NationStates

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:Lying bitches who make false rape accusations should be locked up, not given any further opportunities to ruin the lives of even more male victims. These feminists clearly don't believe in due process. They are not liberal in any way.

"Not given any further opportunities"

Does this mean they should be locked up until they die of old age?

Or does it mean they should be imprisoned for a while, but after that be fair game for any rapist? Never allowed to report rape ever again?

Explain yourself!

She should be exiled to the phantom zone, or placed in the machine of unspeakable doom.

Greed and Death wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

She was a minor when she made them. She may well have been punished for that. Records tend to get sealed.

It's too bad we can't force false rape accusers to wear the Scarlett L on their shirt, for liar.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
She was a minor when she made them. She may well have been punished for that. Records tend to get sealed.

Not that well sealed it seems.

Sealed doesn't mean not in the news or unknown. It also doesn't mean Defense cant get the records unsealed for the purpose of building a defense.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
She was a minor when she made them. She may well have been punished for that. Records tend to get sealed.

It's too bad we can't force false rape accusers to wear the Scarlett L on their shirt, for liar.

And how do you define "false accusation"?

Vassenor wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
It's too bad we can't force false rape accusers to wear the Scarlett L on their shirt, for liar.

And how do you define "false accusation"?

Easy. They said someone raped them and we got proof that they mosr certainly did not.

For example, let's say that a person claimed that on the night of June 24th, 2020, The Game broke into their house and violently sexually assaulted them at 2:35 AM in Miami Florida. But we got footage of the Game at an after party in Los Angeles at 2:40 AM. Clearly the alleged victim is lying. Is that not clear cut dishonesty?

Greed and Death wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Not that well sealed it seems.

Sealed doesn't mean not in the news or unknown. It also doesn't mean Defense cant get the records unsealed for the purpose of building a defense.

It's Australia remember. Anything from juvenile court is supposed to be suppressed from the public. Not that it always is.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
And how do you define "false accusation"?

Easy. They said someone raped them and we got proof that they mosr certainly did not.

For example, let's say that a person claimed that on the night of June 24th, 2020, The Game broke into their house and violently sexually assaulted them at 2:35 AM in Miami Florida. But we got footage of the Game at an after party in Los Angeles at 2:40 AM. Clearly the alleged victim is lying. Is that not clear cut dishonesty?

Nope. The victim could have been violently sexually assaulted by someone they believed to be The Game. Being mistaken is not telling a lie.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Easy. They said someone raped them and we got proof that they mosr certainly did not.

For example, let's say that a person claimed that on the night of June 24th, 2020, The Game broke into their house and violently sexually assaulted them at 2:35 AM in Miami Florida. But we got footage of the Game at an after party in Los Angeles at 2:40 AM. Clearly the alleged victim is lying. Is that not clear cut dishonesty?

Nope. The victim could have been violently sexually assaulted by someone they believed to be The Game. Being mistaken is not telling a lie.

Or they may not have seen their attacker and the physical evidence lead the police to the wrong conclusion. Or the defence could just browbeat the jury into believing that secretly they did consent because XYZ.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
Sealed doesn't mean not in the news or unknown. It also doesn't mean Defense cant get the records unsealed for the purpose of building a defense.

It's Australia remember. Anything from juvenile court is supposed to be suppressed from the public. Not that it always is.

Hire a PI and start asking her friends from school and you will find out stuff even if it is sealed.

For instance you figure out there is an Ex bf that suddenly stopped communicating. Well you want to interview him. Then you here the accusation story and get told about others. You interview them.

Even with sealed records you still can find these people at least if you have money. It sucks if you are poor and the judge wont let your attorney review sealed records.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Easy. They said someone raped them and we got proof that they mosr certainly did not.

For example, let's say that a person claimed that on the night of June 24th, 2020, The Game broke into their house and violently sexually assaulted them at 2:35 AM in Miami Florida. But we got footage of the Game at an after party in Los Angeles at 2:40 AM. Clearly the alleged victim is lying. Is that not clear cut dishonesty?

Nope. The victim could have been violently sexually assaulted by someone they believed to be The Game. Being mistaken is not telling a lie.

And notably, because memory is not a photograph, they could have to believe eventually that The Game was the perpetrator even if they didn’t think that originally.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
And how do you define "false accusation"?

Easy. They said someone raped them and we got proof that they mosr certainly did not.

For example, let's say that a person claimed that on the night of June 24th, 2020, The Game broke into their house and violently sexually assaulted them at 2:35 AM in Miami Florida. But we got footage of the Game at an after party in Los Angeles at 2:40 AM. Clearly the alleged victim is lying. Is that not clear cut dishonesty?

Not clear-cut, no.

It is pretty good evidence that The Game is not responsible, provided their alibi isn't fabricated, but really says nothing to the authenticity of the sexual assault or the break-in. Either of which could be potentially corroborated with an investigation. Given how shaky victim's memories can be, it's not entirely surprising that they might mistake an unknown assailant for a well-known(?) celebrity. This is absolutely not the place to give up and call it a day.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Easy. They said someone raped them and we got proof that they mosr certainly did not.

For example, let's say that a person claimed that on the night of June 24th, 2020, The Game broke into their house and violently sexually assaulted them at 2:35 AM in Miami Florida. But we got footage of the Game at an after party in Los Angeles at 2:40 AM. Clearly the alleged victim is lying. Is that not clear cut dishonesty?

Not clear-cut, no.

It is pretty good evidence that The Game is not responsible, provided their alibi isn't fabricated, but really says nothing to the authenticity of the sexual assault or the break-in. Either of which could be potentially corroborated with an investigation. Given how shaky victim's memories can be, it's not entirely surprising that they might mistake an unknown assailant for a well-known(?) celebrity. This is absolutely not the place to give up and call it a day.

I don’t know who or what The Game is.

Galloism wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Nope. The victim could have been violently sexually assaulted by someone they believed to be The Game. Being mistaken is not telling a lie.

And notably, because memory is not a photograph, they could have to believe eventually that The Game was the perpetrator even if they didn’t think that originally.

Oh come on now it is not like there has been people convicted of rape in the 1980's who have been freed based on DNA evidence.

Greed and Death wrote:

Galloism wrote:And notably, because memory is not a photograph, they could have to believe eventually that The Game was the perpetrator even if they didn’t think that originally.

Oh come on now it is not like there has been people convicted of rape in the 1980's who have been freed based on DNA evidence.

The possibility of convicting someone for a crime they did not commit is, and should be, shocking to the human conscious. Any crime, but especially one as heinous as rape.

But the possibility of an actual victim of rape being punished for coming forward, but being unable to prove their allegation, is equally shocking.


There's no good answer here, and we shouldn't let identity politics cause us to play favorites between these two nightmare scenarios.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Easy. They said someone raped them and we got proof that they mosr certainly did not.

For example, let's say that a person claimed that on the night of June 24th, 2020, The Game broke into their house and violently sexually assaulted them at 2:35 AM in Miami Florida. But we got footage of the Game at an after party in Los Angeles at 2:40 AM. Clearly the alleged victim is lying. Is that not clear cut dishonesty?

Nope. The victim could have been violently sexually assaulted by someone they believed to be The Game. Being mistaken is not telling a lie.

Alright, how about this? They claim their boyfriend's best friend raped them at 3 am but we have evidence he was in an entirely different city at that time.

I highly doubt someone would "just mistake" a stranger for someone they know. But im sure any logic can be twisted when arguing why someone who accuses someone falsely of rape shouldn't spend years in prison for that bullshit.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
Oh come on now it is not like there has been people convicted of rape in the 1980's who have been freed based on DNA evidence.

The possibility of convicting someone for a crime they did not commit is, and should be, shocking to the human conscious. Any crime, but especially one as heinous as rape.

But the possibility of an actual victim of rape being punished for coming forward, but being unable to prove their allegation, is equally shocking.


There's no good answer here, and we shouldn't let identity politics cause us to play favorites between these two nightmare scenarios.

Ultimately, a number of cases are going to fall squarely in the “I dunno” category.

This is the one where you can’t prove it happened beyond a reasonable doubt, nor can you prove it fabricated beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s unfortunate, but it is the reality when you’re very averse to punishing the innocent (as we should be).

Neanderthaland wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Easy. They said someone raped them and we got proof that they mosr certainly did not.

For example, let's say that a person claimed that on the night of June 24th, 2020, The Game broke into their house and violently sexually assaulted them at 2:35 AM in Miami Florida. But we got footage of the Game at an after party in Los Angeles at 2:40 AM. Clearly the alleged victim is lying. Is that not clear cut dishonesty?

Not clear-cut, no.

It is pretty good evidence that The Game is not responsible, provided their alibi isn't fabricated, but really says nothing to the authenticity of the sexual assault or the break-in. Either of which could be potentially corroborated with an investigation. Given how shaky victim's memories can be, it's not entirely surprising that they might mistake an unknown assailant for a well-known(?) celebrity. This is absolutely not the place to give up and call it a day.

What if it turns out there was no break in, and the neighbor across the street was out with a friend smoking a cigarette and saw no commotion at the house?

There's pretty clear cut cases where people lie about being raped. It isnt like it never happens.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
Oh come on now it is not like there has been people convicted of rape in the 1980's who have been freed based on DNA evidence.

The possibility of convicting someone for a crime they did not commit is, and should be, shocking to the human conscious. Any crime, but especially one as heinous as rape.

But the possibility of an actual victim of rape being punished for coming forward, but being unable to prove their allegation, is equally shocking.


There's no good answer here, and we shouldn't let identity politics cause us to play favorites between these two nightmare scenarios.

It is worth pointing out the victim is not punished for failing to prove rape. The victim is punished only when the prosecution shows she lied ( either via perjury or filing a false police report). This means being mistaken is a defense including being mistaken about the law. Generally the only time a false rape claim is filed is when the rape kit comes back and shows it is unlikely the victim even had intercourse.

Likewise defamation is hard to prove in the civil court because the victim's allowed to truthfully believe the statement when she made it.

This issue has always seemed to me to be a balancing act between standard legal weighing of evidence to minimise the chances of an innocent being wrongly convicted, and rule utilitarian arguments that seek to use the law for a wider feminist social purpose.

In the latter, the greater chance of someone being wrongly convicted due to a false allegation that is less exactingly examined is seen as being outweighed by more women coming forward to report things that *did* happen because they feel they'll be believed.

As the narrative is primarily about female victims of men, it doesn't really advance male victims. Many men will be uneasy because the chances of them being victims of an injustice or needlessly prosecuted are higher than them being protected, while many women will see attempts to move towards belief and bringing cases unless direct evidence can be found to the contrary as protecting them.

Both being raped and seeing the person get away with it, or being tried for something you haven't done and possibly being convicted are very bad things and you see stories of both and calls for reform either way after injustices of one kind or the other come to light.

I would be inclined to say that unproven allegations shouldn't be taken into account because they may have been true even if the evidence wasn't sufficient, but that demonstrably false allegations are of material interest to any case. There'll be a gray area if someone makes dozens of allegations against different people but none of them ever get anywhere but I'm not sure how you could deal with those exceptions without messing with the rule.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Nope. The victim could have been violently sexually assaulted by someone they believed to be The Game. Being mistaken is not telling a lie.

Alright, how about this? They claim their boyfriend's best friend raped them at 3 am but we have evidence he was in an entirely different city at that time.

I highly doubt someone would "just mistake" a stranger for someone they know. But im sure any logic can be twisted when arguing why someone who accuses someone falsely of rape shouldn't spend years in prison for that bullshit.

I mean you seem to be trying to deny the accuser due process in the name of vindictiveness at this point.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Not clear-cut, no.

It is pretty good evidence that The Game is not responsible, provided their alibi isn't fabricated, but really says nothing to the authenticity of the sexual assault or the break-in. Either of which could be potentially corroborated with an investigation. Given how shaky victim's memories can be, it's not entirely surprising that they might mistake an unknown assailant for a well-known(?) celebrity. This is absolutely not the place to give up and call it a day.

What if it turns out there was no break in, and the neighbor across the street was out with a friend smoking a cigarette and saw no commotion at the house?

The neighbor is basically irrelevant, since there's no guarantee they would have noticed even if something had happened. The lack of physical evidence for a "violent break in" seems to suggest that the whole thing is fabricated, but the nonsensical aspects of it (randomly attacked by a celebrity you've never met in your home, no evidence of a break-in) points more towards mental illness than outright deception.

There's pretty clear cut cases where people lie about being raped. It isnt like it never happens.

In that case you probably should have brought up one of those cases, instead of the one you did.

I can see an argument for a complainant’s history of false testimony being considered in a court case. It shouldn’t be used to dismiss the case by it’s lonesome but it should be taken into consideration when there is no evidence beyond the complainant’s testimony against the accused.

Actually convicting someone for false accusations is a bit more complicated. You’d have to prove that no reasonable person could have come to the conclusions they did.

If you make a false rape accusation, you hurt not only the guy you falsely accused, but also actual rape victims as truthful accusations get seen through the lense of 'a lot of these are false.' It also has a significant probative value with regards the reliability of future rape accusations.

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

Because a stupid interpretation of "muh speech freedum" led to calumny not being punished.

Risottia wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

Because a stupid interpretation of "muh speech freedum" led to calumny not being punished.

Likely the difficulty in proving the allegation is false is more to do with it.