Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

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

> 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.

Because of the same, and other, social issues.

You don't do hypotheticals, do you?
  
>> >> 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.

See below (again).
 
>> > 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.

My point is that there is not only one type of false 
accusation/allegation.

There's the allegation that rape took place when it did not, but with 
vague or no identifying details of the alleged attacker.

There's the accusation that the alleged victim was raped by a specific 
person, when no rape took place.

There's the accusation that the alleged victim was raped by a specific 
person, when in fact the rape was perpetrated by another person.  This 
could be a malicious misidentification, or more likely a mistaken one.  
The identification could also have been made by a third party.

There are several other types, but i'm short of time.
 
>> - 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.

ok, so clearly the only false accusations that you recognise are ones in 
which no rape took place.
  
>> > 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.

Hence my need to stress that it should.

> 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? 

It is intent, but unless i've been reading you wrong, that's not the way 
that you're presenting 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.

Fine - current English Law agrees with me.

> 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).

If there's no intent [1], then there is no crime.

[1] Again, ideally (and however unpalatable that could be).  i recognise 
that it doesn't always pan out that way, and i find that deplorable.  
Also, legally, recklessness is equivalent to intent.  This is as it 
should be, although its determination could be somewhat subjective 
especially wrt rape.  
 
> 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?

Can't comment without a context i haven't seen.  If three of the four 
topics were discussed here now, it wouldn't imply any such thing.
 
>   Rape is an act of VIOLENCE and POWER control - nothing less.

Disagree.

>   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.

In terms of the obvious meaning of this statement, agree.
 
>   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? 

Dunno.  Works fine for genuine rapists who fall into the above 
categories, which might not be many of them.
 
>   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.

You should know about my memory by now.
 
> Many here say that if she recants, she should not be punished.

i didn't know.  i've seen perhaps three people say it, one of whom was 
from soc.men.

> And
> they say that only if she can be proven to have maliciously made said
> accusation should she be liable.

i agree with that.  Proof beyond reasonable doubt, which should be the 
standard for any crime.

> The usual diversion is to claim
> mistaken identity, which seems to excuse putting an innocent man in
> prison for 15 years. 

There is no excuse.  But that doesn't mean the accuser is necessarily 
liable.  And if it's genuinely mistaken identity, i assume that a rape 
did take place, which puts the accusation in a different category from 
the ones that you seemed to be discussing earlier.

My suggestion would be that identification evidence be given less weight.  
There's a lot to indicate that it's not terrifically reliable.
 
> Rich

-- 
Neil