Good luck Leafy
In Detroit in 1994 the headlines were taken up by the story of three different basketball players who had all been accused of rape. These men were Derrick Coleman, Chris Webber and Jalen Rose and all three cases were subsequently dropped against the men. This of course was hushed over that the charges were dropped, at this time a study was conducted for the Washington Times by “two leading universities” (
http://www.misandryreview.com/?p=12657) and written up by Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School which found out that 40% of all men accused of rare were found to be falsely accused. The definition of false as used in the study is, "the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred." Indeed, it includes only cases in which the complainant herself "admitted they are false." That's amazing that in these cases in 1994 40% of the rape charges were announced to be false by those who made the accusation.
That is of course is just relying on data from 1994 in America and not worldwide or relating to another crime, one thing I couldn't find was how many people have been to court accused of crimes and were later found innocent. One would assume this percentage is at least about 40% as the study from 1994 found out. So lets look at this from a statistical side of things, out of One hundred cases we can assume there would be one hundred victims and one hundred accused. Using my 40% theory of that there would be One Hundred and forty people who have not committed a crime, and sixty have. Would it be fair to have all the victims treated at a higher standard than those who have been accused, as I looked at that would mean forty people are falsely accused. If that's the case should we average things out and put the forty people who claim to be 'victims' into the criminal side? That would make it one hundred each but on different sides to what we started. Sounds complicated? Yup it's meant to be!
Lets put it in basic terms “Innocent until proven guilty” but we know full well that this should be the case,but is simply not. It's as though society has deemed it “guilty until proved innocent.!” I want go into stats as pointed out done by the prison reform website. I don't need to point out that men get more of a raw deal than women in this, that those held in remand are worse off than those actually convicted nor do I need to go into further details where this is essentially wrong, at the end of the day the people are accused not proven guilty.
I also want to clarify my stance that victims SHOULD have their rights as precedence over those who have been found guilty by a court of law as far as I see if you break the law you void your contract to have rights, but I won't go into that either. HOWEVER when accused you are technically innocent so this should be an equal to that of the victim.
Think of it from your point of view, you've been arrested because someone matching your description raped a female. You've never even met this female before and you know you didn't rape her, you're fired from your job, your girlfriend leaves you, your family refuse to speak to you. You're at rock bottom, you're in a cell 22 hours of the day with 30 minutes excersise. Your name is in the paper with your name and face splashed in it, you make the evening news, people make a FB group about how much they hate you, there's 100,000 people join it. You're found innocent....what happens? Girl may take you back, family may talk to you, job won't take you back, news will briefly mention you were innocent and the FB group still exists. Is this morally right?
__________________
