Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

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

Wouldn't you prefer it if rape *were* treated the same as any other 
crime, and therefore false accusations thereof could also be treated the 
same?
 
>> 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.

Actually, it does (or rather, it should) - in a legal sense, for one 
crime at least.  Malice aforethought determines whether a murder was 
committed in English Law.  But actually, this 'malice' thing is a 
diversion.  See below.

> False rape accusations (and reports) are wrong because they
> are wrong, not because they were made with malice. Absent malice they
> are not right.

It might be more helpful to recognise that the malice does not always 
come from the alleged victim, as accuser.  The malice may be entirely on 
the part of the police or prosecutor - and aiui, you would agree that the 
alleged victim does not always have a great deal of control over 
proceedings - he/she may be manipulated by these other agents.
 
> Malice is not a factor in whether a rape was committed.

Intent is (or should be), though.  We should be talking about intent, not 
malice, which becomes a misleading term in this context.  i think that 
this *is* what Alan means.

> 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.

Subsitute 'intent' for 'malice', and lots of people here suggest that it 
is not only less wrong, but probably not a crime at all.

> 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.

They do?

[...]

> Rich

-- 
Neil