Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

Rich wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:22:15 +0000, Ann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On 29 Nov 2003 13:20:41 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich) wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> > > > 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
>
>
> I can, the fact that your response to the FRA issue is to talk about
> mistaken identity proves only that you cannot even identify the issue.
>
>
> > and you're so
> > damned rude with your little snide remarks that you don't really
> > encourage anyone to explain themselves further.
>
>
> What further explanations are necessary Ann? You think that no women
> make false rape accusations, you think that they really were raped and
> simply identify the wrong man, a mistake for which you hold then in
> no way responsible. The bottom line is that the TR regulars always hold
> women above responsibility, unless malice can be proven, and even then
> it's not at all clear what they would do. But at least they can
> identify this specific case as a case of wrongdoing.
>
> Rich

Very true.  If a woman isn't damn sure that a rape has been committed 
and damn sure who did it, then her accusation is malicious.  Even if she 
is damn sure its still malicious, but justifiable.

Bob