Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Wrongly Imprisoned Man Receives Bill From Government for Jail Time
Submitted by AngryMan on Mon, 2007-05-28 08:57
Warren Blackwell, the law-abiding father of two who spent three years and four months in prison for a rape that never happened, has received a bill from the Department of Justice, charging him around £7000 for 'board and lodging' for the time he spent behind bars. He has yet to receive a penny in compensation. Meanwhile the false accuser remains anonymous, protected by law. Story here.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
I have an idea
Someone bring this guy to Taco Bell. When he gets home to take a taco dump, let him wipe his ass with the bill. Than he can mail it back certified!
Victory not Vengeance!
anthony
What are they going to do?
He was in prison. He has no assets to seize.
What are they going to do? Throw him in prison for not paying the bill for being falsely imprisoned?
From the article (emphasis mine):
Mr Blackwell was jailed in 1999 on the evidence of a woman who had a history of making false claims against blameless men. He was cleared at the Appeal Court in September last year after her background was exposed.
Yeah, rape shield laws are just a super idea.
And they have the nerve to call it a "justice" system.
Well, you know the old line....
...screamed by feminists that was the basis of such laws 'A whore is no less a victim then a virgin.'
And while I agree that a whore can be victimized as can anyone else, the resulting laws didn't just shield some aspects of the 'victims' character from cross examination in the courtroom, they just made all alleged 'victims' in to saints.
Despite the fact that character evidence was illegal in most cases long before rape shield laws were passed.
And while being a whore may not make one more likely a liar, a string of rape accusations in a 'victims' past might warrant a closer look.
I'm all for going back to the old rules on character evidence (at least the old rules in Canada - I'm not sure if character evidence is weighed on the same scale in the USA) the one's that still apply to non-sex related cases. If it has relevance on either side of the case, it should have the opportunity to come before the jury.