Support NeoGAF

jimi_dini · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
hate who she was and what she did 11 years ago. don't hate who she is now and what she did by coming clean...

Some things you can excuse. But this?
Seriously?

I would put that on the same line as having AIDS and intentionally infecting other people. Or maybe even murdering people (and spare me the "he is not dead"-line). It were 11 years. The actual victim's life is over. Even getting a job again should be almost impossible. "What did you do before you applied for this job?" - "I was in jail for 11 years, my daughter accused me of rape, she lied I'm free now" - "Oh ok, we will call you". He is and was innocent, but it won't matter at all. Just because she confessed now doesn't give him back the years nor his life.

What to do now? I really don't know. But letting her go just because can't be the right thing. Say someone infects other people with AIDS. And after 10 years that someone finally confesses and says "Sorry was pretty dumb to do that". Would that be fine to the victim(s)?

Put her in jail? Why not? Because it doesn't help giving him back his life? Oh fine, then why put rapists in jail? Won't magically turn back the time as well. Same for murder charges. The victim is dead, putting the murder in prison won't bring the victim back to life.

Letting her pay money for it would just be the easy way out. Would it be okay, if a rapist paid the victim money instead of going to jail? No? So why should that be accepted in this case?

squidyj · Apr 4, 2012

Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
Haha, ah gotcha. I'm usually super paranoid so it hasn't happened yet but apparently all good things must end.

Even worse when someone quotes you. I thought I was able to delete it in time. :/

sometimes If I remember the post but I quoted it too late I'll rewrite my quote to the original post to be sneaky. I'm a jerk like that.

Meus Renaissance · Apr 4, 2012

If a woman comes in to a police station to report a rape that occurred several months ago, then what evidence can support that considering the timespan? I ask because the prosecution in this case said they can't go after this woman in fear of weakening the credibility of rape victims and thus deterring them to report this abuse. I'm assuming a woman who has fallen victim recently will be able to provide more evidence than if she were to report it several months later. Point is, considering there are women who still report it in examples of the latter (several months after the incident), where they will presumably have a difficult time proving it happened, then what difference would it actually make to prosecute those make false allegations? It can be difficult to prove genuine incidents of abuse as it is.

akira28 · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
if the court finds that the victims testimony is untrue, and that the rapist is innocent (when they aren't) what would prevent someone pressing for perjury charges?

and again, we are talking about prepubescent children being sternly told all the bad things that could happen if the person who raped them gets off?

That isn't how it works, and that's not what would happen. If the evidence is sufficient, doesn't look manufactured, and the testimony doesn't look like it's false they would probably go on with a trial. In this girls case they still would have gone on with a trial and if he was found not guilty, that would have been the end of it. She wouldn't have been assumed to have perjured herself, it would have been two equal cases tried against each other. Her lawful accusation against his assumption of innocence. But the point would be to prevent people from making false testimony. You can't stop someone from lying, and from fooling everyone if they happen to be a good liar. But you can warn them and make them fear punishment if they know they're lying. It wouldn't prevent people from seeking justice, it wouldn't put the spotlight on the if they lost, unless their evidence was tremendously bad. But it could prevent people who are willfully lying from taking the case to court.

levious · Apr 4, 2012

Devolution said:
Uh have you been raped? Pretty sure anyone who says I'd rather be raped than ____ should probably be a bit more sympathetic to those who have and just not generally make such an insensitive statement.

have you ever been in prison?

Reuenthal · Apr 4, 2012

She deserves to be punished, I don't think anyone can make a good argument against that at all. The crime she did was continuous until the day she admitted the false charges.

If you believe she shouldn't be punished due to the consequences that would cause to others, that is different. Though I don't agree, I think not punishing criminals leaves a bad precedent and overall worse consequences. Rather showing the lack of social and judicial acceptance of reprehensible crimes through punishing such criminals is better way to go and has the additional but important advantage that someone who has significantly harmed another person which does make them a danger for others, is punished. So it will make those who would falsely accuse others think twice before doing it while them not being punished period would make it more convenient to do it.

Dreams-Visions · Apr 4, 2012

levious said:
have you ever been in prison?

You would compare prison to rape?

DanteFox · Apr 4, 2012

Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
If a woman comes in to a police station to report a rape that occurred several months ago, then what evidence can support that considering the timespan? I ask because the prosecution in this case said they can't go after this woman in fear of weakening the credibility of rape victims and thus deterring them to report this abuse. I'm assuming a woman who has fallen victim recently will be able to provide more evidence than if she were to report it several months later. Point is, considering there are women who still report it in examples of the latter (several months after the incident), where they will presumably have a difficult time proving it happened, then what difference would it actually make to prosecute those make false allegations? It can be difficult to prove genuine incidents of abuse as it is.

But just because something is hard to prove, does that mean we should lower our judicial standards in order to avoid guilty people going free? Doesn't that go against our ideal that it's better for a guilty man to be set free than for an innocent man to be convicted falsely?

Dreams-Visions said:
You would compare prison to rape?

I think things like that are pretty subjective.

Zaraki_Kenpachi · Apr 4, 2012

Devolution said:
I didn't want to be insulting at all, just that I've done what he just did with threads, and it's even more of a "wow i'm dumb" moment.

levious said:
have you ever been in prison?

Uh.....

demon · Apr 4, 2012

Devolution said:
Victims have enough problems coming forward, criminalizing them if say the accused gets off, is not going to help matters that's for sure.

Is this a joke? Lying to the police with a false accusation that ruins a man's life should carry a severe punishment. What the fuck is wrong with you people? "But false accusers may not come forward if there's a punishment" can easily be countered with "women may think twice about falsely accusing men of rape if all of a sudden it carried a severe punishment". To disagree with this is to acknowledge that men can be convicted of rape with insufficient evidence.

Devolution said:
Uh have you been raped? Pretty sure anyone who says I'd rather be raped than ____ should probably be a bit more sympathetic to those who have and just not generally make such an insensitive statement.

The same can be said of people incarcerated for decades. Have you spent a large portion of your life locked in a cell with violent criminals? Where, by the way, you will probably be raped if you are a convicted sex offender.

Htown · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
many people seem to think that the problem here is that an 11 year old girls word (with some evidence supporting it) was enough to convict an innocent man. yes?

we have the hindsight of knowing pretty much conclusively that this guy was innocent, but the people who sentanced him and deemed him guilty did not.

this man, innocent though he was, met the standard we have in place for assigning guilt. it is not perfect, and no standard is. unless we are comfortable letting a guilty person go for not meeting the same level of evidence, then the standard probably isn't broken, unless we have an innordinate number of such false convictions rather than a sporadic handful.

i'm not trying to spring a trap here, i'm trying to make people look at the evidence that was available *without* the hindsight of knowing that the guy was innocent, and i'm trying to help people see why sometimes you let highly immoral acts remain legal if making them illegal causes more harm.

If the evidence and testimony in the original case met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, than he should have been convicted. If not, he should have walked.

If he is convicted, and you later find out that said evidence was forged, or that the testimony was false, then the forger/perjurer should be charged accordingly, with the standard penalty for such things. No matter what the reported crime was. Murder, rape, assault, theft, whatever. This is not difficult.

plagiarize · Apr 4, 2012

jimi_dini said:
Some things you can excuse. But this?
Seriously?

I would put that on the same line as having AIDS and intentionally infecting other people. Or maybe even murdering people (and spare me the "he is not dead"-line). It were 11 years. The actual victim's life is over. Even getting a job again should be almost impossible. "What did you do before you applied for this job?" - "I was in jail for 11 years, my daughter accused me of rape, she lied I'm free now" - "Oh ok, we will call you". He is and was innocent, but it won't matter at all. Just because she confessed now doesn't give him back the years nor his life.

What to do now? I really don't know. But letting her go just because can't be the right thing. Say someone infects other people with AIDS. And after 10 years that someone finally confesses and says "Sorry was pretty dumb to do that". Would that be fine to the victim(s)?

purposefully infecting someone with a deadly disease is not equivalent to a child telling even the biggest lie you can imagine in my eyes, and thankfully, the legal systems.

Put her in jail? Why not? Because it doesn't help giving him back his life? Oh fine, then why put rapists in jail? Won't magically turn back the time as well. Same for murder charges. The victim is dead, putting the murder in prison won't bring the victim back to life.

Letting her pay money for it would just be the easy way out. Would it be okay, if a rapist paid the victim money instead of going to jail? No? So why should that be accepted in this case?

i've answered why i think not. and i can answer why i think it's a good idea to put a child rapist into prison: so that they can't rape children.

rape is different to murder, where you generally have a body and forensic evidence, and where something as unreliable as testimony is almost never what we have to solely rely on.

with rape, testimony is often as good as we can hope for... and with rape, unless the victim reports it it is very unlikely to go punished, and we know that many victims never come forwards, because they are afraid of facing their rapist. because they are afraid of what will happen to them if people don't believe their claims. these aren't reasons i've invented, but common things which keep victims quiet and let rapists go free.

Zaraki_Kenpachi · Apr 4, 2012

Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
If a woman comes in to a police station to report a rape that occurred several months ago, then what evidence can support that considering the timespan? I ask because the prosecution in this case said they can't go after this woman in fear of weakening the credibility of rape victims and thus deterring them to report this abuse. I'm assuming a woman who has fallen victim recently will be able to provide more evidence than if she were to report it several months later. Point is, considering there are women who still report it in examples of the latter (several months after the incident), where they will presumably have a difficult time proving it happened, then what difference would it actually make to prosecute those make false allegations? It can be difficult to prove genuine incidents of abuse as it is.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Because it's difficult to prove, what difference would it make to prosecute those who lie? So you're in favor of prosecuting people like the woman in the OP who lied? Your sentence is worded a little weird so I'm confused.

Reuenthal · Apr 4, 2012

Htown said:
If the evidence and testimony in the original case met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, than he should have been convicted. If not, he should have walked.

If he is convicted, and you later find out that said evidence was forged, or that the testimony was false, then the forger/perjurer should be charged accordingly, with the standard penalty for such things. No matter what the reported crime was. Murder, rape, assault, theft, whatever. This is not difficult.

Yes I agree.

DanteFox · Apr 4, 2012

Htown said:
If the evidence and testimony in the original case met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, than he should have been convicted. If not, he should have walked.

If he is convicted, and you later find out that said evidence was forged, or that the testimony was false, then the forger/perjurer should be charged accordingly, with the standard penalty for such things. No matter what the reported crime was. Murder, rape, assault, theft, whatever. This is not difficult.

yes!

plagiarize · Apr 4, 2012

Htown said:
If the evidence and testimony in the original case met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, than he should have been convicted. If not, he should have walked.

If he is convicted, and you later find out that said evidence was forged, or that the testimony was false, then the forger/perjurer should be charged accordingly, with the standard penalty for such things. No matter what the reported crime was. Murder, rape, assault, theft, whatever. This is not difficult.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...6_victims_of_rape_fear_cops_wont_believe_them

i'm not just making this shit up. it is already a real problem that victims don't report rape because they fear that people will think they are lying. i am not aware of a similar problem with assualt or theft, and obviously it isn't a problem in murder cases, cause the victim is dead.

Foxy Fox 39 · Apr 4, 2012

Htown said:
If the evidence and testimony in the original case met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, than he should have been convicted. If not, he should have walked.

If he is convicted, and you later find out that said evidence was forged, or that the testimony was false, then the forger/perjurer should be charged accordingly, with the standard penalty for such things. No matter what the reported crime was. Murder, rape, assault, theft, whatever. This is not difficult.

So do you think there are people in jail at this time for crimes they did not commit? If so, and assuming that the only thing in the way of freedom, and remaining in jail was the testimony of the liar, (as in this case) do you think your idea if put into effect would lower the probability or raise the probability of someone admitting to lying thereby releasing current innocent prisoners?

It's not as simple as you think.

beelzebozo · Apr 4, 2012

ATONEMENT!

Meus Renaissance · Apr 4, 2012

demon said:
Is this a joke? Lying to the police with a false accusation that ruins a man's life should carry a severe punishment. What the fuck is wrong with you people? "But false accusers may not come forward if there's a punishment" can easily be countered with "women may think twice about falsely accusing men of rape if all of a sudden it carried a severe punishment". To disagree with this is to acknowledge that men can be convicted of rape with insufficient evidence..

I agree. But an important question arises from this: how do you prove a woman was lying about the claim? A failed prosecution attempt on a man alleged to have raped a woman doesn't necessarily mean the woman was trying to deceive the authorities. A lack of evidence in her claim cannot and should not equate to her guilt, but it seems like an inevitable path if we introduce severe sentences for women who do lie. If such severe sentences did exist already, would this daughter have come forward? Would woman admit to her guilt therefore?

Over the past few years, there have been stories of women in Muslim countries facing the death sentence for similar reasons. The crime of rape is a capital offence (if the woman is married) in those countries, but the false accusation of rape - interpreted as the intent to have an innocent killed - also carries the death sentence. So if a woman claims rape and doesn't have ample evidence, she is presumed to have lied in order to have the man killed and thus herself would be killed. End result is that far less women would report rape.

Htown · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...6_victims_of_rape_fear_cops_wont_believe_them

i'm not just making this shit up. it is already a real problem that victims don't report rape because they fear that people will think they are lying. i am not aware of a similar problem with assualt or theft, and obviously it isn't a problem in murder cases, cause the victim is dead.

I'm well aware of that.

I H8 Memes · Apr 4, 2012

With his prison sentence coming to an end I wonder if she started getting scared that he would try to get revenge when he got out and decided maybe she should fess up and hope he would forgive her. If somebody lied and got me sent to prison for 15 years I'd damn sure get some revenge when I got out. That's all i would be thinking about the whole time I was in there.

Also, when it comes to accusations of rape against minors and children, law enforcement and prosecutors will always find evidence even when there is none. And no matter what evidence comes out afterwards of your innocence they will almost always do everything they can to keep you in prison and will never admit someone was wrongfully imprisoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_child_abuse_prosecutions

This is just one of many many cases like this. There is another case that was the subject of the Sean Penn documentary called Witch Hunt. Very good documentary that I highly recommend.

rpmurphy · Apr 4, 2012

Foxy Fox 39 said:
So do you think there are people in jail at this time for crimes they did not commit? If so, and assuming that the only thing in the way of freedom, and remaining in jail was the testimony of the liar, (as in this case) do you think your idea if put into effect would lower the probability or raise the probability of someone admitting to lying thereby releasing current innocent prisoners?

It's not as simple as you think.

Why should the outcome of this one case be dependent on what may or may not happen with other cases? Shouldn't justice for these crimes be dealt on an individual basis regardless, rather than to be grouped into some amorphous thought experiment?

usea · Apr 4, 2012

Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
If a woman comes in to a police station to report a rape that occurred several months ago, then what evidence can support that considering the timespan? I ask because the prosecution in this case said they can't go after this woman in fear of weakening the credibility of rape victims and thus deterring them to report this abuse. I'm assuming a woman who has fallen victim recently will be able to provide more evidence than if she were to report it several months later. Point is, considering there are women who still report it in examples of the latter (several months after the incident), where they will presumably have a difficult time proving it happened, then what difference would it actually make to prosecute those make false allegations? It can be difficult to prove genuine incidents of abuse as it is.

The full article is unclear about this. I think the intended reason is because they don't want to deter women who have lied about rape from coming clean and admitting they made it up, rather than to not deter women from admitting rape in the first place. That's how the short article interprets it anyway.

akira28 · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...6_victims_of_rape_fear_cops_wont_believe_them

i'm not just making this shit up. it is already a real problem that victims don't report rape because they fear that people will think they are lying. i am not aware of a similar problem with assualt or theft, and obviously it isn't a problem in murder cases, cause the victim is dead.

That's nothing new, and a well known issue, where people rightly or wrongly have a lack of faith in the criminal justice system. There's not a lot you say except that if they want to bring someone to justice they have to find an advocate. It doesn't mean you eliminate penalties for lying because then that proves you really can't trust the system to work at all. People should have a strong case, if they have facts that can support that case, then someone can be charged at there can be a trial. If there isn't much proof except for the accusation, then there probably won't be a criminal trial. These things don't go by word alone, so if they have supporting facts, then that fear is unwarranted, and this is what an advocate would tell the person who is afraid of not being believed.

I H8 Memes said:
With his prison sentence coming to an end I wonder if she started getting scared that he would try to get revenge when he got out and decided maybe she should fess up and hope he would forgive her. If somebody lied and got me sent to prison for 15 years I'd damn sure get some revenge when I got out. That's all i would be thinking about the whole time I was in there.

it's his goddamned kid dude. You think he's doing pullups thinking of getting revenge on his child? Would that be what you would be doing?

demon · Apr 4, 2012

Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
I agree. But an important question arises from this: how do you prove a woman was lying about the claim? A failed prosecution attempt on a man alleged to have raped a woman doesn't necessarily mean the woman was trying to deceive the authorities. A lack of evidence in her claim cannot and should not equate to her guilt, but it seems like an inevitable path if we introduce severe sentences for women who do lie. If such severe sentences did exist already, would this daughter have come forward? Would anyone woman admit to her guilt therefore?

Over the past few years, there have been stories of women in Muslim countries facing the death sentence for similar reasons. The crime of rape is a capital offence (if the woman is married) in those countries, but the false accusation of rape - interpreted as the intent to have an innocent killed - also carries the death sentence. So if a woman claims rape and doesn't have ample evidence, she is presumed to have lied in order to have the man killed and thus herself would be killed. End result is that far less women would report rape.

A failed attempt to prosecute a man for rape due to insufficient evidence is not the same as proving that a woman lied about being raped. The burden of proof for proving a woman lied about being raped should be as high as proving that a man raped a woman. Both should be "beyond a reasonable doubt". And both should come with harsh punishments considering the effect both crimes can have on the victims' lives.

plagiarize · Apr 4, 2012

akira28 said:
That's nothing new, and a well known issue, where people rightly or wrongly have a lack of faith in the criminal justice system. There's not a lot you say except that if they want to bring someone to justice they have to find an advocate. It doesn't mean you eliminate penalties for lying because then that proves you really can't trust the system to work at all. People should have a strong case, if they have facts that can support that case, then someone can be charged at there can be a trial. If there isn't much proof except for the accusation, then there probably won't be a criminal trial. These things don't go by word alone, so if they have supporting facts, then that fear is unwarranted, and this is what an advocate would tell the person who is afraid of not being believed.

and still most rape victims don't report what happened to them, which indicates to me that rape is infact a special case... that's all i'm saying.

Htown · Apr 4, 2012

Foxy Fox 39 said:
So do you think there are people in jail at this time for crimes they did not commit? If so, and assuming that the only thing in the way of freedom, and remaining in jail was the testimony of the liar, (as in this case) do you think your idea if put into effect would lower the probability or raise the probability of someone admitting to lying thereby releasing current innocent prisoners?

It's not as simple as you think.

There are plenty of people in jail for crimes they didn't commit, based solely on witness testimony. Most of the time the false accusers still don't come forward, even in an environment that does not tend to punish them harshly from a legal standpoint, and as far as I know most releases are based on new evidence (such as DNA testing), not witness confession.

The entire legal system, in theory at least, is built on the idea that you do everything in your power to prevent the innocent from going to prison, even if it means the guilty go free. Allowing those who are proven to be false accusers to escape all chance of penalty is a direct contradiction to that aim.

Foxy Fox 39 · Apr 4, 2012

rpmurphy said:
Why should the outcome of this one case be dependent on what may or may not happen with other cases? Shouldn't justice for these crimes be dealt on an individual basis regardless, rather than to be grouped into some amorphous thought experiment?

Even if you broaden it to other cases it still makes no sense. I used this example for clarity and brevity.

The main concern should be making sure the innocent aren't put away and the innocent are released. If your main concern is revenge then you lose sight of how it will effect those who are actually innocent.

And even still... when do you "prove" someone was lying to sentence them? The only way (a bit of a hyperbole since there are some clear cut examples) to 99% prove that someone is lying is if THEY admit to it, which is very unlikely given the threat of jail time. So then in effect you are creating another circumstance where someone who could legitimately be mistaken would go to jail because false accusation.

beelzebozo · Apr 4, 2012

akira28 said:
That's nothing new, and a well known issue, where people rightly or wrongly have a lack of faith in the criminal justice system. There's not a lot you say except that if they want to bring someone to justice they have to find an advocate. It doesn't mean you eliminate penalties for lying because then that proves you really can't trust the system to work at all. People should have a strong case, if they have facts that can support that case, then someone can be charged at there can be a trial. If there isn't much proof except for the accusation, then there probably won't be a criminal trial. These things don't go by word alone, so if they have supporting facts, then that fear is unwarranted, and this is what an advocate would tell the person who is afraid of not being believed.

see, the problem is that there is an ugly cultural underbelly that promulgates the notion that a woman who is raped actually deserved it (by dressing in a certain way, or being in a certain place, or saying a certain thing, etc. etc.), or is a bitter "slut" out for revenge on someone who scorned her. the problem is that accusing someone of rape not only comes with the fear that people won't believe you that it didn't happen, it also comes with the fear that people will believe you are actually a spurned psychopath out for revenge.

Zaraki_Kenpachi · Apr 4, 2012

demon said:
A failed attempt to prosecute a man for rape due to insufficient evidence is not the same as proving that a woman lied about being raped. The burden of proof for proving a woman lied about being raped should be as high as proving that a man raped a woman. Both should be "beyond a reasonable doubt". And both should come with harsh punishments considering the effect both crimes can have on the victims' lives.

Ya, I'm completely perplexed how people keep trying to push the two together like they're the same exact thing when they aren't at all.

Htown · Apr 4, 2012

beelzebozo said:
see, the problem is that there is an ugly cultural underbelly that promulgates the notion that a woman who is raped actually deserved it (by dressing in a certain way, or being in a certain place, or saying a certain thing, etc. etc.), or is a bitter "slut" out for revenge on someone who scorned her. the problem is that accusing someone of rape not only comes with the fear that people won't believe you that it didn't happen, it also comes with the fear that people will believe you are actually a spurned psychopath out for revenge.

Is your solution to allow innocent people to rot in jail because doing so would increase the number of actual criminals who are convicted?

Dead Man · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...6_victims_of_rape_fear_cops_wont_believe_them

i'm not just making this shit up. it is already a real problem that victims don't report rape because they fear that people will think they are lying. i am not aware of a similar problem with assualt or theft, and obviously it isn't a problem in murder cases, cause the victim is dead.

What happened to letting a guilty man go free rather than locking up an innocent one? I think that principle is one of the most important in a legal system, even in cases of rape where it is so hard to get a good conviction.

People who abuse the court system to punish people for crimes they did not commit need to be prosecuted, and given serious penalties. Of course, you need to make sure it was perjury first. Not just being mistaken.

I don't think prosecuting perjury would have a great impact on whether rape victims are believed by cops. For that to change for the better you mostly need cops to actually believe the the victims.

Without punishing the girl, you fuel all the misogynistic arseholes who rage about women being more protected in law and men having no rights.

levious · Apr 4, 2012

Dreams-Visions said:
You would compare prison to rape?

did I?

plagiarize · Apr 4, 2012

demon said:
A failed attempt to prosecute a man for rape due to insufficient evidence is not the same as proving that a woman lied about being raped. The burden of proof for proving a woman lied about being raped should be as high as proving that a man raped a woman. Both should be "beyond a reasonable doubt". And both should come with harsh punishments considering the effect both crimes can have on the victims' lives.

'beyond a reasonable doubt' is why we have terrible conviction rates in rape cases where physical evidence is incredibly hard to come by.

for all the people that love to go on about false accusations and false convictions, the fact is that orders of magnitude more rapists get away with their crimes than innocents get sent down for them.

getting a rape conviction is hard enough WHEN THE PERSON IS ACTUALLY GUILTY and when the victim was in the minority that actually came forwards and accused them.

i'm not saying we need to change that standard in rape cases... but it's a much bigger issue than 'someone can lie and get someone sent to prison'... and that's why i think something which makes worse the situation wherein most rapists never even set foot in a police station, let alone a court room, let alone a jail cell, isn't something that should be encouraged.

people here seem to think that any woman can get any man convicted... and that cases such of this are common enough to warrant making it even harder to bring rapists to justice. that's what i shake my head at it. i live in a world where crying rape is definately discouraged. even when it's true.

if you are arguing ideals in a discussion about what should and shouldn't be illegal, you are frankly looking at the world and a legal system in a way that doesn't work.

Valnen · Apr 4, 2012

Hmm. I wonder if any other sort of abuse happened? It's entirely possible. Not a reason to lie, but it would change my opinion at least.

beelzebozo · Apr 4, 2012

Htown said:
Is your solution to allow innocent people to rot in jail because doing so would increase the number of actual criminals who are convicted?

i don't have a solution. i was just pointing out why you have more women who are scared to report a rape than women who are scared to report a theft, even with adequate evidence.

plagiarize · Apr 4, 2012

Dead Man said:
Without punishing the girl, you fuel all the misogynistic arseholes who rage about women being more protected in law and men having no rights.

punishing her for actually admitting it won't stop those misogynistic assholes from taking this case and using it to support their worldview, because they'll just say that she was only caught thanks to her admission, and that her punishment hasn't made it any more difficult for women to lie and get innocent men sent to prison.

seeing her sent down for it would just feel like vindication of their fucked up beliefs.

demon · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
'beyond a reasonable doubt' is why we have terrible conviction rates in rape cases where physical evidence is incredibly hard to come by.

And? You're either arguing for lowering the standards by which people can be convicted of rape compared to other crimes or you aren't. You're for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or you're not. If it's impossible to prove a rape in so many cases, then that sounds like a problem that needs to be addressed by means other than making it easy to convict a man of rape without having to prove it with evidence.

Dude Abides · Apr 4, 2012

Htown said:
If the evidence and testimony in the original case met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, than he should have been convicted. If not, he should have walked.

If he is convicted, and you later find out that said evidence was forged, or that the testimony was false, then the forger/perjurer should be charged accordingly, with the standard penalty for such things. No matter what the reported crime was. Murder, rape, assault, theft, whatever. This is not difficult.

This is how it currently works. Why people think it should work differently for rape cases I do not understand.

DanteFox · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
'beyond a reasonable doubt' is why we have terrible conviction rates in rape cases where physical evidence is incredibly hard to come by.

for all the people that love to go on about false accusations and false convictions, the fact is that orders of magnitude more rapists get away with their crimes than innocents get sent down for them.

getting a rape conviction is hard enough WHEN THE PERSON IS ACTUALLY GUILTY and when the victim was in the minority that actually came forwards and accused them.

i'm not saying we need to change that standard in rape cases... but it's a much bigger issue than 'someone can lie and get someone sent to prison'... and that's why i think something which makes worse the situation wherein most rapists never even set foot in a police station, let alone a court room, let alone a jail cell, isn't something that should be encouraged.

people here seem to think that any woman can get any man convicted... and that cases such of this are common enough to warrant making it even harder to bring rapists to justice. that's what i shake my head at it. i live in a world where crying rape is definately discouraged. even when it's true.

if you are arguing ideals in a discussion about what should and shouldn't be illegal, you are frankly looking at the world and a legal system in a way that doesn't work.

How do you know this?

plagiarize · Apr 4, 2012

demon said:
And? You're either arguing for lowering the standards by which people can be convicted of rape compared to other crimes or you aren't. You're for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or you're not. If it's impossible to prove a rape in so many cases, then that sounds like a problem that needs to be addressed by means other than making it easy to convict a man of rape without having to prove it with evidence.

i'm not for lowering the standards. just as i'm not for increasing the punishment that the law lays out for perjory, and throwing out statute of limitations AND taking away a DA's descretion over choosing not to prosecute someone when they thinking doing so would cause more harm than it's worth.

i just point out, that as hard as it is to convict a rapist, it's even harder to get an innocent convicted of rape.

i wish there was more we can do for rape victims, but i can't put my hand on my heart and suggest a system that's better, or one that eliminates the incredibly rare false convictions without letting even more rapists get away with their crimes.

this thread would make you think that conviction rates of rape were super high and just required a girl to say 'he raped me'. clearly that is completely wrong.

beelzebozo · Apr 4, 2012

DanteFox said:
How do you know this?

rape is commonly understood to be the most under reported violent crime. you can extrapolate from that what you will.

shanshan310 · Apr 4, 2012

BigDug13 said:
I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. Since the word of a child is taken as gospel in a case like this. Even with zero evidence, all an 11 year old has to do is make the claim.

I'm surprised there aren't more kids that get grounded and call CPS with some BS allegations.

It also allows wives to get full custody as they can claim that you sexually abused one of the kids. No evidence necessary as you lose your job while the investigation takes place.

You keep saying "no evidence necessary' and yet if you read the OP you'd know the doctor found "trauma" in the girl's groin area. I'm guessing that was partly what they based the case on. I wonder how she did get trauma there...

plagiarize · Apr 4, 2012

DanteFox said:
How do you know this?

pretty fucking simple. lets take the high FBI estimates of what percentage of rape accusations are unfounded. that would be 8%

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf

now, lets look at the estimates for the percentage of rape victims that never come forwards and make an accusation in the first place.

the justice department put that at 46%.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

obviously the 54% that never get accused of rape walk away scott free.

even if every guilty rapist who is accused of rape gets convicted, the 8% of the 46% that are unfounded accusations amounts to 3.68%.

i make 4% orders of magnitude less than 54%.

Dead Man · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
punishing her for actually admitting it won't stop those misogynistic assholes from taking this case and using it to support their worldview, because they'll just say that she was only caught thanks to her admission, and that her punishment hasn't made it any more difficult for women to lie and get innocent men sent to prison.

seeing her sent down for it would just feel like vindication of their fucked up beliefs.

Because in this case their fucked beliefs were correct. You need to ensure that when they have examples, the examples are not of people getting away with it. Make sure the only examples they have are people getting caught and sent away, it will be a lot harder for them to spout their bullshit then.

The Mana Legend · Apr 4, 2012

There was this one forum I was on. I was just a casual lurker and never posted, but it had some interesting stuff on it so I read a lot of it. There was apparently this 15 or 16 year old girl user that got mad at another user, and called the cops on that other user saying he was sending him penis pictures that she "deleted," and sending her sexual messages that she photoshopped.

He was arrested and was about to go to court before the girl admitted to lying. But that "accusation" made against him will probably follow him forever.

plagiarize · Apr 4, 2012

Dead Man said:
Because in this case their fucked beliefs were correct. You need to ensure that when they have examples, the examples are not of people getting away with it. Make sure the only examples they have are people getting caught and sent away, it will be a lot harder for them to spout their bullshit then.

their fucked up beliefs weren't correct because what happened had nothing to do with gender.

if a boy came forwards with the same evidence against his mother... same damn thing would have happened.

The Mana Legend said:
There was this one forum I was on. I was just a casual lurker and never posted, but it had some interesting stuff on it so I read a lot of it. There was apparently this 15 or 16 year old girl user that got mad at another user, and called the cops on that other user saying he was sending him penis pictures that she "deleted," and sending her sexual messages that she photoshopped.

He was arrested and was about to go to court before the girl admitted to lying. But that "accusation" made against him will probably follow him forever.

and the same is true for the hatred the girl who lied will get. that will probably follow her forever too.

Cipherr · Apr 4, 2012

demon said:
A failed attempt to prosecute a man for rape due to insufficient evidence is not the same as proving that a woman lied about being raped. The burden of proof for proving a woman lied about being raped should be as high as proving that a man raped a woman. Both should be "beyond a reasonable doubt". And both should come with harsh punishments considering the effect both crimes can have on the victims' lives.

demon said:
And? You're either arguing for lowering the standards by which people can be convicted of rape compared to other crimes or you aren't. You're for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or you're not. If it's impossible to prove a rape in so many cases, then that sounds like a problem that needs to be addressed by means other than making it easy to convict a man of rape without having to prove it with evidence.

Agree with this. Especially the bolded. I'm never going to be 'ok' with what happened to the guy in the OP, and the fact that there is zero punishment for the girl in this case at all. Its just never going to happen. The man had a huge portion of his life taken away based on a lie, then one day she admits it and walks away like nothing happened. No matter how its twisted, no matter which sex the two happen to be, I'm never going to be ok with that.

Ether_Snake said:
Imagine what the dad went through in jail.

I have to try not to. Just.....terrible.

Ether_Snake · Apr 4, 2012

Imagine what the dad went through in jail.

Dead Man · Apr 4, 2012

plagiarize said:
their fucked up beliefs weren't correct because what happened had nothing to do with gender.

if a boy came forwards with the same evidence against his mother... same damn thing would have happened.

and the same is true for the hatred the girl who lied will get. that will probably follow her forever too.

You will be unable to prove it had nothing to do with gender. And most people would not expect the mother to go to jail for 11 years, social expectations and all that.

And you are really comparing a decade of jail imposed on an innocent person to shame and ridicule for a persons actions? I think you have gone a bit overboard here man.

Support NeoGAF

Woman admits to false rape charges against her father; father set free after 11 years

Member

Member

Member

Member

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.

Banned

Member

Member

Member

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Jealous Bastard

Member

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE

Member

Member

Member

Member

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face

Banned

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE

Banned

Jealous Bastard

Member

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE

Member

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.

Banned

Member

Jealous Bastard

Banned

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face

Banned

Member

Banned

Jealous Bastard

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®

Member

Similar threads

å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®