Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

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?
> 
> > 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;  FRAs don't
> need to be _specifically_ unlawful, as long as they are covered by a more
> general law. 

Question: would you consider it malicious where a woman accuses a man
of rape despite knowing that he is innocent of raping her if her
motivation was not so much to hurt him as to avoid a consensual
illicit encounter from becoming public knowledge?
 
> I believe that Rich, unlike most tr regulars, doesn't distinguish between
> malicious and non-malicious FRAs.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> > Rich