Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

"Ann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:24 -0800, "P Diddy"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On 26 Nov 2003 09:48:38 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"John James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >> "Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >
> >> >>  [...]
> >> >> > Unlike the word 'jack', malice has only one meaning. I don't see
any
> >> >> > confusion or misunderstanding with the word.
> >> >>
> >> >> Curious. My OED lists five definitions. But anyway...
> >> >
> >> >Can you summarize the definition which is materially different
> >> >from
> >> >
> >> >  mal&#65533;ice
> >> >  n.
> >> >
> >> >  1.A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme
> >> >    ill will or spite.
> >> >  2.Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a
> >> >    wrongful act that will result in harm to another.
> >> >
> >> >Baba has used the word "culpable", is there a meaning like that?
> >> >The problem with Baba's word is that it totally misses the point.
> >> >What is culpable and what is not? Generally t.r. regulars ( a
> >> >group of which I am apparently not a member ) claim that for
> >> >a FRA, culpability requires proven malice (with some fringing
> >> >around the edges). The general tone is that mistaken identity,
> >> >which is asserted as the prevalant cause, destroys all culpability
> >> >and all traces of responsibility for the damages caused to an
> >> >innocent man.
> >> >
> >> >And of course many here post that if the woman recants, she
> >> >should not be punished, everything is fixed. Does a recantation
> >> >destroy culpability? Does it erase a lie? You tell me.
> >> >
> >> >As for mens rea, I'll get to that in another post. But it clearly
> >> >is not a requirement for a rape conviction in the US. The new
> >> >british rape laws disallow this as a defense as well, belief that
> >> >consent was granted is no longer a defense.
> >>
> >> You've said this before and been shown that you are wrong and you just
> >> keep repeating it.  The new British law clearly talks of A not
> >> believing that B consents.  See below:
> >>
> >> 1     Rape
> >>
> >>      (1)    A person (A) commits an offence if-
> >>
> >>            (a)           he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus
> >> or mouth of another person
> >>
> >> (B) with his penis,
> >>
> >>            (b)           B does not consent to the penetration, and
> >>
> >>            (c)           subsection (2) or (3) applies.
> >>
> >>      (2)    This subsection applies if A does not believe that B
> >> consents (whether because he knows that B does not consent, gives no
> >> thought to whether B consents, or otherwise).
> >>
> >>      (3)    This subsection applies if-
> >>
> >>            (a)           a reasonable person would in all the
> >> circumstances doubt whether B consents, and
> >>
> >>            (b)           A does not act in a way that a reasonable
> >> person would consider sufficient in all the circumstances to resolve
> >> such doubt.
> >>
> >>      (4)    Section 78 applies to an offence under this section.
> >>
> >>      (5)    A person guilty of an offence under this section is
> >> liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
> >
> >And since not EVERYBODY deals with British law... here is the
> >definition of rape from Merriam-Webster Online
> >http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> >There are eight (8) definitions,
> >Main Entry: 3rape
> >Function: noun
> >Date: 14th century
> >1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person
by
> >force
> >2 a : sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and
> >chiefly by force or deception -- compare STATUTORY RAPE b : unlawful
sexual
> >intercourse by force or threat other than by a man with a woman
> >3 : an outrageous violation
>
> Can you follow anything at all?  Rich said "The new british rape laws
> disallow this as a defense as well, belief that consent was granted is
> no longer a defense."... and it was to this that I was replying.
>
> Why would the American definition of rape be at all relevant to the
> new British law?  It won't will it.  And I wasn't giving a dictionary
> definition of rape, I was quoting the said new British law.
>
> Ann

I never said you were giving the British definition of rape...read what I
wrote:
And since not EVERYBODY deals with British law... here is the
definition of rape from Merriam-Webster Online
If you look at the posts,  not JUST this thread, but POSTS overall, you'll
see
there seems to be some discrepancy as to what the definition is. Just as I
did
with the word "malice", (after JJ) I gave the definition of the word
according to
Merriam-Webster. It just so happened that YOU gave the British law, and
my *in* to insert it. So yes, I CAN follow, and in the future just ask me
what
my motives are, and I'll tell you. Don't assume anything.