So what??
What difference would that make, when a jury was hearing the arguments in a particular rape trial or deliberating on the verdict in that trial? All that counts is whether the man is guilty or innocent, and his fate balances on a sober and perspicacious judgment in this matter. Therefore, only relevant factors ought to be taken under consideration - wouldn't you say?
So do the feminists want those jurors to somehow factor the alleged under-reporting into their final decision? How is that circumstance relevant when a particular man's guilt or innocence are in question? Are the jurors expected to throw more weight on the “guilty” side of the probability scale in order to compensate, somehow, for all the rapes that never get reported?
And so even if the guy was probably innocent, they should more likely be inclined to convict him anyway? In some mysterious way, is that what the feminists would like us to conclude?
What difference would that make, when a jury was hearing the arguments in a particular rape trial or deliberating on the verdict in that trial? All that counts is whether the man is guilty or innocent, and his fate balances on a sober and perspicacious judgment in this matter. Therefore, only relevant factors ought to be taken under consideration - wouldn't you say?
So do the feminists want those jurors to somehow factor the alleged under-reporting into their final decision? How is that circumstance relevant when a particular man's guilt or innocence are in question? Are the jurors expected to throw more weight on the “guilty” side of the probability scale in order to compensate, somehow, for all the rapes that never get reported?
And so even if the guy was probably innocent, they should more likely be inclined to convict him anyway? In some mysterious way, is that what the feminists would like us to conclude?
No comments:
Post a Comment