Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

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.

No, malice is the state of mind with which she makes the accusation.
That is, she makes the accusation with intent to harm the man named.
Women make FRAs for many reasons, the majority of which don't require
malice. Most here think that if she names a man without malice that
she ain't done nothing wrong even if he spends the next 15 years in
prison. I disagree. I disagree that malice is relevant at all, except
possibly in sentencing.

> There are cases where someone accuses the wrong person by
> accident.

Now you've done a hidden context switch and started talking about
women who really were raped. I take it that you assume that if a
women names a man who did not rape her that indeed, it's just a
case of mistaken identity and that she has done nothing wrong. Well
she has potentially just ruined an innocent man's life. What she
has done is as wrong as accidentally running over your neighbors
kids with your car. There was no intent to harm, but that does not
in any way-shape-or-form make it right. The State will put you in
jail for manslaughter, and negligent manslaughter is still a crime.

> They really do believe that the person was guilty but they
> are wrong.

So you can't tell the difference between a false rape accusation and
mistaken identity. No big shock, very few women in talk.rape have
ever been able to.

> They might pick the wrong person out of a line up, that is
> a mistake and not malicious.  

Tell me why lack of malice is worth 15 years of an innocent man's
life. Tell me why that women is not guilty of a crime pretty much
as bad as rape itself, taking the life and freedoms from an innocent
man. She is not an innocent party Ann. Her hands ain't clean. Nothing,
not even rape justifies and excuses her harming an innocent third
party. I don't expect you to understand, you cannot tell the difference
between a FRA and mistaken identity.

Rich
 
> Ann