Jesse Powell TWRA (the TWRA at the end is important since Jesse Powell TWRA has no identity without women) says a lot of misandrist things. One of the most misandrist things he has ever said it’s all right for innocent men who are the victims of false rape charges to be imprisoned because he believes it will protect women from being raped. Jesse Powell TWRA says that we’re slandering him, and that the context of his remarks was because Paul Elam secretly desires to end all rape prosecutions. In reality, we are correct, and he is the one slandering Paul Elam.
Paul Elam said that if he was on a jury in a rape trial, he would always vote not guilty. This isn’t some sort of general protest against the false rape industry nor does Paul Elam want women to get raped. Paul Elam has said that the whole legal culture around rape prosecution is corrupt tainting any evidence in a rape trial. Rape shield laws also prevent a defendant from presenting relevant evidence. These factors come together to make it impossible to determine guilt in a rape trial. If you’re on a jury and know you can’t trust the evidence presented to you and/or you know evidence is missing, then you can’t evaluate whether a defendant is guilty or not. Thus, a juror in such a circumstance must vote not guilty. This is a sound legal principle and a proper application of due process.
Jesse Powell TWRA will start screaming at this point how this will allow rapists to go free. It’s possible it might. However, one of the principles that is at the foundation of our legal system is that it’s better for a guilty man to escape than let an innocent man be imprisoned. This is better known as Blackstone’s formulation (named after Sir William Blackstone) which is, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Blackstone wasn’t the first to understand his formulation. Various legal authorities in history before him understood this principle. The Bible is likely the original source of this principle. The Founding Fathers also agreed with Blackstone. Benjamin Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. John Adams provides the best explanation on why a legal system striving to be just must follow Blackstone’s formulation:
It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever
In other words, if the legal system must default to letting a guilty person escape whose guilt can’t be proven rather than let an innocent person be imprisoned because the alternative is to completely undermine the desire of people to follow the law. In such a scenario, either the government collapses into anarchy because no one trusts it, or a police state (which will be corrupt by definition) will be established. Knowing this it’s no surprise that the critics of Blackstone’s formulation are mostly tyrants or apologists for tyrants. Pol Pot was a strident critic of Blackstone’s formulation.
There is no way to completely eliminate rape as there is no way to completely eliminate any other form of crime. Imprisoning innocent men like Jesse Powell TWRA (and Pol Pot) would want to do will not eliminate rape. Instead it destabilizes our government potentially leading to a police state which is exactly what a tyrant would want. If Sir William Blackstone and the Founding Fathers were around today, they would agree with Paul Elam’s point of view because they understand that Blackstone’s formulation is a necessary component of a free and just society.
Jesse Powell TWRA clearly disagrees with Blackstone’s formulation so the only conclusion that we can draw is that he wants a matriarchal police state to “protect women”. This is a case with a clear difference between two sets of ideas. On one side you have Sir William Blackstone & the Founding Fathers defending freedom and justice. On the other you have Pol Pot and a police state. Jesse Powell TWRA has chosen the latter.