The general consensus might seem to be "believe the victim" in allegations of sexual assault, but hardly is that the rule. Sexual assault has one of the lowest conviction rates of any violent crime, and oftentimes cases never see a court room. If there is no physical evidence to corroborate the victim's story, the victim is often blamed for not taking the necessary precautions to preserve evidence. While it is not acceptable for prosecutors to withhold evidence, no matter how damaging to their cases, it is also not acceptable to advise prosecutors to be more skeptical when investigating claims of sexual assault. As it is now, too many rapists are walking free and too many victims have been denied justice.

Your point about too many rapists walking free is an very important one. Of the 2 dozen or so women that I know well enough that they are/have been, willing to trust me enough to talk about this, EVERY SINGLE ONE has been the victim of either rape, sexual assault (non-penetrative sexual activity), or pervasive sexual harrassment. EVERY ONE.

Their experiences ranged in age from early teens through post menopause.

Their level of socio-economic status ranged from lower middle HS educated, through Ivy/Seven Sisters plus graduate degree and wealthy.

Take some time, make it safe for the women in your life to talk about these things, and you will be shocked as to how pervasive it is

You are such a sensitive fellow. With the wide category that you created, tell us about the 23 women who were told a dirty joke they didn't want to hear. Wait. I will claim I know 50 women who actually were raped who couldn't wait to unburden their anguish on me. Who wants to top my story? Do I hear 100?

that rape is underreported, and I do think a prosecutor should believe a victim absent evidence she's not telling the truth. However, not only have I not been raped or sexually assaulted, but in my entire life I have only known one woman who has been, by a stranger who broke into her house. He was a serial offender, and was eventually (thankfully) caught, prosecuted and convicted. As this is precisely the kind of thing women do talk about with each other, if not with men, I gotta think my experience in this regard is not all that unusual. Again, maybe I'm just lucky, but you've interested me now. I'm going to ask my friends.

I was only trying to pattern myself after you.

I can't defend these statistics - but I assure you rapes are far more common than the general population thinks. One of the main reasons we don't hear about them is that they are very difficult for prosecutors (like myself) to prove, and accordingly are often dismissed (notwithstanding Nifong's actions and the assertions of this silly article). As to being sensitive - I'm a pretty level headed dude, but sit at your desk once a week, look a sobbing 15 year old girl in the eyes and tell her that you can't proceed to trial with her allegations because, while the doctor was swabbing her genitals hours after a brutal assault and her mother was weeping in the corner, she mistated the time of the assault by 30 minutes or so, therefore, according to people Mr. Fiege, in "would not be the interest of justice" to seek prison time for her mother's scumbag boyfriend. I would assert that having a reaction to situations such as this is not being "sensitive," its being human.

Forgive the histrionics, but these are the decisions we, as prosecutors, are faced with daily. I am not saying they EVER justify withholding evidence (which I view as a cardinal sin of prosecution), but a little more balanced coverage than this article gives would nice [please see other posts].

Also - please don't miscontrue this point to be some right-wing talk radio accusation (i.e. you people want rapist to go free!) I'm just saying you should pause and think of the situations prosecutors face before stating blanket, baseless accusations that most prosecutors are unethical, conviction obsessed, power hungry automatons. As stated in earlier posts, even if taken as true (FYI - they're very slanted) - Mr. Fiege's statistics put the ratio of prosecutorial misconduct to criminal cases somewhere akin to the ratio of beach goers to fatal shark attacks. 99% of prosecutors are hardworking, ethical people who've taken substantial pay-cuts to protect communities we love. As to disbarring those that aren't - I'm all with you - just be careful you don't run off on a self-styled "enlightened progressive" witchhunt.

this is all about the duke rape accusations that nifong, the new york times (front page) and the duke administration turned into political cannon fodder during an election.

nifong won becuase he thought he could get away with it as most prosecutors do (they're political appointees who want personal advancement at all cost).

a dna sample convicts rapists...the d a didn't prosecute the boyfriend because he probably sells drugs to a an important constituent...it's that simple.

the evans' family knows lots of important people and according to mrs. evans 'the people involved are going to pay (for this miscarriage of justice) every day of your remaining lives!'

slate is so slimey when it comes to political privilege and soviet-era groupthink. that's why we have politbureau lanes in california. the 15 year-old girl had more than a case.