This message was self-deleted by its author

[Calista241]

90. A decade ago when i was in college, my fraternity attended a seminar put on by our national

organization that discussed this very topic. Now i'm going to test my memory, but the message from the retired district attorney and police officer that gave the seminar went something like this:

1. Generally most DA's will not prosecute he said / she said rape accusations from equally inebriated subjects, absent any other injuries, past convictions / arrests, or witness testimony.

That being said there were several qualifiers:

1. A female is always more believable and more sympathetic than a male, to both police and prosecutors.
2. Any evidence of rape is almost always retained by the female after a sexual encounter.
3. In most cases, the male participant is not present during, and cannot be effectively drug tested after a rape kit / rape allegation. Any interaction the male has with the police will almost certainly be well after any alcohol has been processed and expelled from his system.
4. A male is relying on the decision of a prosecutor whether or not to pursue charges in such a situation, and this decision cannot be appealed or challenged.
5. Prosecutors have an unbelievably high conviction rate, so if you are charged, you are more than likely going to be convicted.

The seminar approached the topic from a male / female heterosexual encounter, though i suppose some of the subject matter would apply to an LGBT encounter as well.


On edit I thought I'd add one thing. I don't agree with what the cop said in this conversation, but it was said, and i thought it might help with your understanding of how the law works in this situation.

The police officer did say this, somewhat candidly in response to a question, and since he was addressing a group of male students, he couched it from a male point of view. He said that if you were ever accused of rape in what you thought was a consensual if inebriated encounter, you were to say you were drunk, and that you were in turn raped by the other participant. The thought being that prosecutors HATE he said / she said arguments when there's no evidence of violence, and two parties accusing each other of rape presents a more undesirable case.