Re: Bad idea: Punishing false rape accusers

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:49:35 -0800, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"Rauni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:16:39 GMT, "MMET572" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Magic Nose Goblin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dee Fish out of Korea) wrote in message
>> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote in message
>> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message
>> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich) wrote in message
>> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message
>> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > > If it's not against the law to make a false report to the
>> >police, then
>> >> > > > > > how are these charges being laid?
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > When such charges are laid, they are for crimes against the
>state
>> >> > > > > (just ask Laurie). Specifically things like perjury, or in the
>> >> > > > > UK either 'wasting police time' or 'perverting the course of
>> >justice'.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > The accused man is not in any way a part of the proceedings,
>much
>> >> > > > > less as the victim of a crime, and the charges are for a
>> >misdemeanor,
>> >> > > > > not a felony.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I see what you (and Daran) are getting at - false *accusations*,
>in
>> >> > > > which a specific person is maliciously identified as the
>> >perpetrator,
>> >> > > > as opposed to false *allegations*, in which a specific
>perpetrator
>> >may
>> >> > > > or may not be identified (as in the cases posted). It's an
>extremely
>> >> > > > important distinction, and I ought to have spotted it myself.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I suspect whether making a false report is a misdemeanour or a
>> >felony
>> >> > > > varies, perhaps from state to state; the liars in Kanin's study
>were
>> >> > > > told they would be charged with a felony. It'd be interesting to
>> >learn
>> >> > > > whether maliciously accusing someone of (for example) theft
>attracts
>> >> > > > criminal charges.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 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. Not only is a false accusation a vicious
>> >> > > > injustice, but it hands woman-haters and rapists more ammunition
>> >> > > > for their quest to smear all rape victims as "lying bitches".
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > However, I've seen no good evidence that false reports are a
>large
>> >> > > > proportion of reports, and false accusations are only a
>proportion
>> >> > > > of false reports. When women do lie, it's not usually out of
>malice:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > According to a FEMALE spokeswoman for the NYC DA's office,
>> >> > > 40% of their rape accusations are subsequently recanted.
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > 40% of their rape accusations are DISPROVEN upon investigation.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No mention was made of how many recantings take place after
>> >> > > the police disprove the accusation.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > And of course, there will always be the false accusation which
>> >> > > is neither recanted, nor disproven...which means there are EVEN
>> >> > > MORE false accusations then what these figures show.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So, at least in NYC, the DA's statistics show that AT LEAST
>> >> > > 40% to 80% of all rape accusations are false False FALSE!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Not necessarily. Rape accusations may be recanted, but still arise
>> >> > from a bona-fide rape.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If the police have any evidence that the rape DID take place, then
>> >> the DA's will prosecute despite her, and put her on the stand as a
>> >> hostile witness.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The same as domestic violence accusations may
>> >> > be recanted, but still arise from a real situation of abuse.
>> >>
>> >> Let's not forget that over 50% of domestic abuse is committed by women.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Do tell. And are the 50% of these "abuse victims" who happen to be male
>> >hospitalized or embalmed in the same proportions as the 50% who happen to
>be
>> >women?
>> >
>> >
>> Typical soc.men twisting of the facts, data collected from the
>> National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics)
>> consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who
>> initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be
>> injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
>
>Still peddling the same ol' shtick here, eh Rauni?
>
>Men are bigger and stronger than women for the most part.  It stands to
>reason
>when you start a fight with a Mac truck, you lose, and lose badly.  I've
>asked you
>before to give us some insight into what this might mean other than the
>obvious.
>But no, you just keep throwing this out there - kind of like the soc.men you
>accuse of doing
>the exact same thing.  Women are hurt more!  This proves everything!  Well
>in fact it
>does little to prove who initiated what, and it simply reaffirms the
>obvious:  most men are physically
>stronger than most women.
>

Exactly right.  They want to minimize the domestic violence committed
by women because women do not hit as hard as a man.  If I am slapped
I have no duty to respond the same way.  I can defend myself anyway
I choose if attacked.  Men learned a long time ago that if you hit
someone bigger and stronger then you that person is likely to hurt
you.
>>
>> "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure
>>  and never simple." -- Oscar Wilde
>
>BTW:  Why don't you actually READ your .sig.  Maybe then we wouldn't be
>having this conversation.
>
>