SC - Boyfriend gets lifetime sex offender status for cellphone video, even though sex was legal

Original Article

02/09/2013

COLUMBIA - [name withheld] will spend the next 18 months in a federal prison for 15 minutes worth of sex videos he made with his teenage girlfriend.

The girlfriend, who knew [name withheld] was videoing at the time, was 16– which made her a minor under a federal sex offender law meant to apply to serious sex crimes. Having the video on his cellphone meant [name withheld] violated federal law by possessing child pornography.

[name withheld]’ prison sentence, handed down Thursday, is the type of nightmare scenario that law enforcement has been warning parents and high school students about: Intimate videos and photos of young people on electronic devices can send someone to prison.

[name withheld], who was 20 at the time, had no criminal record and whose attorney said comes from a “very good family,” now will be listed on South Carolina’s sex offender registry. The registry mostly includes sex predators, stalkers, pedophiles, child pornographers and rapists. That will sharply limit his future career choices and even where he can live.

“This is the most perplexing case I’ve had in a long time,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson told [name withheld], of Eastover, during the sentencing hearing at the federal courthouse in Columbia.

Anderson also gave [name withheld] 18 months in prison for making a bomb threat to Eau Claire High School in north Columbia on Nov. 2, 2011. He made the threat so he and his girlfriend, an Eau Claire student, could spend the day together without her having to skip school. The two 18-month sentences will be served concurrently.

[name withheld] used a blocking technology to disguise his cellphone number when he called Eau Claire to make the threat. But FBI investigators easily got records from Verizon that they used to identify his HTC smart phone. Once they tracked [name withheld] down, he confessed. In examining his phone, the FBI discovered the videos and charged him with making a bomb threat and child pornography.

What made the case so different from the normal child pornography case, prosecution and defense lawyers said, was that [name withheld] didn’t download the video to a computer or try to sell it or even share it with anyone. And the 16-year-old’s mother knew about [name withheld] and often let him spend the night at her house. Moreover, when [name withheld] had met the girl, she had told him she was 18.

Another complicating factor: At 16, the girl was legally able to have consensual sex under South Carolina law. But under federal law, it isn’t legal to videotape minors under 18 having sex.

“I just have a problem with a sentence that long with the facts of this case,” Anderson said, noting it would cost taxpayers $192,000 to keep [name withheld] in prison for nine years.

Ironically, the maximum sentence for [name withheld]’  bomb threat charge by itself would have only brought six months’ probation for someone with no criminal record. What allowed prosecutors to seek prison is that his two crimes were linked together – the bomb threat had been made on the cell phone with the videos.

[name withheld]’ lawyer, federal assistant public defender Katherine Evatt, had argued for a prison sentence of a year and a day, something that would be a punishment but would also take into account the peculiar facts of this case. She also told the judge that [name withheld]' left leg had been amputated – as a result of an earlier ATV accident – and “a term in prison would be harder for him. He will need special care.”

In a brief court statement, [name withheld] apologized to his family and told Anderson, “I’m sorry about everything. If I could take it back I would. This ain’t my lifestyle.”

Anderson told [name withheld] his crimes were just stupid. After the hearing, [name withheld] walked over and shook hands with Holliday and the FBI agent who handled the case. “Good luck to you,” Holliday told him.

---

AZ - Federal Sex Offender Laws: Arizona, Many Other States Don't Meet Standards

Original Article

10/04/2012

By SEAN MURPHY

Nearly three dozen states have failed to meet conditions of a 2006 federal law that requires them to join a nationwide program to track sex offenders, including five states that have completely given up on the effort because of persistent doubts about how it works and how much it costs.

The states, including some of the nation's largest, stand to lose millions of dollars in government grants for law enforcement, but some have concluded that honoring the law would be far more expensive than simply living without the money.

"The requirements would have been a huge expense," said Doris Smith, who oversees grant programs at the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. Lawmakers weren't willing to spend that much, even though the state will lose $226,000.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, named after a boy kidnapped from a Florida mall and killed in 1981, was supposed to create a uniform system for registering and tracking sex offenders that would link all 50 states, plus U.S. territories and tribal lands. When President George W. Bush signed it into law, many states quickly realized they would have to overhaul their sex offender registration systems to comply.
- It has never been proven that Adam was murdered by a known or unknown sexual offender or even if sexual assault was involved, it's all assumptions, and yet they are punishing all sex offenders for the deeds of a murderer?

Some lawmakers determined that the program would cost more to implement than to ignore. Others resisted the burden it placed on offenders, especially certain juveniles who would have to be registered for life. In Arizona, for instance, offenders convicted as juveniles can petition for removal after rehabilitation.

The deadline to comply with the law was July 2011. Thirty-four states have still been unable to meet the full requirements, and five of those have decided they won't even try. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nebraska and Texas will instead forfeit 10 percent of the law-enforcement funding made available through the Justice Department.
- Which is basically bribery.

In Texas, a Senate committee conducted two years of hearings and recommended that the state disregard the law, citing concerns about juvenile offenders and other new mandates. The committee's report acknowledged the loss of an estimated $1.4 million. But that figure paled when compared with the cost to implement the changes, which could have exceeded $38 million.

The Arizona Legislature drew a similar conclusion, rejecting the law in 2009 after a committee determined it would cost about $2 million to fulfill all requirements – far more than the estimated $146,700 in grants that would be withdrawn.

California, the nation's most populous state, risked losing nearly $800,000 in funding this year, but a 2008 estimate put the cost of complying at $32 million.

The five states that have given up on the program still have the option to reapply for the withheld money. The 29 states that are in partial compliance have asked to have their withheld money released to help them meet conditions of the law.

Richard Kishur, an Oklahoma City counselor who has worked with sex offenders for more than 30 years, said his biggest reservation was that the law categorized offenders by the crime they commit, not the risk they actually pose.

"What we need to do is be rational about it and apply resources to people who are dangerous and quit wasting our money and time on people who aren't dangerous," Kishur said. "The law is making a lot of people's lives miserable because a lot of it should apply to psychopathic murderers instead of people who are situational and opportunistic offenders who aren't real likely to offend."

Proponents of the law had hoped it would ease the risk that states with less-stringent registration would become havens for sex offenders.

Mark Pursley, who managed sex offenders for nearly a decade at the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, recalled hearing offenders discuss moving to states with relaxed rules.

"They were very in tune with what requirements were in different states, and they would frequently migrate to other states," said Pursley, who is now retired.

[name withheld], a convicted sex offender from Oklahoma who now works for a nonprofit agency that helps recently released felons, said he understands the need for consistent registration rules. But he cautioned that registration alone will not stop them from reoffending.

"It doesn't do anything to stop crime," said [name withheld], who was convicted in 2005 of indecent liberties with a child and served nearly two years in prison. "A true pedophile, if they're going to offend, they're going to offend, whether or not they live one mile or 10 miles from a school."

---

VA - Virginia among states not following sex offender registration law

Original Article

10/05/2012

By Nick Dutton and Victoria Lushbaugh

RICHMOND (WTVR) - A federal law passed to track sex offenders is not being followed in several states, including Virginia.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, named after the boy abducted from a Florida mall and killed in 1981, was passed in 2006.
- It has never been proven Adam was murdered by a known or unknown sex offender, or if sexual assault was even involved.

The goal of the law was to link sex offender information from one state with other states to create one, easy to access database.

However, states now said it is too time consuming and costly to overhaul their existing compliance systems. They also said it negatively impacts juvenile offenders, who in some states, can petition to remove their names after rehabilitation.

All states were supposed to comply with this act by July 2011, but 34 states, including Virginia, have been unable to meet the full requirements — and some have given up.

If states do not comply, they forfeit 10-percent of the law enforcement funding provided by the justice department.
- Which is basically bribery.

But states like Texas said when they compare the funding with the cost to comply, they are financially better off disregarding the law.

A spokesperson for Virginia State Police said the only thing holding the Commonwealth back from being substantially compliant is the issue regarding minors. However, if the minor is tried as an adult, they are entered in the sex offender database.

---

OK - Oklahoma May Lose Federal Funds For Not Complying With Sex Offender Law

Original Article

10/05/2012

By Havonnah Johnson

OKLAHOMA CITY - Oklahoma is losing federal funds because the state isn't complying with an international standard to track sex offenders.

The Adam Walsh Act creates an international tracking system so that if someone committed a sex crime as a juvenile, they could be tracked in adulthood and across state lines. Oklahoma is one of more than 30 states that haven't complied.

"I think it's a good idea every state should comply with the international law, I agree with it," Ryan Albright said,

Most parents do agree with it, but complying with the Adam Walsh act means The Department of Corrections would have to update its systems, which could cost Oklahoma hundreds of thousands.

"Thirty-four states total haven't complied with the Adam Walsh Act. That tells me there are real problems with the Adam Walsh Act," said attorney David Slane.

Every state's compliance was expected by 2006. The goal is to create a national sex offender registry to track offenders across state lines and set criteria for posting offender data online.

"Of course you like to have some uniformity among the states when it comes to the sharing of information the particulars and the details wind up being a call that the legislature has to make," said Trent Baggett, an expert on the District Attorney's Council.

Oklahoma lawmakers haven't changed existing laws to force juvenile sex offenders to register as adults, which would make the state partially compliant.

"The penalty we incurred (last year) was between 400-500 thousand dollars, but a lot of that money was recouped so that we could move toward implementation," Baggett said.

Oklahoma has to become substantially compliant to not lose federal funds. If the state is not compliant by years end the loss in federal grants for law enforcement is an estimated $300,000. The Department of Corrections said the matter is out of the agency's hands and compliance is more of a legislative issue.

If the state is not compliant with the law by the end of the year, we stand to lose an estimated $300,000 in federal grants for law enforcement.

See Also:

• eAdvocate - 34 states unable to track sex offenders
• Fallin explains Adam Walsh Act status (Video)

---

TX - Texas opting out of federal sex offender list

Original Article

10/06/2012

By Renee C. Lee

Six years after a bill establishing a national sex offender registry was signed into law, Texas is among five heavily populated states not participating, citing high costs to implement the program.

Nearly three dozen states have failed to meet all the conditions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act because of concerns about how it works and how much it would cost. Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, California and Nebraska have opted out of the national registry completely.

With the deadline long past — states were to comply by July 2011 — Texas officials are willing to risk losing about $1.4 million in grant money that would help local agencies enforce the law.
- Grant money or bribe money?

State lawmakers say the federal funding falls far short of the estimated $38 million needed to modify the state's existing program in order to participate.

Members of the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee made the decision following an interim meeting two years ago after hearing testimony from law enforcement officials.

“We couldn't afford the national program,” said Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. “The local law enforcement doesn't have the money and the state doesn't have the money.”

Others argue the risk to Texas children outweighs the additional cost.
- That is easy to say when it's not your own money. So if you are so concerned, why don't you donate your own time and money?

“I think it's ridiculous,” said Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio. “All of the hard work that some of us are trying to do to protect our children, to keep them safe from being sexually assaulted. And here we go again, where the Republicans, so they don't have to raise taxes or any type of revenue, have decided not to participate in this program on the backs of our children. I'm disappointed and I'm upset about it.”
- Are you really trying to "protect" children or your own career and reputation? And it's politics as usual, blame the Republicans or someone else.

Uresti rejected the argument that $38 million was too much for the state to spend to bring its sex offender database into compliance with federal law.

The penalty for not complying is 10 percent of Byrne grant funds, provided to law enforcement agencies for various crime prevention efforts.

The states that have decided to not honor the law still may reapply for withheld money. Twenty-nine other states that are in partial compliance have asked to have their withheld money released to help them meet conditions of the law.

Named for the son of “America's Most Wanted” host John Walsh, who was kidnapped from a Florida mall and killed in 1981, the law was supposed to create a uniform system for registering and tracking convicted sex offenders. Soon after President George W. Bush signed it however, many states realized they would have to overhaul their sex offender registration programs to comply.
- It was never proven that Adam was killed by a known or unknown sex offender, or even if he was sexually assaulted, yet they assume that to be true. He was murdered by a sick individual, who they "claim" was Ottis Toole, but there is no real proof of that either. So here we have a law passed on assumptions, not real facts, like most laws these days. Punish all ex-sex offenders due to what "one" murderer did? That is like punishing all thieves for something a DUI offender did, yeah, doesn't make sense.

States were required to comply by 2009, but the U.S. attorney general gave states an extension to 2011 after many objected to a requirement that all juveniles 14 and older who had committed aggravated sexual assaults register for 25 years.

About 70,000 sex offenders were registered in Texas as of August, according to the state's Department of Criminal Justice.

Texas juveniles are required to register for 10 years after they leave the juvenile system. The state, however, gives judges discretion to waive or remove a juvenile from the register. They also can defer a decision until after the juvenile successfully completes therapy. Those options would be removed under the federal law.

The law also categorizes offenders by crime and not by the risk they pose.

To comply, Texas would have to add certain offenses that require registration under the federal law. The state also would have to eliminate its use assessment to determine each offender's risk to the community. Offenders are registered as either low, moderate or high risk.

Allison Taylor, executive director of the Council on Sex Offender Treatment, testified that Texas has been working to narrow the sex offender registry to dangerous sex offenders and the federal law would undo this work.

Proponents of the federal law had hoped it would ease the risk that states with less-stringent registration would become havens for sex offenders.

Whitmire said the state's system is effective, but lawmakers will need to figure out how to ensure that only the most dangerous offenders are on it. Many offenders are registered because they had consensual sex with a minor, he said. In Texas, the age of sexual consent is 17.

Texas lawmakers also should consider repealing language that prohibits de-registering low-risk offenders, he said. Adult offenders are required to register for life.

Ana Yáñez-Correa, executive director of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, said the state made the right choice to ignore federal law. She said Texas probably is one of the toughest states on sexual offenders, so there's no need to waste money changing the system.

---

NJ - Senate passes stiffer terms for child sex offenders

Original Article

10/05/2012

By Joelle Farrell

TRENTON - The New Jersey Senate approved a bill Thursday that would lock up certain child sex offenders for a minimum of 25 years. The measure had languished for years and drew the attention last summer of conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly.

The Jessica Lunsford Act, named for a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by a registered sex offender in 2005, would punish those convicted of aggravated sexual assault against a child under 13 with a 25-years-to-life prison sentence. The bill also would sentence anyone who harbored such an offender to a minimum of six months in jail and impose up to $10,000 in fines.

The Senate, ruled by Democrats, voted 31-0 in favor. In the Assembly, the bill remains in committee.

Sen. Diane Allen (R., Burlington) introduced the bill in 2005, but it never made it to a floor vote until this week. New Jersey is one of the few states that has not enacted some type of "Jessica" law.

"I think politics played a role, unfortunately," Allen said after the vote. "Hopefully we won't have to deal with that again. I'm happy that this was a bipartisan effort."

O'Reilly in July accused Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester) of blocking a vote on the bill. He called Sweeney's inaction "cowardly."

The West Deptford ironworker went on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor in August, noting that he cosponsored the latest version of the bill. Sweeney also sponsored a 2005 bill requiring GPS tracking of convicted sex offenders, a major component of Florida's "Jessica" law.

But Sweeney acknowledged on the show that seven years was too long for the bill to sit.

During the voting session Thursday, Sen. Nicholas P. Scutari (D., Union), a lawyer, asked how the law would affect a 13-year-old who had consensual sex with a 12-year-old. Could the 13-year-old be sentenced to 25 years in prison?

A 13-year-old would be tried as a juvenile, Allen said, and no 13-year-old in the last five years has been tried as an adult.

Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D., Union) voted for the bill but said he wanted to ensure that it included provisions that would prevent teenagers engaging in consensual sex from being prosecuted.

The Office of Legislative Services could not determine an exact cost, but it estimates that the bill could add as much as $6.5 million annually to the corrections budget.

Gov. Christie, a Republican, told O'Reilly that he would likely sign such a bill.

Under current law, a person convicted of such a crime would face 10 to 20 years in prison and could be released on parole after serving 81/2 years.

Read the rest of the article

---

GA - Monroe Attorneys Suceed in Removing Man from Sex Offender Registry

Original Article

10/01/2012

By Sharon Swanepoel

The man did not have any sexual or felony conviction, but ended up on the registry as a result of having consensual sex with someone under the age of consent when he was young.

Monroe attorneys Crawford and Boyle reported that last week their law offices were successful in getting the name of a Barrow County man removed from the sex offender registry. Although attempts to do so are not uncommon, the difference in this case was that the man had ended up on the registry despite never having been convicted of any sexual or felony offense. According to a newsletter from the law firm, their client ended up on the registry as a result of a decision he made when he was young to have sex with someone under the age of consent.

“While she was fine with it, her mother was not, resulting in charges being brought,” the newsletter reads. “The client used first offender provisions to keep the charge from becoming a conviction; however, due to an unexpected wrinkle in the law, he was required to register as a sex offender for the next decade and a half, even though his case had been discharged (dismissed).”

Crawford and Boyle report that they petitioned the Barrow County Superior Court and last week a judge agreed, signing an order that removed their client from the registry. The Georgia Bureau of Investigations then removed the man’s name from the registry.

“This was certainly a victory over cookie-cutter / one-size-fits-all justice,” the attorneys claim.

---

AUSTRALIA - No conviction for teen sex - Judge says the ''legal and social'' consequences of the young man being branded a child sex offender were too great.

Original Article

09/05/2012

By Louis Andrews

A judge has declined to convict a teen for having consensual sex with a girl more than four years his junior, saying the ''legal and social'' consequences of the young man being branded a child sex offender were too great.

The 18-year-old, who cannot be named because he was just 17 when the pair had sex, escaped with a non-conviction order yesterday and a 12-month good-behaviour order.

''I am convinced that the legal and social consequences for [the offender] of recording a conviction against him in [this] case far outweigh the requirements of punishment, denunciation and deterrence, both personal and general,'' acting Justice John Nield said.

The ACT Supreme Court heard that if convicted, the teenager would be placed on the national child sexual offenders registry for seven years.

The young man pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in September last year, when they were in a consensual relationship.

She fell pregnant and doctors reported the matter to police, who arrested the father.

The victim subsequently had the pregnancy terminated.

The court this afternoon heard the boy broke off their relationship when he realised she was four years and one month younger than him.

But they resumed seeing each other after she sent him a message on Facebook to rekindle their relationship.

They were at a mutual friend's house in September when she told him she had a present to give him - ''going away sex'' - before he left for the United States on holidays.

There is a statutory defence available to a person accused of having sexual intercourse with a child younger than 16 if the age difference between the pair is no more than two years. But in this case, the four years and one month gap fell outside that window.

At a sentencing proceeding in the Supreme Court earlier this year, counsel for the defendant urged Justice Nield to hand down a non-conviction order.

They argued he would otherwise be placed on the register.

But the Crown opposed the move, arguing it was a serious crime.

The judge noted the youth had an unblemished character, the girl initiated the sexual contact, the intercourse was consensual and only one sexual act occurred after he became aware of her true age.

He also accepted the offence was a serious one, the young man failed to use a condom and that the absence of a victim impact statement did not mean the girl had not suffered.

But Justice Nield pointed out the defendant did not prey on the girl, exploit any advantage or force himself on her.

---

CANADA - Boy (16), Girl (15) both have consensual sex, boy is ruined for life, female is not! Keeping that double standard alive!

Original Article

08/24/2012

By Bob Mitchell

[name withheld] has paid dearly for his crime but he can’t outrun his past.

The new offensive left tackle for the Toronto Argonauts just wants to play football. He’s already said what he wants to say about what happened a decade ago when he was 16, living in a Louisiana project where gangs, drugs and prostitution were part of his neighbourhood’s daily life.

But there are some ugly truths that can’t be ignored. His back story is one of them.

On May 9, 2003, [name withheld] pleaded guilty to prohibitive sexual conduct with his sister, [name withheld]. At the time, he was 16. She was 15.

He wasn’t charged with sexual assault. Their sex was consensual. But it was still against the law. He was convicted and remains a registered sex offender in the U.S. where his photo is available on a website with the more than 720,000 registered sex offenders in America.
- Why is it that it's always the male who gets the punishment while the female doesn't?  What kind of message is this sending to men and women?  This double standard BS needs to stop.

The graduate from Abilene Christian University where he played NCAA Division II football has completed his five-year probation. But the 26-year-old father of two young boys won’t discuss his past with the Toronto Star, choosing instead to let an expansive 2010 article in ESPN The Magazine stand as the definitive piece on a troubling part of his life that he wished never happened.

Scouts had projected him to be a second-round pick in the NFL but he was never drafted.

The stigma of being a sex offender prevented him from getting a shot, according to the ESPN article.

But the Calgary Stampeders in 2011, and now the Toronto Argonauts, have been willing to judge him solely based on his talent.

“For us, it came down to, ‘can he be the kind of individual on and off the field who we want in our organization?’ and he’s been nothing but that since we signed him,” Argos GM Jim Barker said. “He made a mistake at a young age when he was a minor. There’s no doubt about that. But if you don’t give some people an opportunity, what are they going to do?"

“There are a lot of guys, who have had issues, who have gone through this league. They play here a few years and prove what happened was a mistake. [name withheld] grew up in an incredibly bad situation.”

All [name withheld] has ever wanted was a chance to play football.

“With my record it’s damn near impossible to get a job,” he said in the ESPN article. “So really this is all I have.”

The scuttlebutt was that his presence on any team would be too hard of public relations sell. He would be crucified by opposing teams and perhaps not accepted in his own locker room. He would have to explain himself in every new city.

“I get it,” [name withheld] said about not being drafted. “It isn’t just about sports. It is politics and money. Why would they take on a sex offender? I wouldn’t.”

Canadian immigration officials had to give permission for him to enter the country to play initially for the Stampeders with whom he played for in 2011 before being released at training camp this season.

“The people in Calgary and people whom I know and trust have nothing but fantastic things to say about him,” Barker said. “He’s been nothing but great since he’s been with us. If he had never been up here before it might have been a lot tougher for him. But the government let him in the country."

“He’s not somebody who has had perennial problems and moved from team to team in the NFL with issues after issues. He was let go by the Stampeders but it had nothing to do with any kind of issue. They just had other tackles they wanted to use.”

Last Saturday, [name withheld] got his first chance to play for the Argos after being on the practice roster for the first six games. He played as QB Ricky Ray’s blindside protector, part of coach Scott Milanovich’s revamped offensive line.

The 6-foot-7, 310-pound left tackle held his own as the line generally gave Ray plenty of time to sit in the pocket and throw as Toronto beat the Stampeders 22-14 to move into a first-place tie in the East with the Montreal Alouettes. He’ll be starting again Monday when Toronto plays the Edmonton Eskimos at the Rogers Centre.

In the ESPN piece, the Argos offensive lineman revealed he never knew what he and his sister did was against the law. Basically alone in their world, they trusted nobody but themselves.

At 9, he had already been exposed to pornography and sexual misconduct involving a close relative in the suburbs of Dallas. At 12, his mother and siblings moved to Louisiana. They would move from one rough neighbourhood to another in the project of Marrero across the Mississippi River from New Orleans.

According to the ESPN article, police discovered the incestuous relationship several months after it happened when [name withheld] was arrested on suspicion of prostitution. When [name withheld] came to the station to get her, he was asked about having sex with her. He didn’t deny it.

“I didn’t know it was illegal,” [name withheld] said in the ESPN article.

In the piece, [name withheld] claims the police coerced her into revealing what she and her brother had done after they threatened to put her in jail. The police asked her about her life, and how such a young girl ended up on the streets and had she ever been sexually abused at home. She denied being a prostitute. She was questioned for hours without a lawyer. Afterwards, [name withheld] was arrested and spent a month in jail.

The article reports [name withheld] understands now what he and his sister did was wrong.

“I’m more than what people see me as,” he said. “What I went through as a kid. I wanted to find love so bad. But I had no idea what love even was.”

---

PETITION - Decriminalize Consensual Teen Sex

Click the image to view/sign the petition

---

FBI Rape Statistics and DNA Testing

View the article here

Excerpt:
When reading the report from which the excerpts shown below were taken, consider that the FBI program of DNA testing of rapists didn't begin until 1989, and that therefore it is very likely that about 25 or perhaps as many as 40 percent of men convicted before 1989 of and serving time for rape are innocent.

Consider also that the DNA testing program took some time to come into full swing, so that even after 1989 it was quite likely that innocent men (as per DNA evidence) would still have been convicted of rape, although somewhat steadily declining numbers of them.

Consider further that the FBI doesn't become involved in all rape cases, only in those that are referred to it. So, the actual number of innocent men imprisoned for rape must be far, far higher than one is led to believe by the excerpts.

The question still remains as to how many of the "rapists" whose DNA is a match with that of the semen found in or on their victims actually had consensual sex. After all, even a wife can claim that she has been raped by her husband, if at any time she decides to do that, regardless of whether the sexual intercourse she had with her husband was consensual or not.

In the end, nothing matters other than what the woman says. And, as they say, "women don't lie." Obviously, what they say is wrong. (In the US, there are an estimated 520,000 false rape allegations a year — 98.1% of all reported cases. — Eeva Sodhi, Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics; Rape)

---