As often as not — more often than not — her state of intoxication is somehow construed as a mitigating factor. "How do we know she didn't consent, but couldn't remember, because she was so drunk?"

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?

> 10 times more likely

> 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.

I think you and the other poster are misconstruing the claims the OP made. He specifically compared false rape in his 10x claim, not all rape as you are. I don't know if this claim is true.

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.

It's not: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan...

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.

Your response smacks of the typical over confidence of jury trials with surprising outcomes, like how people think the McDonald's coffee verdict was ridiculous until they actually learn all of the facts.

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.

I think that comparing that case and the McDonald's coffee case is ridiculous.

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

I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing your arguments against this case to the same arguments made about the McDonald's case. It's not about the cases themselves, but our ignorance of them.

Except that I'm not equally ignorant, given that we know the defenses argument, and it's ridiculous.

You've presented a single vague summary of the defense argument (and given the non-guilty verdict and the article's presentation, is probably biased as well, but I reserve judgment).

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.

>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.

Quoting the guidelines:

>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.

Yeah, which would be relevant if I hadn't literally had to repeat myself 5 times in this thread. "Unwarranted", these labels are not. Labeling the argument "absurd" and "arrogant" is pretty much all that's left to do at this point, so I'll just leave it at that.

Citations, plural, needed. I'm not conflating the claims; I want to see evidence for both of them.

I never said you conflated them, I said you misconstrued them, and I still think that since your rephrasings of the original arguments are making completely different claims.

This is a relatively incredible set of claims. Care to back them up?

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.

This shows a misunderstanding of the us legal system. You or I don't press criminal charges, a DA does. We can report a crimes, this girl did, the rest is up to the state.

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.