I ordinarily just like to ignore the slander against me often repeated by MRAs that I am OK with “innocent men being falsely imprisoned for rape” or some such formulation.
I figure though that since this accusation against me is still being repeated and since new people will be exposed to this accusation without having any knowledge about where this accusation came from that I should myself explain the background of this accusation against me “for the record.”
The below was originally written as a comment at Feminine Mystique (blog since deleted) shortly after January 27, 2013 in response to this issue coming up at that time.
Jesse Powell commented at Feminine Mystique:
“I feel it is important for me to respond to the comments by Fidelbogen linked to above that Alexander Skobeleff is reacting to. I have history at The Thinking Housewife website and part of that history is a number of battles with Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). One of the popular attacks against me by MRAs is that I am perfectly fine with innocent men being falsely imprisoned for rapes they did not commit. This attack against me is based on the below comment I made at The Thinking Housewife on August 2, 2010:
Rape Truths and Falsehoods
The Thinking Housewife
August 2, 2010
Jesse Powell said:
“I am willing to accept that some men who are innocent of rape are convicted of the crime regardless and are rotting in jail at this very moment. If I was to guess I would estimate that 10% of men in jail for rape didn’t actually commit the crime. The problem is we don’t know who those innocent 10% are. If we did know they wouldn’t be in jail in the first place. However, the issue is not whether some men are falsely imprisoned or not, the issue is whether jury nullification is at all a reasonable response to whatever problems there may be in the criminal justice system in regards to rape prosecutions.
Issue has been taken with my declaration that the protection of women must come first. I am fully aware that such a declaration is very unlikely to be uttered by a men’s rights supporter. I am very aware that any self-respecting MRA would take great umbrage at the idea that anybody else’s rights matter other than the rights of men. Regardless, I stand by my statement. It is the primary duty of men to protect women, and by extension the children a man fathers with the woman he loves. Surely part of the code of protecting women includes protecting women from rape, and fundamental to protecting women from rape is punishing the men who commit rape. There is no way around that. Because life is not perfect and the knowledge we possess is incomplete punishing men who rape necessarily entails punishing men who have not raped but are believed to have raped. That is simply the price that must be paid for the social good of protecting women from rape to the best extent that we as men are capable of.”
It is this comment that I made that is the basis of the charge against me that I have no objection to men being imprisoned for rapes they did not commit. This comment has a wider context in that it was part of an extended debate at The Thinking Housewife about something that Paul Elam of A Voice for Men said.
Paul Elam declared:
“Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”
Idiocy and Hatred in the Men’s Rights Movement
The Thinking Housewife
July 29, 2010
So the full context is that there was a call coming from Paul Elam for jurors to vote not guilty in rape cases regardless of the evidence in order to protest against false rape accusations. My statement was against this call to acquit rape defendants indiscriminately. As part of my argument that people should not vote to acquit rape defendants indiscriminately I said what I said above.
I stand by my previous statements in this regard. I believe that prosecution against rape defendants should continue even though inevitably some men will end up falsely imprisoned for rape. Since the justice system is not perfect some innocent people will always be imprisoned for crimes they didn’t commit. That is no reason to stop the prosecution of all crimes. It is the same for rape; rape prosecutions should continue even though such prosecutions will inevitably lead to some men being falsely imprisoned for rape. On a philosophical basis some men being falsely imprisoned for rape is simply the price that must be paid to protect women as a whole from being raped. This is because imprisoning anyone for rape carries the risk that the person found guilty is actually innocent. The only way to guarantee that no man is in prison for rape unjustly is to set all men in prison for rape free.
Anyways this is the background of the accusation against me that Fidelbogen is repeating. I stand by my previous statements in this regard.”