"There is often lots of corroborating evidence if the Police look for it. They need to start the investigation believing the victim of a crime. If they find no evidence they should treat the victim with compassion and respect. If they can't find enough evidence they should reassure the victim that they were right to report the crime and that the info may help to catch the perpetrator later."
Can't argue with that. Certainly it seems rape victims were treated shockingly in the past, and I've heard that it's got a lot better. Though I'm sure it's far from perfect.
And I agree that many cases, more could be done to gather evidence. The police and the courts manage to screw up all kinds of important prosecutions to be fair.
But what has that got to do with the fact that so many cases do come down to the defendant claiming it was consensual? And there being little evidence to prove him a liar, as often there won't be? And juries just having to accept reasonable doubt has been established?
(incidentally, I don't know why lie detectors are so forbidden. They are not perfect, but if the jury knows that, I think the results could help a lot of cases.)
As for this metaphor, I've been thinking about what AnyFucker posted earlier about honing metaphors on the web to win arguments in real life. The RL argument that is apparently needed is to convince more people that rape claimants are very unlikely to be lying, and that circumstances don't excuse a rape, yes? I'm just warning that if you used this metaphor to persuade anyone, be aware that you may be giving them the rejoinder 'but people do make false claims of burglary! People do blame the victim if they are reckless with their safety!' And then what?