The impact of false accusations.

[laughing dog]

The clamoring for hard justice for the false claimants of rape on the part of some participants would be more convincing if there was evidence of the same vigor in the desire for hard justice for the false deniers of rape allegations Frankly, in my view, much (not all) of this posturing appears to be more the consequence of misogyny than thirst for justice .

 

[Terrell]

If a person is proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of rape. I have no problem with life in prison without possibility of parole as a punishment.

 

[laughing dog]

If a person is proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of rape. I have no problem with life in prison without possibility of parole as a punishment.

My reading of this thread, is that "false" rape allegations in non-criminal complaints are driving this "thirst for justice". And, more interestingly, no one has yet to show that these alleged "false" rape allegations are a significant issue.

 

[Terrell]

If a person is proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of rape. I have no problem with life in prison without possibility of parole as a punishment.

My reading of this thread, is that "false" rape allegations in non-criminal complaints are driving this "thirst for justice". And, more interestingly, no one has yet to show that these alleged "false" rape allegations are a significant issue.

One person knowingly making a false allegation is one too many. Given the consequences of being wrongfully accused, or worse wrongfully convicted, when you didn't commit rape is IMO, sufficient reason to punish, criminally, those who make allegations they know to be false. I don't think that behavior should be excused, whether it's rare or common is irrelevant to me. (assuming proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of knowingly making a false allegation)

Even if the case is non-criminal, the branding of "rapist" is still a problem for someone who is falsely accused. I don't think that a deliberate false accusation should go unpunished, when there is sufficient evidence that the person who made said allegation knew it was false.

 

[laughing dog]

My reading of this thread, is that "false" rape allegations in non-criminal complaints are driving this "thirst for justice". And, more interestingly, no one has yet to show that these alleged "false" rape allegations are a significant issue.

One person knowingly making a false allegation is one too many. Given the consequences of being wrongfully accused, or worse wrongfully convicted, when you didn't commit rape is IMO, sufficient reason to punish, criminally, those who make allegations they know to be false. I don't think that behavior should be excused, whether it's rare or common is irrelevant to me. (assuming proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of knowingly making a false allegation)

Even if the case is non-criminal, the branding of "rapist" is still a problem for someone who is falsely accused. I don't think that a deliberate false accusation should go unpunished, when there is sufficient evidence that the person who made said allegation knew it was false.

False allegations are bad - actual rapes are worse. I suspect that many more unpunished actual rapists in a year than there real false rape allegations.

 

[Terrell]

One person knowingly making a false allegation is one too many. Given the consequences of being wrongfully accused, or worse wrongfully convicted, when you didn't commit rape is IMO, sufficient reason to punish, criminally, those who make allegations they know to be false. I don't think that behavior should be excused, whether it's rare or common is irrelevant to me. (assuming proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of knowingly making a false allegation)

Even if the case is non-criminal, the branding of "rapist" is still a problem for someone who is falsely accused. I don't think that a deliberate false accusation should go unpunished, when there is sufficient evidence that the person who made said allegation knew it was false.

False allegations are bad - actual rapes are worse. I suspect that many more unpunished actual rapists in a year than there real false rape allegations.

I'm guessing you overlooked the consequences of going to prison over a false allegation. One of those potential consequences is being raped. How many people have to be punished for rapes they didn't commit before you would be okay with punishing someone who knowingly makes a false accusation?

I think the standard of proof for branding someone either a rapist or a false accuser, should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd object to lowering the standard of proof in either case, given the gravity of both accusations.

 

[laughing dog]

False allegations are bad - actual rapes are worse. I suspect that many more unpunished actual rapists in a year than there real false rape allegations.

I'm guessing you overlooked the consequences of going to prison over a false allegation. One of those potential consequences is being raped. How many people have to be punished for rapes they didn't commit before you would be okay with punishing someone who knowingly makes a false accusation?

No one goes to prison over non-criminal complaints. Given the frequency and gravity of the offense, I think more effort should be made in catching and convicting rapists compared to the alleged problem of "false rape" allegations. Especially since it is already a crime to file a false police report.

And, if one wishes to criminalize false non-criminal allegations, then one should demonstrate the same level of concern over the conviction of an innocent. But I have yet to see it.

 

[Terrell]

I'm guessing you overlooked the consequences of going to prison over a false allegation. One of those potential consequences is being raped. How many people have to be punished for rapes they didn't commit before you would be okay with punishing someone who knowingly makes a false accusation?

No one goes to prison over non-criminal complaints. Given the frequency and gravity of the offense, I think more effort should be made in catching and convicting rapists compared to the alleged problem of "false rape" allegations. Especially since it is already a crime to file a false police report.

And, if one wishes to criminalize false non-criminal allegations, then one should demonstrate the same level of concern over the conviction of an innocent. But I have yet to see it.

Why should someone who is not a rapist be branded as one? Why is it okay to do that, but it's not okay to punish a false accuser? In the case of an actual rape the victim is innocent, in the case of a false accusation the accused is innocent. Why should the innocence of one person trump the innocence of another? Since you didn't answer, before. How many people have to make false allegations before you would be okay with punishing them, if their allegations are proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be false. I'm okay at 1 for punishing rapists, whose guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lowering the burden of proof is what I have a problem with, because I don't think punishing people for crimes they didn't commit is fair to them, and I think lowering the burden of proof is more likely to punish innocent people.

Does the crime of filing a false police report carry a punishment comparable to a wrongful conviction of rape? If not why is it okay to subject an innocent person to confinement in a place where they're likely to be victims of violence, that will likely include rape, while the person who filed a false police report gets the legal equivalent to a slap on the wrist?

Then you either didn't notice, or are willfully blind, to requiring the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in either case. The point of such a high standard, is to make it as unlikely as reasonably possible to punish someone who didn't commit the crime.

 

[laughing dog]

No one goes to prison over non-criminal complaints. Given the frequency and gravity of the offense, I think more effort should be made in catching and convicting rapists compared to the alleged problem of "false rape" allegations. Especially since it is already a crime to file a false police report.

And, if one wishes to criminalize false non-criminal allegations, then one should demonstrate the same level of concern over the conviction of an innocent. But I have yet to see it.

Why should someone who is not a rapist be branded as one? Why is it okay to do that, but it's not okay to punish a false accuser? In the case of an actual rape the victim is innocent, in the case of a false accusation the accused is innocent. Why should the innocence of one person trump the innocence of another? Since you didn't answer, before. How many people have to make false allegations before you would be okay with punishing them, if their allegations are proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be false. I'm okay at 1 for punishing rapists, whose guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lowering the burden of proof is what I have a problem with, because I don't think punishing people for crimes they didn't commit is fair to them, and I think lowering the burden of proof is more likely to punish innocent people.

I don't see what any of that has to do with "false" non-criminal allegations of rape.

Does the crime of filing a false police report carry a punishment comparable to a wrongful conviction of rape? If not why is it okay to subject an innocent person to confinement in a place where they're likely to be victims of violence, that will likely include rape, while the person who filed a false police report gets the legal equivalent to a slap on the wrist?

I have no idea what the penalty for filing a false report is. In any event, criminalizing a false rape allegation means you are advocating a possibility that someone might be convicted for something they did not do - make a false rape allegation.

Then you either didn't notice, or are willfully blind, to requiring the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in either case. The point of such a high standard, is to make it as unlikely as reasonably possible to punish someone who didn't commit the crime.

Then why are you concerned about the possibility of an innocent being convicted for rape under a false rape allegation but apparently unconcerned about the possibility of an innocent being conviction for a false rape allegation since the standards of proof in both instances are so high?

 

[Terrell]

don't see what any of that has to do with "false" non-criminal allegations of rape.

Simple, you're labeling someone a rapist without having to prove your case. IMO that person may be innocent, yet you're damaging their reputation, when they may have not committed rape. That I have a problem with. I think if you're going to have the power to put that label on someone, then you should have the burden to prove that person is a rapist, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In any event, criminalizing a false rape allegation means you are advocating a possibility that someone might be convicted for something they did not do - make a false rape allegation.

Then you failed to read this, or ignored it, from post #20

For the purpose of this post, and any future post, by false accuser, I mean someone who makes an accusation, knowing that it's false. The standard of proof should be the same as any other crime. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Since you know this now, or should know it, you should be clear on what my position actually is. Let's refrain from constructing strawmen.

Then why are you concerned about the possibility of an innocent being convicted for rape under a false rape allegation but apparently unconcerned about the possibility of an innocent being conviction for a false rape allegation since the standards of proof in both instances are so high?

I pointed out that the burden of proof, in both cases, was beyond a reasonable doubt. In case it's not clear to you what I'm saying is:

To label someone a rapist, prove them guilty of rape, beyond a reasonable doubt.

To label someone a false accuser, prove them guilty of false accusation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edit: Both should be crimes & carry the same penalty. Life w/o parole.

If there's insufficient evidence to prove either, both parties walk.

Again, now that you should be clear on my position, let's refrain from constructing strawmen.

 

[laughing dog]

Simple, you're labeling someone a rapist without having to prove your case. IMO that person may be innocent, yet you're damaging their reputation, when they may have not committed rape. That I have a problem with. I think if you're going to have the power to put that label on someone, then you should have the burden to prove that person is a rapist, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In any event, criminalizing a false rape allegation means you are advocating a possibility that someone might be convicted for something they did not do - make a false rape allegation.

Then you failed to read this, or ignored it, from post #20

No, the problem is that I did read your posts. But, I fail to see the relevance of your response, since I made no comment about what a false rape allegation meant.

I pointed out that the burden of proof, in both cases, was beyond a reasonable doubt. In case it's not clear to you what I'm saying is:

To label someone a rapist, prove them guilty of rape, beyond a reasonable doubt.

To label someone a false accuser, prove them guilty of false accusation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there's insufficient evidence to prove either, both parties walk.

Again, now that you should be clear on my position, let's refrain from constructing strawmen.

You are responding to something I have not written. I did not question your position. Even though I find it hard to believe that someone could so misunderstand "In any event, criminalizing a false rape allegation means you are advocating a possibility that someone might be convicted for something they did not do - make a false rape allegation." I will try again. You have complained about innocents who might be convicted of rape because of a false rape allegation, not me. But by criminalizing false rape allegations, you are allowing innocents who might be convicted of making a false rape allegation. Yet you show no concern over that outcome.

In fact, you are also permitting someone to falsely accuse someone else of making a false rape allegation. Yet you show no concern for that innocent's reputation.

 

[Terrell]

Simple, you're labeling someone a rapist without having to prove your case. IMO that person may be innocent, yet you're damaging their reputation, when they may have not committed rape. That I have a problem with. I think if you're going to have the power to put that label on someone, then you should have the burden to prove that person is a rapist, beyond a reasonable doubt.



Then you failed to read this, or ignored it, from post #20

No, the problem is that I did read your posts. But, I fail to see the relevance of your response, since I made no comment about what a false rape allegation meant.

I pointed out that the burden of proof, in both cases, was beyond a reasonable doubt. In case it's not clear to you what I'm saying is:

To label someone a rapist, prove them guilty of rape, beyond a reasonable doubt.

To label someone a false accuser, prove them guilty of false accusation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there's insufficient evidence to prove either, both parties walk.

Again, now that you should be clear on my position, let's refrain from constructing strawmen.

You are responding to something I have not written. I did not question your position. Even though I find it hard to believe that someone could so misunderstand "In any event, criminalizing a false rape allegation means you are advocating a possibility that someone might be convicted for something they did not do - make a false rape allegation." I will try again. You have complained about innocents who might be convicted of rape because of a false rape allegation, not me. But by criminalizing false rape allegations, you are allowing innocents who might be convicted of making a false rape allegation. Yet you show no concern over that outcome.

In fact, you are also permitting someone to falsely accuse someone else of making a false rape allegation. Yet you show no concern for that innocent's reputation.

Seriously? You're making this argument? To meet the standard you're making, would require there be no justice system, as any crime can result in someone being punished for something they didn't do. I don't expect any justice system to be perfect, but I do think we should protect the rights of the accused to the best of our ability, and requiring the accuser to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, seems to me like the most reasonable proposition.

Edit: Having false accusation as a crime, would ideally discourage false allegation, and where it failed to do so, there's the potential to prosecute.

I strongly doubt that you'd advocate for no justice system in cases where rape is alleged. I know I would find the total lack of a justice system to be a very bad idea, and that would apply to many crimes, not just rape or false allegation.

You also seem to have missed this from post #5

If you make an accusation of any crime, when you know said allegation is false, should be a crime. Deliberate false allegation of any crime, should be subject to punishment in kind, meaning punishment equal to what the wrongfully accused would have received, had they been convicted. Criminal conviction standard should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law, of both elements of the crime. Elements of the crime should be wrongful accusation and knowing said allegation is wrongful.

Again I think no system is perfect, but IMO requiring a high standard of proof before labeling someone a criminal, should be required.

 

[laughing dog]

Seriously? You're making this argument?

Ah, so only accused rapists merit concern over their civil rights and reputation. Hmmm.

To meet the standard you're making, would require there be no justice system, as any crime can result in someone being punished for something they didn't do. I don't expect any justice system to be perfect, but I do think we should protect the rights of the accused to the best of our ability, and requiring the accuser to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, seems to me like the most reasonable proposition.

The accuser who has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the state in criminal proceedings, not the victim making the allegation. And that is already the case. What you (and others) are proposing is something drastically different: criminalizing non-criminal allegations.

Edit: Having false accusation as a crime, would ideally discourage false allegation, and where it failed to do so, there's the potential to prosecute.

It also discourages true allegations because of the possibility of being charged with making a false allegation.

I strongly doubt that you'd advocate for no justice system in cases where rape is alleged. I know I would find the total lack of a justice system to be a very bad idea, and that would apply to many crimes, not just rape or false allegation.

As I have pointed out twice, that is the only system that eliminates false allegations of rape. But I am opposed to criminalizing non-criminal allegations.

You also seem to have missed this from post #5..

You are mistakenly conflating "miss" with "dismiss as irrelevant".

 

[Terrell]

Ah, so only accused rapists merit concern over their civil rights and reputation. Hmmm.

Only if you ignore that I apply the standard to deliberate false allegations of all crimes per post 10.

The accuser who has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the state in criminal proceedings, not the victim making the allegation. And that is already the case. What you (and others) are proposing is something drastically different: criminalizing non-criminal allegations.

Who informs the state, or agents thereof, of the alleged crime? I'd place that as the person who says that a crime has been committed against them, or their property. (this person should be legally liable, if there's misconduct by any agent of the state in the case, they should also be subject to penalty)

It also discourages true allegations because of the possibility of being charged with making a false allegation.

Yeah, so what? The accuser is saying that someone deserves to go to prison. Why should it be legal for them to say so if they know what they're saying is false?

As I have pointed out twice, that is the only system that eliminates false allegations of rape. But I am opposed to criminalizing non-criminal allegations.

Why should making a deliberate false accusation not be a crime?

Such a situation you mention has no possibility of convicting anyone of anything, if it's applied to all crimes. I see no reason why such a standard should only be applied to my idea, and not other crimes, such as rape.

Why should my idea be held to a higher standard than yours?

You are mistakenly conflating "miss" with "dismiss as irrelevant".

Why exactly is it irrelevant? Because you said so?

 

[laughing dog]

Only if you ignore that I apply the standard to deliberate false allegations of all crimes per post 10. v

No, because you apply a double standard in concern for the targets of the false allegations.

Who informs the state, or agents thereof, of the alleged crime? I'd place that as the person who says that a crime has been committed against them, or their property. (this person should be legally liable, if there's misconduct by any agent of the state in the case, they should also be subject to penalty)

Then you completely misunderstand how the criminal justice works. People make complaints which result investigations which then result in charges (formal accusations).

Yeah, so what?

Thank you for providing evidence for one of my points: that is focus is one-sided on the alleged violations of reputation and freedom of the accused without regard to actual rape victims.

The accuser is saying that someone deserves to go to prison. Why should it be legal for them to say so if they know what they're saying is false?

And this is relevant to the issue of discouraging actual rape victims from making complaints because.....?

Why should making a deliberate false accusation not be a crime?

Filing a false police report is already a crime. Making a non-criminal allegation is not.

Such a situation you mention has no possibility of convicting anyone of anything, if it's applied to all crimes. I see no reason why such a standard should only be applied to my idea, and not other crimes, such as rape.

I have no idea what any of that actually means.

Why should my idea be held to a higher standard than yours?

I have no idea what this means in this context.

Why exactly is it irrelevant? Because you said so?

No, because it had nothing to do with the content you quoted.

 

[Terrell]

No, because you apply a double standard in concern for the targets of the false allegations.

What double standard? The person who is accused of the crime, faces prison time, if proven guilty, the person who makes a knowingly false accusation is subject to the same penalty. Both are subject to the same standard of proof of guilt, namely, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If neither can be proven guilty, both walk free.

Not seeing a double standard here. At least not on my part.

Then you completely misunderstand how the criminal justice works. People make complaints which result investigations which then result in charges (formal accusations).

Yet there are some cases where the state learns of the crime through the accusation of an individual citizen. I think said citizen, if they know said allegation is false, should face charges for making said allegation. If there is misconduct on the part of agents of the state that make said accusation, then they should be subject to the same legal penalty. In both cases the penalty should be the same as the penalty for wrongful conviction of the false allegation in question.

Thank you for providing evidence for one of my points: that is focus is one-sided on the alleged violations of reputation and freedom of the accused without regard to actual rape victims.

The people who are accused are the ones who are at risk for being sent to prison. I think that if you're going to accuse someone of a crime, when you know they didn't commit said crime, you should face a criminal penalty, as mentioned earlier, for it. There needs to be evidence that the alleged victim is not telling the truth, and knows they are not telling the truth, before they face similar risk.

I notice that you totally disregard the rest of what I said.

Not having a penalty for willful false allegation allows a person to use the full power of the state against an innocent person, without any consequences should it be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they're lying

And this is relevant to the issue of discouraging actual rape victims from making complaints because.....?

Why should people be allowed to make allegations of rape, or any crime, that they know are false with impunity? Why shouldn't there be justice for a person who is wrongfully accused, in the scenario being discussed? (deliberate false allegation)

Also if they can knowingly make false accusations and receive no comparable penalty for doing so? Why should the police believe their allegation, if there's no comparable consequence for lying? Why should a jury?

Do you really think that someone should be able to falsely accuse another person of a felony, knowing said allegation is false, with impunity? If so what stops such a power from being abused, against people who didn't commit the crime in question?

Making a non-criminal allegation is not.

And allowing non-criminal allegations without penalty for doing so, allows you to circumvent having to prove that the person you accuse did the crime. Why should you have the ability to inflict punishment, of any kind, on that basis? Why should you be able to label someone as a rapist without having to prove guilt. Your position seems to be okay with false positives damn the consequences, even if it means victimizing people who didn't commit the crime in question. You seem to be opposed to requiring the person to prove guilt, and you seem to be opposed to any punishment for someone who knowingly makes a false allegation.

You are not willing to see someone who is falsely accused as a victim, if you are, then please say so, since I've seen nothing to that effect.

I have no idea what any of that actually means.

You're using the possibility that a person would be wrongfully convicted for making a false allegation as a reason to not have making a false allegation a crime. You don't appear to be willing to apply that standard to rape, or any other violent crime.

have no idea what this means in this context.

See above. Why should my idea be held to that standard, when your position seems to be that a person can be branded a rapist without having to prove him guilty in a court of law.

No, because it had nothing to do with the content you quoted.

It points out that rape isn't the only crime I'm willing to apply this standard to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you make an accusation of any crime, when you know said allegation is false, should be a crime. Deliberate false allegation of any crime, should be subject to punishment in kind, meaning punishment equal to what the wrongfully accused would have received, had they been convicted. Criminal conviction standard should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law, of both elements of the crime. Elements of the crime should be wrongful accusation and knowing said allegation is wrongful.

OK

How are you going to prove that it was false? A lot of cases where are dismissed or defendant found not guilty in spite of having committed the crime, do we charge those victims? Will it make it so that fewer people lay charges?

An allegation is false when there are major aspects of it that disagree with the known facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you and others on your side keep defending the inexcusable actions of these universities.
Also because these cases expose the problems with the Obama policy of making it much easier to expel students accused of "sexual assault" even when they are clearly innocent.

None of the cases you have cited demonstrate clear innocence.

If they were clearly innocent then they would be found innocent even by the relatively low preponderance-of-evidence standard.

Except even that wasn't applied because they weren't allowed to meaningfully present their side of the case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The clamoring for hard justice for the false claimants of rape on the part of some participants would be more convincing if there was evidence of the same vigor in the desire for hard justice for the false deniers of rape allegations Frankly, in my view, much (not all) of this posturing appears to be more the consequence of misogyny than thirst for justice .

I would apply it to all crimes.

It's just that about the only cases it occurs are rape and domestic violence.

The only other at all common case I can think of are the faked burglaries/robberies and in that case the guy will already be going to jail for the fraud involved.


I would go a bit farther and apply it to framing someone for a crime even if no false report is made.

 

[Sabine Grant]

If a person is proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of rape. I have no problem with life in prison without possibility of parole as a punishment.

Interestingly, I would not have wished such sentencing on the man who raped me.

 

[Terrell]

If a person is proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of rape. I have no problem with life in prison without possibility of parole as a punishment.

Interestingly, I would not have wished such sentencing on the man who raped me.

I have no problem with the victim of any crime asking the court for leniency, if that's what the victim wants, after the perpetrator has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court should listen to said victim's request. If the victim is deceased, their next of kin, if there's no evidence they've specifically designated someone else.