Obviously the question of why a person would concoct a lie would vary from case to case. When I read about what happened at UVA, my mind immediately flashed back to my senior year at Harvey Mudd College. A left-wing professor named Kerri Dunn was determined to take the student body to task for its obvious racism, but most people seemed not to care about her ranting. So she decided to vandalize her own car, slashing the tires, breaking the windows, and spray-painting swastikas and anti-semitic slogans on it. (Dunn herself was not Jewish but claimed that she was considering converting to Judaism.) For a few days, this became proof for Dunn and her allies that the campus was overwhelmingly racist and we needed lots of meetings, rallies, and vigils to combat the evil, as well as a budget increase for the Office of Diversity and Office of Black Student Affairs and so forth. Then two witnesses said that they’d seen Dunn vandalizing her own car. She ended up in jail for lying to police and insurance fraud.
This was not a unique incident. In 2007 a student sent GW University into a tizzy by putting swastikas and the word “nigger” on her door and all over campus in order to prove that racism was big a problem. A similar thing happened at Vassar College recently, where supposed hateful messages against Blacks and transsexuals were written by the same members of the “Bias Incident Response Team” who reported them.
So if “Jackie” at UVA was left-wing feminist who believed that the evil “patriarchy” was oppressing her with a “rape culture”, and that the university at large, and even other female students, were refusing to acknowledge the fact, one can imagine that the gears in her head might have turned in the same way as those who perpetrated other hoaxes. I know that I’m oppressed, but everyone else refuses to see how oppressed I am, so if I just make up a really clear incident then everyone will be forced to acknowledge the truth of my oppression.
Not saying this is what happened, but it would make sense.
Cite? Hale in his commentaries stated that a rape of a woman by her husband was impossible, but I can cite several cases even from the 19th century which doubted that proposition, R v Claramce (1888) 22 QBD 23 and and also Reg. v. Jackson [1891] 1 Q.B. 671.
Moreover, even earlier common law commentators were willing to hold a husband as an accessory of rape by third parties. Hume in 1844 at page 306 of the Criminal Law , Vol 1 4th edition, and indeed the first edition from 1787 also had similar pronouncements.
So, I can cite several authorities which state the opposite.
On college campuses, they need to make a ruling that at no time are staff, especially professors, allowed to get involved in any rape investigation. Therefore getting rid of the “Gang of 88” that went after the Duke lacrosse team. This includes not being part of any protests, not signing anything, not going after any students or their families who might be involved, not encouraging vandalism or other acts of harassment or protest - nothing. They should not use their positions as bully platforms but stick to what they are being paid for - to teach classes and do research.
Now after a case finishes its way thru the court system and a verdict is reached, they can be free to give opinions but not beforehand.
You can bet that judge who now says he’s sorry and all, wasnt raped “Shawshank Redemption” style or having to become someones prison bitch to survive. All she got was a measly 2 months in jail? Why shouldn’t she be forced to spend the 3 years in max with the meanest roommate they can find like he was. I think the judge, the prosecuting attorney, and the accuser all got off pretty easily.
And $90,000? Pretty lame. He should be a multi millionaire several times over by now.
I want to further add that according this THIS article she only needs to serve those 90 days on the weekends. Now the original prosecutor wanted her to serve 5 years like her accused but a female judge threw that out and said only 90 days. ON WEEKENDS! Boy I bet she really feels sorry now.
What kind of message does this send to those making false accusations?
Not convinced it was seen as a “property crime”. It seems to me that rape has always been an attempt against the woman’s honour (that she was expected to defend fiercely, at risk of life and limb).