Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

Ann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>
>>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. 

Not *necessarily* acting maliciously, you mean to say.  Someone who is 
sufficiently enraged may make a false ID, simply not caring enough about 
the fate of the stranger she IDs to be absolutly sure he's the actual 
culprit.  After all, *someone* will be punished for what happened!  Isn't 
that *emotional* justice?

While it is certainly true that all *true* rape victims deserve justice, 
it is foolish and quite unjust to use the "don't blame the victim" 
catchphrase to bestow undeserved sainthood upon her.

So, the ID is done in "good faith".  WHOSE "good faith"?

> 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.

The only way to guarantee that line-up IDs are not taken "too seriously" 
in a trial is to suppress the ID.
 
> I think that people who make true, malicious FRAs should be punished
> severely.  

Indeed.  Even if they are women.

> I don't think that it's the job of the jurors during a rape
> trial to decide whether the accuser is acting maliciously.  

WRONG!  If the accuser is determined to be acting maliciously, this has a 
bearing upon the potential verdict and the fate of the accused.  It is 
the job of the jurors to examine the facts presented in the case. If 
facts indicate the accuser is acting maliciously and not in the interest 
of justice, then the jurors are obligated to consider them.

> 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.

Then you must also reserve some room to assume that if the defendant is 
convicted, then the accusers allegation is absolutly NOT malicious.  Or 
do you believe that there never has been a false conviction for rape?

> The two potential crimes, rape and FRA are separate crimes and should
> be investigated and brought to trial separately.

That's how it's done already.  A rape case is People v Accused Rapist,   
NOT People v Accused Rapist v oh-lets-include-the-apparently-false-
accuser.  The problem has been and remains that false accusations are 
rarely prosecuted.
 
> 
> Ann
> 



TR II


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---