I guess the Trump administration is not all bad

[Loren Pechtel]

It does, however, show your motivation--you want more men convicted of rape. Never mind guilt.

I want more men to be convicted of rape BECAUSE more men are actually guilty of it than are ever actually accused or prosecuted. We are far enough along in the field of forensic science and investigative procedure that the issue of false convictions should not be so great an issue; if the evidence is sketchy or non-existent, the case should not proceed.

In other words, it's about revenge, not guilt. You're so unable to see the trees for the forest that you think collective punishment is acceptable.

The issue of false convictions is definitely a great issue because all that forensic equipment generally can't answer the important question: consent.

If he says "I didn't do it" and the lab says they had sex, easy, convict him. Those aren't the problematic cases.

However, if he says "She said yes" and she says "I said no" the lab probably can't tell you anything.

And when she comes forward days, weeks or even longer later, there's no hope of the lab telling you anything.

- - - Updated - - -

It does, however, show your motivation--you want more men convicted of rape. Never mind guilt.

Using your "reasoning", your response shows your motivation - you want more guilty rapists to avoid conviction. If you don't accept that conclusion, a poster of integrity and intellectual honesty would retract their claim.

No. I'm fine with convicting guilty rapists. I just want to be sure they're guilty--and overall statistics about rape are absolutely useless for determining this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good point. We should scold criminal defense attorneys who bray about due process for their horrible clients. They just want those we've prejudged guilty due to their gender or other unpardonable characteristic to avoid conviction. One thing witch and communist show trials have taught us - the accusation itself is all you need to prove guilt.

Perhaps you could explain why you feel that response is relevant to my response. Because it appears to be based on a complete misunderstanding of my point - I simply applied LP's reasoning to his own position. Apparently, you feel his bogus reasoning is valid.

You did not apply my reasoning at all.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps you could explain why you feel that response is relevant to my response. Because it appears to be based on a complete misunderstanding of my point - I simply applied LP's reasoning to his own position. Apparently, you feel his bogus reasoning is valid.

You did not apply my reasoning at all.

Yes I did. You took someone who was talking about the accuracy of rape statistics and concluded that she was in favor of more men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt. Since you saying the reality is the opposite of her statistics. So using your logic, it means you are in favor of the opposite of your conclusion about her stance - you must be in favor of less men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt.

Since you do not accept that conclusion (and rightly so, because your "logic" is inane), and since you are poster of integrity and intellectual honesty, we await your retraction of your bogus claim about Toni's motivation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Privileged white man whine thread ....

In the interest of Fair and Balanced .... Basu: DeVos, education officials shouldn't play politics with campus rape http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st.../rekha-basu/2017/07/21/educational/496154001/



If memory serves, admittedly mine is beginning to fail, the most frequent retort coming from frat parties was "bang her, bang her, then bang her again boys".

Politicians often apologize for pointing out the emperor's attire. Thus the fact that she apologized doesn't prove anything. Now, I don't think her numbers are supported (the one study that came up with numbers that high was iffy) but that doesn't say whether they are right or wrong.

1) She was talking about campus assaults, not all assaults. Thus using statistics about the overall false reporting rate is not a rebuttal.

2) When I look at the home page of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center I find a big thing about campus rape. That makes me very suspicious.

3) That report doesn't provide anything resembling a proper evaluation of the existing research. Furthermore, one of their three examples (by far the lowest number) isn't in the US at all and thus isn't relevant in the first place as false reporting is very much a cultural thing.

4) Checking the references I find a bunch of them are from anti-rape organizations. This feels very much like they're listening to their own echo chamber. Here's a pretty good article on why we don't have a good number: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false

5) Another good bit giving a low bound number: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...alse-stat-extremely-misleading-jason-richwine

I find it odd that you seem to miss the point. You seem to want to harmp on how much rape is not happening and that the feminist Left is exaggerating. Yet, the post you quoted was citing an official under DeVos, Candice Jackson, included a wildly outlandish claim from the other side of the aisle. A claim that helps wannabe collegiate sex offenders down the road by pretty much plopping rape victims as being hard to discern from 90% of women that criminally make a false claim of rape.

9 in 10, that was the claim by the official. That 9 out of 10 claims of rape were vindictive lies. You may notice that she is still working... and in a field where this ridiculous notion is relevant.

 

[Toni]

The most reliable and comparatively high estimate of false rape accusations is the FBI statistic of 8 percent which does not mean that 8 percent of the cases of reported rape did not occur but rather that in 8 percent of the cases, rape cannot be proven. There is an enormous difference.

You're right that that's the FBI number but you are wrong as to what it's talking about. Those are cases found to either be false or to not constitute a crime. (And there would be very few of those that made it to the FBI data. Most of the not-a-crime cases will be stopped very early on.)

You are incorrect:

Unfounded cases include those that law enforcement believes do not meet the legal criteria for rape. It does NOT mean that some form of sexual assault may not have occurred but that from a legal perspective, in that jurisdiction, the case does not meet the legal definition.

A false report is one when it is demonstrated that no crime occurred.

A baseless report is one when the incident does not meet the definition of the crime but is presumed to be truthful

An unsubstantiated provides insufficient evidence to determine whether or not a crime occurred.

Another significant fact to consider is that a small number or rapes and sexual assaults are actually reported: (Only 36 percent of rapes, 34 percent of attempted rapes, and 26 percent of sexual assaults were reported.) https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/Pages/rape-notification.aspx

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the false reporting rate.

Sure it does.

It does, however, show your motivation--you want more men convicted of rape. Never mind guilt.

What a load of bullshit.

I do want rapists, male and female, to be convicted. The rest is simply your imagination running wild.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You did not apply my reasoning at all.

Yes I did. You took someone who was talking about the accuracy of rape statistics and concluded that she was in favor of more men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt. Since you saying the reality is the opposite of her statistics. So using your logic, it means you are in favor of the opposite of your conclusion about her stance - you must be in favor of less men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt.

Since you do not accept that conclusion (and rightly so, because your "logic" is inane), and since you are poster of integrity and intellectual honesty, we await your retraction of your bogus claim about Toni's motivation.

She is using statistics to show that it should be easier to convict someone of rape. That means it's the group numbers that matter, not individual justice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I find it odd that you seem to miss the point. You seem to want to harmp on how much rape is not happening and that the feminist Left is exaggerating. Yet, the post you quoted was citing an official under DeVos, Candice Jackson, included a wildly outlandish claim from the other side of the aisle. A claim that helps wannabe collegiate sex offenders down the road by pretty much plopping rape victims as being hard to discern from 90% of women that criminally make a false claim of rape.

9 in 10, that was the claim by the official. That 9 out of 10 claims of rape were vindictive lies. You may notice that she is still working... and in a field where this ridiculous notion is relevant.

The point is that while that 9 of 10 number is probably wrong we don't have any data that actually rebuts it. The closest we come is for the population overall, not for college campuses. You can't say she's wrong without some data indicating that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I find it odd that you seem to miss the point. You seem to want to harmp on how much rape is not happening and that the feminist Left is exaggerating. Yet, the post you quoted was citing an official under DeVos, Candice Jackson, included a wildly outlandish claim from the other side of the aisle. A claim that helps wannabe collegiate sex offenders down the road by pretty much plopping rape victims as being hard to discern from 90% of women that criminally make a false claim of rape.

9 in 10, that was the claim by the official. That 9 out of 10 claims of rape were vindictive lies. You may notice that she is still working... and in a field where this ridiculous notion is relevant.

The point is that while that 9 of 10 number is probably wrong we don't have any data that actually rebuts it.

Well, how about 1 in 100 then. That is probably wrong, but we don't have any data that actually rebuts it.

The closest we come is for the population overall, not for college campuses. You can't say she's wrong without some data indicating that.

Well, didn't she rebut it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're right that that's the FBI number but you are wrong as to what it's talking about. Those are cases found to either be false or to not constitute a crime. (And there would be very few of those that made it to the FBI data. Most of the not-a-crime cases will be stopped very early on.)

You are incorrect:

Unfounded cases include those that law enforcement believes do not meet the legal criteria for rape. It does NOT mean that some form of sexual assault may not have occurred but that from a legal perspective, in that jurisdiction, the case does not meet the legal definition.

The point is those generally won't reach the FBI database because the person taking the initial report will see it's not rape. Thus the ones the FBI lists are going to be almost all cases where she lied.

An unsubstantiated provides insufficient evidence to determine whether or not a crime occurred.

And they're not being listed as false.

Another significant fact to consider is that a small number or rapes and sexual assaults are actually reported: (Only 36 percent of rapes, 34 percent of attempted rapes, and 26 percent of sexual assaults were reported.) https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/Pages/rape-notification.aspx

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the false reporting rate.

Sure it does.

It does, however, show your motivation--you want more men convicted of rape. Never mind guilt.

What a load of bullshit.

I do want rapists, male and female, to be convicted. The rest is simply your imagination running wild.

Male or female isn't the issue. You don't like the conviction rate so you want to make it easier to convict--and you're willing to sacrifice justice to accomplish this.

 

[Toni]

You are incorrect:

Unfounded cases include those that law enforcement believes do not meet the legal criteria for rape. It does NOT mean that some form of sexual assault may not have occurred but that from a legal perspective, in that jurisdiction, the case does not meet the legal definition.

The point is those generally won't reach the FBI database because the person taking the initial report will see it's not rape. Thus the ones the FBI lists are going to be almost all cases where she lied.

You know, Loren, I don't think you are stupid nor unable to read and comprehend written English with at least a 12th grade proficiency, so I'm forced to believe that you are willfully ignoring definitions used by the FBI which conflict directly with your suppositions. And to further conclude that your suppositions are informed by your own prejudice rather than any objective, rational understanding of terminology.

Male or female isn't the issue. You don't like the conviction rate so you want to make it easier to convict--and you're willing to sacrifice justice to accomplish this.

So, now you are changing your mind! Good for you. But you are still wrong and still basing your decision upon your own prejudices. For one thing, I have only been disagreeing with your perceptions of terminology used by the FBI and by law enforcement.

I am vehemently against anyone being wrongfully convicted of any crime. Period. All of us lose when someone is unjustly convicted. Our system of justice suffers, our society suffers, we all lose.

We all also lose when society succumbs to stereotypes from bad B movies and ten cent crime thrillers. So stop it, willya?

 

[laughing dog]

The point is those generally won't reach the FBI database because the person taking the initial report will see it's not rape. Thus the ones the FBI lists are going to be almost all cases where she lied.

Can you provide a link to a disinterested source so we can be sure this is not another "factoid" concocted out of thin air?

Yes I did. You took someone who was talking about the accuracy of rape statistics and concluded that she was in favor of more men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt. Since you saying the reality is the opposite of her statistics. So using your logic, it means you are in favor of the opposite of your conclusion about her stance - you must be in favor of less men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt.

Since you do not accept that conclusion (and rightly so, because your "logic" is inane), and since you are poster of integrity and intellectual honesty, we await your retraction of your bogus claim about Toni's motivation.

She is using statistics to show that it should be easier to convict someone of rape. That means it's the group numbers that matter, not individual justice.

No it does not. Saying a conviction rate should be higher does not mean group numbers matter - it means someone thinks there should be more effort and resources into catching and convicting those who commit the crime.

Now, since you persist in adhering to your faulty reasoning in the case of Toni, intellectual honesty and integrity means you tacitly admit you wish to let more alleged rapists go free, regardless of their guilt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is those generally won't reach the FBI database because the person taking the initial report will see it's not rape. Thus the ones the FBI lists are going to be almost all cases where she lied.

You know, Loren, I don't think you are stupid nor unable to read and comprehend written English with at least a 12th grade proficiency, so I'm forced to believe that you are willfully ignoring definitions used by the FBI which conflict directly with your suppositions. And to further conclude that your suppositions are informed by your own prejudice rather than any objective, rational understanding of terminology.

I understand the English, I'm just not buying your attempts to make the data say something it doesn't.

Male or female isn't the issue. You don't like the conviction rate so you want to make it easier to convict--and you're willing to sacrifice justice to accomplish this.

So, now you are changing your mind! Good for you. But you are still wrong and still basing your decision upon your own prejudices. For one thing, I have only been disagreeing with your perceptions of terminology used by the FBI and by law enforcement.

I am vehemently against anyone being wrongfully convicted of any crime. Period. All of us lose when someone is unjustly convicted. Our system of justice suffers, our society suffers, we all lose.

We all also lose when society succumbs to stereotypes from bad B movies and ten cent crime thrillers. So stop it, willya?

Except you want rape convictions based on very scanty "proof."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can you provide a link to a disinterested source so we can be sure this is not another "factoid" concocted out of thin air?

Yes I did. You took someone who was talking about the accuracy of rape statistics and concluded that she was in favor of more men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt. Since you saying the reality is the opposite of her statistics. So using your logic, it means you are in favor of the opposite of your conclusion about her stance - you must be in favor of less men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt.

Since you do not accept that conclusion (and rightly so, because your "logic" is inane), and since you are poster of integrity and intellectual honesty, we await your retraction of your bogus claim about Toni's motivation.

She is using statistics to show that it should be easier to convict someone of rape. That means it's the group numbers that matter, not individual justice.

No it does not. Saying a conviction rate should be higher does not mean group numbers matter - it means someone thinks there should be more effort and resources into catching and convicting those who commit the crime.

Now, since you persist in adhering to your faulty reasoning in the case of Toni, intellectual honesty and integrity means you tacitly admit you wish to let more alleged rapists go free, regardless of their guilt.

The conviction rate is low because it's hard to prove.

The only way you're going to get it higher is to lower your standards of proof.

 

[laughing dog]

Can you provide a link to a disinterested source so we can be sure this is not another "factoid" concocted out of thin air?

Yes I did. You took someone who was talking about the accuracy of rape statistics and concluded that she was in favor of more men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt. Since you saying the reality is the opposite of her statistics. So using your logic, it means you are in favor of the opposite of your conclusion about her stance - you must be in favor of less men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt.

Since you do not accept that conclusion (and rightly so, because your "logic" is inane), and since you are poster of integrity and intellectual honesty, we await your retraction of your bogus claim about Toni's motivation.

She is using statistics to show that it should be easier to convict someone of rape. That means it's the group numbers that matter, not individual justice.

No it does not. Saying a conviction rate should be higher does not mean group numbers matter - it means someone thinks there should be more effort and resources into catching and convicting those who commit the crime.

Now, since you persist in adhering to your faulty reasoning in the case of Toni, intellectual honesty and integrity means you tacitly admit you wish to let more alleged rapists go free, regardless of their guilt.

The conviction rate is low because it's hard to prove.

The only way you're going to get it higher is to lower your standards of proof.

No. Devote more resources and effort, and change attitudes on the part of the police. There have been a number of threads in this forum about police who through their dismissive attitude or outright hostile treatment towards actual rape victims allowed guilty rapists to continue to rape.

This "lowering standard of proof" is a standard rape apologist whine for more vigorous efforts to identify, charge and convict guilty rapists.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Can you provide a link to a disinterested source so we can be sure this is not another "factoid" concocted out of thin air?

Yes I did. You took someone who was talking about the accuracy of rape statistics and concluded that she was in favor of more men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt. Since you saying the reality is the opposite of her statistics. So using your logic, it means you are in favor of the opposite of your conclusion about her stance - you must be in favor of less men being convicted of rape regardless of their guilt.

Since you do not accept that conclusion (and rightly so, because your "logic" is inane), and since you are poster of integrity and intellectual honesty, we await your retraction of your bogus claim about Toni's motivation.

She is using statistics to show that it should be easier to convict someone of rape. That means it's the group numbers that matter, not individual justice.

No it does not. Saying a conviction rate should be higher does not mean group numbers matter - it means someone thinks there should be more effort and resources into catching and convicting those who commit the crime.

Now, since you persist in adhering to your faulty reasoning in the case of Toni, intellectual honesty and integrity means you tacitly admit you wish to let more alleged rapists go free, regardless of their guilt.

The conviction rate is low because it's hard to prove.

The only way you're going to get it higher is to lower your standards of proof.

We have the situation in many states where "rape kits" have not been processed in a timely fashion, and sit on shelves, sometimes for years unprocessed. Thus evidence of rape is not available. That lets rapists slip through the legal cracks. In many states, the political powers that be don't seem to care. Because they don't want to spend the money to do their duty. Taxes! Taxes! Taxes BAD!
We see here the lack of political will to deal with rape in a competent manner.

Google rape kit scandals for plenty of stories on this. In the US, dealing with the rape crisis is not high on the priority list of the politicians running things, most certainly not those states run by the GOP.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

aDevote more resources and effort, and change attitudes on the part of the police. There have been a number of threads in this forum about police who through their dismissive attitude or outright hostile treatment towards actual rape victims allowed guilty rapists to continue to rape.

This "lowering standard of proof" is a standard rape apologist whine for more vigorous efforts to identify, charge and convict guilty rapists.

THIS.

We have the situation in many states where "rape kits" have not been processed in a timely fashion, and sit on shelves, sometimes for years unprocessed. Thus evidence of rape is not available. That lets rapists slip through the legal cracks. In many states, the political powers that be don't seem to care. Because they don't want to spend the money to do their duty. Taxes! Taxes! Taxes BAD!
We see here the lack of political will to deal with rape in a competent manner.

Google rape kit scandals for plenty of stories on this. In the US, dealing with the rape crisis is not high on the priority list of the politicians running things, most certainly not those states run by the GOP.

ALSO THIS

I want more men to be convicted of rape BECAUSE more men are actually guilty of it than are ever actually accused or prosecuted. We are far enough along in the field of forensic science and investigative procedure that the issue of false convictions should not be so great an issue; if the evidence is sketchy or non-existent, the case should not proceed.

In other words, it's about revenge, not guilt.

No, it's about the fact that more men are actually guilty of rape than are ever actually accused or prosecuted. Raising the conviction rate would mean more rapists would go to prison.

The issue of false convictions is definitely a great issue because all that forensic equipment generally can't answer the important question: consent.

Which is why if the evidence is sketchy or non-existent, the case should not proceed.

Despite what you may think, it isn't all that difficult to provide evidence of non-consent. It is, on the other hand, difficult to get prosecutors or police departments ACCEPT evidence of non-consent without engaging in some sort of elaborate victim blaming or circular logic, and that is a problem that should be solved.

However, if he says "She said yes" and she says "I said no" the lab probably can't tell you anything.

And thus the case would not proceed. There isn't any EVIDENCE that she did not provide consent. This is one of the reasons why the most controversial rape allegations often involve alcohol or drugs: an incapacitated victim might not have any physical indications of restraint or defensive wounds, nor will his/her attacker have any physical injuries consistent with a struggle. Date rape is far easier to prove, however, than rape of someone who is too drunk to GIVE consent, which is one of the reasons why "I was too drunk to give consent" is a controversial legal precedent (note that "She was passed out, and clearly non-consenting" is not controversial at all, and is also relatively easy to prove in court).

No. I'm fine with convicting guilty rapists. I just want to be sure they're guilty--and overall statistics about rape are absolutely useless for determining this.

EVIDENCE is good for determining that. And the fact of the matter is, evidence is far more difficult to collect when victims do not report their attackers for fear of being ridiculed or mistreated by law enforcement. So one thing that needs to happen is the conviction rate needs to go up so victims will feel more likely to get justice than mockery. The other thing that needs to happen is that rapists need to stop getting probation or suspended sentences just because a judge feels like he's just such a swell guy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have the situation in many states where "rape kits" have not been processed in a timely fashion, and sit on shelves, sometimes for years unprocessed. Thus evidence of rape is not available. That lets rapists slip through the legal cracks. In many states, the political powers that be don't seem to care. Because they don't want to spend the money to do their duty. Taxes! Taxes! Taxes BAD!
We see here the lack of political will to deal with rape in a competent manner.

Google rape kit scandals for plenty of stories on this. In the US, dealing with the rape crisis is not high on the priority list of the politicians running things, most certainly not those states run by the GOP.

While I do agree the rape kits should be processed it's not going to do much because the police rarely have DNA to compare it to until the guy is caught for other reasons. Mostly what they end up doing is bringing additional charges against rapists when they are caught.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it's about the fact that more men are actually guilty of rape than are ever actually accused or prosecuted. Raising the conviction rate would mean more rapists would go to prison.

Except you're not proposing changes that make it easier to figure out what really happened. You just want more men in jail--and that means more innocent men in jail, also.

The issue of false convictions is definitely a great issue because all that forensic equipment generally can't answer the important question: consent.

Which is why if the evidence is sketchy or non-existent, the case should not proceed.

But your side wants convictions but aren't suggesting things that can actually improve figuring out what happened.

Despite what you may think, it isn't all that difficult to provide evidence of non-consent. It is, on the other hand, difficult to get prosecutors or police departments ACCEPT evidence of non-consent without engaging in some sort of elaborate victim blaming or circular logic, and that is a problem that should be solved.

It's very hard to get courtroom-level evidence of non-consent unless she's either seriously injured or there's a recording or the like. And in the case of delayed reporting there's basically zero chance of proving it.

However, if he says "She said yes" and she says "I said no" the lab probably can't tell you anything.

And thus the case would not proceed. There isn't any EVIDENCE that she did not provide consent. This is one of the reasons why the most controversial rape allegations often involve alcohol or drugs: an incapacitated victim might not have any physical indications of restraint or defensive wounds, nor will his/her attacker have any physical injuries consistent with a struggle. Date rape is far easier to prove, however, than rape of someone who is too drunk to GIVE consent, which is one of the reasons why "I was too drunk to give consent" is a controversial legal precedent (note that "She was passed out, and clearly non-consenting" is not controversial at all, and is also relatively easy to prove in court).

No, it's not--how do you prove whether she was passed out or not? She very well might have been in blackout and yet appeared functional.

No. I'm fine with convicting guilty rapists. I just want to be sure they're guilty--and overall statistics about rape are absolutely useless for determining this.

EVIDENCE is good for determining that. And the fact of the matter is, evidence is far more difficult to collect when victims do not report their attackers for fear of being ridiculed or mistreated by law enforcement. So one thing that needs to happen is the conviction rate needs to go up so victims will feel more likely to get justice than mockery. The other thing that needs to happen is that rapists need to stop getting probation or suspended sentences just because a judge feels like he's just such a swell guy.

You continue to fall back on this mythical evidence. The problem with date rape is that it usually doesn't leave evidence!

It occurs to me that going forward there's a technological approach that would help--"Siri, call the police!"

(And there's already been a case where that sort of thing did work, albeit unintentionally. IIRC it was Alexa that misinterpreted "did you call the sheriff" as "call the sheriff"--and it did so. The perp called the cops on himself!)

 

[laughing dog]

Except you're not proposing changes that make it easier to figure out what really happened. You just want more men in jail--and that means more innocent men in jail, also.

No, it does not.

The issue of false convictions is definitely a great issue because all that forensic equipment generally can't answer the important question: consent.

Which is why if the evidence is sketchy or non-existent, the case should not proceed.

But your side wants convictions but aren't suggesting things that can actually improve figuring out what happened.

First, there are no sides. Second, people have made suggestions in this thread. Processing more rape kits, getting the police and courts to take more rape more seriously and not discourage victims from filing complaints have been mentioned in this thread.

All you have done in your response is either to ignore the actual content of a post and respond to some straw man belief of yours or to literally make up some apologia or the lack of convictions of guilty rapists or to falsely accuse people of wanting to convict innocent men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it does not.

The issue of false convictions is definitely a great issue because all that forensic equipment generally can't answer the important question: consent.

Which is why if the evidence is sketchy or non-existent, the case should not proceed.

But your side wants convictions but aren't suggesting things that can actually improve figuring out what happened.

First, there are no sides. Second, people have made suggestions in this thread. Processing more rape kits, getting the police and courts to take more rape more seriously and not discourage victims from filing complaints have been mentioned in this thread.

All you have done in your response is either to ignore the actual content of a post and respond to some straw man belief of yours or to literally make up some apologia or the lack of convictions of guilty rapists or to falsely accuse people of wanting to convict innocent men.

Rape kits--small benefit.
The rest of it will up the reporting rate, not the conviction rate.