I have been accused of rushing to judgment where female teachers having sex with children are concerned. Anonymous wrote, "Why do we automatically assume that this woman is guilty?? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Good question!

In England, Zoe Davydaitis claimed she was raped and created a 17-page statement described the rape and her attacker. British police arrested Phillip Young after a neighbor noticed he fit the description of the rapist. Young was arrested, and Davydaitis picked him out of a lineup, despite the fact he had 3 pins in his back and had to wear a brace from a recent fall, and was on crutches. Young began receiving hate mail, rocks thrown through his window and had his arm broken when he was attacked on the street. His ex-wife stopped letting him see his children. Why?

Because women cannot lie when talking about rape. That is how the media plays it, at any rate. (Well, unless you're a Kennedy or a Democrat--two types of people incapable of crimes of any sort.) And since a woman could not possibly lie about rape, Mr. Young's life was destroyed for several months. Even today, he fears being alone with a woman.

So, Anonymous, Why do you suppose the courts believed that Mr. Young was a rapist for several months? Would you have urged restraint? Or would you have thrown a rock through his window simply because a woman accused him of rape?