This doesn&#x27;t really address any of the issues with prosecuting rape.<p>If you accuse me of raping you on the 4th of April 2011, and I document that I was in a different country at the time, it&#x27;s pretty easy to say that I&#x27;m innocent. But rape isn&#x27;t a crime of being in a particular country; that was incidental.<p>The problem with rape prosecutions is that it isn&#x27;t possible, under any circumstances, to demonstrate that a rape <i>did</i> occur. Depending on incidental details, it might be easy to demonstrate that it <i>didn&#x27;t</i>, or, more generously, that it didn&#x27;t happen as reported (maybe I really did rape you, but it was in 2009!).<p>When you have two people, and one claims to have been raped while the other claims that what in fact happened was that they had consensual sex, there is no evidence that can distinguish one claim from the other (this is why evidence of the woman&#x27;s sexual history was historically offered in rape cases -- it&#x27;s not perfect, but it at least directly addresses this problem). The only difference is in the mind of the person claiming rape. We&#x27;ve decided to solve that problem by saying that it&#x27;s fine if a bunch of people are jailed based on no evidence. The traditional answer was that it basically wasn&#x27;t possible to prosecute people for rape, because it couldn&#x27;t be demonstrated. Both of those are bad things -- but we shouldn&#x27;t pretend that rape prosecutions are based in facts, just so we can say that all of the bad is on the other side.