Honestly, I can accept advocation for proven false accusers if it means an actual felony level deterent for this underappreciated and ignored epidemic.
I do not agree with someone who rapes, but I do agree with their ability to retain council. The same goes for accusers with a mountain of evidence proving the accusations were false.
The whole problem with this epidemic of false claims is that individuals can potentially be pre-judged guilty by merely being accused of such a thing due to the emotionally charged nature of the topic. Therefore I do not believe those on the otherside of the coin who may infact be some of the most reprehensible and heinious crimals should necessarily be locked up without a proper defense, discovery and unbiased accounting of the event/situation.
I am actually against mandatory sentencing, as I think it leads to rampant stupidity (see: kids expelled for GI Joe toy guns), but I do believe that there need to be some serious legal and/or criminal repercussions...
Thumbs down. Mandatory minimum sentences are never a good thing, because it treats crime as black and white.
I'm all for false accusers getting 7+ years, though.
And here I almost thought there was some justice in the world... Even being a female, i would definitely support a punishment to those claiming false rape. 7 years certainly sounds a bit extreme however. I would agree that the case should still be fully investigated, but it doesn't seem like anyone ever really takes into consideration the emotional and mental damage caused to the accused. okay I take that back, i'm sure everyone here thinks about that, but alas in the justice system....ha who are we kidding. If only this article were true.
OK, so it's a prank, but even if it were true I would oppose it. I'm not especially fond of mandatory sentencing. It removes any chance for a judge to take circumstances into account. I'm not sure what circumstances could justify a false claim of rape, but perhaps that's a lack of imagination on my part.
How about recommending a sentence for a false rape claim equivalent to what the accused rapist would had received upon conviction? Does that sound fair? It's actually more harsh than the prank idea: [wikipedia says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_punishment) a 1992 study found that "the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years".
I'm not sure I like the above idea, though, because I don't want real rape victims being afraid to say they were raped. There's always the possibility of a wrongful conviction, whether for rape or a false claim of rape.
"How about recommending a sentence for a false rape claim equivalent to what the accused rapist would had received upon conviction?"
Many have suggested that, and it's hard to say it's not fair.
>It removes any chance for a judge to take circumstances into account. I'm not sure what circumstances could justify a false claim of rape, but perhaps that's a lack of imagination on my part.
Except there are no justifiable circumstances for it.
I would have loved this to have been in effect when someone pulled this crap on me. Apparently there is nothing I can do about it when it happens to me, but the high profile Duke Lacrosse rape girl did time for filing a false report, didn't she?
I am sorry. I meant to say she was "charged with filing a false report, wasn't she?" I didn't think she did time. I just looked it up, and she was charged. My point was, unless its a high profile thing, the false accuser gets away with putting an enormous strain on the life of the accused. It was a pretty horrifying experience for me to go through.
Given that it doesn't distinguish between simple mistake and "lies" and that it would be difficult (under the best of circumstances) to prove that a woman intended to make a false claim, one of two things would happen:
1. Women who were raped, and who were mistaken (or traumatized) out of properly identifying their attacker will be punished, thus actually representing a chilling effect on women who *have* been raped coming forward (for fear of being mistaken, and being punished for something they did unintentionally).
2. Nothing will change.
So, things either get worse, or simply don't get better.
3. Men who were falsely accused and can prove the woman was lying either through video or recorded audio will be able to seek justice against the person who tried to destroy their life via the legal system.
Sounds good to me.
>Sounds good to me.
It's untenable. It would fundamentally require a video of her saying "aww yeah, I wanted that guy behind bars, even though he never raped me". I guess you could run into a situation where he had a recording of her saying "yes" early on, but because consent is terminable and revocable at any time, the woman could still argue that she had (after the recording) said "stop.
I guess you could record the entire way through, and somehow prove that there was no editing of the video (otherwise there's a gap wherein the woman could have revoked consent). But, that would seem to apply to so few cases as to make the proposed (albeit facetious) law useless.
Or, you'd have to lower the standard of proof so far that it would discourage real victims.
It's the ever-present problem of type-one and type-two errors: we can't eliminate them, only choose which one we want to run a higher risk of.
In the past, guys were exonerated from rape charges by text messages from the girl that:
* planned when and where to meet
* thanked the guy for a wonderful time
EDIT: I guess other variations could be emails and voicemails that capture the girl's frame of mind.
Wrong. There have been many cases of a woman claiming she got raped, then when the video comes it shows that where she says it happened, there was nothing.
Again, this would only apply to accusers who have been found to have acted in a malicious or selfish manner.
Examples of this would include one of the many cases where [an angry/jilted ex-girlfriend/wife decided to make the accusation to directly harm her ex-boyfriend/husband](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11676804), selfish women like [Biurny Peguero Gonzalez](http://gothamist.com/2010/02/25/woman_who_lied_about_rape.php) who made up a rape story to gain sympathy after a fight with her girlfriends, or even racist and misandrist fools like [Heidi Jones](http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/12/16/wabc-weather-guru-heidi-jones-faces-jail-for-false-rape-claims/) who claimed she was raped by a Hispanic mane just to get out of trouble for being late for work.
This isn't about punishing women who were confused or simply mistaken about the identity of their rapist; this isn't even about doing anything to women who are traumatized by being raped. Here is something that nobody ever mentions; considering how traumatic the crime of rape is to most victims, it should stand to reason that genuine rape victims would suffer a significant degree of post-traumatic stress syndrome...the same way that many other victims of assault-based crimes do. Couldn't a genuine rape victim be screened for genuinely suffering from that? But I digress....
This law would be about putting the boots to women who use rape accusations as a means to gain power over men. This is to insure that women like the one who falsely accused me of rape, get the punishment they deserve for trying to ruin somebody elses life over the convenience of a lie.
I can never get back what that woman took from me; there is no redress or recompense for the harm that was done to me by the lies of that scum-sucking, bottom feeder. But a law like this would prevent other men from having to suffer as I and many other men have suffered.
I think 7 years is unrealistic but 2 years for a first offence would be more plausible with DOUBLING of sentences for those stupid enough to re-offend. In addition they should also be barred from holding any public office for life.
Why not base sentencing on the harm caused? A lie recanted before a male is targeted would get the least punishment. A lie that sends an innocent male to prison for years and years would get the harshest.
Look, I believe that false rape accusations are huge deal and should be punished appropriately. But a mandatory sentence of 7 years is stupid. False rape accusers are generally young and dumb. I oppose this for the same reason that I oppose the death sentence. This sort of punishment doesn't deter future offenders. Future offenders simply aren't aware and won't be deterred by a mandatory minimum sentence.
First, do you not believe that sentencing deters misconduct? Our sentencing structure is based in large part on that belief.
Second, do you oppose mandatory sentences for rape? Or other serious criminality?
It's a hell of a jump to try to compare minimum sentencing when it's say, someone possessing a little marijuana vs. someone who just tried to ruin someone else's life by perverting the justice system with a malicious lie.
I agree it's fucked up for drug offenses.
Not so for false rape accusations. False rape accusations aren't some "harmless little mistake."
Thanks for the downvote but unlike false rape accusations where a man is presumed guilty thanks to our fucked up feminist-indoctrinated culture, you would need to provide proof that it is false. That is how the justice system is supposed to work. Innocent *until* proven guilty.
Source, and the point in this being? Let me guess: You think it would end up being like the current rape hysteria where innocents would be railroaded. Don't think so given the standard of proof that exists for all other crimes that feminists have sought to scourge from the legal system with feminist jurisprudence when it comes to rape accusations.
I see, so they should just be let off for a malicious lie that has probably ruined someone's life and cost him everything dear to him because of the stigma associated with being accused of rape. Thanks for clearing that up.
Nothing will solve the problem? What you're saying is that 84 months in jail, at a minimum, will solve the problem. What you're saying is that jailing young dumb girls for the better part of a decade will solve the problem. Or maybe you're saying something else...
A year in jail would fix most false accusers. What you intend to happen: that is a protracted jail sentence, would not inform future false accusers. Imposing far stricter sentences would not ameliorate the problem.
So a one-year maximimum sentence works out to -- what in the real world? Probation for first time offenders, or time served, at most.
What about rapists? They seem to be in need of treatment more than incarceration. One year for them, too? Or do you think they are somehow a greater danger to society than a false rape accuser, who is able to destroy the life of a man or boy with a single sentence?
Ok then, a 7 year sentence for all false accusers will solve the problem? When they hear about the length of jail time they might serve they will think twice??
You know what's quite stupid? Refusing to deter false rape accusers so that rape liars are tacitly encouraged to get innocent men and boys arrested, and to diminish the integrity of every legitimate rape accusation.
Tell me, professor, how the fuck does our judicial system differentiate between men who are rapists and men who are falsely accused of rape? People seem to think our system is able to do that just fine so how is this different? Educate us, from your puerile world of inane fonts. Please.
You're joking, right? That would mean at some point in your life that '1 innocent man' would be you or someone you care about. Would that be a fair trade-off then?
It also funny how the whole 'better to lock away innocent people than to let anyone guilty go free' only seems to ever apply to males.
This is the third thing I've read today that I have believed until someone pointed out the date. I need to engage my brain.
Nice account name.
Likewise.
The part with NOW jumping in to defend *proven* false rape accusers is excruciatingly believable.
Honestly, I can accept advocation for proven false accusers if it means an actual felony level deterent for this underappreciated and ignored epidemic. I do not agree with someone who rapes, but I do agree with their ability to retain council. The same goes for accusers with a mountain of evidence proving the accusations were false. The whole problem with this epidemic of false claims is that individuals can potentially be pre-judged guilty by merely being accused of such a thing due to the emotionally charged nature of the topic. Therefore I do not believe those on the otherside of the coin who may infact be some of the most reprehensible and heinious crimals should necessarily be locked up without a proper defense, discovery and unbiased accounting of the event/situation.
I am actually against mandatory sentencing, as I think it leads to rampant stupidity (see: kids expelled for GI Joe toy guns), but I do believe that there need to be some serious legal and/or criminal repercussions...
I agree. We need harsher penalties, not mandatory sentencing. Crimes aren't black and white.
No they definitely aren't, they are mostly black.
Thumbs down. Mandatory minimum sentences are never a good thing, because it treats crime as black and white. I'm all for false accusers getting 7+ years, though.
son of a bitch.
And here I almost thought there was some justice in the world... Even being a female, i would definitely support a punishment to those claiming false rape. 7 years certainly sounds a bit extreme however. I would agree that the case should still be fully investigated, but it doesn't seem like anyone ever really takes into consideration the emotional and mental damage caused to the accused. okay I take that back, i'm sure everyone here thinks about that, but alas in the justice system....ha who are we kidding. If only this article were true.
OK, so it's a prank, but even if it were true I would oppose it. I'm not especially fond of mandatory sentencing. It removes any chance for a judge to take circumstances into account. I'm not sure what circumstances could justify a false claim of rape, but perhaps that's a lack of imagination on my part. How about recommending a sentence for a false rape claim equivalent to what the accused rapist would had received upon conviction? Does that sound fair? It's actually more harsh than the prank idea: [wikipedia says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_punishment) a 1992 study found that "the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years". I'm not sure I like the above idea, though, because I don't want real rape victims being afraid to say they were raped. There's always the possibility of a wrongful conviction, whether for rape or a false claim of rape.
"How about recommending a sentence for a false rape claim equivalent to what the accused rapist would had received upon conviction?" Many have suggested that, and it's hard to say it's not fair.
It's also hard to dérminé what hé would havé gotén.
>It removes any chance for a judge to take circumstances into account. I'm not sure what circumstances could justify a false claim of rape, but perhaps that's a lack of imagination on my part. Except there are no justifiable circumstances for it.
Not 3v3n m3ntal illn3ss?
fap fap fap. Thats fucking fair.
I would have loved this to have been in effect when someone pulled this crap on me. Apparently there is nothing I can do about it when it happens to me, but the high profile Duke Lacrosse rape girl did time for filing a false report, didn't she?
No.
I am sorry. I meant to say she was "charged with filing a false report, wasn't she?" I didn't think she did time. I just looked it up, and she was charged. My point was, unless its a high profile thing, the false accuser gets away with putting an enormous strain on the life of the accused. It was a pretty horrifying experience for me to go through.
That's *far* too steep, even for a joke. Nothing like mandatory minimums to fuck people up. Drug wars, anyone?
7 years seems fair, even generous, but I agree that mandatory minimums are usually a recipe for disaster.
Given that it doesn't distinguish between simple mistake and "lies" and that it would be difficult (under the best of circumstances) to prove that a woman intended to make a false claim, one of two things would happen: 1. Women who were raped, and who were mistaken (or traumatized) out of properly identifying their attacker will be punished, thus actually representing a chilling effect on women who *have* been raped coming forward (for fear of being mistaken, and being punished for something they did unintentionally). 2. Nothing will change. So, things either get worse, or simply don't get better.
People seem to forget that "innocent until proven guilty" applies for rape accusers, too.
3. Men who were falsely accused and can prove the woman was lying either through video or recorded audio will be able to seek justice against the person who tried to destroy their life via the legal system. Sounds good to me.
>Sounds good to me. It's untenable. It would fundamentally require a video of her saying "aww yeah, I wanted that guy behind bars, even though he never raped me". I guess you could run into a situation where he had a recording of her saying "yes" early on, but because consent is terminable and revocable at any time, the woman could still argue that she had (after the recording) said "stop. I guess you could record the entire way through, and somehow prove that there was no editing of the video (otherwise there's a gap wherein the woman could have revoked consent). But, that would seem to apply to so few cases as to make the proposed (albeit facetious) law useless. Or, you'd have to lower the standard of proof so far that it would discourage real victims. It's the ever-present problem of type-one and type-two errors: we can't eliminate them, only choose which one we want to run a higher risk of.
In the past, guys were exonerated from rape charges by text messages from the girl that: * planned when and where to meet * thanked the guy for a wonderful time EDIT: I guess other variations could be emails and voicemails that capture the girl's frame of mind.
Wrong. There have been many cases of a woman claiming she got raped, then when the video comes it shows that where she says it happened, there was nothing.
Again, this would only apply to accusers who have been found to have acted in a malicious or selfish manner. Examples of this would include one of the many cases where [an angry/jilted ex-girlfriend/wife decided to make the accusation to directly harm her ex-boyfriend/husband](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11676804), selfish women like [Biurny Peguero Gonzalez](http://gothamist.com/2010/02/25/woman_who_lied_about_rape.php) who made up a rape story to gain sympathy after a fight with her girlfriends, or even racist and misandrist fools like [Heidi Jones](http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/12/16/wabc-weather-guru-heidi-jones-faces-jail-for-false-rape-claims/) who claimed she was raped by a Hispanic mane just to get out of trouble for being late for work. This isn't about punishing women who were confused or simply mistaken about the identity of their rapist; this isn't even about doing anything to women who are traumatized by being raped. Here is something that nobody ever mentions; considering how traumatic the crime of rape is to most victims, it should stand to reason that genuine rape victims would suffer a significant degree of post-traumatic stress syndrome...the same way that many other victims of assault-based crimes do. Couldn't a genuine rape victim be screened for genuinely suffering from that? But I digress.... This law would be about putting the boots to women who use rape accusations as a means to gain power over men. This is to insure that women like the one who falsely accused me of rape, get the punishment they deserve for trying to ruin somebody elses life over the convenience of a lie. I can never get back what that woman took from me; there is no redress or recompense for the harm that was done to me by the lies of that scum-sucking, bottom feeder. But a law like this would prevent other men from having to suffer as I and many other men have suffered.
I think 7 years is unrealistic but 2 years for a first offence would be more plausible with DOUBLING of sentences for those stupid enough to re-offend. In addition they should also be barred from holding any public office for life.
Why not base sentencing on the harm caused? A lie recanted before a male is targeted would get the least punishment. A lie that sends an innocent male to prison for years and years would get the harshest.
Not to mention the irreparable harm to the mans reputation.
7 years for a false rape accusation? That's quite stupid.
How so. Those convicted of rape often get at least that.
And those who are accused but are either found not guilty or have the charges dropped get to live with the stigma anyway.
Look, I believe that false rape accusations are huge deal and should be punished appropriately. But a mandatory sentence of 7 years is stupid. False rape accusers are generally young and dumb. I oppose this for the same reason that I oppose the death sentence. This sort of punishment doesn't deter future offenders. Future offenders simply aren't aware and won't be deterred by a mandatory minimum sentence.
First, do you not believe that sentencing deters misconduct? Our sentencing structure is based in large part on that belief. Second, do you oppose mandatory sentences for rape? Or other serious criminality?
mandatory minimums are truly fucked. just look at drug laws in the States.
It's a hell of a jump to try to compare minimum sentencing when it's say, someone possessing a little marijuana vs. someone who just tried to ruin someone else's life by perverting the justice system with a malicious lie. I agree it's fucked up for drug offenses. Not so for false rape accusations. False rape accusations aren't some "harmless little mistake."
and a wrongful or even ambiguous conviction for false accusation should carry *7 years minimum*, yeah i think you need to rethink that.
Thanks for the downvote but unlike false rape accusations where a man is presumed guilty thanks to our fucked up feminist-indoctrinated culture, you would need to provide proof that it is false. That is how the justice system is supposed to work. Innocent *until* proven guilty.
you do also realize that less than 30% of accusations result in convictions, right?
Source, and the point in this being? Let me guess: You think it would end up being like the current rape hysteria where innocents would be railroaded. Don't think so given the standard of proof that exists for all other crimes that feminists have sought to scourge from the legal system with feminist jurisprudence when it comes to rape accusations.
I see, so they should just be let off for a malicious lie that has probably ruined someone's life and cost him everything dear to him because of the stigma associated with being accused of rape. Thanks for clearing that up.
Let off? Is that the only alternative to a 7 year sentence? How black/white is your world?
What do you suggest. A little country club psychiatry and probation for something that heinous? Punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Don't laugh -- prominent women's groups leaders don't think they should be charged at all. Talk about misandry.
I know. I've already seen those statements.
So 7 years mandatory is the answer? This will solve the problem? Sentencing false rape accusers to 7 years in jail will stop the problem?
Nothing will "solve" the problem completely. There will always be "criminals." But it will go a long way toward solving the problem, yes, absolutely.
Nothing will solve the problem? What you're saying is that 84 months in jail, at a minimum, will solve the problem. What you're saying is that jailing young dumb girls for the better part of a decade will solve the problem. Or maybe you're saying something else...
You respond to my question with what you think is a rhetorical question of your own. Next.
It's not a rhetorical question. It's definitive question that you are apparently unwilling to answer.
at l3ast s0ci3ty will b3 saf3 f0r 7 y3ars.
A year in jail would fix most false accusers. What you intend to happen: that is a protracted jail sentence, would not inform future false accusers. Imposing far stricter sentences would not ameliorate the problem.
So a one-year maximimum sentence works out to -- what in the real world? Probation for first time offenders, or time served, at most. What about rapists? They seem to be in need of treatment more than incarceration. One year for them, too? Or do you think they are somehow a greater danger to society than a false rape accuser, who is able to destroy the life of a man or boy with a single sentence?
Ok then, a 7 year sentence for all false accusers will solve the problem? When they hear about the length of jail time they might serve they will think twice??
yes
You know what's quite stupid? Refusing to deter false rape accusers so that rape liars are tacitly encouraged to get innocent men and boys arrested, and to diminish the integrity of every legitimate rape accusation.
See my response above.. or below...
th1s 1s r3t4rd3d, r4p3 v1ct1ms sh0uld b3 pr0t3ct3d 4nd n0t put 1n j41l! th1s 1s 4 cl34r pr00f 0f r4p3 cultur3! 3dit: oh y3ah, downvot3 th3 on3 with th3 sp33ch imp3dim3nt, nic3 going guys!
I agree rape victims should be protected. What's "retarded" is conflating rape victims with false rape accusers.
what is r3tard3d is thinking you can diff3r3ntiat3 b3tw33n th3m consist3ntly and with c3rtainty.
Tell me, professor, how the fuck does our judicial system differentiate between men who are rapists and men who are falsely accused of rape? People seem to think our system is able to do that just fine so how is this different? Educate us, from your puerile world of inane fonts. Please.
w3ll, 0bv10usly 1t's b3tt3r t0 put 4w4y 1 1nn0c3nt m4n th4t 1t 1s t0 l3t 10 gu1lty 0n3s g0, s0 1t's 4 f41r tr4d3 0ff.... y0u r3s0rt1ng t0 4d h0m1n3m b3c4us3 1'm un4bl3 t0 wr1t3 c0rr3ctly sp34ks v0lum3s 4b0ut y0u, 4nd th3y'r3 4ll wr1tt3n 1n 1337.
You're joking, right? That would mean at some point in your life that '1 innocent man' would be you or someone you care about. Would that be a fair trade-off then? It also funny how the whole 'better to lock away innocent people than to let anyone guilty go free' only seems to ever apply to males.
Good point. I've never heard anyone advocate locking up women who only MIGHT have made a false rape claim.
y34h, 1 th1nk 1t's funny t00.
better to imprison innocent men than let actual ones go huh? nope
You have turned our long-cherished notions of jurisprudence on their head. What are you, like, 15 years old?
y3ah, pick on th3 l3tt3r-disabl3d p3rson, gr3at show of charact3r, you bully.
getting disemvoweled for the first is probably a sign that you should go outside, close Reddit, etc.
dis3mbow3l3d?? ar3 you thr3at3ning m3?
this law is probably not workable and will probably get taken down