Sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes; in the past 5 years 68% of assaults were not reported. This means 98 criminals will walk free. With only 4.9% of reports leading to an arrest, it is no wonder why victims are hesitant to report the crime to police.

This is obviously a difficult and controversial topic, but I believe that it is generally unfair to claim that the majority of rapists walk free. Although this very well may be the case, we do live in a society which holds to the belief that an accused individual is innocent until proven guilty. Since these people haven't been convicted of any crime, it is unfair to classify them as rapists. What's more, "unreported crimes" are notoriously difficult to quantify, as they are often considered to be "dark figures." Since by nature the crimes are not reported, it is extremely difficult to accurately report what percentages of them actually occur.

The issue here is we live in a society where victims are not believed. It is interesting that you chose to automatically defend the accused instead of questioning why the small amount of crimes that are reported are not followed through with an arrest. It is difficult to report what actually occurred because of issues dealing with rape kits not being tested and victims afraid to come forward because of victim blaming. Also take into account date rape where the victim may not remember the accuser, in turn the criminal walks free because no report may be filed. While everyone is innocent until proven guilty those people should have their day in court like all other criminals, not walk free.

I understand the point that you are trying to make, and I sympathize with the victims completely. But I believe that your argument misses the point. The issue is not whether society believes victims (though society does often condemn the accused in the court of public opinion before a trial even takes place), the issue is whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove the incident occurred. There is a good reason that the American legal system places a greater deal of weight on evidence rather than victim testimony. Otherwise courts would fall into the farce of he-said-she-said arguments. Claims must be substantiated by evidence to lead to convictions.

The way we collect evidence for rape cases is flawed and it needs to be changed. The reason we automatically must believe the rape victim is because data tells us that the vast majority of women that come forward with a rape claim are telling the truth, but are then put down by our rape culture.

I agree completely with your first statement. Make the way we collect evidence as accurate and foolproof as possible, but we simply cannot as a society believe the victim automatically. Not only has it been shown that the "victim" isn't always telling the truth (a la Duke Lacrosse Case), but also because holding certain individual's testimony over another's violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Would it catch more rapists? Probably. We cannot, however, forgo the basic liberties our Constitution affords us to make it so.

Without scrutinizing semantics, I will say that at the end of the day, evidence or not, there are still criminals getting away with this extremely heinous crime. Just because a rapist was not labeled a "rapist" in the eyes of the law does not mean they aren't a rapist. The reverse can also be said for a person that's been accused and already labeled a "rapist" but is indeed innocent. You are what you are and you did or did not do what you allegedly did. I think the point to be made here is that justice doesn't prevail obviously as much as it should. In fact, I believe it's safe to say it rarely prevails. You can attack this problem in numerous ways and it's a shame that not enough is being done to ensure that these statistics aren't as pitiful as they are. Women shouldn't even have to worry about living in a society where rape is possible let alone worrying about receiving justice in the chance it happens to them.