I just posted two lengthy replies to a post at Blog For Arizona about Ted Downing's no vote on the spousal rape repeal last year and how Paula Aboud's campaign is using it against him in the race this year. You should go read the original post and my two comments there.

I'm still not done talking about it, but rather than clutter up that fine blog with more of my screeds, I'll give my faithful readers a break and talk about something much lighter than my depression. That's a little gallows humor for those of you keeping score.

I think the notion that there is an epidemic of women going around and accusing their husbands of rape would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. I also think it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal justice system, its purpose and how it works. The underlying tenet of the criminal justice system is that accused people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The system goes to great lengths to protect accused persons, through extensive investigations, the relatively modern reliance on forensic evidence, jury trials and supposedly impartial jurists. A victim has very few rights and little say in what happens with her (or his) case after it is reported. And the victim would have to repeat her (or his) story many times to many different people if it were ever to get to trial. As recently as five years ago, fewer than 10% of reported sexual assaults in Pima County led to conviction. This does not mean that the other 90% made false reports. It just means the system is not effective.

If somebody really wanted to report a sexual assault in Pima County, they would have to talk to an officer, who would evaluate the credibility of the claim and what evidence there may or may not be. Then the officer may refer to the sex crimes unit of their agency. The survivor would have to give another statement to the detective. Then the detective and sergeant would again evaluate the claim. Then (ideally) the survivor gets refered to the Pima County Attorney's Office unit that handles these cases, where - you guessed it - the survivor has to tell the story of the most traumatic experience of her life yet again. Thrown in there along the way are victim advocates, medical professionals and probably friends or family members who want to be supportive.

The point of this very glib explanation is that it is extremely unlikely for a deliberately and maliciously false accusation to get very far in the system is extremely unlikely when even the "slam-dunk" legitimate ones often don't get very far. Let's just say that law enforcement investigators have a healthy sense of skepticism that is sometimes so healthy it turns off genuine survivors from pursuing justice through the traditional criminal justice system.

That's why we accepted the new false reporting of sexual assault of a spouse statute as a compromise to get spousal rape repealed last year. We know there are plenty of disincentives in the system for reporting in general and that law enforcement is savvy enough to root out the legitimately made up lies (which are few and far between). That, and the penalty is still the same as it always was. And that's not all, but I won't go into the dueling definitions of "false reporting". Suffice it to say, I use the definition of "deliberately and completely manufactured lie with the intent to do harm to the accused". Some law enforcement and prosecution types still define false reports as any reported sexual assault in which there is insufficient physical evidence to pursue prosecution. This definition is extremely biased and unfair to survivors.

I could go on, but I'm running late and need to run. This has been good prep for my lunch date with Bridget though!