U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2009, 09:42 AM
 
48,519 posts, read 80,998,062 times
Reputation: 17978

Advertisements

I thnik its best to remember there is a difference between a false acusation and one in which the defendant is found not guilty.Just because the person is found not guilty in court does not mean the person did notcommit rape;its that the jury found thier was not enough evidence to convict. If a woman maks a false acusation she could be convisted or found not guilty which would mean the same thing. Then of course a person can be not guilty under criminal standards and responsible under civil as in the OJ case.

 
Old 05-06-2009, 09:46 AM
 
Location: All around the world.....
2,886 posts, read 7,357,638 times
Reputation: 1044
Default Men Haters

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamerman View Post
Quite a touch subject, but here it is. Women have a long history of making false rape accusations on men just because they were angry or for no apparent reason. The man's reputation is ruined probably for life.

These types of women give other women a bad reputation. It left me to believe that all women do this.

What do you think of women who make false rape accusations?


They are evil, controlling women
They are of their father the devil, and it's ashamed how they not only
ruin the lives of men unawares, but women and children also, no one
can deal with their wrath, especially since their vindictive ways are usually manipulation.....
All women are not like this , but a lot have been taught this..
unh,unh,unh.......
 
Old 05-06-2009, 09:46 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
I thnik its best to remember there is a difference between a false acusation and one in which the defendant is found not guilty.Just because the person is found not guilty in court does not mean the person did notcommit rape;its that the jury found thier was not enough evidence to convict. If a woman maks a false acusation she could be convisted or found not guilty which would mean the same thing. Then of course a person can be not guilty under criminal standards and responsible under civil as in the OJ case.
Very true. I would also add to this that the major reason why women who allegedly made a false accusation are almost never prosecuted is because the men they accused have a very good reason not to take the witness stand (hint: the reason being that they did commit the rape). After all, in a rape prosecution, the defendant enjoys the right against self-incrimination. But in a prosecution against the complainant for a false rape accusation, the defendant would be entitled to put the man on the stand -- and also present proof that the rape did occur.
 
Old 05-06-2009, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
657 posts, read 1,381,006 times
Reputation: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Very true. I would also add to this that the major reason why women who allegedly made a false accusation are almost never prosecuted is because the men they accused have a very good reason not to take the witness stand (hint: the reason being that they did commit the rape). After all, in a rape prosecution, the defendant enjoys the right against self-incrimination. But in a prosecution against the complainant for a false rape accusation, the defendant would be entitled to put the man on the stand -- and also present proof that the rape did occur.

FWIW, I highly doubt that a rape case that fails to be proven in a trial of the accused, is going to be proven in a counter-charge against the defendant for false accusation.

Unless you watch Law and Order, SVU.
 
Old 05-06-2009, 11:50 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by J double R View Post
FWIW, I highly doubt that a rape case that fails to be proven in a trial of the accused, is going to be proven in a counter-charge against the defendant for false accusation.
You doubt wrong. Three reasons:

FIRST: If the prosecution failed to prove a case during the rape trial due to evidence exclusion, that excluded evidence will most likely be ruled admissible at the trial of his accuser for making a false report. Let's say the police grab the suspect and forcibly pull out his hair for a DNA match, without consent or a warrant. Suppose further that the DNA in his hair matches the semen taken from the victim at the crime scene, as well as tissue under her fingernails. They also illegally strip him and find copious evidence of struggle (bruises, bites, scratches, etc.) Now, in and of itself, that's perfectly good evidence that the defendant had intercourse with the victim, and that the victim struggled against him. However, because his Constitutional rights were violated, that evidence will be excluded at the rape trial. BUT -- here is the kicker -- that same evidence would be perfectly admissible at the trial of his accuser. The alleged rapist is no longer a defendant, so he has no standing to object to the introduction of this evidence. And that goes for any evidence excluded on procedural grounds.

SECOND: While the alleged rapist can stay off the stand during his own trial, he may (and likely will) be compelled to take the witness stand in the trial of his accuser. One of the reasons that attorneys almost invariably counsel their criminal clients against taking the stand is that it's one of the surest ways to hang oneself. Any evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible may be used to "impeach" him.

THIRD: A person who is accused of making a false accusation doesn't have to prove conclusively that the rape has occurred. She is presumed innocent, just like the rapist -- remember? So all she has to do is establish reasonable doubt that her accusation was false, and that's not hard to do.

So actually, it's easier to prove that a rape occurred if the rapist is not a defendant. Of course, there is that double-jeopardy thing that prevents the rapist from being tried again for the same crime, so he is technically in the clear. However, the trial of his accuser may still result in the accuser's public vindication (thereby ruining the rapist's), social opprobrium, employment difficulties, etc. So if the alleged rapist actually did commit the rape and got away with it, the last thing he would want to do is put his accuser on trial.

That's not Law & Order SVU, JRR -- it's Evidence 101 and Criminal Procedure 101. You've had those, I presume?
 
Old 05-06-2009, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
657 posts, read 1,381,006 times
Reputation: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
You doubt wrong. Three reasons:

FIRST: If the prosecution failed to prove a case during the rape trial due to evidence exclusion, that excluded evidence will most likely be ruled admissible at the trial of his accuser for making a false report. Let's say the police grab the suspect and forcibly pull out his hair for a DNA match, without consent or a warrant. Suppose further that the DNA in his hair matches the semen taken from the victim at the crime scene, as well as tissue under her fingernails. They also illegally strip him and find copious evidence of struggle (bruises, bites, scratches, etc.) Now, in and of itself, that's perfectly good evidence that the defendant had intercourse with the victim, and that the victim struggled against him. However, because his Constitutional rights were violated, that evidence will be excluded at the rape trial. BUT -- here is the kicker -- that same evidence would be perfectly admissible at the trial of his accuser. The alleged rapist is no longer a defendant, so he has no standing to object to the introduction of this evidence. And that goes for any evidence excluded on procedural grounds.

SECOND: While the alleged rapist can stay off the stand during his own trial, he may (and likely will) be compelled to take the witness stand in the trial of his accuser. One of the reasons that attorneys almost invariably counsel their criminal clients against taking the stand is that it's one of the surest ways to hang oneself. Any evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible may be used to "impeach" him.

THIRD: A person who is accused of making a false accusation doesn't have to prove conclusively that the rape has occurred. She is presumed innocent, just like the rapist -- remember? So all she has to do is establish reasonable doubt that her accusation was false, and that's not hard to do.

So actually, it's easier to prove that a rape occurred if the rapist is not a defendant. Of course, there is that double-jeopardy thing that prevents the rapist from being tried again for the same crime, so he is technically in the clear. However, the trial of his accuser may still result in the accuser's public vindication (thereby ruining the rapist's), social opprobrium, employment difficulties, etc. So if the alleged rapist actually did commit the rape and got away with it, the last thing he would want to do is put his accuser on trial.

That's not Law & Order SVU, JRR -- it's Evidence 101 and Criminal Procedure 101. You've had those, I presume?
great points, thanks for the better explanation.

and no.. if i had those, i'd be making money with them, not posting on the internet.
 
Old 05-06-2009, 12:39 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by J double R View Post
and no.. if i had those, i'd be making money with them, not posting on the internet.
There is no reason why one can't do both -- you know, if you are good at multitasking.
 
Old 05-06-2009, 01:20 PM
 
2,739 posts, read 4,072,290 times
Reputation: 1973
Throw the book at the false accuser. Thankfully there's DNA testing now. I would seriously punish the any false accuser just as harshly as I would the accused had he been convicted. I wouldn't play.
 
Old 05-06-2009, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Everybody is going to hurt you, you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for-B Marley
9,506 posts, read 17,308,275 times
Reputation: 9335
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamerman View Post
Quite a touch subject, but here it is. Women have a long history of making false rape accusations on men just because they were angry or for no apparent reason. The man's reputation is ruined probably for life.
As long a history as rapes men commit that ruin women's lives probably for life, ya think?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamerman View Post
These types of women give other women a bad reputation. It left me to believe that all women do this.
I certainly hope you're just emotional talking and you're smarter than that. Otherwise, you might as well go close yourself in your house right now and never come out. Either that or get on some meds for delusional disorders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamerman View Post

What do you think of women who make false rape accusations?
I think the same of those women that I think of the men who are in denial about the rapes they commit.
 
Old 05-08-2009, 10:50 PM
 
3,651 posts, read 8,111,745 times
Reputation: 2747
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamerman View Post
What do you think of women who make false rape accusations?
I think that if proven, they should get EXACTLY the same sentence that the man would have gotten if convicted of rape.

But that would make sense, which means our brilliant legal system wouldn't consider it for a second.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top