false rape charges

[FArchivist]

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.

Recap:

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.)

[KitterCat]

Recap:

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.

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.)

There are already exceptions to the Supreme Courts rulings on both the state and federal level. Look at DUI’s. Where you can be forced to give evidence against your self via breathalyzers/blood samples. Look at Carleton v. Superior Court compared to Rochin v. California . Where the use of science is not allowed in the court room because its to costly for the court system and socially accepted that all DUI’s are guilty (People v. Bransford).

Look at sex offenders. What other crime forces the criminal after they’ve served their time in prison to not live in certain areas and tell their neighbors what they did. That tells them that they cant have certain jobs or have any children living around them.

Some of these exceptions are warranted, some not. To say that we don’t have any is a bit foolhardy though.

Having an exception for something that will place a stigma as horrible as being a rapist on an accused shouldn’t be that big of an issue.

[Greenday]

Look at DUI’s. Where you can be forced to give evidence against your self via breathalyzers/blood samples.

You already gave consent. When you get a license and drive, you agree to consent for breathalyzers/blood samples if you are suspected of a DUI.

[KitterCat]

You already gave consent. When you get a license and drive, you agree to consent for breathalyzers/blood samples if you are suspected of a DUI.

In the state I live in and moved from, getting your drivers license does not mean you give consent to automatically be given a breathalyzer. Such a move will result in the automatic loses of your license for 6 months except for a permit to drive to work.* Its why on all the Cop shows you see the officers ask if the person gives consent to the test It sort of worries me when talking to officers and reading reports where these same people will not take the breathalyzer when found to have been driving drunk.

Now I don’t drink and drive. I abhor people who cant figure out that its safer to just call a cab or have a friend drive them home for everyone’s safety, but the fact that you can be hit with two charges (intoxication and intoxication over the legal limit .08) seems like being charged for the same crime twice.

It also doesn’t affect your license when your found publicly intoxicated and still have to give consent. 4th and 5th amendment rights working there.

*Which in my mind is messed up on its own. Either convict a person of a crime or don’t, but government shouldn’t be able to punish someone before their convicted.

[BlaqueKatt]

In the state I live in and moved from, getting your drivers license does not mean you give consent to automatically be given a breathalyzer.

you may wish to rethink that answer, after fact checking.

All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given his implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination). This is largely because in the United States, driving is considered a privilege rather than a right, and the state has a legitimate interest in keeping dangerously intoxicated drivers off the road, to prevent injury, property damage, and loss of life. In most states, however, the police must have reasonable grounds for administering a sobriety test

[tropicsgoddess]

I truly despise people that do this to impugn others and ruin other peoples lives out of spite or shits and giggles! I hope they throw the book at her!

[KitterCat]

you may wish to rethink that answer, after fact checking.

From said website. “While you can politely decline to take a chemical test or a field sobriety test to determine if you are intoxicated, there are penalties involved.” Again, this also depends on the state. I wouldn’t want to live in say Californian where they can stick you with a needle and take a blood draw with or without your consent. And I’m certainly aware of the penalties one can obtain for refusing. Lots and lots of penalties. Lots and lots of legal exceptions for DUI's to.

[BlaqueKatt]

thing is you said:

In the state I live in and moved from, getting your drivers license does not mean you give consent to automatically be given a breathalyzer.

which is untrue considering all states have "implied consent laws", which means by the act of driving you are implying your consent to a breathalyzer, with reasonable cause.

but the fact that you can be hit with two charges (intoxication and intoxication over the legal limit .08) seems like being charged for the same crime twice.

no it's two different charges from violation of two different laws, if a minor in WI is charged with DUI, they also get charged with the "not a drop law"(minor in possession of alcohol). Rapists may also get charged with other sexual assault charges in addition to rape.
If I only have one beer, and my BAC is under .08 and I can prove it by taking a breathalyzer test, I don't get charged for "intoxication over the legal limit" , however if I refuse to prove it, I get charged with it because the burden then falls to me to prove my innocence of that charge. It falls under burden of proof, and one's refusal to submit to testing then becomes evidence of guilt as to the charges laid against you, no reasonable person would choose to not prove their innocence with a simple non-invasive test.

It also doesn’t affect your license when your found publicly intoxicated and still have to give consent. 4th and 5th amendment rights working there.

These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination). This is largely because in the United States, driving is considered a privilege rather than a right

Either convict a person of a crime or don’t, but government shouldn’t be able to punish someone before their convicted.

most traffic violations, and misdemeanors can go to court for a bench trial or a jury trial, that is an option for any offense. So you're saying those that choose to just pay the fine rather than wait to be convicted at trial are being "punished before they're convicted"? No they are choosing to not go to trial.

[gremcint]

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.

Would you make up your mind already.

In two completely different threads you've defended calling some a pedophile or child molester as revenge citing your responding 1000fold code but here you say that anyone making false rape charges should be raped?

Also you complain about how people act towards you including your child spreading rumours that you beat him (I hope I'm not confusing you with someone else) but keep saying that the tiniest offense deserves a nuclear response, Did you ever ask yourself then whether or not you've done something to deserve the treatment? or at least deserve it by your respond 1000 fold code?

[FArchivist]

I refer you to society in general.

Civilized society is not savage and barbaric. It's why we have rule of law, not rule of men, and why we abide by that.

There are already exceptions to the Supreme Courts rulings on both the state and federal level.

If a statute overrides a Supreme Court ruling, that is considered to be legitimate. If you think a decision or statute is unconstitutional, we have procedures for you to pursue that and get that overturned.

Look at sex offenders. What other crime forces the criminal after they’ve served their time in prison to not live in certain areas and tell their neighbors what they did. That tells them that they cant have certain jobs or have any children living around them.

And there are cases in court currently about the constitutionality of such punishment, as well as states dialing back the requirements.

Some of these exceptions are warranted, some not. To say that we don’t have any is a bit foolhardy though. Having an exception for something that will place a stigma as horrible as being a rapist on an accused shouldn’t be that big of an issue.

The problem is that creating such an exception in the courts for accused rapists specifically lends to victim-blaming, caused by the rape culture that is embedded in American society.

[Mytical]

As somebody who came >.< close to having false charges laid on me..I can say that you don't actually have to be charged to have the stigma follow you. I visited my cousin once, and there was a young female who had accused half the neighborhood of trying things..I was never even alone with her, but she called the police on me. I was handcuffed, processed, questioned...and a court date was set. Almost everybody believed the charges, except the one person who could actually prove my innocence..my female cousin.

Even my male cousin who was closer to me as a brother had doubts for a little. She told a convincing story. Finally she was confronted by my female cousin, and backed down..dropping the charges. However, dropped charges unfortunately does not quite = innocence in people's eyes. It took some time for my male cousin to believe I was innocent, let alone the rest of the community. When it was finally revealed she had mental issues, and was accusing half the neighborhood..some who didn't even know her..a lot of the stigma was removed..but not all. It took moving away to finally get away from that.

It is something I would never do to another human being, for reasons that will remain my own. Nobody should ever have to endure that. Ever. The accusation was a lot more hurtful then the stigma. I feel sorry for anybody who actually have something like that happen to them, I feel zero sorrow for false accusers.

[DrFaroohk]

Would you make up your mind already.

In two completely different threads you've defended calling some a pedophile or child molester as revenge citing your responding 1000fold code but here you say that anyone making false rape charges should be raped?

Also you complain about how people act towards you including your child spreading rumours that you beat him (I hope I'm not confusing you with someone else) but keep saying that the tiniest offense deserves a nuclear response, Did you ever ask yourself then whether or not you've done something to deserve the treatment? or at least deserve it by your respond 1000 fold code?

Way to take some things out of context! Let's get started shall we?

1- Big difference between making a comment on facebook and pressing charges on someone.

2- I didn't see anything in this article where it said the girl was saying it to get revenge.

3- Not everything deserves a 1,000 fold response. It's when someone deliberately and intentionally goes out of their way to wrong you. Name calling or just pissing someone off doesn't count as wronging someone.

4- I make a point of not screwing people over, unless they deserve it. For example, my neighbor who used to terrorize me just because he could, knowing the cops wouldn't do anything to help me, well somehow word got spread around that he was a police informant. He "moved away" shortly after that. He deserved that because he definitely wronged me. Assaulted me, damaged my property, tried to get my evicted several times, etc...I didn't do anything to him.

5- We're talking about totally different things anyway. From now on let's keep arguments to the thread they're a part of, ok? If someone wants to make a thread about my ill-perceived flip-flops I'd be glad to straighten it out for everyone.