Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> [bits snipped]
> 
> > > I suspect whether making a false report is a misdemeanour or a felony 
> > > varies, perhaps from state to state;
>  
> > Not really, perjury seems to be a misdermeanor pretty much everywhere.
> > I do recall that at least one state has type of perjury which is a
> > felony, but I don't recall which state.
> 
> Waldo's #43 states that "Perjury is a Class D felony that carries a 
> maximum penalty of threeyears in prison and a $10,000 fine. False 
> informing is a Class A misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of up 
> to one year in prison and a $5,000 fine."
> 
> (Obviously, perjury and making a false report aren't the same crime.)

It's not well defined and the lines are somewhat arbitrary what is
a felony and what is a misdemeanor. In the case of false rape reports,
the charges laid are almost always for a misdemeanor.

To give you an idea of how capricious this is, look at NY law.

http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/3-PenalLaw/210/art210hp.htm

  PENAL LAW ARTICLE  210

  Perjury & Related Offenses

    PERJURY
    THIRD DEGREE
    (A Misdemeanor)
    PENAL LAW 210.05
    (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)

    PERJURY
    SECOND DEGREE
    (E Felony)
    PENAL LAW 210.10
    (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)

    PERJURY
    FIRST DEGREE
    (D Felony)
    PENAL LAW 210.15
    (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)

    MAKING AN APPARENTLY SWORN
    FALSE STATEMENT
    SECOND DEGREE
    (A Misdemeanor)
    PENAL LAW 210.35
    (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)

    MAKING AN APPARENTLY SWORN
    FALSE STATEMENT
    FIRST DEGREE
    (E Felony)
    PENAL LAW 210.40
    (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)

    MAKING A PUNISHABLE
    FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENT
    (A Misdemeanor)
    PENAL LAW 210.45
    (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)

These vary from state to state, and possibly within jurisdictions
within the state.

> > > the liars in Kanin's study were 
> > > told they would be charged with a felony.
> > 
> > I believe you misread. Many sources say 'charged with the false
> > reporting of a felony', which is not the same thing.
> 
> You're right, I did misread.
>
> > And I've been unable to verify that said charges were ever filed,
> > or if filed what the results were. Have you?
> 
> Kanin doesn't tell us. However, Waldo's news items mention false 
> reporters who have been charged.

Indeed. Mostly with misdemeanors.

> Do you have evidence that only a small proportion of liars are being 
> charged and sentenced? False reports not only put innocent men at 
> risk, they affect real rape victims - so I'd be keen to know if 
> liars are escaping punishment.

Prove that they affect real rape victims. This is absolute nonsense,
designed to misdirect attention from the only victims.

Under no circumstances should the state 'just believe' any woman who 
reports being raped, or indeed, anyone who reports that anything happened.
In all cases they should investigate and proceed or not based upon the 
investigation. Do you disagree?

> > > It'd be interesting to learn whether maliciously accusing someone 
> > > of (for example) theft attracts criminal charges.
>  
> > I really don't see what relevence the element of malice would have.
> > Perhaps you can explain?
> 
> By "maliciously" there, I meant "knowingly falsely".

How does a woman who reports being raped, but who was not raped, not 
act "knowingly falsely"?

> > > While I'm far from an expert on law, I'd have little objection to a 
> > > specific crime of false accusation, as long as rape was not the only 
> > > crime it applied to.
>  
> > I disagree, rape is handled differently from all other crimes, in no
> > other felony is the defense limited while the crime need not be proven.
> > If rape is a special crime, so also are false accusations of rape.
> 
> I'm surprised to hear you say "the crime need not be proven". What do
> you mean?

I mean that there need be no evidence that a crime was committed, at all.

> Are you referring to specific laws which don't require proof
> beyond reasonable doubt, 

No evidence that a crime was committed is required.

> or just expressing doubt in the legal system?
> Can you explain the low rate of convictions if proof is not required?

Today women claim to have been 'mini-raped' when a man says 'nice legs'.
Regardless of the conviction rate many innocent men have been convicted.
Explain this.

> Is it true that rape is the only crime in which specific irrelevant 
> evidence cannot be introduced?

It is the only felony where relevant evidence is arbitrarily denied
admittence. It is the only crime where the accuser's credibility as a
witness cannot be challenged. 

> > > However, I've seen no good evidence that false reports are a large 
> > > proportion of reports, 
>  
> > Which is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. You seemingly seek
> > to minimize the issue. if only one rape occurred a year, would you say
> > the same thing?
> 
> If only one rape occurred a year, would it be necessary to overhaul 
> the legal system, or could we fairly say that it was doing a pretty 
> good job?

You seem to be missing the point. Justice is not determined by numbers.
It's not a statistical entity, it applies to each individual case.

> You seemingly seek to maximize the issue. :-)

Do I?

> Where is your evidence 
> of a crisis - evidence of a large proportion of false rape reports, 

Why need there be a crisis? Numbers are totally irrelevant if justice
is at issue.

Clearly you see no problem. I don't think you'd do anything to fix
the very real problem.

> false rape accusations, and false rape convictions? Where is your 
> evidence that false allegators are getting away with it? In short, 
> where is your case that a specific crime of falsely alleging rape 
> needs to be created to tackle the problem?

There are several problems with the current system, among them the actual
victims are not even counted, nor does the number of proven false rape
reports lessen the rape count, they still get counted as 'unfounded
rapes', a category that most women refer to as rapes that happened
where there was not enough evidence to convict. There is no justice
for the falely accused, as I've posted, released convicts are treated
better.

Perjury is considered a crime against the state, but the state is not
the victim of a false rape accusation.

Do any of these things concern you? Would you willingly and knowingly 
count proven false rape accusations as 'unfounded rapes'? 

> > > follow that URL to be reminded of the high-profile UK case which cost 
> > > the accuser four hundred thousand pounds*.
>  
> > Don't know about the UK, but here Civil judgements have no teeth
> > and few are actually paid.
> 
> That fellow in Waldo's #64 who received over a million dollars from 
> a bumbling university was certainly lucky, then.

Have they paid? You should see a case at the university of Hawaii. They
gave the professure who caused such a debacle tenure. 

Rich

> Yours,
> - Kate Orman