|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She should face the same jail time as the man would have for raping her. That's the only way these false accusations are going to be discouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She should face the same jail time as the man would have for raping her.
YES!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 24, @07:04PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
that's the only way, in my opinion, to keep false accusers from doing their dirty work. also, the claim can't be made that it statistically deters actual acusers from making their claims.
all in all, i think that would be a wonderful idea. now how do we go about instituting it? lobbying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @04:28PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"She should face the same jail time as the man would have for raping her. That's the only way these false accusations are going to be discouraged."
That would be almost impossible to implement. Instead of making new laws to punish those who have made false accusations of rape/sexual assault, why not enforce the laws we already have in place, and prosecute those who violate them? The minimum sentence for perjury (I believe) is two years in prison. I do, however, believe that a new law should be made that would require that a person who makes a false claim of rape should be required to serve 100% of the sentence that the wrongfully accused served for the crime they didn't commit, should it be later proven they are innocent, and that it be proven the accuser knowingly made a false claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 24, @03:10PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It is rare to see a ruling in this manner I must admit. I predict that she might end up spending a day or two in jail and be sent free on the basis that she can't be away from the kids. I would be truly amazed if she was actually forced to serve the full term of six months in jail. Women's rights groups will argue for a shorter sentence on the basis of it being detrimental to the kids for them to be away from their mom for that length of time. We will see yet another example of a woman not having to take responsibility of her actions. If she actually serves out her full term, I will eat crow on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women's rights groups will argue for a shorter sentence on the basis of it being detrimental to the kids
They'll also claim that women shouldn't be charged for making false rape accusations because doing so would have a chilling effect on women coming forward after truly being raped. There was a bill proposed a few years ago in Colorado to outlaw such false accusations and it was defeated, in large part, precisely because of this claim. One of the legislators who voted against the bill said it was unnecessary because most of the men who are falsely accused end up being acquitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 24, @06:01PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I don't much care what you eat, troll. Just go away.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I don't think the person possibly eating crow here is our darling little troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 24, @03:43PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey trollie, where are you? How come you're not posting on this page? Afriad of the truth? :-P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's good to see this type of outcome once and a while. She won't serve her full time (that's almost a given), but if she does, well, the other anonymous user better make some room for me at his/her dinner table.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just keep in mind, that does not mean cooked! Feathers and all! Time not to be announced so as not to attract a backlash from PETA. I almost have to agree with the naysayers on this one, since I have yet to see any real evidence that when these stories are released by the news agencies, that she really even had to do the time for the crime. Behind closed doors and away from the media, an "arrangement" will be worked out. However, if she had done that down here in Texas, even the most raucus riot from the NOW would not save her. And we'ld probably give her the chair.
:-) Kidding aside, I'm glad to see an announcement was made of the situation. Maybe other women will think twice before they do something that stupid. Unless of course it gets a slap on the hand. At that point, she's still got nothin' to lose.
Adam Smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, if she had done that down here in Texas, even the most raucus riot from the NOW would not save her. And we'ld probably give her the chair.
Interesting you should bring up Texas. I've been recently considering the Andrea Yates case and its parallels in the media to the Karla Faye Tucker case... both of whom are female... and both of whom had causes taken up by people who "don't think it's right to kill women" or "women aren't responsible for murders they commit because they're victims."
*shudder*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @12:43PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Adam, I don't think we will see women thinking twice on anything like this soon. For women, emotions take over and logic is thrown out the window. Especially when they get the feeling that they are untouchable. I agree with you that we probably won't hear anything more on this unless the NAGS get involved trying to bail her out of her measly 6 month term.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most interesting things I have noticed (thanks to the recent book "Spreading Misandry") Is that women are ALWAYS given an excuse for their misbehavior. She was depressed! She was a victim of abuse! You frequently if not always hear about the life and background of women who are accused of a crime. In addition this information almost always paints a person that is "good." By making the assumption that women are the social victims of a patriarchal society they are given a moral and my extension a legal out for any wrong doing.
Men's lives as victims of society are rarely if ever given equal attention. They are almost uniformly portrayed as villans with no redemming mnoral values.
Until society at large recognizes that men do not rule the world (e.g. patriarchal) will things never change and stories like this will continue to occur.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would be the topping on this is if the government let her out early, after a week maybe, on the pretext that she needs to take care of her two children. I agree with the other poster that 6 months for false accustion of rape is too lenient. False accusers should get the same amount of time as the accused would have gotten if falsely convicted.
Just what these two children need, a married mother that met a complete stranger on the internet and had a consensual sexual encounter with this stranger. Then for some deep warped psychological reason, accused him of rape.
She is in my opinion not as whacked out as our own Andrea Yates but she is getting there!
And of course, if the government let her out on this pretext after serving a token sentence then the government is just as whacked out as she is.
I noticed that her husband was not interviewed for this story or maybe the viewpoint of a cuckolded husband in Britain is not relevant. I think he should have a DNA test to be sure the two kids are actually his.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then for some deep warped psychological reason, accused him of rape.
Dammit, Luek! You men just don't get it :) As you should have learned from the article, "Renouf had been treated for depression... Her marriage was unhappy... She made up the rape because she was upset at having been unfaithful... Renouf had been ostracised by her family, her marriage was over and she had been spat at in the street."
Jeez, you men. Don't you realize that this poor womyn is a victim of the patriarchy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, Luek, good points about the husband not being interviewed for the article and his need for DNA testing. Not that it would probably do him any good, if he found out that she had the kids as the result of affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @02:30AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that a convicted false-accuser should receive the same sentence that the accused would have. And this certainly goes to the heart of our anger at those who falsely accuse. However, if we shift our attention to the needs of those who are falsely accused and away from our anger at the false accuser, it may be that our first priority should be protecting the names of those accused of sexual crimes and of partner abuse, until proven guilty. The accuser in these crimes usually has much more personal incentive to lie about the accused than, say, the store clerk who witnesses a robbery. And often these cases are based on he-said/she-said testimony plus some scanty circumstantial evidence. There is every reason in the world to protect these people's names. And the reason I find it more urgent than the prosecution of false accusers is that this would protect a much larger number of innocent people, more immediately, and more directly. It is probably true that most falsely accused people are acquitted. So, while the ones who are jailed get some of the worst damage of all, there are probably so many more that go free and yet are damaged for life emotionally. Protecting their names would be a major start. And there's no way the feminists can argue that protecting their names would hinder true victims from coming forward.
Prosecution and high penalties for false accusers certainly are important too. But we also need to consider that in some cases this can hurt the falsely accused person. False accusers sometimes recant, especially ones who falsely accuse on a emotional whim, and fear of a heavy penalty can hinder those recants. I think we need to give both the judge and prosecutore *some* amount of discretion (not too much) to lower the penalty when there is a recant, and based on the degree to which the recant was sincere instead of the result of a story that fell apart.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc: Most of the calls coming into Volksgaren are from men falsely accused of DV. False accusations against a spouse / paramour are a form of domestic violence. As I argue here: http://clix.to/support/ (go down to the feature article).
Treating false-charges as domestic violence whenever the people know each others is a good move (as well as being truth). It raises people's eyebrows and almost all nod in agreement.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @07:12AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
no no no. it's because emotions are excusable. and we all know that men have no emotions and must do everything out of cold, calculated logic. i'm shocked that the falsely-accused isn't serving 6 months just for the emotional distress he caused this womyn. protest! riot! take back the right to falsely accuse!
- sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
