|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It about time this was done. If the person is guitly and have done their time, why do we need to continually humiliate them?
Perhaps we should also start a national register of people who make false accusations. That would put a VERY quick end to it. But wait that would impede on someone's right to privacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of the false accusation cases are a matter of public record, there having been a court hearing and a finding of the court. So it might well be legal for someone to establish a clearinghouse listing of such cases and post it/update it on the web.
Perhaps Marc Angelucci or someone else who lives in the law arena could comment further on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it was an attempt at a bad joke.
I guess I'm just use to reading about how US universities don't know what due process is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Frank. I'm not sure there are adequate records out there to effectively make such a registry. We'd have to more aggressively prosecute and convict false accusers in order to have such a register, which we do not do. In order to safely judge whether there was a false accusation, I would want to see either a conviction for false accusation or at least very strong evidence that the accusation was false. A mere acquittal of the accused certainly doesn't mean the accusation was false. Such an assumption would stop real victims from coming forward. This could even transfer over into prison rape. Also, of course, not all false accusations are malicious. The US Air Force study that Warren Farrell cites in The Myth of Male Power showed that mental illness was one of the reasons behind many of the false accusations (along with spite, revenge, etc.) I had a female client once with very severe delusional disorders. She was convinced that people were coming from a maze in her ceiliing, climbing out of her cubbard (sp?), and raping her. One of them, she said, was a police officer. I spent alot of time (carefully) with her and I know she was sincere. But she also scared all the men in her apartment complex, understandably. If she falsely accused anyone, it would not be out of spite. Whether someone like that should be listed in such a registry is a difficult question and I can understand both sides. Anyway, I agree that forcing sex offenders to be listed in a public registry is unfair, perhaps even unconstitutional. So I'd be hypocritical to go the opposite way for false accusers. But since we *do* do this to sex offenders, I'd say fair is fair. But we've got to first get the public to recognize and talk about false accusations. It's a hot potato with lawmakers. Some will even argue that prosecuting false accusations vigorously will hurt men, since it will make accusers less likely to recant. There may be some truth to this. But I don't buy the argument overall, because we can use a sincere recant to mitigate penalties. I guess in short, we have to get the frequency and seriousness of the issue publicized before we'll get a public register going. I'm hoping Glenn Sacks will do an article on the topic soon.
Sorry if I blabbed here. I'm not sure whether I answered the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If these people are still a threat to society, why are they out on the streets again? If the prison time has not "rehabilitated" these individuals, then why are we letting them back out to commit more crimes.
Alot of the problem comes down to that we believe once a criminal, always a criminal. If we expect treat these people like they will offend again, reduce their oppurtunities, and publically humiliate them, why shouldn't they be criminals. After all, society see them as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alot of the problem comes down to that we believe once a criminal, always a criminal. If we expect treat these people like they will offend again, reduce their oppurtunities, and publically humiliate them, why shouldn't they be criminals. After all, society see them as such.
That's a good point. The whole point of being released from prison is that you've "served your time." Perhaps our justice system should focus counseling these people instead of branding them, the same way female offenders often get counseled rather than branded.
I don't know. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megan Kanka, of Megan's Law fame, lived about two miles from my home and she played opposite my daughter in a girl's softball league. I don't know the Kanka's personally, but when this happened, the community was pretty-well shocked. Her attacker was Jesse Timendaquas (I think I spelled that right), a previously convicted pedophile. He lured Megan into his home by telling Megan that he had a puppy and offered to show her. This is when he attacked her.
Timendaquas was living in the home with at least two other convicted sex-offenders who had nothing to do with Megan's murder. The thing is, Megan's Law is intended to allow the community to be aware when sex offenders live there, with the intent that Megan's case is not repeated on another child.
I only object to this law on one count: enforcement of sex offenses occurs against male offenders. Therefore, I regard this law as discriminatory. Women are almost never prosecuted as sex offenders, and this fact in itself is a matter of disgust. Paula Poundstone is only the latest high-profile case, but there are others.
It's important to note that Megan's Law does not originate the registration of sex-offender. Registration has been required for a long time. What Megan's Law does is make registration a matter of public record.
One other thing I do find offensive about this is that the feminists have succeeded in opening up the criteria for sex offenses such that one convicted of rape, to any degree, will also be required to register. Rape and pedophelia are different crimes, and rape, of course, is not a all-or-nothing crime, especially in a world of false charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>A mere acquittal of the accused certainly doesn't mean the accusation was false.
>Such an assumption would stop real victims from coming forward. This could even transfer
>over into prison rape.
I've always thought it could transfer over into all types of crimes. Say you witnessed a robbery and were asked to provide eyewitness testimony at trial. If you knew that, should the defendant be acquitted, YOU would be prosecuted for a "false accusation," would you testify? I know I wouldn't. I didn't see anything, I didn't hear anything, I don't know anything.
Malicious prosecution and abuse of judicial process are already available and provide for civil and/or criminal penalties against false accusations of any sort, not just rape. People get accused of other things too, terrorist threats for example. Perhaps the laws need to be strengthened, but the focus should always be on an accusation intentionally and maliciously made, and not prosecute some poor sap who picks the wrong guy out of a police lineup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Tuesday November 27, @11:45PM EST (#9)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Although it's also true that the feminist power structure has blocked any significant talk about false accusations of rape. The only successful folks I know of who are working on it are the Innocence Project in San Diego, CA. They focus on using DNA to free innocent inmates of any crime, including rape. But the public still believes false accusations of rape are rare, partly because the major media, other than I think the Salt Lake City Tribune, refuse to address the prevalence of the problem, and decisionmakers are afraid to even mention it as an issue. The problem isn't even necessarily the imprisonment of the innocent, but the destruction of the lives of those falsely accused regardless of the outcome. As Warren Farrell says, a falsely accused person is a psychologically raped person, whether convicted or not.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
