

“Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of “rape.” She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. “To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don’t care a hoot about him.” Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. “They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

– Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar to Time Magazine, June 24, 2001

I add the Comins quote because it captures attitude of authors and of feminists in general: They do not give a damn about what happens to men. Despite the propaganda of women being more empathetic than men, these women don’t give a damn when an injustice is done to a man based on the word of a woman. They are silent when Brian Banks has his life destroyed based on a false accusation. They are silent when Emmett Till is murdered based on a false accusation. They are silent when Kevin Baruxes is thrown in prison for 7 years or when Howard Dudley is thrown in for 25 years.

As Comins states above and the authors intimate, Feminists don’t care about injustices done to men by women, they care about power.

This not an attitude unique to feminists. When men articulate their problems, concerns, or fears, they are answered, by women in general with standard feminist pablum about “women have it worse than men, so shut up” and “well, it’s ONLY 2-10% of false rape accusations, so shut up.”

The chance of being attacked by a shark are 1 in 11.5 million, but when the lifeguard spots a shark fin, everybody runs out of the water.

So I offer women the same thing Comins and the authors of this opinion offer when I see women suffer some injustice. When I read about “woman beaten by boyfriend” she should seek psychological counseling. When a woman gets raped, especially by an acquaintance or a date, it should “initiate a process of self-exploration” about what it is she finds so personally appealing about rapists. Woman gets killed by her boyfriend or husband, just like men should be taught not to rape, women should be taught not to fuck murderers.

Archived Source

Advertisements

The Billy Graham Rule and Self-Preservation

This puff-piece appeared on the Harvard Business Review website by Drs. W. Brad Johnson and David G. Smith, professors of psychology (mind-fucking) and sociology (Socialism) respectively. The article’s primary purpose to shill their new book, “Athena Rising: How and Why Men Should Mentor Women” (HA!), by excoriating who have enough wisdom to avoid putting themselves in compromising positions.

When U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said that he would never have a meal alone with a woman who was not his wife, he was invoking the well-worn “Billy Graham rule”; the evangelical leader has famously urged male leaders to “avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” Translation: Men should avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married. Graham has been known to avoid not only meals but also car and even elevator rides alone with a woman. The reason? To avoid tarnishing his reputation by either falling prey to sexual temptation or inviting gossip about impropriety.

Billy Graham also avoided handling the money of his ministry for the same reason. And guess what?

IT WORKED.

Have you heard of any scandals involving Billy Graham? Have you heard of Billy Graham doing meth or banging hookers? Have you heard of Billy Graham appropriating any unseemly amounts money from the ministry a la Creflo Dollar?

No, you have not because Billy Graham’s rule is successful.

Think Pence’s quarantine of women is unique? Consider a recent survey by National Journal in which multiple women employed as congressional staffers reported (and male colleagues confirmed) the existence of an implicit policy that only male staffers could spend time one-on-one or at after-hours events with their (male) congressmen. Cut out of key conversations, networking opportunities, professional exposure, and face time with career influencers, female staffers naturally are underrepresented in leadership positions and — not surprisingly — earn about $6,000 less annually than their male peers.

The Billy Graham — and now Mike Pence — rule is wrong on nearly every level. Lauded by some as an act of male chivalry, it is merely a 20th-century American iteration of sex segregation. When women are, in effect, quarantined, banned from solitary meetings with male leaders, including prospective sponsors and career champions, their options for advancement, let alone professional flourishing, shrink. The more that men quarantine women, excluding them from key meetings, after-hours networking events, and one-on-one coaching and mentoring, the more that men alone will be the ones securing C-suite jobs. The preservation of men and the exclusion of women from leadership roles will be perpetuated everywhere that the Billy Graham rule is practiced. Score another one for the old boys’ club.

Chivalry is not the issue. The issue is self-preservation, for your career and your mission. Billy Graham and his associates imposed the rule on themselves to protect the ministry they were building because they understood that they could not build a Christian ministry without the confidence of their parishoners that they were morally upright. And why? Because once a woman puts the mouth on a man, “He touched me/spoke to me/looked at me/paid me/etc.” that shadow hangs over him forever. See Casey Affleck, who can win an Oscar, but the rumor mill still churns up an eight-year old unproven accusation against him.

Let me put it even more plainly: If men do not choose to associate with women professionally, it is because women have become a professional hazard to men.

Whether codified or informal, sex quarantines are rooted in fear. At the heart of it, policies curbing contact between men and women at work serve to perpetuate the notions that women are toxic temptresses, who want to either seduce powerful men or falsely accuse them of sexual harassment. This framing allows men to justify their anxiety about feeling attracted to women at work, and, sometimes, their own sexual boundary violations. It also undermines the perceived validity of claims by women who have been harassed or assaulted. Although thoughtful professional boundaries create the bedrock for trust, collegiality, and the kind of nonsexual intimacy that undergirds the best mentoring relationships, fear-based boundaries are different. By reducing or even eliminating cross-sex social contact, sex segregation prevents the very exposure that reduces anxiety and builds trust.

A claim is not valid that is not supported by evidence or reason. But one has to love how the authors snuck that little attempt at creating an unjustifiable obligation. “A woman you don’t know what done wrong by a man who isn’t you; therefore you are obligated to give women you don’t know access to what you have, despite it being against your interests to do so.”

To build closer, anxiety-free working relationships with members of the opposite sex, thoughtful men will be well-served by having more, not less, interaction with women at work. In a classic series of studies, psychologist Robert Zajonc discovered that repeated exposure to a stimulus (such as a gender group) that previously elicited discomfort and anxiety helped reduce anxiety, and actually increased the probability of fondness and positive interaction. Termed the mere exposure effect in social psychology, the principle has been particularly useful in changing negative attitudes about previously stigmatized groups. Excellent leaders initiate positive developmental and collegial interactions with as many types of people as they can — deliberately, frequently, and transparently.

Can the “mere exposure effect” be applied to “rape” porn or even porn in general? Seems to being working in Japan.

Perhaps the most disingenuous and deceptive quality of the Billy Graham rule and other forms of sex segregation at work may be their superficially honorable and chivalrous nature. This “benevolent sexism” includes evaluations of women that appear subjectively positive but are quite damaging to gender equity. In their pioneering research on the topic, psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske discovered that women often endorse many benevolent forms of sexism (e.g., that women are delicate and require protection, or that sex quarantines at work help preserve women’s reputations), despite the fact that the sexism inhibits real gender equality. This may explain why many women applauded Pence’s stance as evidence of his character and commitment to his marriage. But sexism always diminishes and disadvantages women at work; even benevolent sexist policies, which lack transparent hostility and appear “nice” on the surface, lead to lower rates of pay and promotion, regardless of how many women support them.

As pointed out above, the Billy Graham rule has little to do with “chivalry” and more to do with “CYA” (Cover Your Ass).

Here is something most men fail to consider when invoking sex quarantines at work: What does their unwillingness to be seen alone with a woman say about them and males more generally? When a man refuses to be alone with a female colleague on a car trip or in a restaurant, owing to fear of something untoward happening, we must ask: Dude, do you, or do you not, have a functioning frontal lobe? Sex quarantines reinforce notions that men are barely evolved sex maniacs, scarcely capable of muting, let alone controlling, their evolved neurological radar for fertile mates of the opposite sex. Sex quarantines paint men as impulsive, sexually preoccupied, and unable to refrain from consummating romantic interest or sexual feelings if they occur in cross-sex relationships. The “sex-crazed” male stereotype is often reinforced in the process of male socialization, and there are plenty of men who, at least on some level, fear breaking rank and violating these expectations of male behavior. This is where moral courage comes in. The fact is, many men choose not to fulfill this stereotype; many men have close, mutual, collegial relationships with women and never once violate a relational boundary.

This whole paragraph is a stunning piece of academic shaming language, the trust of which is “we will call you names (sex maniacs, sex-crazed) if you do not give us what we want. But if you show ‘moral courage’ (give us what we want), we will not carry out the threat that we claim you should fear.” This is emotional blackmailing with excess verbiage.

The frontal lobe, as my “dudes” referred to it, is where problem solving takes place. Women accusing men of bad acts is a hazard. The most cost-effective solution to a hazard is to go around it. Some men have chosen to bypass the hazard of a false accusation by bypassing the typical false accuser (a woman).

Simple, logical, and practical.

Of course, the Billy Graham rule and other efforts at quarantining women suffer from a number of logical inconsistencies. For instance, there is the efficacy problem: Rigid efforts to eliminate cross-sex interaction in the workplace have not proven effective. Even in the most conservative religious denominations, nearly one-third of pastors have crossed sexual boundaries with parishioners. Then there is the uncomfortable truth that the Billy Graham rule denies the reality of LGBT people and that sexual and romantic feelings are not limited to cross-sex relationships. The logic of sex quarantine thinking would dictate that a bisexual leader could never meet alone with anyone! Finally, the truth is that sex-excluding policies are rooted in deeply erroneous dichotomous thinking: Either I engage with women at work and risk egregious, career-threatening boundary violations or I avoid all unchaperoned interaction with women.

Sirs, did these pastors accept the Billy Graham rule? Did they practice it? If the answer to one or both of those questions is “no” then they cannot be held as examples of its inefficacy.

Thanks.

So what’s an evolved male leader to do? In the simplest terms, become what we call a thoughtful caveman. Healthy, mature, self-aware men understand and accept their distinctly male neural architecture. If they happen to be heterosexual, this means they own the real potential for cross-sex attraction without catastrophizing this possibility or acting out feelings of attraction, to the detriment of female colleagues. Thoughtful cavemen employ their frontal cortex to ensure prudence and wise judgment in relationships with women and men.

Is “thoughtful caveman” the latest colloquiallism for New Soviet Man New Feminist Man?

Translation: Give females things, don’t ask females for things you want (sex), and don’t worry about females accusing you of things because…why would a woman ever lie about sex?

Here is a final reason why even devoutly Christian men like Mike Pence and Billy Graham should be dubious about isolating and excluding women at work: Jesus himself was known to meet alone with women (e.g., the Samaritan woman at the well). It seems that showing kind hospitality and elevating the dignity of women was more important than any threat of gossip.

That’s funny.

The Samaritan woman attempted to trickle-truth Jesus (lie by omission). It is only after Jesus calls her out on her bullshit (You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.) that she SUBMITS to his authority as a Rabbi and as the Messiah.

Source

Archived Source

“A Rape on Campus”: The Saga Continues – Jackie Coakley Ordered to Comply With Court Orders in Phi Kappa Psi Lawsuit Against Rolling Stone

This is the kind of story that warms even the blackest of hearts (like mine, for example).

Following Nicole Eramo’s successful lawsuit against the pack of gossips and scandal-mongers led by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the University of Virginia’s chapter of Phi Kappa Psi has pressed the gas pedal on its own state court claims against Erdely, Rolling Stone and Wenner Media. Phi Kappa Psi’s wait until the end of Eramo’s lawsuit was good strategy to get an idea of what the defendants would likely argue in its case.

on Monday, Phi Kappa Psi’s lawyers argued a motion to compel Jackie Coakley to comply with a subpeona for documents related to Jackie, Nicole Eramo, Sabrina Erdely, and the false rape claim. The presiding judge agreed with Phi Kappa Psi and ordered that Coakley would have to “substantially comply” with the order.

Phi Kappa Psi is seeking $26.4 million damages from the named defendants. The trial is scheduled for October 23, 2017.

With that in mind, let’s see how Rolling Stone and it’s parent company, Wenner Media, are doing:

According to the New York Post, Wenner is looking to sell its interests in Us Weekly for a cool $100 million. The leading horse in the race to buy is American Media Inc., owner of fine publications such as the National Enquirer and Star Magazine (Celebrity Gossip rags). Wenner is reportedly carrying about $60 million in debt. If the Nicole Eramo verdict is upheld, that makes $63 million. If Phi Kappa Psi wins its lawsuit, punch that total up to $89.4 million.

Source 1

Source 2

Rolling Stone & Sabrina Erdely Liable to University of Virginia Official Nicole Eramo for Defamation; $3 Million in Damages

Last Friday…hang on, something is missing here. Somehow, the mood just isn’t right. It needs something appropriate, something to capture the uplifting mood that news like this should invoke.

Ah, here we are. Just hit play and read on.

Last Friday, a federal jury in Charlottesville, VA returned with a judgment on damages against co-defendants Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the Law & Order: SVU fanfiction, the thoroughly, utterly, completely discredited beyond all recovery, story published in Rolling Stone, “A Rape on Campus,” and Rolling Stone magazine in Nicole Eramo’s defamation suit against them:

$3 million.

$3,000,000.

2.41 million pounds.

4149 Bitcoins.

The 10 jurors found that Rolling Stone, in publishing the article, acted with “actual malice” in publishing the 9,000 fictional account of Jackie Coakley being gangraped at the behest of the non-existent Phi Kappa Psi fraternity member, Haven Monahan, during a party that occurred.

Actual malice, as laid out in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), requires that the plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence (50.1%) that the writer/publisher of the defamatory statements did so with a knowing or reckless lack of investigation.

The breakdown of the $3 million damages award $2 million of liability to Erdely and $1 million to Rolling Stone and its parent company, Wenner Media.

But it’s not over yet.

Rolling Stone and Erdely still have to deal with Phi Kappa Psi’s $25 million lawsuit against them; that trial starts next year.

Between the Rolling Stone case, the total destruction of Gawker, and the rise to prominence of the alternative media, I believe the American public has turned on the traditional/corporate press and is no longer willing to offer them wide latitude in the name of freedom of the press, which was never understood to protect a discrete class of persons who went to journalism school, but the right to exercise speech and transmit ideas using mechanical means (the printing press, leaflets, pamphlets, blogs, vlogs, websites, etc.) People have watched the corporate media manipulate the truth, or outright lie, as in this instance, in the name of pushing a narrative as truth.

These cases will not pose a threat to the First Amendment, but the are a loud, clear indication that the corporate media is in a death spiral and given their actions, they have no interest in trying to pull out of it. And a large segment of the American public has no interest in allowing them to peddle lies and propaganda as truth.

Source 1

Archived Source 1

Source 2

Archived Source 2

Hoes Gon Be Hoes featuring Nathaniel Haas

I’m really having to pick the bottom of the barrel for this one, but I was entertained by it, which is all that counts around here.

Here’s the troubling bottom line that explains why rape and sexual assault are an epidemic, especially on college campuses, with no end in sight: We don’t treat, talk about or think about sexual assault and rape like we do many other crimes.

Of course not. Other crimes simply happen when a person intends to do an act that the state has deemed unlawful. Rape, on the other hand, has been declared a crime against humanity thanks to the shrieking feminist harridans and globalist nannies.

In reality, the crime rape is most analogous to is battery.

Austin James Wilkerson was given a cakewalk sentence by Boulder District Judge Patrick Butler after being convicted of sexually assaulting a helpless victim and unlawful sexual conduct. This is the latest example of the strange, detached-from-reality manner in which rape and sexual assault are discussed and adjudicated in this country.

While the sentence is strange, the judge, according to Colorado law, was within his powers to impose such a sentence.

According to the FBI and the Justice Department, rape and sexual assault have false-accusation rates similar to other felonies. But for every 100 rapes, 32 will be reported to police, seven of those will lead to an arrest, three of those will be prosecuted, and two will put the perpetrator behind bars.

The problem with Nathaniel’s argument (cribbed shamelessly from RAINN) is that rape is a legal term of art, not something for feminists to use for shock value on a skewed and manipulated self-reporting survey. From RAINN’s own phony baloney “statistics” they start off by saying that of 1000 rapes, which assumes, without evidence (Nathaniel should pay attention. I’m sure they teach a class on Evidence at SoCal Law) that 1,000 acts of rape took place. They drop down to 344 “rapes” are reported to the police. Again, this statement assumes that the 344 claims, like the 1000 before it, had merit and could be supported by sufficient evidence to overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence. And then they go down to 63 claims which lead to arrest, again assuming that all of those claims before them were meritorious (without evidence) but at least at this point, we have 63 which, after police investigation were determined to have at least probable cause to arrest a suspect. At this stage, RAINN et al. would like you assume (without evidence) that the police are such stumbling idiots that they just let 281 cases of rape slide because PATRIARCHY, not because they couldn’t make a case or after thorough investigation, the claim was bogus.

You should have the plot at this point. Bad statistics make for bad arguments.

Wilkerson is part of that 2 percent. While he faced a prison term between four years and the rest of his life, he was sentenced to just two years of work release and 20 years’ probation.

I’d like to pick Mr. Wilkerson’s lawyer’s brain has to how he pulled off jail time (though 20 years probation is probably something that could be contested on appeal).

According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the average sentence for a federal marijuana crime is three years. Bribing a federal meat inspector carries a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison. Stalking in violation of a restraining order also carries a mandatory one-year prison sentence. Under Colorado law, the most lenient grand theft auto charge is usually punishable by six to 18 months in jail.

Okay.

Wilkerson could have bribed a meat inspector, sold weed to the young woman who he assaulted, followed her around in violation of a restraining order, or stolen her car, and he likely would have landed in prison for a longer term than he was sentenced in this case.

Yeah, Nathaniel lost the plot here. Federal court and state court are separate jurisdictions. And, like rape, you still have to present sufficient evidence of bribing a meat inspector, or selling marijuana sufficient for a federal prosecutor to take the case (not taking into account the present tension between Colorado law and federal law concerning the possession and sale of marijuana), or stalking, or even stealing a car.

What you “know” doesn’t matter in court. Only what you can “prove.” You’ve got to past that before you can schedule the hanging.

A lot of what you need to know about why sexual assault and rape are such an outrageous problem is reflected in that disgraceful inconsistency. And imagine if the defense in any of those hypothetical cases had proceeded like it did over the days Wilkerson was in trial:

“Ms. Doe, what were you wearing when Mr. Wilkerson stole your car? Did your gray cardigan suggest to him that you might be OK with him driving it away? Are you sure you weren’t behaving in a manner that was ‘asking for’ your car to be taken?”

“And are you absolutely sure you don’t remember consenting to having your car stolen?”

Nathaniel, people have stolen cars and then argued that the victim of the theft told the accused they could borrow it. Or they took the car to satisfy some oral contract or debt. Or that the accusing witness filed the claim against the defendant maliciously.

It is neither outrageous nor disgraceful that a defendant attempt to raise reasonable doubt on the state’s claims against him.

Defenders of Wilkerson will point the finger at college binge drinking as the real bogeyman to blame for incidents like this. It’s a cop-out: Binge drinking also amplifies the risk of DUIs, suicide, homicide, domestic violence, and a host of other crimes, but our society has come to believe that those who commit those crimes under the influence are just as culpable as those who break the law sober. Why not for sexual assault?

Because there is no law that allows you to be drunk and drive on public roads. Or be drunk and beat someone up. Or be drunk and kill someone.

But it is legal to be drunk and have sex. Trust me on this.

Moreover, despite good evidence that the vast majority of rapes are committed by serial offenders who will commit multiple rapes unless stopped, we still pretend that without intervention, Thursday-night benders will turn average college students into sex-crazed demons whose lives and reputations depend on their liver’s ability to process alcohol.

Huh? This sentence is kind of a clusterfuck.

The bottom line is this: We wouldn’t tolerate the abysmal percentage of committed rapes that lead to conviction and punishment of the perpetrator if it were the same for murders or kidnappings. But we do treat rape and sexual assault victims with a scrutiny that has no basis in reality, given the crime is just as falsely reported as any other. And we’re obsessed with quick fixes like alcohol consumption that obfuscate society’s fixation with treating rape and sexual assault much more casually when it comes to punishing perpetrators.

Okay, even the bottom line here is confusing. Is Nathaniel arguing that defendants in sex crimes cases should be barred from questioning or undermining the accusing witness’ credibility? (BELIEVE-HERism) That Americans just kind of go LOL RAPE? (which is inaccurate in light of the fact that several states punished rape by death [See Louisiana v. Kennedy 2008]). That people are blaming it on T-Pain and the a-a-a-a-alcohol?

So how should “perpetrators” be punished? The Supreme Court has barred killing men convicted of rape as disproportionate to the offense (much to the chagrin of feminists and the Cult of the Holy Vagina). Exile? 99 years on the chain gang? 10-30 years imprisonment? Castration (chemical or surgical)?

The Wilkerson case has shone the light on precisely that problem. We absolutely shouldn’t lose the chance to use that spotlight to have a serious conversation about changing societal attitudes towards rape and sexual assault.

Never let a crisis go to waste, even if you have to fabricate it out of phony statistics and empty sophistry. The feminist war against due process continues unabated.

You’ll make a great lawyer, Nathaniel. You just stick with it, lil’ buddy.

Archived Source

Hoes Gonna Be Hoes featuring Julie Bindel

While watching The Guardian circle the toilet bowl, paid Feminist talker Julie Bindel has added her voice to the cacophony of harridans screeching for the destruction of due process and defendants’ rights. In this episode of “Hoes Gon Be Hoes” Julie discusses why trial by jury should be done away with. But only in rape cases. Because matters of the Holy Vagina shouldn’t be entrusted to the hoi polloi.

Almost a decade ago I wrote that rape might as well be legal. I feel the same way today. In 2013-14 in England and Wales, about 16,000 rapes were recorded by police, but only a third of these cases were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Approximately 15% of the recorded offences resulted in a charge. The actual attrition rate – meaning from reporting to conviction – is estimated at about 6%.

By “16,000 rapes,” Julie means 16,000 “reports” or accusations of rape. The one-third sent to CPS presumably had sufficient evidence for the police to say “we think there’s enough here.” In the absence of stating a conclusion, Julie would like to assume that 16,000 women in England and Wales were raped because “why would a woman EVER lie about rape?” (Except when they do). The alternate (and better) conclusion is that those cases not forwarded to CPS and not charged were either A) false, or B) lacked sufficient evidence.

One potential solution to this worrying state of affairs is to do away with jurors in sex crime trials, and appoint a specially trained judge.

“Specially trained” by who? And trained in what capacity? Also, how did we go from statistics showing that police and prosecutors sifting through rape accusations, to an indictment of the right of trial by jury in felony cases?

The minds of feminists are peculiar indeed.

I am wholly in favour of our jury system, but even more in favour of ensuring that rapists and other sex offenders do not walk free.

Anyone who tells you they are in favor of something BUT is not actually in favor of that thing.

New Zealand could be the first country to rid sex crime cases of jurors if one key recommendation from a recently published report by its Law Commission is implemented. The commissioners have suggested that there is a case for having sexual violence trials decided by a judge, either alone or with two expert “lay assessors”.

How will these “lay assessors” be qualified as “experts”? No wait, let me guess, master’s degrees in Gender Studies and Sociology with insightful publications on “why penises are the root of all evil” (jobs for the girls).

Why do away with one of the fundamentals of a decent justice system? Is the jury system not set up in order to better ensure fairness and justice, rather than relying on a crusty old Etonian in a wig?

In response to the first question, I’m sure Julie will feed us a healthy dose of “Believe Her” non-logic. In response to the second question, no. Trial by jury (there is no “jury system”) is one of many rights recognized for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the overwhelming power of the state. Your own Magna Carta provides a wonderful list things the state was no longer permitted to do without the judgment of a jury:

Captured, Imprisoned, Disseised (deprived) of his freehold (property), Disseised of his liberty, Disseised of his free customs, Outlawed, Exiled, Destroyed, Proceeded against by force, and Proceeded against by arms.

Not in rape cases. If jurors were to receive the level of training and awareness-raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape, the jury system would be more effective in dealing with sex crimes – but this would take more than a few words from the judge at the beginning of a trial, which is how it works at the moment. In their report, the New Zealand commissioners found that rape trials feature “powerful cultural conceptions” that are “unique to sexual violence as a form of criminal offending” and absent from, for example, a case involving a man hitting another man in the street or pub.

That’s a lot of words to say “please let me prejudice the jury before any evidence is presented.”

I have sat through a number of rape cases over the years, and, despite legislation introduced in 2001 that aimed to restrict the use of previous sexual history evidence unless there is a compelling reason for including it, the defence barrister will often find a way to bring it up. I saw one man acquitted after the defence suggested that the complainant was desperate for sex because her husband had become impotent in recent years. The defendant in this case had met the complainant at 2am in the back streets as she was walking home, totally sober. Almost all the other cases I heard involved the complainant being trashed as a reliable witness because she had been drinking (alcohol is the new short skirt).

It’s the defense lawyer’s (or barrister’s) job to present such theories as cast reasonable doubt on the state’s case. Holding it against jurors for finding the defense’s arguments credible, and against defense counsel for presenting the argument, compel the question of “why allow the defendant in a rape trial legal counsel at all?”

Claims that the complainant is lying are all the more believable because of the disproportionate media coverage of false rape allegations. Also jurors – in particular female ones – do not want to face the fact that those who commit rape include a broad cross section of men, and rarely fit the stereotype of a masked madman leaping out of a bush. Even when a judge permits expert evidence that challenges these myths, this cannot possibly compete with the bombardment of prejudice and misinformation that jurors absorb from some sections of the media on a daily basis.

Pray tell, what is the “correct” proportion of media coverage for a false rape allegation? In the best case scenario, the accuser recants before anyone’s name is splashed across the papers and the internet. Worse case, a man loses years from his life, his freedom, his sanity, and his reputation. But who cares, right? So long as all not a single rapist anywhere goes free, a couple of innocent men here and there is acceptable collateral damage.

There is also a nice bit of doublespeak buried in the middle: “[T]hose who commit rape include a broad cross section of men, and rarely fit the stereotype of a masked madman leaping out of a bush.” Given that the public has been bombarded with the theme of “acquaintance rape” for nigh-on twenty years, making it incredible that anyone in the Anglosphere holds the position of “women can only be raped by strangers.” A stereotype far more common and prevalent among jurors that I have observed is the idea that “the defendant wouldn’t be at trial if he weren’t guilty of something.”

Her refusal, or inability to identify any common traits shared between rapists, she leaves an unwary reader to draw the conclusion that ANY man could be a rapist. Julie is sort of like our Feminist Morpheus walking Neo through the training Matrix and explaining that anyone can transform into an Agent, then when Neo takes a second look at the woman in the red dress, she’s actually an Agent with a semi-automatic pointed right at his head.

Finally, if a bad juror makes it onto the jury panel, it is the fault of the lawyer for not conducting sufficient questioning during voir dire.

That’s exactly how men work in Feminist La-La Land.

Unlike jurors, judges at least get a day or two of training in sexual offences, which includes dispelling the myths and understanding why complainants do not necessarily break down in tears during evidence. My only misgiving in wholly supporting doing away with jurors in rape cases is that it might give leverage to those who wish to abolish the jury system altogether as a way to save money.

Who said complainants (thank Aqua Buddha she didn’t say “victims” again!) needed to cry on the stand? Since we are trading anecdotes, I saw a man convicted of rape on the testimony of an accuser who testified against him and was absolutely stone-faced through direct and cross-examination.

I’m glad to see that Julie concerned that the state doesn’t cut any money as opposed to, oh, the defendant’s rights. But to a feminist, defendants have no rights where the Holy Vagina should be concerned.

If we are serious about ensuring that those guilty of rape are convicted, public education of the type that will robustly challenge the lies and misinformation about rape has to be given priority. It is the public who become jurors and ultimately decide on such cases. The way that men who commit sex crimes are excused, and the women and men experiencing them are blamed, leaves me with no confidence in non-expert citizens delivering justice in rape cases.

“Public education” = “Spend more tax money indoctrinating potential jurors in the Gospel of BELIEVE HER-ism!”

Feminists truly are the handmaidens of tyranny.

Archived Source

New Jersey Man Falsely Accused of Rape Discusses Road to Exoneration and Underclass of the Convicted

Exonerations of wrongfully convicted people have become so routine in recent years that their stories are almost commonplace. We think we know the narrative: A defendant languishes in prison for a crime he did not commit; through tenacious legal work — or the magic of DNA tests — he is freed.

Then there are stories like Dion Harrell’s, which show that the suffering attached to unjust verdicts can linger even after the innocent are sprung from their prison cells.

In September 1988, Mr. Harrell was arrested in the rape of a 17-year-old girl as she was walking home from her job at a McDonald’s in Long Branch, N.J. A neighborhood guy who often played basketball with local police detectives, Mr. Harrell lived across the street from the fast-food restaurant. When he was arrested, the victim immediately identified him as her assailant.

“The cops were like, ‘Why’d you do it?’” Mr. Harrell said. “I was like, ‘Do what?’ They said, ‘Why’d you rape her?’ I just broke down crying. I still cry — it hurts.”

BELIEVE HER.

Mr. Harrell was found guilty in 1992, and from 1993 to 1997, he was imprisoned at the Mid-State Correctional Facility at the Fort Dix Army base. When he was released, he was required under Megan’s Law to be added to the state’s sex-offender registry. The law, which was named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old girl who was raped and murdered near Trenton in 1994, precluded him from living near children. Though he wanted at first to move in with his sister, his sister had two sons, both of whom were minors at the time. So state agencies helped him find a hotel room, he said, where he lived for nearly a year.

Meanwhile, his name and image were spread across the internet — not only on the state’s website, but also on private pages that alert residents to sex offenders living in their area. He said he was spotted in — and hounded out of — bars. Friends, and friends of friends, posted insults on his Facebook page. Landlords did not want him in their buildings. Employers refused to hire him.

Yes, the American penal system really does work. Honestly. Look at this successful story of the care and effort the state of New Jersey expended to not only release, but reintegrate Mr. Harrell back into society.

I’ll give you a minute to get the laughter out of your system.

While still in prison, Mr. Harrell had written to the Innocence Project asking for help in getting a DNA test that he hoped would clear his name. “The reason I am writing your office,” his original letter read, “is because I am innocent of the crime.” He added that he “cannot begin to explain” the psychological trauma he had endured.

At that point, however, the organization already had thousands of defendants on its waiting list. It was also difficult, Ms. Potkin said, to correspond with Mr. Harrell because of his transient living situation.

Eventually, in 2014, she took the case. She faced an immediate hurdle: Under New Jersey law at the time, only defendants still in prison were entitled to a DNA test. (The law has since been amended.)

But Ms. Potkin persuaded the Monmouth County prosecutor’s office to grant Mr. Harrell an exception. Last month, the test conducted on semen came back in his favor; and on July 22, Christopher J. Gramiccioni, the prosecutor, announced that he would move to have Mr. Harrell’s conviction thrown out, which would trigger the removal of his name from the sex-offender list.

Justice delayed is better than no justice at all, I suppose.

It is hard to know precisely how many cases like Mr. Harrell’s exist across the country. But one man who experienced a similar ordeal is Eddie Lowery, a former Army specialist, who in 1982 was wrongfully convicted of raping a 63-year-old woman as she lay sleeping in her home in Ogden, Kan. Mr. Lowery, who is now 57 and lives in California, served 10 years in prison. When he got out and had to register as a sex offender, he was so afraid of being recognized that he hid his house’s address plate behind a flower pot.

First the sex offender registry and all of the consequences it entails. Now we have the terror watchlists in all of its due process-violating glory.

What comes tomorrow, I wonder?

Archived Source