Re: Isn't malice self evident?

Perhaps I'm missing something.

But if someone falsely accuses another of a crime in order to inflict injury
(through a third party or agency), why isn't malice self evident?

Such a behavior, surely, it isn't motivated by good will.

If no malice is assumed in these cases, why assume malice if someone
punches, stabs or shoots someone?

For example, if someone injures someone dispassionately, such as the Belt
Way Sniper, is it to be dismissed because they held no malice towards the
victim? No more malice than say a target shooter would hold for the target.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No Snarling Bitches
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Antifeminist Extremist Art Work
http://nosnarlingbitches.home.comcast.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------





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