Re: Bad idea: Punishing false rape accusers

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:52:11 GMT, "MMET572" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>"Sir Jessy of Anti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "MMET572" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > "Sir Jessy of Anti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >
>> > > "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.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Okay - using your analogy.
>> >
>> > You have a Mac truck and  a subcompact. Which would you think would be
>> more
>> > risky and potentially damaging to use if you planned to weave in and out
>> of
>> > traffic?
>> >
>> > Rules of the road (as in all things) apply equally, but practical
>> allowance
>> > is made for capability (ya don't see too many Coopers at weigh in
>> stations -
>> > even though highway weight codes technically apply to them as well).
>>
>> No, but occationally I see one of the fly in front of a Mac, slam on the
>> brakes, and nearly cause an
>> accident.  You see, the Mac truck being built as it is - can't stop on a
>> dime.
>>
>> >
>> > If you're driving a Mac, its a given that you're expected to keep that
>> fact
>> > in mind. If you're capable of putting another person in the hospital
>with
>> > your greater upper body strength keep that in mind as well.
>>
>> I see your point, but like I said, there are many variables to consider.
>> My point was that Rauni's trotting out of that statistic does little to
>show
>> the interpersonal
>> dynamics that exist in violent relationships, or the rate of DV comitted
>> and/or initiated by both men and women.
>> On top of this, men are socially conditioned to 'never hit a woman',
>whereas
>> the reverse does not apply.
>
>That is a pretty sweeping statement. I would say that a good many cultures
>in the world, even in the western world, have the opposite case - that
>hitting a woman is acceptable or even necessary.
>
>Not so long ago there were even rules encoded that sanctioned such
>behaviour. The Napoleonic code actually gave rules for proper beating of
>wives.
>
>> Add to this the hundreds of empirical studies that have shown violence to
>be
>> intiated at relatively equal
>> rates in intimate relationships, and you have a different picture than
>what
>> Rauni would like to present.
>
>Depends how you define violence. I have two very good friends who,
>unfortunately, have very different personalities. He clams up when
>confronted on personal matters, she screams. When she gets especially
>frustrated she throws things (not at him) and breaks things.
>
>He OTOH, is passive agressive and doesn't respond at all. One time she got
>especially frustrated at his unwillingness to discuss an issue and she
>grabbed him by the upper arm. He took her hand, twisted it, and gave her a
>severe bruise and twisted wrist.
>
>Who initiated violence? Debateable. Who lost control? Debateable again. But
>who was damaged is NOT debateable.
>>
>> For instance, were the wounds inflicted in self-defense?   If a woman
>> punches a man in the face, and he strikes her back,
>> as a generalization - who do you think will be hurt more?  Are these
>violent
>> acts somehow 'less' or 'more' than equal to one another?
>>
>
>Reasonable force to restrain, but what you're talking about isn't restraint
>but retaliation.

I guess he doesn't understand the *legal* definition of self-defense
"The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence
with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary. "

Oh yeah the definition of reasonable "not excessive or extreme; fair
Being within the bounds of common sense"
>
>> You raise an interesting question though.  If men are required to restrain
>> themselves in violent altercations with women,
>> than what are women doing in the military?
>
>Because the military is all about measured and directed use of force and
>violence. I would put it to you that that being the case, some women would
>be actually overqualified for military service.

And the military is *not*  always about physical strength. Most Airmen
and Sailors don't see any combat.
>
>I can assure you the enemy makes
>> no such fru-fru distinctions.  This is an example of claiming victim
>status
>> where suitable, and equality when convienent.
>>
>> I'm not a violent person, so given pretty much any amount of agrivation,
>> it would still take something akin to flight or fight for me to even use
>> violence in self-defense.    That makes
>> this topic somewhat more philosphical for me, i.e. I have no vested
>> interest.
>> Personally, I think to _some_ degree these types of people seek each other
>
>I would have to say that you have a point there.
>
>> out.  Not in every case, or maybe
>> not even in the majority of cases, but nevertheless certainly in some
>cases
>> there is a fucked up dynamic going on here.
>>
>>
>
>I've known or heard of enough repeat victims to think that there must be a
>link to self esteem or personality issues that drives these women to choose
>teh wrong men.
>
>I also know that abusers escalate.
>
>DFooK
>
>>
>> >
>> > DFooK
>> > > >
>> > > > "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.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>