Also, what is ignored is that when countless guilty men go free, they don’t sit around and do nothing. They commit more crimes, rapes, assaults, murder. So, in effect, what that statement says is that it is better that countless women get raped and/or murdered rather than one innocent man get convicted.

It’s so ingrained in all of us brought up in liberal democracies that it is “better that countless guilty men(sic) go free than one innocent man(sic) is convicted” or words to that effect that this is a challenging concept indeed. However, considering the quote that seems to have struck a chord with many blamers “Men fear that women will laugh at them; women fear that men will kill them” I can’t help wondering if it would at least balance things up a bit if we could alter it to “Men fear that women will have them thrown in jail for rape; women fear that men will kill them”. Women’s fears would still be arguably greater, so the patriarchal status quo actually wouldn’t be completely skewed by this adjustment.

Personally I think this is a fine solution. The amount of reports that are unsubstantiated is only 2 percent and those are not all false reports. I personally have seen more accusations of “crying rape”, than actually rape accusations pass by. So I wouldn’t give a shit if a few “innocent” men went to jail to make sure that the vast majority does not escape their punishment. Right now I believe that the average conviction rate for rape is less than 1 percent. Let men be afraid for a change and let their lives be as ruined as that of their victims.

All men profit from this fucked up system called patriarchy and that almost always puts pressure on women to have sex with certain men when they’d really rather not. In a lot of cases a victim doesn’t even realize it’s rape or worse she blames herself.

It has also been my observation that since sexual contact has become easier to prove (through DNA tests), consent is becoming much more popular in the defense strategy for rape cases. Not only that, the bar for proving non-consent is being raised higher and higher through community standards set by violent BDSM porn. Even significant injury cannot prove non-consent because a porn-addled public believes that it is common for women to enjoy being injured.

I think the statement “presumed innocent until proven guilty” is getting out of hand in rape cases. (It is somehow not applied so diligently and obsessively when women are the accused). The statement is vague and misleading enough to allow this abuse. I think it would do the justice system much good if it could be replaced with the following two statements:

1) “Whoever makes the claim should have the burden of proof for that claim.” This is the point, expressed indirectly instead of directly, of the statement “innocent until proven guilty”. It also reflects the way the justice system works in practice, where claims and counter-claims are made one after the other as the case progresses. The prosecution is not the only party making claims and proving them.
2) Positive claims (X happened, X existed) should require a higher standard of proof than negative statements (X did not happen, X did not exist). This is simply because negative statements are almost impossible, if not impossible, to prove. People should not be required to prove negatives in order to get justice.

I don’t feel that my points are being addressed here, and people are starting to repeat themselves, so I’ll lay off trying to squeeze the Consent Scheme into the justice system. We’ve all got lives (and even other reading) to attend to.