|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas said: "Next step? Prison for false accusers and a lifetime position on a national, public registry."
Yes! It's only fair.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't just stop at naming the victim. It goes right into her past as well.
The accuser can not be allowed to stand up on the bence and claim their are something they are not and not allow defence to cross examine on it.
In Canada it has gone so far as to not allow evidence of sexual relations that happened *AFTER* the alleged assault. Such as a alleged assault in January, but apparently they had sex in march. However because of Rape Sheild laws the judge or jury is denied hearing this evidence.
Its fucked up period.
Also, Rape Shield Laws do more to reinforce the stigma that women should be embarassed by their sexual history.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry forgot to mention. Every man who has been convicted of DV and Sexual Assault in the last 20 years should be searching for pardons or retrials. Reparations for bogus trials.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 15, @08:50PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
...and I don't often use that word.
"For although shielding the name of a woman who accuses a man of rape might encourage some women to come forward and reveal the crime, it might encourage others to come forward and tell a lie. In other words, this journalistic practice, intended as a courtesy, can also act as a temptation---a temptation to accuse falsely, to use the anonymity provided by the media not as a means of avoiding embarrassment, but as a tool to slander an innocent person without having to face public scrutiny for bearing false witness.
If shielding merely protected an innocent woman from humiliation, I would favor it. But it can also protect an unscrupulous woman from responsibility. It must be re-examined."
THIS IS PROFOUND!
I am a victim of false DV allegations, my ex used the system exactly as this man has stated for sex related crimes. I wish he added , "women can use these laws specifically to ruin men with no accountibility at all"
thank you thank you.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"THIS IS PROFOUND!
I am a victim of false DV allegations, my ex used the system exactly as this man has stated for sex related crimes. I wish he added , "women can use these laws specifically to ruin men with no accountibility at all" "
Like I said, reparations, demands for new trials, demands for immediate pardons.
The system has fallen into disrepute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, make femitwit pandering District Attorneys liable for judicial review and personal damages if they are found to be discriminatory in prosecuting only men for rape and domestic abuse.
This would go a long way in stopping the abuse of the judiciary to promote radial feminists social agendas against the entire male gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rape shield creates a very attractive honeypot. Right now, any woman can falsely accuse any man of rape, and not have to worry about being prosecuted if it comes out that she has lied. Is it any surprise that this situation attracts vermin?
My heart goes out to rape victims, male and female alike. But if they want to live in a free country, they need to take some responsibility for themselves. To have a backbone. To be ready to receive the same exposure as the person they accuse. It is time that we stop pandering to weakness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the idea of punishing those who make demonstrably false rape accusations - such accusers are breaking the law, and who doesn't like to see lawbreakers punished.
However, how is it possible to decide what is and what isn't a 'false accusation'? Some accusations are clearly false (so no problem there, the false accusers should be punished) and some are clearly true (no problem there either, the rapists should be punished), but what about the boundary cases in the middle? Just because a defendant in a rape case is found guilty doesn't necessarily mean that he is, and likewise merely because a defendant is cleared doesn't necessarily mean that he was innocent. The former case results in an innocent person being jailed, and the latter results in a woman being punished for being raped.
So, how do you distinguish between false accusations and those where the defendant was cleared?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, how do you distinguish between false accusations and those where the defendant was cleared?
It would take a little bit of your time, but, if you want to know the answer to this, I suggest you contact your local district attorney's office and ask how they proceed in cases of perjury and the filing of false reports, when the evidence isn't as compelling as they'd like.
They're the one's to ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, how is it possible to decide what is and what isn't a 'false accusation'? Some accusations are clearly false (so no problem there, the false accusers should be punished) and some are clearly true (no problem there either, the rapists should be punished), but what about the boundary cases in the middle? Just because a defendant in a rape case is found guilty doesn't necessarily mean that he is, and likewise merely because a defendant is cleared doesn't necessarily mean that he was innocent. The former case results in an innocent person being jailed, and the latter results in a woman being punished for being raped.
Disagree. Failing to have one's attacker convicted is not a punishment. Publishing the names of the participant in all other legal actions is normal practise and is not considered to be a punishment.
Get over this idea that women are "special" and need to be protected from the normal operation of a fair and transparent judicial system.
cheers,
--sd.
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Failing to have one's attacker convicted is not a punishment. Publishing the names of the participant in all other legal actions is normal practise and is not considered to be a punishment.
That's not what I was referring to. What I was referring to was the entry of women - or anyone convicted under false accusation laws - on a database of offenders. If a woman files a legitimate case of rape and the defendant is cleared, she's 'punished' by having her name entered on an offenders' database ("latter results in..."). So, "how do you decide what is and isn't a lie" to decide who's entered or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"how do you decide what is and isn't a lie" to decide who's entered or not?
A woman's name should not go onto a register just because the man she accused was acquitted. False accusations of rape should be a felony. A woman would not be automatically convicted of making a false accusation, just because the man she accused was acquitted, any more than a person who says, "I saw 'so and so' steal that jacket" is automatically convicted of perjury if "so and so" is found not guilty of stealing the jacket. Any woman convicted of making such a false accusation should be imprisoned for a number of years and should have her name placed permanently on a national, publically available register of false accusers of sex crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That makes mroe sense, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's not what I was referring to. What I was referring to was the entry of women - or anyone convicted under false accusation laws - on a database of offenders. If a woman files a legitimate case of rape and the defendant is cleared, she's 'punished' by having her name entered on an offenders' database ("latter results in..."). So, "how do you decide what is and isn't a lie" to decide who's entered or not?
Ok. That's a pretty marginal idea and obviously contrary to justice until the woman concerned has been convicted in a separate trial of perjury or making a false complaint. Anyone should be able to maintain a register of the names of people who have been convicted of perjury or making false complaints in cases of any sort. You decide perjury cases involving false testimony in rape cases the same way any other perjury trial is decided.
I'm against special laws and procedures applying to sexual offences, not in favor of more.
cheers,
-sd.
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Get over this idea that women are "special" and need to be protected from the normal operation of a fair and transparent judicial system."
This reminds me of something I heard on a TV program. I believe it was a judge on the show Picket Fences that ruled that a man charged with rape, was innocent. The judge told the accuser something like, "Laws were created to protect people. Not to turn women into people that *need* protecting."
Very profound.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with keeping alleged victims names secret. Rape shield laws have made it so that a "victim" (and MOST are honest victims!) cannot have her name released. We have made an exception to one of our most closely held American rights. The right to free speech. Now, I am not whining about free speech here per say. If we hold that rape is one of the most vicious crimes (and I do!) and we will even give up our 1st amendment rights to protect the victims, then shouldn't we protect a person who is tainted by this charge while being "presumed innocent"? If rape is such a vicious attack that we make exceptions to our freedom of speech, and its a crime where the victim, due to the immense stress of the attack, may be further traumatized by being judged by the public, then does it not follow that a person accused of such a crime must also be protected as he will be judged and punished in many ways before a court of law has even tried him? I was falsely accused of rape and had parts of my life shredded. I was able to (6 months later) PROVE my innocence, but the damage was done. Most REAL MEN agree in STIFF punishments for rape. Why? Well, its a society's way to punish the loser vermin and ITS A DETERRENT. If I were to say for one day that THEFT was not going to be punished ... I can bet that most stores would be empty after that day. Why? Because if you can do a crime with impunity many people will do it. With Life-rape a woman who is screwed-up/angry/"hurt"/got-an-agenda can, with almost complete impunity, SAVAGE whole sections of your life. Deterrence stops crime. Lets deter these sociopathic-life-rapists!!!
"I think of a man ... then I take away reason and accountability" - Jack Nicholson
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
