Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:44:59 GMT, spammy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>On 29 Nov 2003 13:20:41 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich) wrote:
>>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.
>
>I disagree. FRAs are, in my opinion, by definition malicious. They
>are so obviously destructive to the person accused that intent can
>be inferred from the act.

I'd say an FRA was malicious if it was made intentionally to cause
someone to be charged with rape (or simply accused by the authorities
of, whatever the terminology of our respective countries) who they
knowingly didn't commit rape.

I don't think if a person picks out the wrong person in good faith in
a line up, that they are acting maliciously.  I don't think that line
up identifications should be taken too seriously in a court case as it
is well known that they are not reliable.

I think that people who make true, malicious FRAs should be punished
severely.  I don't think that it's the job of the jurors during a rape
trial to decide whether the accuser is acting maliciously.  That is
something that should be investigated by the police and a trial
brought as necessary.  I don't believe that it should be assumed that
if the defendant is acquitted, the accuser's allegation was malicious.
The two potential crimes, rape and FRA are separate crimes and should
be investigated and brought to trial separately.

Ann