Guess who they believe when a woman screams rape

1) Don't invite a drunk woman to a "party"

2) Don't have sex with a drunk woman

3) Don't argue with a drunk woman

4) Don't get a woman drunk for fun

5) When encountering a drunk woman, have every minute of your whereabouts accounted for.

In short, think like a man, not a caveman. Use common sense (why do they call it common sense when it's so uncommon?).

Every now and then we see a news story about a guy being released from prison because DNA proved that he could not have done it. How many innocent guys have been executed? Do we care or do we take the view that "It's no great loss. He was probably guilty of something, anyway. Besides, he's XXXXX and not likely to make any great contribution to society."

Macomb County, Michigan Sheriff lost his job because the woman who came to his hotel room, later cried rape.

Current rape laws are a travesty. Men are guilty until proven innocent.

That and divorce laws are the two greatest injustices perpetrated against men today.

SD,

That has always concerned me. I can understand how DNA can prove someone did do something or at least was in a specific area, but not how it can prove someone didn't do something.

Clubber: Current DNA testing can not, CSI mumbo jumbo notwithstanding, with 100% accuracy say that a given sample came from a given person. This is because there are still some few genetic characteristics that can't be identified with absolute certainty. What it *can* do is say that 1 out of X people will have a given DNA profile. If X is high enough, in the hundreds of millions or billions, the courts have pretty much agreed that it can be considered conclusive.

Testing can, however, completely eliminate a given person from a given profile by comparing those genetic that *can* be identified. If one of those characteritics shows up in one sample but not the other, then that is an absolute elimination. For instance, if one sample's 23rd chromosome is female, XX, that completely eliminates anyone with an XY in that location. That's a really obvious one,When I look at those photos I wonder if any of them have Aids but there are numerous more subtle ones as well, not all of which have outwardly visible manifestations.

gmd,

Yes I understand that, but what I am saying is how it can be said someone didn't do something just because anothers DNA was found or theirs was not. Is DNA so prevalent at a crime scene that anyone that has been there in say the last month or so leaves enough DNA to profile them?

Ah, I misunderstood. You're right, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I believe that depends on the nature of the sample. If, for instance, if a scratch on the suspect is matched with material under the fingernails of the victim, and it's later found that the two do *not* match, but is matched with a third part, that might exonerate the first suspect, depending on the *rest* of the evidence.

That would certainly be a lot more convincing.