[Paracelsus]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-li...7039193434

(First thread - I don't believe this is a duplicate, search turned up nothing and I've been lurking here since this article went up...)

Old-ish article, but still useful. Sometimes when judges retire they suddenly feel a lot more free to express themselves honestly than they were while on the bench. And in this female, baby boomer judge's view, part of the reason women don't succeed on rape convictions is because they get too drunk:

Quote:

“I will ... say, and I will be pilloried for saying so, but the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk,” Judge Mowat told the Oxford Mail. “I’m not saying it’s right to rape a drunken woman, I’m not saying for a moment that it’s allowable to take advantage of a drunken woman. But a jury in a position where they’ve got a woman who says ‘I was absolutely off my head, I can’t really remember what I was doing, I can’t remember what I said, I can’t remember if I consented or not but I know I wouldn’t have done’. I mean when a jury is faced with something like that, how are they supposed to react?”

She was right on being pilloried. The moment the article came out, the hamster wheels at rape crisis centres began to spin and she was castigated, just as she predicted, for telling the truth.

This basic truth is the reason why SJWs are pushing on universities and other such places -- places other than courts. Because a court is, at the end of the day, intended as the ultimate level playing field: you can't put a man in prison unless you can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally a woman who has so little self-regard or self-control as to get herself abjectly plastered is not going to be a reliable witness. So SJWs are pushing universities to ruin men's lives without the case having to be subject to the rule of law -- by insisting on a "preponderance of evidence" approach, which is more in the 50/50 range.

Also related is this post, which might or might not have a dupe somewhere ...

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/...7022247200

The key quote from the article is this:

Quote:

In his experiment, Bartholow and his team administered alcoholic beverages to one third of a group of 67 participants (ages 21 to 35), no alcohol to the other third and a placebo beverage to the last group. All participants were instructed to complete a computer challenge that was designed to cause errors.
As predicted, the ones who were given alcohol were less alarmed when they made the errors, and the “alarm signal” was even weaker for those with the placebo beverage (but that’s another study for another time).
Those in the alcohol group, however, were as aware as the placebo and non-alcohol group that they were making an error, proving that alcohol doesn’t inhibit our ability to know what we’re doing, but rather, our inability to give a damn.
“In tasks like the one we used, although we encourage people to try to respond as quickly as possible, it is very common for people to respond more slowly following an error, as a way of trying to regain self-control. That’s what we saw in our placebo group. The alcohol group participants didn’t do this,” Bartholow said. Alcohol isn’t about your inability to control your actions, but your general disinterest in what they mean.

This is significant since this reinforces what most of us already understand: when drunk you cannot make the excuse that you were unable to control your actions. Rather it just means you don't really care about the consequences. Alcohol just dulls the brain's alarm signal when you're making a mistake. It doesn't mean you're unaware of your actions.

[HungWeiLo]

Good find and interesting read. Unfortunately, in America, you'll be convicted in the court of public opinion well before you're acquitted in an actual court.

[threeways]

well the thing is that the judge is speaking about those very few women which are actually honest when making a false rape accusation and say " ‘I was absolutely off my head, I can’t really remember what I was doing, I can’t remember what I said, I can’t remember if I consented or not "

but what happens in the rest of 98% of false rape accusations, when the women are lying intentionally, just to take revenge on their exboyfriends or the falsely accused men, because
they didn't call her back after sex, they dumper her, or because they acted beta afterwards and the woman had regrets about having consensual sex with them?

[Paracelsus]

I agree with you completely -- which is why it's so vital to preserve the rule of law and hope like hell that the standard of evidence required in these sorts of cases never drops from "beyond reasonable doubt". As I said, the main reason SJWs are trying to get university kangaroo courts to ruin men's lives is because the judicial system is still a bulwark of proof beyond reasonable doubt. They can't assault those battlements -- not yet -- so they are contenting themselves with ruining a man in a forum where he has less capability to defend himself.

[Phoenix]

Lol yes eventually I expect the same people who lobbied for the 'yes means yes' law to move on to lobbying for 'conviction only needs probable cause for rape'.

[Tytalus]

I think I saw this article somewhere else on the manosphere, or possibly in a thread here. That said, it is a good one.