Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

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

There remain social issues around rape accusations that would persist
even in the absense of differing legal treatment.

And the fact remains that rape is treated differently.
 
> >> 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.

If it's a diversion then it's a diversion hosted by talk.rape.

> > 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 this exhonerates a women who says she was raped when she was not in
what way? Irregardless of what follows, the first domino is pushed by
the woman. And that domino is not sufficient, she must necessarily keep
pushing them.

> - 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.

The alleged victim starts the proceedings with a claim that she was
raped. And often she stands by this claim even when in the court.
And yet incredibly you are now blaming the court system for doing
it's job and ignoring her repeated lies and lies under oath.

I don't see how you can claim her hands are clean.
 
> > Malice is not a factor in whether a rape was committed.
> 
> Intent is (or should be), though.

Seems the new improved British rape law disagrees. I'll post more
about intent later.

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

If malice is not intent, what is it? 

> > 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.

As for it being a crime, that's determined by it's legality. Rape
is illegal. Rapists are tried and if at all possible put in prison.

And thinking about it, there is an alarming tendency to assign
a motive to anyone accused of rape, and this assignment includes
both intent and violence as a necessary element (just ask JJ, he
cannot tell the difference between rape and violence for all his
dictionaries).

Let's look at an example. Geez, I'd forgotten Karen. But this is
dogma, found at every rape prevention site or shelter. The date 
only illustrates just how long it's been dogma.

  From: Karen Gordon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  Subject: 'Excuses' for the rapist? 
  Newsgroups: talk.rape
  Date: 1994-04-25 12:40:50 PST 

  There has been a steady flow of messages on such topics as:
  - women having an orgasm during the rape act
  - women criticizing other women for behaviour after a rape
  - lesbian women writing pornography
  - women having 'rape fantasies'

  Are the male posters of these topics trying to infer that a woman being 
  raped is not a very serious thing, considering the above?

  Rape is an act of VIOLENCE and POWER control - nothing less.  And NO action
  by the victim, no thoughts by the victim, no 'remote and involuntary'
  feelings by the victim during the rape, can ever be construed as 
  mitigating reasons for the act of rape.

  The real problem to be discussed is not with the female victim, but with
  the attacker.....
  - WHY does he need to be the controller and the victimizer?
  - what in his background drove him to the violence of the rape act?
  - why does he hate the female so much that he needs to subjugate her?
  - how many times in his life will he victimize before he is stopped?
  - who are the potential rapists and how can they be recognized?

  Time to stop studying the victim and start studying the rapist....the court
  rooms have disallowed any 'history' on the victim from being introduced in
  the court to discredit her.  Maybe it's time the male posters to this forum
  did too.

> > 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?

You've responded to all these posts and don't understand the issue?
Incredible.

Many here say that if she recants, she should not be punished. And they
say that only if she can be proven to have maliciously made said accusation
should she be liable. The usual diversion is to claim mistaken identity,
which seems to excuse putting an innocent man in prison for 15 years.

Rich


> [...]
> 
> > Rich