Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

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

Not so. 'Malice' in the legal sense *means* 'wrongful intention'. It is not
a diversion, but synonymous with the concept of intent.

>
> > 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.

As I said above, there is no meaningful distinction between 'malice' and
'wrongful intent'.

[...]

John James (JJ)