Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

Ann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 25 Nov 2003 07:22:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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.
> 
> I take malice to mean that the person falsely accuses another
> purposely.  

Loosely speaking, the words 'with ill intent' crop up often in
dictionary definitions. It seems that everyone so far is in agreement
with what is meant by malice, I think Baba's got the wrong of this
specific issue.

> There are cases where someone accuses the wrong person by
> accident.  They really do believe that the person was guilty but they
> are wrong.  They might pick the wrong person out of a line up, that is
> a mistake and not malicious.  

Yes, feminists and many women claim that pretty much everything fits 
into this category. If someone rapes you does that remove from you 
all culpability for destroying an innocent third parties life? Clearly 
this is what most here assert.

The tone is that women need protection from rape, but somehow 
the protections of the law fall far short of protecting men accused of
rape. Why do innocent women deserve protection while innocent men do not?
Why are there 'victims compensation' programs (for which no proof of
victimhood is required) while the wrongly convicted get nothing, and
often keep their criminal records and stay on offenders registries?
Somehow being a victim of rape makes you deserving, being a victim of
a FRA (in any of the assorted forms) does not. And even for proven
FRAs, the victim protections remain in place, as does the stink of
rape for the accused.

Now Waldo has posted the very very old idea that punishing false
accusers is a bad idea. Like Avedon he seems to think that that
a liar who has put an innocent man in prison will recant is better
than solving the problem up front and giving her reason to not
make a FRA to begin with.

So we leave things the way they are and nothing changes.
To fix this problem will require that something be changed. The
desire to change nothing is the desire to keep things the way
they are. And of course, if you see no problem other than that
women who are raped are not given the deferance they deserve by
the court system, then you want to make it easier and safer for
women to make rape accusations (true AND false). This generally
seems to be the concern.

Rich

> Ann