Re: Rape Education Story #60

On 23 Nov 2003 12:00:57 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ellen Mercer)
wrote:

>Cele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> On 22 Nov 2003 11:49:21 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ellen Mercer)
>> wrote:
>> 
>> [major snip]
>> 
>> >I am aware that it is these opinions and experiences that ultimately
>> >make me unpopular on this ng, regardless of what side issues about
>> >personality or style people raise to help them to pretend otherwise.
>> 
>> Not true. I think you'll find that most t.r regulars agree with you on
>> the matter of FRAs to one degree or another. You made some good points
>> in this post. My own objections earlier to your posting had to do with
>> your confrontational style, not your academic points, as I believe
>> I've made clear.
>
>I don't believe you. Bottom line, and based on abundant experience.

You don't believe what, specifically?

>> >I think however that it serves women poorly to pretend these problems
>> >(those caused by FRAs and related false accusations) don't exist or to
>> >dismiss them as we go back to the "woman as victim" shtick that has
>> >become so popular in the last few decades. Someday this will be
>> >obvious, and people will wonder what they were thinking back in the
>> >day when everyone accepted, at least from the practical viewpoint of
>> >what the laws should say, that women don't lie. Someday, I believe, we
>> >will grow up as a society and see women as real equals, not people who
>> >need a steady stream of one-sided laws with the net effect of
>> >demonizing men and assuming their guilt in any and all disputes unless
>> >the evidence to the contrary is totally overwhelming.
>>  
>> I am inclined to consider FRAs separately from rape, because
>> considering them together causes a good deal of muddying of the waters
>> - especially in the world of the soc. men.
>> 
>> Many of us in t.r have openly stated that we consider FRAs to be a
>> travesty and that we object vigorously to the victimisation of the
>> accused thereby. There's no question that being falsely accused of a
>> heinous crime, having one's reputation assaulted and the other
>> extremes of such an event are fundamental wrongs that ought not to
>> happen. The fact that rape is also a horrible crime with potentially
>> far reaching consequences does not in any way mitigate the evil done
>> by a FRA.
>> 
>> What I have found, and others have stated similar feelings here, is
>> that the tendency of some posters (essentially, cross posters) is to
>> want to compare the two crimes and their outcome. This doesn't seem a
>> particularly helpful excercise, either prescriptively or for
>> understanding of the genesis of the crimes themselves. It does,
>> however, fan the flames of discord, when people leap mindlessly on
>> bandwagons, hell bent on saying that one is worse than the other.
>
>That is hardly something to get worked up about, that common and even
>natural refrain among those who are frustrated with the current laws
>that "those who make FRA should get the same sentence as would the
>person they accused". 

I'm not feeling especially worked up. I was making an observation
about the things that lead, one to the other, at times.

>I happen to believe that false accusations are a
>real bane not only to the poor schmuck who sustains one but also to
>the rest of us sucker women who go around obeying the laws and trying
>to be honest. We all lose a modicum of our credibility and
>trustworthiness (and even some of our access to the upper echelons of
>authority) because of the actions of these few. 

I agree. 

>After seeing false
>charges exploited in real life for personal profit by detestable
>people, I'm ready to prescribe harsh punishments for those who make
>them. The same punishment as for a rape conviction itself? Maybe, if
>only by chance. Of course the punishments for the two crimes shouldn't
>be linked, that makes no sense. But they should both be severe.

Agreed again, with the proviso that the false charges held to the same
standard of proof as other crimes; that is, that the falsification be
proved.

>> They're both dreadful and both ought never to happen.
>> 
>> I have mixed feelings about your comments with regard to women as
>> equals. I share your sentiment that there is an implicit message that
>> women are weak in the protective laws that have evolved. Many of those
>> laws were put into place when women *were* weakened by an inequitable
>> system. Times have changed, and many of the original reasons for those
>> laws no longer exist. Such laws want reviewing and rewriting or
>> eliminating. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that all of the
>> initial premises have evaporated. Neither am I convinced that men, as
>> a group, wouldn't also benefit from some protection. To which
>> situation the solution may well be to eliminate all gender based
>> protections. If only we could get truly equitable legal
>> *interpretation*, the law would be much simpler.
>
>The protections we enjoy are critical and shouldn't be lost or
>diluted. Rape should be prosecuted with serious punishment. 

Of course. And, given that men are also sometimes the victims of rape,
that need not be a gender based protection, but rather, a uniformly
applied law.

>But when
>only one party enjoys anonymity, a good deal of protection from
>exploration of their own behavior, and most important of all, a
>substantial degree of protection from prosecution for malicious and
>false charges, something is wrong. 

No question about that. I would prefer to see both parties protected
by anonymity until the outcome of the trial. 

>I also worry about the effects of
>the potent political apparatus that women have obtained that leads to
>the "tough on crime" mentality among politicians, judges and DAs. I
>fear that because of the constant drumbeat to the effect that "rapes
>are vastly under-reported" and "most rapists go free", and "it is hard
>to prove a rape" that the standards of physical evidence and
>presumption of innocence are in some jeapordy. This is a very hard
>thing to prove without working in the courts or the DA's office, so it
>will have to stay in the category of unsupported worries for the time
>being.

I understand your perspective, but my own experience has not borne out
that worry, at least here in Canada. I do have direct personal
experience. Of course, the experience of a small number of people is
statistically invalid and I'm sure wouldn't affect your or anyone
else's perception of the big picture; however, of course, my own
experience does tend to reduce my concern over that particular matter.

It doesn't sound as if we are all that far apart on this subject.

Cele