Most 'Sex Offenders' Are Innocent

80% of 'sex offenders' innocent? ...

Hello Harry

One thing has been bugging for a couple of weeks now. It is this statement from your piece The Truth About the Truth 

(And in the UK, for example, my own view is that something like 80% of all those men convicted of sexual crimes are either completely innocent, or their behaviour has been 'misjudged'.)

Where do you get this figure of 80%? Is it an official figure? Has some academic quoted this in research?

Please let me know before my mind bursts.

Regards

F (a long time fan)

Hello F

Well, actually, I conjured the figure out of my head - but I did say that this 80% figure was my view.

And I will tell you why I think that it is about right.

1. Those **imprisoned** for sex offences in the UK (guilty and innocent) tend to claim that at least half of their fellow inmates were not guilty of anything. And I believe them. Furthermore, I think that this 50% is probably a bottom line.

2. Many men are, indeed, guilty of what they were convicted for but, nevertheless, their behaviours, in my view, will have very often been misjudged. One good example of this is those men who have been found guilty of 'raping' underage girls when, in fact, they were their boyfriends. I quote the prison doctor Theodore Dalrymple ...

"In my experience from the prison in which I work, men who are charged with having sexual relations with underage adolescent girls are often reported to the police (and subsequently charged and imprisoned) not because they have had sex with these girls, but because they have stopped having sex with these girls: and hell hath no fury like an adolescent girl scorned."

Another example would be that postman who was charged with 'sexual assault and battery' merely for planting a kiss on a customer's cheek.

These men were not guilty of sexual assaults. Inappropriate conduct, maybe; but not sexual assaults.

 law enforcement officers will even attempt to prosecute men whom they know to be innocent

3. We **know** that many law enforcement officers will even attempt to prosecute - often successfully - men whom they know to be innocent e.g. the Duke Three in the USA, and Warren Blackwell here in the UK. This not only suggests to me that many innocent men are prosecuted for the most disgusting of reasons, but it also suggests to me that there are not enough real bona fide sexual offenders to prosecute.

4. Men are often convicted without **any** objective evidence standing against them; just the testimony of a vengeful lying woman.

5. I am almost certain that AT LEAST 85% of sex-assault **allegations** made to the police are false, and I actually believe the figure is over 90%; e.g. see Rape Baloney2.

I do not believe that viewing illicit material is a 'sexual' offence

6. I do not believe that viewing illicit material is a 'sexual' offence (any more than viewing a picture of a bomb explosion is a 'violent' offence). I do accept that certain material should be illegal to view, but this does not mean that viewing such material should be considered to be a 'sexual offence'..

7. Men who are imprisoned for sexual offences can have their sentences halved if, once in prison, they admit to their guilt, and many men are very seriously threatened by the police if they do not admit to their guilt when it comes to sexual offences. As such, many men who do admit to their guilt in this area are not guilty at all.

All in all, therefore, my guess is that around 80% of men who have been convicted of ****sexual**** crimes are either innocent of such **sexual** crimes and/or their behaviours have either been misjudged or dishonestly 'categorised'; and, with regard to the latter, many 'sexual' harassment cases also come to mind.

In a nutshell; two things seem to be happening. 

Firstly, crimes are very often deemed to be sexual when, in fact, there was no real crime and/or when there was, in fact, no actual sex - of any sort.

Secondly, the justice system has been corrupted through and through with feminist-inspired man-hating ideology. The system is completely untrustworthy when it comes to 'relationship' issues. And it is absolutely clear that prosecutors, politicians and government officials are forever bending over backwards to convict as many men as possible regardless of the evidence and, indeed, regardless of the truth about the alleged impact on the alleged victims.

 (In America, they do this often just to get votes. And even a man caught urinating in the street can be put on the sex-offenders list.)

most of this sexual stuff is nothing more than froth and bubble.

And one can add to all this the fact that in the vast majority of these cases, whatever it was that was actually done - if anything - would have been trivial; because, as in most other areas of human behaviour, extreme things happen relatively rarely. In other words, most of this sexual stuff is nothing more than froth and bubble. But, as typically happens nowadays, the feminists and the abuse industry pump everything up, so that everything to do with the 'abuse of women' sounds a hundred times worse than it actually is.

An attempted kiss is 'sexual battery'!

But this is the bread and butter of the sex assault industry. It is where most of the court cases come from. But, of course, they do not hit the headlines - even though they ruin lives.

And when you push into your consciousness this huge - and largely hidden - number of cases that are trivial, miscategorised or misjudged, and stop focussing on the big cases that hit the headlines, it is not very difficult to believe that very many men are being entrapped by a corrupt system that is actually **designed** to entrap them - with, further, huge encouragements being given to women to make false allegations, and for men to admit to things that they have not actually done. 

In summary; it seems highly plausible to me that 80% of those men who are officially pronounced to be guilty of sexual crimes are not, in any reasonable sense of the term, 'sex offenders'.

Finally, one thing that also strikes me about the majority of men who have been convicted for breaking sexual laws of one form or another is the fact that they clearly had no intention to cause anyone any harm. On the contrary, they were mostly hoping to achieve the opposite. And, in my view, this makes hell of a difference to how they should be viewed. Unfortunately, however, the truth behind such issues is completely swamped by the huge forces that are forever seeking to demonise men.

The prosecution of that postman for 'sexual assault and battery' when all he did was kiss a woman on the cheek says a great deal about what is really going on out there.

Best wishes 

Harry

Also see, ...

 Kissing Is 'Battery' 

... or, if you are prepared for a 15-minute read, then take a look at this, ...

Do Not Respect Them ...

... to see just how pervasive are the lies and distortions of those groups who seek to demonise men for profit.