Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>> >> 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

Sorry, it doesn't follow at all.

There can be plea bargains, dismissed charges due to innocence, cases
where the accused is charged with other unrelated crimes easier to
prove, etc.

>> > 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.

No, I'm focussing on rights of the accused. 

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

> No, because a false accusation would be a lie, putting an "innocent" person in

Then you must protect the rights of the accused, yes?

> 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.

Are you aware of the various definitions of rape?

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

Since sexual assault can be a  slap on the butt, that's not surprising.

That's one of the problems with broad definitions...

>> 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),

Very seldom, in fact.

Mike