Voltaire once said “If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.” He was right. Recently, I came across an article written by Paul Elam. He is someone that I personally have a lot of respect for, which is why this is anything but a pleasure to write; but, he needs to be called out on a terrible mistake that he is making, which has dire consequences. In his recent article, “Jury Duty at a Rape Trial? Acquit!”, he has sworn that should he ever be a juror in a rape case, he will always vote not guilty no matter what the evidence of the case indicates, or in his own words, “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.” (Emphasis his, shockingly enough)
Mr. Elam says that “Voting not guilty on any charge of rape is the only way to remain faithful to the concept of presumed innocence.” Certainly, the assumption of innocence is invaluable in preserving objectivity and fairness in court cases; but, that’s not what we are dealing with here. What we have here is a conviction of innocence. Such bias runs contrary to reason and justice.
Compare his statement to that of the psychotic blithering of Marilyn French, who said “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” These sentiments are two sides of the same coin. One would give unrelenting and unobjective favor to the accuser, and the other would give unrelenting and unobjective favor to the accused. Both extremes are anathema to a decent and just legal system, and both must be extinguished, for the course of justice to carry on unabridged. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind, so let us retrieve her blindfold and strike an objective balance. Rather than turn away from evidence, we should examine and reexamine it diligently, for the cost of a mistake in a rape case is the releasal of a rapist back into the streets or the damning of an innocent to the hell that is prison. Only through vigilance can we seek justice. Ignoring evidence creates new crimes.
This kind of callous disregard for fact damages the men’s movement’s image and legitimacy. It makes a laughing stock out of us, and leaves us vulnerable to mischaracterization. Examples of backlash, because of his article, include pieces by Alysha Bayes and Jesse Powell. As Matthew5sixteen said, “I must voice my disagreement publically so that it would not be said in the future that all men in the Men’s Rights Movement agree with Paul Elam’s statement.” If you’d like to voice your disagreement with me, simply post a comment for all to see on my article or any of the above, so that anyone and everyone can see that we as a movement care about truth. I know I do. I hereby make the following pledge, as a citizen with a conscience who fully believes in the rule of law, that should I ever be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to examine the evidence with much deliberation before coming to a verdict for the defendant.
LOL! Well, I had commented earlier that your criticisms lacked specifics, but that was before I saw this.
I retract the claim you were not specific.
But I do disagree with you, and as much as I respect your idealization of the pursuit of justice, I have to say that I am not sure at all you understand the position I took or why I took it.
Many of the circumstances around rape trials, most certainly rape shield laws, foster a system that prevents jurors from examining relevant evidence in a trial, and they have no way of telling whether such evidence has been excluded.
So I offer a challenge to you. If you can offer evidence that you can actually trust the system to provide you with all relevant evidence in a rape case, then I will retract my statement and publicly reverse my position.
The problem is that you can’t do that, and I think if you fully explore the facts about how rape trials are conducted, and especially how rape shield laws destroy presumed innocence before a jury is ever selected, you will see that your intent to weigh all “evidence” fairly is moot, because you cannot trust the system to give you all the evidence that must be weighed.
If you understand that critical factor completely, then, IMO, you cannot do anything but nullify.
If I am mistaken, I would certainly love it if someone proved it.
Do feminists care about the ‘rule of law?’
When a cop shreds the Bill of Rights and drags a man out of his own home without a warrant based on the unsubstantiated word of an angry woman just so his department can get cash grants via the Violence Against Women Act – or – a man is imprisoned by Family court judge, in secret, without an appeals process, for failing to meet some ‘civil’ committment….is THAT the rule of law you are talking about?
Civilized, soft-spoken, well-read, sit-with-their-knees-together guys like you are the REASON we are emasculated under the law.
Unless the woman was beaten to a pulp and has internal injuries that only a forcable rape could cause, I’m with Elam on the jury, if for no other reason than to cold-cock the false rape accusers who get to maintain their anonymity despite their lies being uncovered.
@Joe
“Do feminists care about the ‘rule of law?’”
1) So if one group is not concerned with following the law, we shouldn’t either?
2) Why bring up this group? Seems kinda random…
@Joe
“Unless the woman was beaten to a pulp and has internal injuries that only a forcable rape could cause, I’m with Elam on the jury,”
1) Apparently, you’re not with Mr. Elam; because, he has said that NO CIRCUMSTANCE would move him to vote guilty, and he wasn’t just applying this to female rape victims. He was gender neutral in his vow to ignore evidence in a rape trial.
2) But if a rape victim, including a raped man, were to not have been beaten, you would still allow their rapist to walk the streets? You’d exonerate a date rapist, just because no injuries occurred?
@Joe
“Civilized, soft-spoken, well-read, sit-with-their-knees-together guys like you are the REASON we are emasculated under the law.”
Care to name which piece of legislation has outlawed being masculine?…
The VAWA, maybe? The “Duluth Model?” Sit in Family Court for a few hours and watch the soviet-style show trials.
Try the silent treatment, raise your voice during a disagreement, or handle the family finances frugally…. in your own home…..those (used) to be considered masculine traits.
All Class-3 felonies is some states.
If I seem to be insulting you personally, well…..I apologize. Its just that, truly, the road to feminist hell is paved with the good intentions of good men LIKE you who fail to take human nature into account when making these orwellian laws.
I am unaffected personally by the state of western men because I reside in SE Asia……but I have grown sons who have and are being gutted by the American (women and children first) legal system. And I am powerless to help them.
Kind of an old article now, but I was taken aback when i read it. I’ve always been uneasy with rape laws since its so difficult to prove consent, and the (then recent) case of a woman successfully claiming a man raped her because he lied about her race had me supporting the article at the time; there must be something more easily provable (sexual assault?) that can’t be extended like this (well she didn’t consent to have sex with a muslim) but I can’t think of one. The comparisons of EVERYTHING that offends them to rape have demeaned its seriousness more than anything to me at least, though the flurry of sexual harassment and sexual assault laws that could easily encompass innocent behavior don’t help. I get the attitude but two wrongs don’t make a right and more importantly, this is a landmine, what the feminists want us to build and then step on. Sad to see Paul get rilled and walk into the trap :(
Unfortunately, idiocy and dishonesty is not limited to feminists (or any other group), but is a global issue. In the end, the greater problem is not feminism—it is lack of reason. With this lack Elam does more harm than good; without it, feminism would be unlikely to be a problem. (Either it would be benign or it would not be believed by sufficiently many.)
Obviously, anyone who publicly declares a decision of this type is legally disqualified from participating in the jury in the first place…
I think we should demand reasonable evidence to prove reasonable guilt, as juror’s are supposed to do. But to willfully turn a blind eye in the face of severe evidence would be, unthinkable.
Letting a blatantly guilty person escape justice, rejecting the wronged persons right to legitimate justice is no different then what Sweden and most of the West(if not all) do to innocent men who are victims of women abusing the legal system to exact revenge for some perceived slight or advantage.
Maybe Elam suffered a major injury to his head, maybe he didn’t. Either way that article is indefensible.
I just hope he isn’t self destructing or something.
I’m sort of with Paul on this one, but with a few exclusions. For one, I regard rape as two things and nothing else. And one of those things depends on circumstances also.
1. Forcing a women to have sex with you by using actual violence, or the direct threat of violence. Violence meaning physically hurting her…..or…..the real threat of doing so. Her having a feeling that she is under threat does not count for shit…..for one reason…..nobody can prove how somebody felt…..and unless he has clearly and dilibrately caused this “fear”….then it’s not his fault how she feels.
2. Having sex with a woman when she is unconcious or drugged or drunk to the point where she can not show resistence or express her unwillingness to have sex. In this scenario……I exclude things like….a boyfriend or husband reaching over and feeling his wife up while she is sleeping to arouse her…..because it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that since they are in a sexual relationship…..that this is no big deal to either of them…..apart from being rude and waking up your partner.
My wife often grabs my morning glory while I’m still asleep and I often wake with her playing with me or even going down on me.
When it comes to date rape……relationship rape……..I will not convict a man of anything that I would not convict a woman of. And thats a good test…..reverse whatever the situation is…..and if it sounds rediculous within that reversal…..then it is rediculous.
The law is being remade to name any sexual action by a man as rape….if the women want to call it rape….at any time after the event……..and no matter how much she wanted the sex at the time.
Well I’m not interested in any other definition of rape outside of the two above criteria. If a case outside of that criteria comes to court…….I will vote innocent regardless….because it shouldn’t even be in court under that charge anyway……period.
This is exactly the same mentality as a serious of ads here on Australia a little while ago demonising people who speed. In the ad….and guy is going down the road in a suburban street….you see his speedo….55klms…..the limit in suburban side streets was lowed from 60klms to 50klms a few years ago. Anyway…..a kid on a bike comes out from a stop sign in front of him……he breaks…..but can’t stop in time and……splat….kids is mangled and dead on road. The audio says…..if you speed…..your a murderer.
This is total bullshit. For a start the kid came out from a stop sign in front of him……..how about….if you ride through stop signs in front of cars that have right of way….your suicidal. Anyway…..its bullshit for another reason….murder is the dilibrate killing of another person…..that is what it is. For the exampel in the ad to be murder…..the guy would have had to seen the kid crossing the road….and thought…….ha ha ha……I’m going to put the peddle to the metal and splatter this kid beyound recognition.
This mentality can be extended to anything. If you look down to adjust the station of your radio and someone jumps in front of your car……your a murderer. Next it becomes…….your a murderer if your car kills anyone under any circumstances…..unless you can prove you weren’t adusting the station on your radio…..or glancing at your gps…..or taking a swig from your drink bottle……or picking your nose. And of course you can’t prove any of these things…..so your guilty
This is what has happened to rape legislation now. The trial in many cases in for nothing but appearances. If we don’t stop this bullshit……in the end…..if a woman says you raped her……there wont be a trial….waste of tax payers money……just go straight to jail and hard lacour…..with the woman getting all your assetts……and the money from your labour going to pay for your cell……which you share with bubba.
Stu
Without wanting to justify behaviour in category 2., I would be hesitant to call it “rape”. The damage done by rape is largely psychological (assuming no STD or pregnancy and no damaging violence) and it makes a world of difference if the woman is conscious through the act. Consider aspects such as a feeling of fear, frustration, and helplessness. In the case of 2., there may even be rare cases where the woman is not even aware that she has been abused and many others where she will note that she may have had sex—but just fails to recall the details. Even when she does come to the conclusion that she has been abused, the emotional effects are likely to be far smaller.
Item 2. should often be a crime, possibly even called “rape”, but the distinction is important and not making it leads to another case of trivialisation and/or rate-hiking.
(Not always, however: We have to exempt at least some cases where both parties are severly intoxicated and/or a consent could be considered implied. Possibly, other exceptions exist.)
And sorry for the typos……I’m a lazy bastard. I proof read after I post……lol