I wonder how common it is for people to actually cry wolf in the case of r***. The rule of thumb has been that because of the anguish and humiliation a r*** trial can involve, it would be very unlikely for someone to falsely claim to have been r***ing. On the other hand, there is that very real and very sad 2006 Duke University lacrosse case.
r*** is one of the trickiest crimes to prosecute, because, if there are no witnesses (which is usually the case) and forensic evidence is inconclusive, it comes down to her word against his. I think the justice system usually works pretty well in r*** cases in the U.S., but sometimes prosecutors, police, the public, and, yes, even women's groups, forget that most important rule of American criminal law: It's better to let ten guilty persons go free than it is to wrongly convict one innocent person.
On the other hand, after DNA evidence showed the Duke lacrosse players were innocent and charges were dropped, it was none other than feminist Whoopi Goldberg who came out and said that Al Sharpton owed the players an apology for prejudging them in an interview with Bill O'Reilly. :dunno:
r*** is one of the trickiest crimes to prosecute, because, if there are no witnesses (which is usually the case) and forensic evidence is inconclusive, it comes down to her word against his. I think the justice system usually works pretty well in r*** cases in the U.S., but sometimes prosecutors, police, the public, and, yes, even women's groups, forget that most important rule of American criminal law: It's better to let ten guilty persons go free than it is to wrongly convict one innocent person.
On the other hand, after DNA evidence showed the Duke lacrosse players were innocent and charges were dropped, it was none other than feminist Whoopi Goldberg who came out and said that Al Sharpton owed the players an apology for prejudging them in an interview with Bill O'Reilly. :dunno: