From what I can see, in this particular case the girl didn't press charges, even though she had a strong case (his DNA, her being very drunk, done the med evaluation quickly).

What do you propose exactly? Always believe the accuser? No more innocent till proven guilty? Make the accused unemployable? For how long?

Cause it would be trivial to create dozens of FB profiles and accuse you of rape once a week.

And that happens in places where it's prima facie rape to have sex with someone who's too intoxicated to meaningfully consent. How is that not an impossible double standard?

> in the overall majority of cases

[Citations needed]

Because the actual formal-accusation:conviction statistics completely disagree with you. Only something like 25% of reported rapes in the US result in an arrest — let alone prosecution or conviction.

Furthermore, he specifically said that if there's evidence of intercourse, the guy is screwed in a rape accusation, where you're talking about all rape charges regardless of the availability of evidence.

This claim appears to be plausible.

And that's just the one I happen to remember because of the ridiculous excuse. I'm sure cursory research would dig up more.

None of the claims made in that post are plausible.

The jury deliberated on this rape case for 30 minutes on all of the evidence and apparently easily reached a not guilty verdict, but this is apparently evidence of a grand conpsiracy rather than the more reasonable conclusion that the facts reported in this article do not convey the whole story.

You're correct, we weren't in the courtroom, but that doesn't make juries infallible.

So it seems you really know very little given the evidence I've seen so far, and your insistence that you know enough is frankly disturbing.

I'd appreciate that you not make accusations like this, and I think this violates HN conduct guidelines.

In any case. I've presented evidence that includes quotes from the testimony. You're argument rests on the jury having deliberated for 30 minutes. Juries are incredibly stupid. They can be misled, they can and do get things wrong, all the time.

My argument can be summed up as "the jury is wrong, here's why". Your counterargument is "the jury disagrees with you". And to that I'd say "duh, that's why I said they're wrong". Using the Jury's conclusion as a counterargument to the statement "The jury is incorrect" is not an argument.

>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Your statements about "absurdity" and "arrogance" are unwarranted. And you're now also putting words in my mouth. I won't be responding further.

Specifically the 10x more likely to be exonerated of murder than rape, and the more surprising claim that a majority of false rape claims end in the guy being screwed, by which I assume you mean jailtime.

All of the evidence I've seen directly contradicts both of those assertions, so I'd like to know how you concluded that.

Here the girl reported a crime, there appears to have been compelling evidence that what she says was true, and the state declined to press charges.

That's not her fault, it's a systemic failure.

Why should I hire anyone who is accused of rape when I do my background check? Why should anyone else hire such people?

Look: aperrien raped my sister today.

Why should anybody hire you or work for you now?

How come nobody freaks out over THAT? Saying "this person is unpleasant to work with, ND we shouldn't hire them" wouldn't make anyone bat an eye...

Assholes get hired all the time, even when it's known. Ever read Linus's emails? Yet I'd work with him in a heartbeat.

I say "this person is awful to work with. Don't hire them".

And they won't get hired, 99% percent of the time.

And I can do all of this in my word alone, without and judge jury or trial.

Society already says that this is ok in hiring. Nobody is going to go around saying "you can't accuse someone of that and prevent them from being hired! That is he said she said!".

Ugh. This was a nasty flamewar already—the kind of thing this site is not for. Please don't take things even closer to the bottom of the barrel.

I propose due process, evidence, trials.

What do you propose?

For starters, a justice system and ideological climate that isn't predisposed to discount women's lived experience of harassment and assault.

I understand it's a traumatic experience, but so is all of violent crimes.

I'm talking about a climate where when a woman claims she's being harassed, the response is to credit the (stated) intent of the person allegedly harassing her ("I was just flirting" or "Can't you take a joke?") over her experience. I don't think it matters what your intent was. If you're making someone — anyone — uncomfortable, that's on you; it's your behavior that caused the discomfort.

Or, when a woman actually does press charges for a rape, the way it generally works out, there's substantial burden-of-proof placed upon her to substantiate her own experience. Yes, even — especially — from the police and prosecution, whose jobs it literally is to do that for her.

> The problem is, many women don't.

Given the above, and the underlying attitudes that give rise to it, can you blame them?

We have a profoundly shitty attitude, as a culture, regarding women and their sexual agency, and the way we treat rape is only a sliver of that.

Just scratching the surface, consider the massive, systemic backlog of untested rape kits in the US.

Women aren't legally prevented from pressing charges by this maddening lack of cooperation, but in practice many rape cases go unprosecuted because of police indifference or hostility.