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.
I agree as long as it's deliberate lying like the Lacrosse case, and not just a case of mistaken identity. If the woman was raped and identified the wrong person because that person looked the same, then no.
Which should mean you're against it across the board. After all, there is no way for a woman to prove she identified the wrong person by accident. It's just another way this idea would land innocent women (who've just been raped, no less) in prison.
That's no way to look at it at all. People who lie should be called on it. And we all know that women who target men more than they target other women do not match the definition of a feminist and therefore should not be given the privilege of being considered feminists by the larger, saner majority.
Just as with any criminal or liar, it won't if they think they won't get caught (e.g., there isn't a video camera pointed at them during the sexual activity). People don't stop and consider the consequences before committing a crime they have the inclination to commit; they only ponder their chances of getting busted.
And we should still be mindful of the chances that this will discourage many women who have been raped from coming forward and seeking justice. I know, I know, everyone keeps saying "Well they'll only go to prison if the defendant can prove his innocence/that she was lying!" But let's be real with each other here; people are thrown in prison without being proven guilty all the time. Who wants to chance time in prison in addition to having just been raped? I know I wouldn't. So if you're going after false accusers, you're going after victims of rape as well. There's no way around it.
I'm not suggesting if a defendant is found not guilty of rape the accuser should then be prosecuted. The Hofstra case was nothing like that. She intentionally, maliciously accused the 5 guys of rape, knowing the accusation was false.
Before you ask, no, I don't know the number or % of cases like that. Nobody 'knows.' But when a case like that occurs, either because the cops, DA conclude there's sufficient evidence to prove the accusation was intentionally false or the woman recants, criminal charges should be brought, with severe penalties.
I'm not suggesting if a defendant is found not guilty of rape the accuser should then be prosecuted.
You don't have to; you know this would happen, quite a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Before you ask, no, I don't know the number or % of cases like that. Nobody 'knows.' But when a case like that occurs, either because the cops, DA conclude there's sufficient evidence to prove the accusation was intentionally false or the woman recants, criminal charges should be brought, with severe penalties.
If it were common for women to face severe penalties for this, far fewer of them would admit it was a lie or they were in fact unsure. This might result in even more innocent men going to jail, or at least fail to serve the intended purpose of making false accusers pay. And the distinction between intentional lying and mistaken identity is an important one as well. I don't trust anyone to discern whether a woman was intentionally lying or identified the wrong person by accident. How could they?
The Jameis Winston/FSU deal has me thinking again. If the guy committed rape, then I think he should have the book thrown at him. But going back to the Duke lacrosse case, there have been SOME women who have made these accusations for attention/money/regret/whatever and it's RUINED the lives of the men they've accused and it's terrible.
I believe the time should fit the crime, so I am in no way advocating that sentencing be 25 years or something, but does anyone else believe that this should be a lower degree felony punishable by a few years in prison? Some of these women have ruined these men's lives with their accusations, I believe theirs should be ruined with a felony on their record.
Absolutely, because it ruins it for true victims of rape.
From sitting in more than a handful of rape trials with friends and women in my rape survivor support groups. I would also accompany a man who was raped to a trial, if I was presented with such a situation. Unfortunately, men who were raped rarely get the support that they need because of this idea that men can't be raped by a woman or the embarrassment of being raped by a man.
Of the 7 convicted rapists of friends/aquaintances, none got more than 5 years and most got out on "good behavior" before their terms were up. Only if violence was involved, such as a knife to the throat, did the high end occur. If you are date raped, raped by a partner, or raped by an acquaintance, good luck. In my state, at least at the time of my rape, the minimum sentence was 3 years. By the time that time served and parole came around, that could easily result in a year in jail. Because my rapist was another 17 year old, it could have been even less.
Of course this is an anecdote. But I'll say again, I WAS ADVISED BY POLICE OFFICERS NOT TO PURSUE MY RAPE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT THINK IT WAS "LEGITIMATE" AND WOULD NOT END IN A CONVICTION. Didn't matter that I ended up pregnant as a result in the middle of applying to college. Didn't matter that my virginity was stolen from me. Didn't matter that I had not dated my rapist in more than a year (when we were 15). And even though my rape was very real, if you asked those police officers the second I walked out the door if I had really been raped, I bet you they would tell you no.
This was in 2005, not 1955. And it still happens today.
Consent is not blurry. If a person says "no" mid-coitus, one more thrust is rape. If someone is drunk, it's rape. If someone is asleep, it's rape. If someone changes their mind and contact is not IMMEDIATELY halted, it's rape. If I consent to X activity, you cannot do Y. No is always no, no matter when it is said.
Look, there's a lot about the way we handle rape in this country that bothers me. Not the least is how men who are raped (and yes, it is 100% possible for a man to be raped by a woman) are ignored and lack of Romeo and Juliet laws. When I was a senior in high school, there was a big story about a senior at a different high school who slept with a 16 year old when he was 18. He ended up being labeled a sex offender. That's absolutely ridiculous and I have actively campaigned to change those laws.
If an alleged rape victim is proved to be lying - i.e. she was out eating ice cream the night of her accused rape - then she should absolutely be brought up for charges. In fact, aren't the women in these very public cases sued in civil court afterward? But given how I've seen society react to people who were actually raped, myself included, to try to make excuses for the rapist, I don't trust what would happen to women who can't prove that they were really raped.
Yes, you should have faced jail time if a jury decided you were lying. That's how things work. When a jury finds you guilty of a crime, you face punishment for that crime.
Your story is no different than if I said "I didn't really steal a thousand dollars, but if a jury decided I did steal a thousand dollars, would I face jail time?" Yes. That's how it works.
If I accuse, say, my roommate of stealing $1000 and I could not prove that was the case in a court of law, nothing would happen. If it was proved that I was outright lying, I would have to pay his court fees and likely a fine.
Quote:
Another thing you hear all the time is that even when a woman consciously and maliciously accuses a man of rape in order to ruin his life and this is found out, she should face no punishment.
You, as a human being, have no more or less rights than a man does. Women are not more valuable than men.
Of course women aren't more valuable than men. Where did you get that idea? I have only heard of a few high profile news cases where a woman lied maliciously - and I don't know that I've EVER heard anyone supporting no punishment. The concern is where is the line? Just because a rapist is not convicted in court does not mean he didn't rape - it could mean there wasn't enough evidence. Rape cases are tricky and even though I grew up in the last 90s and early 2000s, I only learned what to do after I had been raped from watching Law & Order SVU. Many women won't know or be in the state of mind to go straight to the police with their soiled underwear.
Quote:
No, they aren't. It isn't 1950 anymore. It's a characteristic of both feminism and racism that people try to act as if 2013 is the same as 1950. It isn't. Nobody is trying to bring back Jim Crow and nobody is trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
What happened to me occured in 2005. Through college, I was involved with our Rape Crisis Counseling Line at my university and was involved in support groups of rape survivors. My experience was NOT abnormal, even today.
Quote:
There are special units for prosecuting sex crimes. There are hotlines and shelters for sex abuse victims. There are support groups and awareness programs. We have rape shield laws. Even a hint of sexual misconduct is enough to destroy someone's career. This idea that feminists try to peddle that we live in a "rape culture" is ludicrous.
Watching a bit too much CSI and Law and Order, are we? Special units for prosecuting sex crimes? Maybe in big cities. They're certainly not everywhere. Most hospitals are equipped with a SART (sexual assault response team), but not all. Even when rape kits are taken (and remember, less than half of women who are raped get a rape kit), there were more than 400,000 untested rape kits as of this May. Outrage over nationwide rape kit backlog – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs From the article: "In an AC360 report on the rape kit backlog, Randi Kaye interviewed a woman who followed up on her case more than two decades later and discovered that law enforcement had never processed the evidence. When they did, they found the man who raped her, but it was too late for her to press charges." Yup, this still happens.
And when, in 2005, a teenage girl is told by officials not to press charges because no one will believe her (as happened to me), then yes, we do have a problem with rape culture. I should have been taken seriously and immediately referred to a social worker. I ended up leaving the police station in tears and intense shame.
Quote:
Nobody ever said that rape doesn't happen or isn't serious when it does happen. What's being said is that rape being serious isn't an excuse to let women get away with falsely accusing someone of it. It is, in fact, precisely because rape is taken so very seriously that a false accusation is so incredibly damaging.
Of course not. And you will find no argument from most of us that if a woman (or man, as the case may be) is truly lying, instead of on the losing end of a trial, that they should face charges. The concern is what level of evidence is required to charge someone for a false accusation. If a woman accuses a man of raping her and he is not convicted, does that mean she's lying? Well, no. But according to some of the posts here, the answer could be yes. And THAT'S what's concerning.
I still think making it a point to come up with some standard "severe" (the OP's word, not mine) punishment will likely do more harm than good. Make it too severe, or make the level of required evidence against them too low, and rape victims will simply not bother coming forward and seeking justice. That's because, again, you do not have to be guilty to be "found" guilty and everyone knows it. And I do believe there are too many in the general public (which of course doubles as the jury) who will equate the man being found innocent with the woman being found guilty of intentionally lying rather than a case of mistaken identity, and/or simply overlook this caveat (if it's even put into writing). They will bring their personal prejudices and biases and make assumptions, and rape victims will end up in prison or paying huge amounts of money... to the rapist. Not saying it will happen a lot. But then again it might.
Not to mention the difficulty in just knowing that, in addition to coming forward to strangers about having been raped and being put on trial figuratively for lying about it (e.g., "She was asking for it", "She consented and just regrets it now", etc.), you may end up on trial literally which has to be quite a great deal worse. If you are in fact a rape victim, I can't imagine the effect it would have on you, now having to fight off the suggestion that you be made to pay the man who raped you a large sum of money.
It depends. If there is a trial and the defendent is simply found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean that the defendent is necessarily innocent, but just not proven guilty. If evidence comes out that absolutely proves the defendent is absolutely innocent and could not have committed the crime due to being seen by several eye wittnesses in a different location at the time of the crime, or dna evidence etc, or the victim recants at some point....thats a different story.
Lives can be and many times are ruined by false accusations of rape. If a victim falsly accuses someone I would think at the very least it would be considered falsly reporting a crime and some sort of punishment should be considered on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances.
I'm saying 2 things happen
(1) the defendant (male) is found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
(2) Because of circumstances and evidence, the male's defense team decides they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was criminally malicious in her accusation so they go to court for that. The male's defense team succeeds.
I'm not saying "oh, the guy was proven innocent, the girl goes to jail." I'm saying, that the guy can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law, that the girl was malicious in her accusation.
Which should mean you're against it across the board. After all, there is no way for a woman to prove she identified the wrong person by accident.
She wouldn't have to prove anything. The state has to prove its case, not the defendant.
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.
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.
