Re: Bad idea: Punishing false rape accusers

"MMET572" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.

I was trying to follow your extension of my analogy here, but I guess
you didn't get what I was trying to say?

> >
> > >
> > > 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.

Can you show where you will find anyone (groups, individuals or otherwise)
who think this in North America.  I agree I should have added that qualifier
before,
but the fact of the matter is male children are not told in *NA* that it is
ok to hit
a woman.  They are told the reverse, by school administrators and teachers,
their parents
ad nauseum.  No such similar constraints are pushed on female children wrt
hitting boys, as an aside.

>
> Not so long ago there were even rules encoded that sanctioned such
> behaviour. The Napoleonic code actually gave rules for proper beating of
> wives.

Let's keep this in the present century.

>
> > 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.

No it isn't, and I gave the reasons for that in my original post.  Men are
stronger physically.

> >
> > 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.

So?  Is it worse to retaliate or initiate violence?   Think 9/11.

>
> > 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.

Well, I don't know about that, but it wasn't my point at any rate.  My point
was below:

**** 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.

As an aside - I actually could care less if women are allowed in the
military.


> >
> > 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.

Yes, and that of course works both ways, which is the point I am trying to
get across.

>
> I also know that abusers escalate.
>
> DFooK