“To argue that innocent men being convicted is the main problem, when this is dwarfed by the problem of guilty men going free – is perverse, and can only stem from misogyny.”
Nice strawman you made there, Jackson. I never wrote anything of the sort, nor was it even implied.
You, on the other hand, clearly believe that it would be less of an injustice for a man to be falsely imprisoned and sexually brutalized for years, maybe decades, than for a woman to get raped once.
Of course, you would think that; the disadvantaged are only MEN, so why would you have the slightest concern about the mistreatment of a group you hate and despise? The idea that such an outcome of long-term incarceration plus multiple rapes is a horrible miscarriage of justice, is, according to you, “perverse” and must “stem from misogyny.”
Your position flies in the face of English common law going back to Blackstone, who said that it was better 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent be falsely convicted.
For you, however, “the number of men falsely accused AND imprisioned is negligable.” Try that reasoning on some innocent MAN in prison doing twenty years simply because he didn’t have the money to afford a good legal defense against a false charge of rape. Again, it cost the Duke LAX team $ 1 million to beat those ludicrously false charges. I suspect that if it was YOU “imprisioned” due to a false accusation, you might view the situation a bit differently.
Again though, if it’s a MAN being punished, you couldn’t care less. Indeed, you probably have a “holiday in your heart” a la Ben Stein every time you hear that a MAN goes to jail. It’s one more of THEM out of the way, placed where you think most should be anyway.
As for my “prejudice and ignorance” about the British lack of a right to self-defense, why don’t you google the phrase “British right to self defense” and see what you find.
If I’m suffering from “prejudice and ignorance” in my belief on this matter, I’m in good company given that I’ve Glanville Williams, author of “Textbook of (British) Criminal Law, fully agreeing with me. Considered one of the greatest 20th Century commenters on British law, he’s an appeal to authority that even you can’t deny.
Concerning the British right to self-defense, Williams wrote that the requirement of “reasonableness” in response to criminal actions was “now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it (self-defense)still forms part of the (British) law.”
I think London Mayor Boris Johnson’s recent advice to Londoners witnessing criminal assaults to not interfere and let the criminal proceed with his action pretty well nails the argument home. If it was your right to defend yourself, it would be the part of all decent people to help you when you suffered an unprovoked attack by a miscreant. Instead, it’s your lot to submit and let the criminals work their will on you. Why not? It’s what the Royal Navy did when attacked by Iranian criminals.
In the United States, we too believe that burglars should be punished for burglary. For us, however, we have no problem with that punishment taking the form of shooting. A criminal breaking into a house, or trying to rob someone on the street might very well get shot, and he’d damned well deserve it. The criminals here know we Americans think that way, which is why one is six times more likely to get mugged in London than in the U.S.
As for our respect for life in the U.S., we DO have a lot more respect for the lives of innocent fetuses than for criminals who rape, rob, pillage or kill. If you and your country don’t, that’s just one more reason why you’re headed down the tubes at an ever-accelerating rate.
Your positions on both these issues are held through falsehood inspired by cowardice, misandry, bigotry and hatred. You inspire nothing but contemptuous disdain for both the poor quality of your reasoning and the poisonous venom in your heart. Stew in your own reek; I’m done with you.
