Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

Rich wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> > Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 24 Nov 2003
> > 02:00:32 GMT:
> >
> > Hi, Rich, how's life?
> Busy. Hows with you?
>
> > > On 23 Nov 2003 16:36:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Waldo Weaver)
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Many TR regulars don't even think that they [false rape allegations]
> > > should be specifically against the law, and that a man so accused is
> > > not a victim. This kind of sentiment certainly is not helpful.
> >
> > Let me clarify what TR regulars have typically and repeatedly maintained
> > in discussion, sometimes lengthy, with Rich:  Malicious FRA's should
> > indeed be punished; Non-malicious ones shouldn't; the standard of proof
> > required to prosecute a malicious false allegation should be the same as
> > for any other crime, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt;  
>
>
> This is blatantly idiotic. It is near impossible to prove malice and
> you lot know it. You want to make false rape accusations safe for women
> and impossible to prosecute for totally irrelevant reasons.

ALL false rape accusations have malice.  It ought to be assumed unless 
there are rare circumstances which, off hand, Bob can't think of any 
that would qualify.


> I know you won't understand but false rape accusations and reports
> are wrong irregardless of the presense of absence of malice.

Yep, all false criminal accusations are mallicious.


> > FRAs don't
> > need to be _specifically_ unlawful, as long as they are covered by a more
> > general law. 
>
> Since rape is coverered by seperate laws, laws that reduce or even
> eliminate the accused defense, I disagree. Rape is not treated the
> same as any other crime, and because of it neither should false rape
> accusations and reports.

The general law ought to be that false accusers of ANY crime serve the 
punishment that the accused would have served.  It needn't be limited to 
rape.

Bob



> > I believe that Rich, unlike most tr regulars, doesn't distinguish between
> > malicious and non-malicious FRAs.
>
>
> I object to this for the exact same reason I object to hate-crime and
> other thought crime legislation. That you would support though crimes
> is somewhat shocking Alan.
>
> Either what you did was right or it was wrong. That you did it should
> be the only thing at issue. If anything, malice should be a factor only
> in sentencing. It plays no part in whether a crime was committed or
> not. False rape accusations (and reports) are wrong because they are
> wrong, not because they were made with malice. Absent malice they are
> not right.
>
> Malice is not a factor in whether a rape was committed. Rape is not 
> wrong because of malice, and not less wrong for the lack of it. And
> I've never seen anyone here suggest that it is. But for women who make
> false rape reports or accusations, you sing a totally different tune.
>
>
> > > I note that you seem against any real solution as well. I'm not quite
> > > sure why. Punishing guilty women is the solution, it's the only
> > > solution.
> >
> > I certainly think that women guilty of such crimes should be punished,
> > but how much that would solve I'm more sceptical about.
>
>
> It would do several things, illustrate the size of the problem for
> those who cannot tell right from wrong without numbers. It would
> provide justice for any men falsely accused, and it would serve to
> publically illustrate his innocence. And it would also give women
> who otherwise would make casual false rape claims (for whatever
> reason) reason to do otherwise. I know of at least two women now
> that have claimed to be raped as an excuse for being late for work.
>
> Many think that rape is a serious crime while a false rape accusation
> is not. Many here.
>
> Say Alan, what would you think if we remove the penalty for rape if
> the man confesses? Sound like a good idea to you?
>
> Rich
>
>
> > > Rich