practice, and it is useful to summarize the views that developedrnon this subject. Rape was said to be an offense that results fromrnthe social distribution of wealth and power in a “patriarchal” society.rnThe crime happens with enormous frequency, althoughrnofficial statistics record only a tiny handful of actual occurrences;rnand rape involves savage violence that often leads torndeath or serious injury of victims. In response to such a grossrnviolation of the rights of half the human population, the justicernsystem offers a parody of protection in the name of “due process”rnand objectivity, permitting trials in which the victim is effectivelyrnaccused of having caused or provoked the attack.rnWe may sympathize with many of these claims. Reforms ofrnthe 1970’s undoubtedly did contribute to making police agenciesrnmore sympathetic to rape victims and ending the obscenernspectacle of defense lawyers examining every minor detail of arnvictim’s previous sexual history, to the prurient delight of thernmedia. Having said this, the use of the rape issue also establishedrnsome far less desirable principles, such as the belief thatrnwomen are subjected to extreme and frequent victimization tornwhich the justice system is neither willing nor able to respond.rnThis lethal violence could only be challenged by changes in thernlaw and its enforcement, which in practice meant imposingrnquite draconian penalties, and doing so on the basis of evidencernfar weaker than had hitherto been demanded.rnIn particular, there now developed a belief, amounting to anrnunchallengeable orthodoxy, that stated women simply did notrnlie about such victimization—never lied, not out of personalrnmalice, not from mental instability or derangement. This assumptionrnplaces an almost insuperable burden of proof on anrnindividual falsely accused in such cases, and subsequent measuresrnhave aggravated the situation. Canada is now proposingrnthat a man accused of rape be required to show that he has takenrnall reasonable means to obtain the free and informed consentrnof the woman prior to sexual contact, regardless of priorrnrelationship or marital status. Quite literally, the only defensernagainst a rape charge in such a situation might well be arnproperly notarized pre-intercourse contract. There are evenrnfeminist lawyers who wish to revive the ancient offense of “seduction,”rnpermitting a woman to sue a man who has misrepresentedrnhimself to her in order to gain sexual access—effectivelyrna demand for truth in sexual advertising.rnOf course, the assumption of “believing the victim” greatlyrnfacilitated the workings of the criminal justice system, whichrnhad earlier faced the task of having to determine the guilt or innocencernof suspected persons. Now it would be possible to assessrnthe nature of and responsibility for the action solely on thernbasis of one testimony! No jurisdiction ever went quite so farrnin eliminating traditional standards of corroboration and proof,rnbut some states went a good way in this direction. Many rapernsuspects wrongly convicted under such circumstances are onlyrnnow succeeding in establishing their innocence with therncoming of new forensic technologies for genetic testing.rnThe antirape campaigns were critical in shaping the feministrntheories that have since transformed the laws on such mattersrnas domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and pornography.rnHere again, we find the same ideas, above all the notionrnof women being subjected to mass victimization, which can onlyrnbe countered by emergency legislation that reduces or suspendsrnsuspects’ rights. Only thus can victims be offered immediaternprotection or redress. The severity and scale of thernthreat is established by familiar rhetorical devices, including thernuse of bogus or inflated statistics (one woman in three will bernraped in her lifetime; six million women are victims of domesticrnviolence each year; and so on). This is normally achieved byrnstretching to the breaking point the definition of such crimes:rnfor example, the domestic abuse figures include victims ofrnsuch behavior as “progressive social isolation” and co-dependency,rnbut the figures are presented as if they all refer to savagernphysical battery.rnIn addition, spectacular cases are publicized as if they arernsomehow representative or typical. Ideally, such cases shouldrndepict significant failures by the police or courts, resultingrnfrom an over-tender respect for the rights of an accused person.rnThe argument then follows that women can only be protectedrnif such archaic rights are bypassed or abolished, while new legalrnprinciples are established and backed by substantial criminalrnpenalties. In all these debates, the issue of the victim’srncredibility becomes crucial, as so many of the alleged atrocitiesrnoccur in intimate and family circumstances, in which the victimrnhas been “sleeping with the enemy,” perhaps over manyrnyears.rnThe workings of feminist jurisprudence can be observedrnfrom recent responses to the offense of battering, almostrninvariably perceived as violent behavior by a man toward hisrnwife or lover. The feminist emphasis on domestic violencernis a valuable rhetorical tool, which highlights the adversarialrnand occasionally lethal relationships that can prevail withinrnthe framework of married life. No less than the belief inrnwidespread sexual abuse, the rhetoric surrounding domesticrnviolence serves to discredit the “patriarchal” family and its relationships.rnTraditionally, police probably did tend to treat “battering” asrna type of domestic conflict into which the criminal law shouldrnnot be brought except where absolutely necessary, and this underreactionrnmay have led to unnecessary suffering. On thernother hand, recent legal developments suggest that the pendulumrnmight have swung too far in the opposite direction.rnMany junsdictions now mandate that police arrest men suspectedrnof domestic violence, even if the woman strenuously deniesrnthat such an act has occured. Moreover, the degree of assaultrnrequired to qualify as “violence” is liable to considerablernsubjective interpretation.rnApart from any possible injustice involved, a convincing literaturernestablishes that many men arrested in such circumstancesrnare likely to return home and commit far worse violencernagainst the woman they blame for their misfortunes. In otherrnwords, it is reasonably well established that the new laws are goingrnto cause the deaths and injuries they seek to prevent; onlyrnthe preservation of feminist orthodoxy in the face of the evidencernpermits the continuation of “mandatory arrest” policies.rnHowever, the research also shows that it is overwhelmingly poorrnand minority women who are likely to be attacked by men newlyrnreleased from custody, and so academic feminists will probablyrnnot shed too many tears over this problem.rnFor feminists, both rape and domestic violence are offensesrnso serious that suspects are not entitled to the due process protectionsrnthey would receive if charged with a lesser transgression,rnsuch as (say) arson, treason, or armed robbery. Much ofrnthe development here has come in the huge expansion of injunctionsrnand restraining orders, highly discretionary devicesrnlong available to courts but now revived under feminist pressure.rnMost states now seek to prevent domestic violence by arnwidely used procedure known as “protection from abuse or-rnOCTOBER 1993/19rnrnrn