I don’t think anyone could be surprised to find that’s your opinion on the matter given your desire to execute people for perjury.
Oh I see.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
I said I had no problem personally with your head rolling for bona fide lying in court…with the implication it was about something relatively serious…like rape.
Legally speaking, uhhh no that’s not what I am endorsing:rolleyes:
But back the thread.
Yeah, IMO people should be scared as shit about the consequences of false allegations and lying in court.
Those who are accused of rape should not be named until they appear in court this will give some protection if the accused is found not guilty.
Yes a false accuser should face trial and serve between three and five years
No, me friend knows this from the literature, and from the seminars she attends for continued training she needs for her job.
FWIW, let me go on record of saying that I think the offenders’ registry is a terrible, horrible idea, instituted with no study, and all emotion, is now known not to work, because all it does is drive offenders “off the grid,” but getting rid of it will be really hard, because even suggesting that it’s a bad idea suddenly means you like sex offenders. Even pointing out that it drives them into hiding so their parole officers lose track of them still makes “on their side,” and people get all “Why do you hate children and America?”
I also think that forced sex is two crimes: it’s non-consensual sex, and then it’s whatever the form or force was. If it’s assault, that one kind of crime; if it’s threat with a weapon, that’s another; if it’s drugging her drink, that’s yet another. I think they ought to be dealt with separately, because the rehabilitation is different, and should be if there’s any hope of rehabilitation. Thinking it’s OK to force or coerce consent is one crime, and thinking it’s OK to beat up anyone is another. I’ll bet money there are men who have hit a woman to shit her up during sex, who think anyone who drugs a woman to have sex is a lowlife, and vice versa.
Now, if a woman actually goes to court and falsely testifies that X raped her, and has no good faith reason to believe it (like, he’s the result of a police investigation), but rather the name came from her in the first place, and the story is false from the ground up, then she can be tried for perjury. That’s fair, because perjury can carry a pretty harsh sentence. Perjury that did or could have led to a long prison sentence for someone can be punished pretty harshly.
No, I don’t think there needs to be a registry; what would it accomplish? but at any rate, as I said, I don’t think there should be an offender registry either.
Rivkah, I believe there’s another category you didn’t mention. Consider an underage pregnant girl who tells her parents she was raped rather than admit she had consensual sex with a date.
No, that is rape. If the girl was underage, then it was statutory rape. The study I’m referring to probably dealt only with legal adults since sex with underage girls is de facto rape.
1- I still find it hard to believe false accusations are as rare as lightning strikes.
2- However, I will admit that maybe they are much much more rare than I think they are/would be.
3- I will take it that your friends comments are well informed, I wasn’t trying to deny you claims through internet trickery, I was just curious how she arrived at her conclusion.
Ok, but, slightly a different topic I think…
Ok, I agree actually.
Wait, what? You want a man tried for 2 crimes in the case above bit a woman only gets 1 crime for perjury?
It depends on the state. In Indiana, no matter how many lies she tells in one sworn statement, she can be charged only one with perjury, because in Indiana, you can be charged with only one crime for a single act-- you can’t give the jury “lesser included charges” and say, try a person for murder 1, but then also give the jury the option of murder two or manslaughter.
However, in a state like New York, when a woman told several falsehoods, and each one was a different crime, or charge for the defendant, and prosecutors can offer juries the choice of “lesser included charges,” a perjurer might get charged with six or seven different counts for one instance of false testimony.
And no, I don’t necessarily want a man charged with two crimes-- or if he is, I think he should be allowed to serve the sentences concurrently-- I want him rehabilitated for two crimes. I think it gives the best chance for actual rehabilitation.
Ok
Let me ask a different question.
Do you think concern or not enough concern for false rape accusations is largely a gender based influence? I’m surprised a lot of guys are not more concerned about it. Some are, some agree with me obviously. Conversely, if I were a female I’m sure I’d be much more concerned about it, via, putting my self in the place of the victim and identifying more closely.
I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m asking your opinion on this narrow framed question.
Obviously it’s gender-biased. Every single person I know who thinks there are a lot of false accusations is a man. Everyone I know who claims to know someone who was falsely accused is a man. Everyone I know was claims to have been raped and not believed is a woman, with the exception of one gay man who was raped in Philly in 1986, a pretty bad year for anyone to get raped, at least RE: HIV.
Sex between an adult and an underage child is rape de jure, it is rape as a matter of law.
Typically, it’s a crime to make any false statement to police. You have the right to remain silent, you do not (typically) have the right to knowingly lie to police. I believe this can also be upgraded to obstruction of justice if serious enough.
I honestly believe unreported rape is a far far more serious problem in today’s society than false accusations of rape. Men, just keep your pants on, contain yourself, it’s not that hard.
Yes
and pretty much every single person who was falsely accused, is/was… a man.
You’re assuming the girl’s alleged rapist is an adult. What if the girl is older than the boy? Did she then rape him?
:rolleyes:
I am sure you would like to share with us your experiences earned from a long career in investigating and or prosecuting rape cases. Oh wait…
As for the OP; the answer is that it should be for cases where the person made an allegation with an intention to target the accused. Not otherwise.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
You’re assuming the girl’s alleged rapist is an adult. What if the girl is older than the boy? Did she then rape him?
[/QUOTE]
And in many jurisdictions the age of consent is lower then the age of majority.
Errr sorry, what? If you mean that Indiana does not have the option of lesser included offences, then according to the Indiana Court of Appeals, what you are saying is bullshit.
[QUOTE=RivkahChaya]
I also think that forced sex is two crimes: it’s non-consensual sex, and then it’s whatever the form or force was. If it’s assault, that one kind of crime; if it’s threat with a weapon, that’s another; if it’s drugging her drink, that’s yet another. I think they ought to be dealt with separately, because the rehabilitation is different, and should be if there’s any hope of rehabilitation. Thinking it’s OK to force or coerce consent is one crime, and thinking it’s OK to beat up anyone is another. I’ll bet money there are men who have hit a woman to shit her up during sex, who think anyone who drugs a woman to have sex is a lowlife, and vice versa.
[/QUOTE]
Well according to your States law it is only one crime.
Of course as that statute is written, non-consenual intercourse on its own is also not a crime… care to guess why?
That’s a specious argument. An accusation of making false rape charges would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, like any crime. The crime is making a provably false accusation, not an unproven one. There’s no reason why that should make anyone afraid to report an actual rape.
(Please don’t make the argument that women might be falsely convicted of making false accusations. Feminists are constantly saying the court system is too biased in favor of defendants, when the defendant is a man such as in rape or domestic violence cases, and trying to make it easier to convict. If you want “equality,” that means men and women both have to face the same imperfect justice system. You don’t get to turn around and say that that the system is so liable to false convictions that we should declare a crime legal because a woman might be the defendant.)
Imagine that a man was pissed off at a woman and attempted to lock her in a cage in his basement for 5 years as revenge. Is that okay? Should there be consequences for that? That’s effectively what a woman’s trying to do to a man that she falsely accuses a man of rape. (Not to mention ruining the rest of his life after he gets out.)
Then imagine there’s a movement trying to make/keep it 100% legal for a man to lock a woman in a cage for 5 years, and if he’s caught she will be released but he will face no consequences. That’s effectively what feminists are doing when they argue there should be no punishment whatsoever for false accusations.
Any attempt to frame someone for a serious felony is at least as severe a crime as kidnapping and should be punished accordingly.
So what is being proposed outside of existing defamation, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution laws?
To some extent, how common false reporting is doesn’t even matter. Maybe it is only 2%, as the lowest estimates put it. But when it does happen, it can sometimes get very widely publicized. Everyone’s heard of the Duke lacrosse case, for instance, where the evidence was very strong that the woman was lying just to get attention and/or money, with no thought for the lives she was attempting to ruin. When a case like that gets so much publicity, a lot of people are going to generalize from “that particular woman was a lying sack of excrement” to “all women who make rape accusations are lying sacks of excrement”. And that in turn makes it harder to bring actual rapes to justice. Even if the false accusations are rare, they can have disproportionate impact, and that’s what the law needs to address.
Now, of course, this can go the other way, as well. If there were too much legal attention to false reporting, then there starts to be a risk, or at least a perception of risk, that a legitimate accuser could get prosecuted, and that could have a chilling effect on actual accusations. There’s some optimal amount of prosecutorial attention that false claims should have, and we’re not at that optimal amount.
As for why the punishment should be equal in the cases where false accusation is prosecuted, rape is unusual among crimes in that so often, the only evidence on the critical fact of the case is competing testimony of the two principal individuals involved. That is to say, the fact that sex occurred between the two people is not in dispute, but one individual claims that it was consensual and the other claims that it was not. In such a case, certainly one of the two is lying, and it usually isn’t possible to determine which one it is. In the event that it can be proven which one is lying, they should both have the same amount at stake.
The Code of Hammurabi is a little outdated to be basing our laws on.
No, false rape accusations should not be prosecuted as seriously as actual rape.
Find me the actual rape victim who thinks they should be, and I might rethink that. Or when the incidence of false accusations is even 10% as high as the actual incidence of rape*, I might rethink.
- not the incidence of rape accusations, which is the usual measure.
- We can’t conflate “didn’t get a conviction” with “made a false accusation”.
1a. For that matter we can’t assume that if the DA refuses to file charges, that it was a false accusation. - You know, in order for false charges to be filed, the police have to have investigated and the DA has to have reviewed the evidence. They don’t just take a woman’s word for it. Woman can’t just point a finger and have charges filed.
If men want to punish anyone for filing false charges, then the man should have to prove that the woman deliberately lied and that the police and the DA either dropped the ball or connived at it.
If a person is accused of a crime and not convicted, that doesn’t automatically convict the accuser of filing a false charge.
3. I would be entirely onboard with not publishing identifying info on people accused of crimes until after the conviction. That seems like a pretty reasonable path for all crimes, actually.