mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
> >> > A statistically
> >> > uncommon trial and an unlikely guilty verdict
> >>
> >> What is a "statistically uncommon trial"?
>
> > Do trials occur in 100% of incidents, or even reports (true or false), of sexual
> > assault?
>
> Nope.
>
> Why do you think they should?

It would be an excellent indication of the effectiveness of law enforcement, and people's
trust in the legal system, if that were a fair legal system that caught all those who
commited crime.

> > Yes, because a woman who was raped probably knew it since it happened.
>
> And someone who simply makes an accusation to get back as someone knows
> it didn't.

That is correct. But you, as years ago, are focusing on a statistical improbability, from
2% to 8% of claims. The problem of underreported assault (as high as ten out of 11) which
naturally never results in any trial or punishment, is much more serious.

> But you see no problem with the latter, oddly.

No, because a false accusation would be a lie, putting an "innocent" person in possible
jeopardy. Those who make false accusations should be punished perhaps akin to the
punishment for the crime they accuse innocent people of.

> It would seem then, that you support criminal behavior, in that regard.

Untrue. I support for example, "criminal" behavior regarding victims who cannot get
justice through the ineffective legal system, getting the justice themselves. The site

http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/sources/conviction-rate.html

suggests the surprisingly high rate of "1 conviction for 6 reports and 1 conviction for 3
arrests".

I do not believe that every conviction represents an actual crime took place, but I am
even less inclined to believe that 5 out of 6 reports are lies.

Then there is the issue of up to nine out of ten, or ten out of eleven sexual assaults
going completely unreported.

> >> Then why did you disagree above?
>
> > Because a trial, or at least the investigation leading up to it, could be useful in a
> > case when nothing is known.
>
> I can't come up with an example in recent memory where there wasn't at
> least an investigation.

The investigation that takes place before presentation during a trial (which might take
years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more), and what passes for an
investigation before any decision is made to actually question an accused, conduct a
search with warrant, make any arrests, and attempt to prosecute a case, can be
considerably different. A police officer filing the initial claim might make the personal
decision after some simple questioning, not to pursue a matter any further. I have
experienced this myself, on both sides of the law.