• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Should people go to prison for filing false rape cases?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#21
Immigrant said:
AND anyone imprisoned then deemed innocent and released should walk out of prison a very rich person.

I'm actually afraid of Texas. I nearly moved to Denton in the mid '80s and I'm glad I didn't; I can't imagine getting probation for a parking violation or jail time for jaywalking.:p
Click to expand...

Its not that bad here ;)
 
#25
I would venture to say that there are far more real rapes that go unreported and unpunished than there are false rape claims being made. Of course, I'd still be in favor of extremely harsh penalties for anyone who did falsely accuse someone of rape. Going to prison for that would not be out of the question.
 
#26
There is already a mechanism in place to discourage such false accusations. The accuser can themselves be accused of perjury (for knowingly giving false testimony under the oath in the trial), or of slander or libel (for damage to the accused's reputation by knowingly making false claims about them). No, you cannot and should not automatically jail an accuser simply because they failed to prove their case. But if you have a strong case that the situation involved perjury, slander or libel, those are serious crimes with serious consequences.
 
#27
hrodbert696 said:
There is already a mechanism in place to discourage such false accusations. The accuser can themselves be accused of perjury (for knowingly giving false testimony under the oath in the trial), or of slander or libel (for damage to the accused's reputation by knowingly making false claims about them). No, you cannot and should not automatically jail an accuser simply because they failed to prove their case. But if you have a strong case that the situation involved perjury, slander or libel, those are serious crimes with serious consequences.
Click to expand...

Yes. In the legal system there is a difference between "not guilty" and innocence.
 
#28
Good luck getting real rapists convicted, the stats are abysmal. False rape, as a weapon to blackmail and/or ruin people's careers, is one of these urban myths cooked up by the men's rights movement. The stats don't support their rubbish either. The stats are not required however when most men;s rights activists have a constant need to vilify women however.
 
#29
A false report and a failed prosecution are two different things. I believe that there should be serious consequences for filing a false report. Especially if a person winds up being convicted. There is also a difference between filing a false report and being honestly mistaken due to the trauma of being assaulted. These distinctions need to be made and clarified for something like that to really work though.
 
#30
dullsilver_mike said:
No. What constitutes "false?" A not guilty verdict? If you put someone's freedom on the line every time he/she tries to press charges for a crime, many many real crimes would never be reported or brought to trial. A victim would have to be 100% sure he or she was going to win the case or twould be risking his own freedom by having a criminal charged with a crime.

This kind of thing would kill the entire judicial process.

If a charge is entirely fabricated, I'm pretty sure the prosecutors and people bringing the charges in the first place can already be charged for a number of things including perjury and filing a false report-definitely civil and possibly criminal charges depending on the case. Then they'd have to go through their own trial to judge guilt and levy an appropriate (not equivalent to the previous charges) punishment. That's fair and reasonable judicial policy, it's already in place and already sufficiently addresses the issue of false accusations.
Click to expand...

It almost never happens.

Look at this story.

Invalid Link Removed

It's my understanding the Innocence Project has a 100% success rate when they can get the massive funds to free an innocent man.

This in itself is cause for reasonable doubt in every case.
 
#31
Bard2dbone said:
Mostly I want to agree with that. But I'm reminded that the first girl that I ever had a crush on was murdered during the summer between sixth and seventh grades. Her mom had divorced her hugely rich stepfather and somehow got the mansion. Mom was having a dinner party with her new boyfriend, his best friend, and the best friends girlfriend. Andrea, the daughter, was elsewhere in the mansion. "Some guy', identified by all three survivors as Andrea's stepfather, burst in and shot everyone.

Andrea died. Her mom's boyfriend died. His best friend was paralyzed. The mom and girlfriend were wounded but recovered.

But the guy they all identified as the shooter was rich. So he hired a really effective lawyer and got off.

Then he was on tape paying an undercover FBI agent to kill the judge from his divorce case with Andrea's mom. So he hired the same lawyer and got off again.
Click to expand...

Life's not always fair. In this case others paid for Andrea's mother's greed.

But that lawyer? Do you have his contact info.
 
#34
hrodbert696 said:
There is already a mechanism in place to discourage such false accusations. The accuser can themselves be accused of perjury (for knowingly giving false testimony under the oath in the trial), or of slander or libel (for damage to the accused's reputation by knowingly making false claims about them). No, you cannot and should not automatically jail an accuser simply because they failed to prove their case. But if you have a strong case that the situation involved perjury, slander or libel, those are serious crimes with serious consequences.
Click to expand...
Really well stated.

I don't see any reason we should give any victim another potential barrier to justice by frightening them with hefty legal repercussions if they can't prove their case adequately.
 
#35
Bard2dbone said:
I think it would be hard to make a law that recognizes the difference between a failed prosecution and an obviously fraudulent accusation.

But yeah. If she was actually raped, ABSOLUTELY let her accuse her rapist. But if she wasn't actually raped and claims she was, hold her accountable for that false report.

Is anyone else remembering the big Duke University case from a while back? Buncha frat boy athlete types. Stripper accuses them all of rape. Big stink all over the news. Turns out not only had THEY not done it, but she hadn't been raped at all.

That kind should be prosecuted for a false report.

One like the Steubenville(?) case where not only did it really happen, but everybody knew it happened, there was photographic evidence that it happened, and the offenders didn't really even try to hide that they'd done it. Then the whole town turns on the victim and anyone who helped her get her story out. It's bad enough that she got no justice. But to pursue her afterwards because the local town doesn't want to hurt their high school athlete's futures would be an atrocity on MANY levels.
Click to expand...

Chrystal Magnum was not charged and was allowed to continue her spree of criminal behaviors until she finally murdered an man.

The families of the accused young men had to liquidate their retirement plans, houses and take out loans to come up with the 8 figure cash payments necessary to keep those boys from spending their innocent lives in jail.

Then there's the french guy.

Rape practically defines reasonable doubt.
 
#36
Bard2dbone said:
Mostly I want to agree with that. But I'm reminded that the first girl that I ever had a crush on was murdered during the summer between sixth and seventh grades. Her mom had divorced her hugely rich stepfather and somehow got the mansion. Mom was having a dinner party with her new boyfriend, his best friend, and the best friends girlfriend. Andrea, the daughter, was elsewhere in the mansion. "Some guy', identified by all three survivors as Andrea's stepfather, burst in and shot everyone.

Andrea died. Her mom's boyfriend died. His best friend was paralyzed. The mom and girlfriend were wounded but recovered.

But the guy they all identified as the shooter was rich. So he hired a really effective lawyer and got off.

Then he was on tape paying an undercover FBI agent to kill the judge from his divorce case with Andrea's mom. So he hired the same lawyer and got off again.
Click to expand...

BawanaRik said:
Life's not always fair. In this case others paid for Andrea's mother's greed.

But that lawyer? Do you have his contact info.
Click to expand...

This was all a loooooong time ago. So I'd like to assume he's dead. He certainly ought to be statistically. He'd be about a zillion years old now, I think.

His name was Richard "Race Horse" Haynes.

Here. Read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Cullen_Davis

The wiki makes it look like he paid someone to do the actual murders. But all three survivors said unequivocally that it was Cullen.
 
#37
Unrepresented said:
Really well stated.

I don't see any reason we should give any victim another potential barrier to justice by frightening them with hefty legal repercussions if they can't prove their case adequately.
Click to expand...

Because they aren't a victim. They are the perp!

White knights love rescuing maidens. It allows them to feel important and wanted for a few seconds.

They never even suspect the dragon might tell a different story.

But he's dead or locked up so no one gets to hear it anyways.

Send a check to the Innocence Project and do a real good deed.
 
#38
BawanaRik said:
Because they aren't a victim. They are the perp!

White knights love rescuing maidens. It allows them to feel important and wanted for a few seconds.

They never even suspect the dragon might tell a different story.

But he's dead or locked up so no one gets to hear it anyways.

Send a check to the Innocence Project and do a real good deed.
Click to expand...
There are laws to combat false testimony. There shouldn't be additional laws to hinder prevent innocent testimony.
 
#40
Bard2dbone said:
This was all a loooooong time ago. So I'd like to assume he's dead. He certainly ought to be statistically. He'd be about a zillion years old now, I think.

His name was Richard "Race Horse" Haynes.

Here. Read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Cullen_Davis

The wiki makes it look like he paid someone to do the actual murders. But all three survivors said unequivocally that it was Cullen.
Click to expand...

With every possible respect the testimony of an ex wife or girl friend is suspect at the very best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back