Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 If it turns out the lady was not assaulted by any of the lacrosse players, and from arm's length, it does appear that no assault occurred at their house; does anyone expect her to be charged with filing a false police report? 658308[/snapback] No. Because when it comes to rape, there's no such thing as filing a false police report; even a report of a rape that didn't happen serves the purpose of highlighting the problem of rape. Therefore, true or not, rape should be reported as often as possible, whether true or not. You think I'm being facetious. And I am. But there's "women's rights" groups that have been known to advocate just that.
Taro T Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 No. Because when it comes to rape, there's no such thing as filing a false police report; even a report of a rape that didn't happen serves the purpose of highlighting the problem of rape. Therefore, true or not, rape should be reported as often as possible, whether true or not.You think I'm being facetious. And I am. But there's "women's rights" groups that have been known to advocate just that. 658393[/snapback] Which, when you get down to it, is pretty pathetic and sad. IF this lady did file a false rape charge, she should have the book thrown at her. (Though I honestly don't know if she'll be charged or not assuming her story doesn't hold.) I can think of few criminals that should be held in lower esteem than rapists. Because of the severity of the crime, the mere accusation tends to be pretty severe as well. Someone who would file a charge like that falsely has roughly the same character as a rapist, as the mere accusation can mess up someone's life pretty well.
KD in CA Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Attorneys: No DNA match in Duke lacrosse case(AP feed from ESPN.com) 658294[/snapback] I sure hope those boys file a nice big civil lawsuit against that lying whore.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Which, when you get down to it, is pretty pathetic and sad. IF this lady did file a false rape charge, she should have the book thrown at her. (Though I honestly don't know if she'll be charged or not assuming her story doesn't hold.) I can think of few criminals that should be held in lower esteem than rapists. Because of the severity of the crime, the mere accusation tends to be pretty severe as well. Someone who would file a charge like that falsely has roughly the same character as a rapist, as the mere accusation can mess up someone's life pretty well. 658422[/snapback] Not to mention that the "women's rights" groups that recommend such things are basically advocating a woman's right to be a victim...which is why I put "women's rights" in quotes. False accusations - particularly intentionally false ones - only serve to make it harder to get convictions on real accusations, and should be fought strongly against by any organization that truly advocates women's rights. Fortunately, most do. Unfortunately, the ones that advocate victimization tend to be the more vocal.
Taro T Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Not to mention that the "women's rights" groups that recommend such things are basically advocating a woman's right to be a victim...which is why I put "women's rights" in quotes. False accusations - particularly intentionally false ones - only serve to make it harder to get convictions on real accusations, and should be fought strongly against by any organization that truly advocates women's rights. Fortunately, most do. Unfortunately, the ones that advocate victimization tend to be the more vocal. 658490[/snapback] Actually, I think the UNintentionally false ones make it harder to get convictions on the real ones. By unintentional false accusations, I am referring to the accusations that come about a few days after the "event" when the "victim" decides that she isn't overly thrilled with who she went home with and gets convinced that just because she had a couple of drinks she had no control over the situation. Sorry, but unless the woman was drugged or given alcohol under false pretenses (really, these are VIRGIN Mary's), I don't buy the self applied victim label. (Heck, maybe the poor guy wouldn't have slept with her if HE wasn't drunk! ) Because some accusers get talked into believing that they were "raped" when in fact they weren't; I think that makes it harder to get convictions in "real" rapes more so than some bimbo totally fabricating a story. The total fabrication shouldn't alter the mindset that rape is a terrible crime. The converting a "gee, I wish I didn't sleep with that guy" into a "I was raped by that guy" would bring more doubt into an "impartial juror's mind", IMHO. I do agree with you though, that the intentional fabrications should be fought strongly against, preferably via jail time. The women who make unintentional fabrications, I have a bit more sympathy for, although I think that depending upon the circumstances that there should be sanctions against that as well (although much milder).
Kgun5 Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Actually, I think the UNintentionally false ones make it harder to get convictions on the real ones. By unintentional false accusations, I am referring to the accusations that come about a few days after the "event" when the "victim" decides that she isn't overly thrilled with who she went home with and gets convinced that just because she had a couple of drinks she had no control over the situation. Sorry, but unless the woman was drugged or given alcohol under false pretenses (really, these are VIRGIN Mary's), I don't buy the self applied victim label. (Heck, maybe the poor guy wouldn't have slept with her if HE wasn't drunk! ) Because some accusers get talked into believing that they were "raped" when in fact they weren't; I think that makes it harder to get convictions in "real" rapes more so than some bimbo totally fabricating a story. The total fabrication shouldn't alter the mindset that rape is a terrible crime. The converting a "gee, I wish I didn't sleep with that guy" into a "I was raped by that guy" would bring more doubt into an "impartial juror's mind", IMHO. I do agree with you though, that the intentional fabrications should be fought strongly against, preferably via jail time. The women who make unintentional fabrications, I have a bit more sympathy for, although I think that depending upon the circumstances that there should be sanctions against that as well (although much milder). 658528[/snapback] I'm not sure how "unintentional" what you describe is, but I certainly agree with you that many women are bullied into filing rape charges. The current state of the vocal feminist movement has nothing to do with equality, or even women's rights in many cases. It's just another special interest out for power and money. Feminism stopped being about real injustices 25 years ago, and now tends to champion the very injustices they fought against through the 60s and 70s...Just toward men instead of women. There 's some good websites out there that fight for men's (mostly father's) rights. Just try to steer clear of the misguided clowns (sadly, they're everywhere) that support things like the repeal of the 19th amendment and violence as solutions to the problem. Anyone interested can PM me if they'd like.
KRC Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 I do agree with you though, that the intentional fabrications should be fought strongly against, preferably via jail time. The women who make unintentional fabrications, I have a bit more sympathy for, although I think that depending upon the circumstances that there should be sanctions against that as well (although much milder). 658528[/snapback] The problem with that is that if she was truly raped, but cannot prove it in court, she would be prosecuted for fabricating her story (intentional or unintentional). This would scare some women into NOT reporting a legitimate rape for fear of not being able to properly prove it.
Kgun5 Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 The problem with that is that if she was truly raped, but cannot prove it in court, she would be prosecuted for fabricating her story (intentional or unintentional). This would scare some women into NOT reporting a legitimate rape for fear of not being able to properly prove it. 658616[/snapback] I think any charge, be it rape or the fabrication of rape, should be held to the same standard of proof. If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a women knowingly attempted to ruin my life with a false charge of rape, I would expect her to pay for it accordingly. This shouldn't scare any legitimate plaintiff, as it is clearly harder to prove that someone lied WITH malicious intent then it is to prove that the physical act of rape occured. Even if enacted, a law of this nature would have an almost insurmountable barrier of proof to meet, and would likely be reserved for only the clearest cases of wrong doing. I can't imagine how that would scare anyone.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Tiny Dancer, thy name is Tawanna. 658678[/snapback] Can Al Sharpton be far behind?
OGTEleven Posted April 11, 2006 Author Posted April 11, 2006 I have to admit I became suspiscious when I read something along the lines of: "If there is no DNA it's not a big deal. Maybe they used condoms." This was very early on and seemed to me to be pre-positioning. I'm no DNA expert but if they can't get any DNA from anywhere (fingernails, clothing, etc.) does that not cast some doubt? Given that, I don't think it is any more productive to villify the purported victim. There are only a few people that know what really happened. The authorities should be given time to sort it all out before people on either "side" get bent out of shape. Once charges are brought or not, the authorities should have to answer to the crowd that disagrees or a jury, whichever is appropriate.
Scraps Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 I have to admit I became suspiscious when I read something along the lines of: "If there is no DNA it's not a big deal. Maybe they used condoms." This was very early on and seemed to me to be pre-positioning. I'm no DNA expert but if they can't get any DNA from anywhere (fingernails, clothing, etc.) does that not cast some doubt? Given that, I don't think it is any more productive to villify the purported victim. There are only a few people that know what really happened. The authorities should be given time to sort it all out before people on either "side" get bent out of shape. Once charges are brought or not, the authorities should have to answer to the crowd that disagrees or a jury, whichever is appropriate. 658762[/snapback] Finger nails, clothes, combing through her hair to find other peoples hair. From one report I heard, the swabbed every part of her they could to gather evidence. Using a condom hardly prevents hair, saliva or skin from being transfered to some part of the body. Not only did they not find any DNA evidence, the reports I've heard stated they didn't find any evidence of lubricants. It certainly appears that the prosecutor has gone way out on a limb and doesn't know how to back away.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Shocker. If it's a white man involved, he must be a villain, right? I mean, white men were the perpetrators of every major crime of the last five centuries, from slavery to the extermination of Native Americans to the oppression of Arabs by Jews to the Holocaust, to denying women their voting rights! I mean, let's get all them honkies!
Taro T Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 The problem with that is that if she was truly raped, but cannot prove it in court, she would be prosecuted for fabricating her story (intentional or unintentional). This would scare some women into NOT reporting a legitimate rape for fear of not being able to properly prove it. 658616[/snapback] No, she wouldn't necessarily be prosecuted, but she could (and again, not necessarily would) be sanctioned. The sanction could be something as mild as putting her on a list so that if she brings charges that cannot be proved (once again) in the future that her name can be released to the papers. The sanctions for reporting an unintentionally false rape claim would be strictly on a case by case basis, and designed to be mild enough to not cause additional rapes to go unreported. (Realizing that certain women's rights groups will claim that you can never reach that standard, as not all rapes are reported today.) If however, you have a case where the charges are completely fabricated, then the woman should face serious consequences for her actions. I don't know that the current case will end up fitting this scenario, and will reserve judgement until the investigation is completed, but it sure does look like the charges have a very good chance of turning out to be bogus; if in fact the charges have no merit, then this woman should be prosecuted.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 No, she wouldn't necessarily be prosecuted, but she could (and again, not necessarily would) be sanctioned. The sanction could be something as mild as putting her on a list so that if she brings charges that cannot be proved (once again) in the future that her name can be released to the papers. The sanctions for reporting an unintentionally false rape claim would be strictly on a case by case basis, and designed to be mild enough to not cause additional rapes to go unreported. (Realizing that certain women's rights groups will claim that you can never reach that standard, as not all rapes are reported today.) If however, you have a case where the charges are completely fabricated, then the woman should face serious consequences for her actions. I don't know that the current case will end up fitting this scenario, and will reserve judgement until the investigation is completed, but it sure does look like the charges have a very good chance of turning out to be bogus; if in fact the charges have no merit, then this woman should be prosecuted. 658801[/snapback] Don't you know that something liek 80% of rapes go unreported? Johnny Coli told me so.
KRC Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 No, she wouldn't necessarily be prosecuted, but she could (and again, not necessarily would) be sanctioned. The sanction could be something as mild as putting her on a list so that if she brings charges that cannot be proved (once again) in the future that her name can be released to the papers. The sanctions for reporting an unintentionally false rape claim would be strictly on a case by case basis, and designed to be mild enough to not cause additional rapes to go unreported. (Realizing that certain women's rights groups will claim that you can never reach that standard, as not all rapes are reported today.) If however, you have a case where the charges are completely fabricated, then the woman should face serious consequences for her actions. I don't know that the current case will end up fitting this scenario, and will reserve judgement until the investigation is completed, but it sure does look like the charges have a very good chance of turning out to be bogus; if in fact the charges have no merit, then this woman should be prosecuted. 658801[/snapback] Trust me. I see your point. I am still not fully convinced, however. I have no trouble with obvious false accusations. Those people should be prosecuted fully. The problem I have is the gray area that is inherent in these situations where the evidence may not be enough to get a conviction. Let me give an example: A guy rapes a woman. There is not enough evidence to convict the guy of rape and he is found Not Guilty. What is to stop him from filing charges against her for false accusations? If she were to be raped again, she may not report it because her name would be released, etc under the plan you are proposing. She is more apt to keep quiet for fear of another Not Guilty verdict. Now, if we just use arrests vs. no arrests in determining whether the case has merit (if he is arrested and found not guilty, he cannot sue, but if he is not arrested, then he can sue), would the police be more inclined to arrest someone if there is some evidence, but not enough to get a conviction, just to protect her in some way? BillInNYC could elaborate more on this.
Taro T Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Trust me. I see your point. I am still not fully convinced, however. I have no trouble with obvious false accusations. Those people should be prosecuted fully. The problem I have is the gray area that is inherent in these situations where the evidence may not be enough to get a conviction. Let me give an example: A guy rapes a woman. There is not enough evidence to convict the guy of rape and he is found Not Guilty. What is to stop him from filing charges against her for false accusations? If she were to be raped again, she may not report it because her name would be released, etc under the plan you are proposing. She is more apt to keep quiet for fear of another Not Guilty verdict. Now, if we just use arrests vs. no arrests in determining whether the case has merit (if he is arrested and found not guilty, he cannot sue, but if he is not arrested, then he can sue), would the police be more inclined to arrest someone if there is some evidence, but not enough to get a conviction, just to protect her in some way? BillInNYC could elaborate more on this. 658827[/snapback] I don't know, what keeps guys that are acquitted currently from pressing charges for false accusations? I'd imagine the same mechanisms that are currently in place could be used (with possible slight modifications). If the guy DID actually rape the girl, he'd definitely have to be a ballsy mo-fo to try to charge her with a false report. I doubt that the prosecutor would pursue the case vigorously, as he would be privy to the original evidence that led him to attempt to get the original conviction; but I could be wrong about that. Also, I would expect that the man bringing charges against the woman would increase her likelihood of bringing a civil suit against him. There is a lower threshold of evidence in civil cases, and the man (again, we are dealing in this hypothetical with one that did actually commit rape) would likely have a good chance of owing the woman a lot of money. On a different note, I'm not certain that I see it as a bad thing to have a woman that gets herself drunk and then regrets what she did the previous night be hesitant to press rape charges. As for your final question, I know that 20 years ago in NYS, if a woman filed a complaint the police had to press charges even if the woman later recanted her story and/or decided she didn't want to press charges. I'm not sure what more the police could do to "protect" her in that situation.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 I read an article on Slate.com the other day that basically said that most lacrosse players are a-holes so they must have done it. From what I understand, even if someone uses a condom, there would be some DNA evidence. So now it looks like none of the 46 players raped her. In the meantime, the coach has been fired, the team's season has been cancelled, one player was kicked out of school, and the rest are being treated like scumbags by anyone who recognizes them as a lacrosse player. Not to mention all of the protests that have occurred on and off campus. Man, it's going to really suck if it turns out that her pimp beat her up for not making enough money stripping for those college boys.
KD in CA Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 From what I understand, even if someone uses a condom, there would be some DNA evidence. So now it looks like none of the 46 players raped her. In the meantime, the coach has been fired, the team's season has been cancelled, one player was kicked out of school, and the rest are being treated like scumbags by anyone who recognizes them as a lacrosse player. Not to mention all of the protests that have occurred on and off campus. Not to mention being forced to provide their DNA despite there being no evidence that any of them were involved in a crime. Too bad they passed that law stating that young white males don't have civil rights anymore. Still not a single word on the entire website.
Kgun5 Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Not to mention being forced to provide their DNA despite there being no evidence that any of them were involved in a crime. Too bad they passed that law stating that young white males don't have civil rights anymore. Still not a single word on the entire website. 658907[/snapback] And herein lies the problem. So many laws are made to "protect" certain classes from harm that the civil rights of all are trampled. The problem for white males is that none of these special protections apply to them, therefore they suffer the biggest net-loss in the whole mess. As for the false accusation debate, if the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", what is the problem with it being a crime to intentionally attempt to ruin someone's life with a lie? At the very least we're talking about slander in those cases, no?
Recommended Posts