false rape charges

[LexiaFira]

http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14389364

17 year old files false rape charges. and was watching the news as they broadcast this, she even went so far as to inflict damage to herself for evidence. This is not said in the current news article as i just went to the website.

my thought is why file false charges? because now it makes it look that much harder for actual rape victums to be believable.
HOWEVER there is one way to tell via examination.
depending on where the tearing in the woman's genitals are it can indicate rape.
what upsets me is she either did this to get back at someone or was bored...without understanding that there are consequences or whether she was or not its now that much more difficult for the rest of us...thank you

[kibbles]

I fully believe anyone who knowingly files false charges of any sort should be handed the sentence that would have been given to the wrongly accused if convicted.

[Ginger Tea]

I know someone who had a false rape case against him, I didn't know about it till it was damn near court time, normally they plaster as much information about the alleged rapist early on that they loose their job, wife/gf etc.
Perhaps they did have news articles galore, I just don't read the papers or watch (or even own) a TV.
He was in a relationship with the woman for a time, but ended it, next thing he knows hes being arrested.

She testified that he held her down with one hand, then did everything else with his other, that to be honest would still need a free hand to complete, only someone who has lost an arm would be able to do what he was doing with ease, you and me would still use the second for parts, yet his never stopped pinning her down.
The jury took all of an hour to completely find him innocent.

But if I knew of the case before hand I would not think otherwise of him in the interim, too many times you read about lives ruined by false rape claims and nothing happening to the accuser, not even purjury.

[DrFaroohk]

lol she COULD face 5 whole years in prison and 1000 dollar fine! Oh noes!

She deserves to be thrown into prison. The man prison. The sexual deviant man prison.

[Ladeeda]

lol she COULD face 5 whole years in prison and 1000 dollar fine! Oh noes!

She deserves to be thrown into prison. The man prison. The sexual deviant man prison.

So you think being gang-raped is appropriate punishment for false-rape charges?

[Nyoibo]

There is a sick sense of irony in that.

[Ladeeda]

There is a sick sense of irony in that.

Emphasis on "sick".

[Lace Neil Singer]

The damage done to the falsely accused could be prevented if everyone, both alleged victim and alleged accused, were granted anonimity. A man falsely accused of rape stands to have his reputation in shreds, yet the woman is allowed to be anonymous unless she is actually proven to have lied. Even if the man is found guilty, the stigma remains.

[LexiaFira]

The damage done to the falsely accused could be prevented if everyone, both alleged victim and alleged accused, were granted anonimity. A man falsely accused of rape stands to have his reputation in shreds, yet the woman is allowed to be anonymous unless she is actually proven to have lied. Even if the man is found guilty, the stigma remains.

Exactly.

I remember reading a story either here or in the news paper of someone filing false rape or child abuse charges against their dad just because he or she (person was a minor) didn't get there way and thought it would be a way to get back at daddy without thinking oh crap this could really do some damage.

Would rather the people filing false rape charges be thrown in jail or heavily fined to understand its really stupid to file false rape charges and it comes out of your time and money to do so. plus as Lace said whether it was true or not its stuck with you afterwords.

[FArchivist]

There is a sick sense of irony in that.

No, not ironic. Just sick. "Eye for an eye" is not an appropriate response for anything except savage and barbaric societies.

The damage done to the falsely accused could be prevented if everyone, both alleged victim and alleged accused, were granted anonimity. A man falsely accused of rape stands to have his reputation in shreds, yet the woman is allowed to be anonymous unless she is actually proven to have lied. Even if the man is found guilty, the stigma remains.

That argument could be made, but in order for such anonymity to be granted to the defendant, we would have to extend that anonymity to all defendants for all other crimes. We can't have separate rules for separate crimes.

Secondly, anonymity is not always guaranteed for the alleged victim since it is totally dependent on the status of the victim and the jurisdiction. If a minor, the name will be protected or if retaliation may be a problem. Otherwise, the identity of the alleged victim does not need to be kept private.

[Hyena Dandy]

We can't have separate rules for separate crimes.

Why not?

I'm not saying we can, I'm just curious to see why you say that.

[FArchivist]

Why not?
I'm not saying we can, I'm just curious to see why you say that.

While there are a number of philosophical answers I could give to this, based on the political philosophy of rule of law and the theory of legal positivism, I'm going to be lazy tonight.

The simplistic answer is that lack of conformity in how we treat crimes creates problems that allow valid convictions to be overturned based on procedural variation with various jurisdictions. For instance, previous to the adoption of such uniformity, you could have a case where the alleged rapist's name was held anonymous and the rapist was convicted. However, in the appellate court, the procedure is for the rapist's name to be made public, and the conviction is overturned on appeal on that basis.

Issues like this is why the Supreme Court developed the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. After the promulgation of these various uniform procedure codes, they were adopted by the separate state and local courts for the same reason.

(Then there is the whole concept of "equality before the law" too, but that's a different discussion.)

[insertNameHere]

The damage done to the falsely accused could be prevented if everyone, both alleged victim and alleged accused, were granted anonimity. A man falsely accused of rape stands to have his reputation in shreds, yet the woman is allowed to be anonymous unless she is actually proven to have lied. Even if the man is found guilty, the stigma remains.

I'm wondering if you meant to say a man who is found NOT guilty of an alleged rape still has a stigma.

[Nyoibo]

No, not ironic. Just sick. "Eye for an eye" is not an appropriate response for anything except savage and barbaric societies.

I refer you to society in general.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'm wondering if you meant to say a man who is found NOT guilty of an alleged rape still has a stigma.

That's right; typo. X_x

We can't have separate rules for separate crimes.

Why not? If a person is falsely accused of say, pilfering or damaging property, the stigma is nowhere near as bad as it would be if it was a sex crime he/she was accused of. Hell, even a false accusation of murder isn't nearly as damaging, unless it's child murder.