Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

On 29 Nov 2003 13:20:41 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich) wrote:

>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 it's you who doesn't understand the difference and you're so
damned rude with your little snide remarks that you don't really
encourage anyone to explain themselves further.

Ann