We received an indignant email yesterday from a woman who identified herself as the false accuser who recanted a rape lie she had told ten years earlier. We had reported the story of her recantation, and she took issue with our comments questioning why she hadn't been charged with a crime. She wrote: "What possible purpose would prosecuting or incarcerating me at 22 serve? How would that be in the interest of justice?"
This raises an interesting point about gender double standards when it comes to rape.
This woman delayed ten years to recant her rape claim . . . two years after she became an adult. (Note I said "recant" as opposed to "undo" or "take back" -- once unleashed, a rape claim can't be undone or taken back.)
Every second of every day of every one of those ten years, this woman could have done the right thing by releasing this man from the unspeakable agony of a false rape claim. But she didn't.
Now compare that ten-year delay with this delay: In 2003, a 16-year-old Maryland boy named Maouloud Baby was convicted of raping an 18-year-old woman in the back of her car. The woman testified that she told the boy he could have sex with her if he stopped when she told him to, but she claimed that when she yelled for him to stop, he continued for five to 10 seconds. He did not ejaculate but withdrew. He and his "victim" drove to a McDonalds, they hugged, she gave him her phone number, and he left. The boy was convicted of first degree rape and other offenses for delaying withdrawal for as little as five seconds. (An appellate court initially overturned the conviction because that court read state law to preclude withdrawal of consent during the sex act, but the state's Court of appeals said that the appellate court was wrong -- consent may be withdrawn during the act, and it remanded the case for a new trial.)
Did you get that? For false rape accusers, a ten-year delay in doing the right thing merits no punishment whatsoever. In fact, some people probably think we're supposed to thank the woman. For boys accused of rape, a five-second delay in doing the right thing merits a first degree rape conviction.
Which victim do you think suffered more in these two scenarios -- the rape victim, or the false rape claim victim?
The double standard here is vile. If a boy can be convicted of a felony for delaying just five seconds to do the right thing, then a young woman who waits a week, a month, a year -- ten years! -- to do the right thing sure as hell ought to be punished, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
42 comments:
Ouch.
Even I can't think of anything to say about this. He should have stopped we she told him to but in reflection to the false accuser story and the email, it's just another for of a double standard.
In addition, there is a certain period of time necessary to process the message and to disengage. I don't know exactly how long is reasonable, and it would vary depending on the circumstances -- how much noise was there? Did she, in fact, yell for him to stop? Was she clear? In any event, unless he had springs on his testicles, it's not going to be absolutely instantaneous.
What I find outrageous is that this woman has the nerve to write back and say that she did nothing wrong!
Are you f*ing kidding me? Waiting for 10 years while someone's life is being destroyed?
This evil scummy bitch should be named, shamed, charged, prosecuted and jailed for a very long time. she is a danger to society (false claims are often made multiple times by the same women), and when she gets out, she should have to register as a sex offender.
Making false allegations of rape is a CRIME just as vicious as rape itself. It is time we treat it as such!
No offense, but you people are plain nuts.
You're cutting your nose to spite your face on this one.
1) 10 years is a LONG time to wait - but if the price of recanting is punishment and jail time, no person would EVER recant.
There ARE cases of recanters being punished for it. Notably a young girl arrested for prostitution was pressured by police to falsely accuse a man they were trying to convict for dealing drugs. An ugly sordid thing I'm sure the cops felt was 'justified'.
When the girl tried to rectify the situation years afterward they effectively shut her up by threatening to punish her for recanting.
IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU WANT??
I would GLADLY accept the recantation of my son's accuser. He has suffered long enough.
She WOULD be subject to prosecution if she came forward - so why would she?
You really need to think this one through better.
No offense, Sgt. Mom, but when we are engaging in rational discourse on a serious subject about which I am knowledgeable, we do not appreciate being called "nuts" simply because you don't agree with us. You do whatever merit your argumment might have had a grave disservice by childish name-calling.
I have thought this through, and studied it, for some time. I am familiar with a multitude of cases where rape recanters have been punished. I have written many times that early recantations need to be rewarded because it's often the only way to clear up a disputed rape claim. But once a male is arrested, charged, convicted, etc. the punishment needs to become progressively more severe, recognizing that recantation at any time merits a sentencing discount.
No false rape accuser should ever serve less time than the man she lied about, recantation or no, and waiting ten years to clear a guilty conscience is scarcely what we want to encourage. I think probation would have been appropriate for this woman -- but some punishment was necessary.
The message that must be sent walks a fine line: recant before an innocent male is damaged by your lie, and you will be rewarded. The longer you wait, the more severe the punishment for you. As Prof. Dershowitz said: “Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime and women are not being punished for those crimes. I believe that being falsely accused of rape is as traumatic as being raped.”
The gender feminist empowerment model of the last 25-39 years tells us that women/girls can lie to law enforcement whenever they damn well want to, and will not be held to the same legal standard as men/boys.
Are we are one of the only countries in the world that does not charge false rape accusers. W@hat happens to the boys who are under "gender feminist propaganda assault", whenever they go to school??
answer, They all get put on Ritalin.
Right, anonymous.
Sadly, some of us fall into the same mindset as the radical gender feminists who insist that false accusers not be punished.
Most recantations occur early in the police investigation after police confront the accuser with overwhelming evidence that she lied. If accusers knew there was this progressive scale, where punishments increase with the passage of time, they would be much more likely to recant early. Otherwise she runs the risk (remote though it is in reality -- it DOES happen) of being prosecuted anyway, and not getting any sentencing discount.
We need to start thinking about the men and boys yet-to-be-falsely-accused -- perhaps even some of us reading. What's the most effective way to end the lie early? I'll tell what's NOT an effective way -- letting the accuser know that anytime she recants, whether it be today, next month or even ten years from now, she gets a "get out of jail free" card.
Look. I was being facetious - if I was name calling it would be far more inflammatory than 'nuts'.
Don't put me in the position of defending re canters. Please.
I am a logical person.
I am a person who has prayed daily over ten for for a recantation.
A late day recantation is better than no recantation. If you have argument to the contrary, I would gladly welcome it.
If my son's accuser recanted early on, I was so rage engorged I would have ripped her head off.
That's why wrong doers wait. They wait until it's safe. I would have done anything to pay back in spades. Who wouldn't?
My son has had over ten years to suffer - to reflect. To accept his fate. To adjust to a life of shame. The initial heat of anger has cooled.
His accuser did try to back out of the accusation at one point. The prosecutor threatened to prosecute her mother - the actual guilty person - if she did.
Five years ago I would have mercilessly gone after her and her mother if she recanted. I would have smiled and pretended to go along, then leveled her at the first opportunity.
Now? All I care about is clearing his name.
He has a wife. He has a newborn son.
Sex offender laws and restrictions are spiraling out of control on a daily basis - I would cut my arm off to free him of this.
Re canters being punished or being publicly exposed won't undo what has been done.
Somewhere alone the line, like any other rape victim, you just have to put it behind and move on.
"Look" is what Obama says when he want to put people in their place -- to the point where the media picked up on it and so he's finally stopped doing it.
Look. We understand your emotion, Sgt. Mom. A huge percentage of rape accusers do recant early -- Prof. Eugene Kanin did a nine year study of false rape claims in a midwestern town and found that 41% of all false rape accusers recanted early. We need to get recantations as early as possible.
I admire the restraint of the Mom (if it was me, I would chase these liars to the end of the Earth, and make them pay).
But you have to think: how about all the other boys who are still suffering as we speak?
Your walking away does not help them, did you think about that?
False rape accusers are practically never punished today, actually they are often rewarded with cash and benefits from "women's groups"? So why would they stop?
False rape accusers = rapists
Just for clarification -
Maybe we should define 'recant' more clearly.
Admitting "I lied" when being confronted with whelming evidence that lie will inevitably be exposed is not 'recanting'. They are a liar that got caught red handed and should be nailed to the wall with the full force of the law.
A 're canter' is a liar who succeeded in convicting an innocent person, then voluntarily came forward after the fact with the truth. A 're canter' has full and complete dominion over whether the truth is ever revealed and chose to relinquish their secret.
I believe those caught lying should be loudly and publicly shamed to discourage others from doing it.
I believe re canters should be strongly encouraged and given sanctuary for doing something they really didn't have to do.
I know the word is used interchangeably, but it shouldn't.
Allowing a person caught lying to call it a 'recant' is spraying perfume on a pig.
I hate to bring this to peoples attention and do not mean it to be offensive in any way, but waiting for mothers to bring their sons justice, they may be waiting a while, for some mothers put their legal immunity "super power", before the welfare of their boys.
It will be men of the constitution that demand the rule of the law, and not rule of gender feminist hysteria that will protect innocent boys.
The time progressive model that pierce mentioned gives a false rape acusser a fair warning.. to say "if you want to put an innocent man/boy in jail for 10 years on a false rape accusation,there are going to be consequences.
"Admitting 'I lied' when being confronted with whelming evidence that lie will inevitably be exposed is not 'recanting'."
Oh, come on now, don't be lecturing me about an area I know about. Yes, it is, recanting. "To withdraw or to repudiate formally or publicly." Blacks Law Dictionary, sitting on my shelf here. I understand that's not what YOU mean. And maybe that's the disconnect here.
Scott, I'd say we need the Moms because, as women, they have been socialized to be irrationally fearful of men and suspicious of male sexuality, so that when one of them speaks out against false rape claims, other women will listen. Now when men speak out against false rape claims, some angry women assume the men are speaking from a motive of wanting to rape (and honestly, that's what some think).
archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/29/01209.shtml - 22k
One last salvo about recanting - if you'll please bear with me.
Norma Jean McCovey is probably one of the most prolific false accusers known to mankind.
The lie: She was a helpless female brutally gang raped resulting in pregnancy.
The truth: She was a promiscuous carnival worker with a 'bad reputation' who got 'knocked up'. Again.
By the time she became a Christian and recanted her rape story over 4 million lives ceased to exist.
Norma Jean McCovey was 'Wade' in Roe vs. Wade.
Norma Jean now says she was used by feminist attorneys to promote abortion rights laws.
Whether you support abortion rights or not - the truth is abortion rights came about by way of a false rape accusation.
Funny thing is - the feminist attorneys who championed poor Norma Jean have now turned on her. The public she helped dupe hardly uttered a word of protest when the truth came out.
Good one, Sgt. Mom. They rely on rape to promote their abortion agenda, and they are not beneath making up a false rape claim to do it.
The sad part is that even McCain's position -- opposing abortion except in cases of rape and incest -- would promote false rape claims.
Bottom line: the lives of the innocent -- men and the unborn -- are treated equally in their world.
I'm not attempting to change law dictionaries - but perhaps they should be.
The two paradigms are not interchangeable.
When faced with irrefutable evidence of a lie you have no choice but to 're cant'-unless your angling for an insanity defense, I suppose.
Developing a moral backbone and facing the wrath of a person you harmed by voluntarily admitting you lied-even though you don't have to- is a completely different dynamic.
Again, I caution you to beware of what you ask for.
If 10 years after the fact this woman was 'caught' lying, and admitted it, I say yes. Throw her in prison. Punish her to the nth degree.
If someone has had an epiphany, a revelation, a life lesson or a conscious and is willing to do what they can to make amends - it's inappropriate to punish them for it.
Mr. Mom -- or Sgt. Mom: What you advocate is rewarding false accusers who have already caused most of their harm. Their lies have had their intended effect, but they feel a need to recant. As noted above, they should be given credit and a sentencing discount, but to let them destroy a man's life AND then clear their consciences with impunity isn't justice, under any standard.
Please note that most states would not allow prosecuting her ten years after the fact because of the very short statute of limitations for false rape claims -- yet another double standard. I do not inject that into the discussion because it raises another can of worms.
Don't know where that 'Mr.' came from - a freudian slip, perhaps?
I'll tell you this flat out.
No matter how guilty or bad I may now feel about someone I harmed years ago - if I was going to be punished for coming forward with the truth - I wouldn't.
I'd just live with it.
And they'd just live with it.
Forever.
I've asked myself a thousand times over:
Do I want vengeance, or do I want my son's life back?
Answer:
I want my son's life back.
Period.
Sgt. Mom,
While, by and large I agree with you, the problem is, it completely disregards the fact that someone (usually a man) has just lost X number of months/years of his life in prison. How do you balance that? What you propose, adds insult to injury, and still minimizes the fact that she broke the law.
It doesn't just tell others that they are free to make an accusation, you just have to wait X number of years to come forward with the truth so you won't be punished, it encourages more false accusations, with more time punishing the innocent man.
Ultimately, the point/purpose of our judicial system is to discourage others from comitting crimes. Giving sanctuary to false accusers completely minimizes the damage that was done to the accused. And that would be grotesque.
I understand what you are saying, it's a bit of a catch-22. As you have stated about your son, it still follows him around. I don't care if his accuser comes forward and clears his name. He WON'T be able to put this behind him. The damage is done, as people won't care if she recants. He is stuck with it for life. And you propose she shouldn't pay for that.
That is admirable of you, and I mean that sincerely.
I do have a quick question, and I ask out of curiosity...you say your son is married and has a child. If he is on a sex offender register, how did he get around the typical no contact with children that people on those registers must abide by? Did he get an exception?
All the best
E. Steven Berkimer
so we are debating what to do ten years after a false rape accusation, when this would be all irrelevant if the law enforcement community were allowed to do their investigateive work propperly, TO IN FACT SHE IF SHE IS LYING, within a couple of days of her acussation.
The problem here lies in the modern gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation alliance, that puts pressure on law enforcement to redefine what the meaning of is, is, in order to keep the number of false rape accusations at their "target propaganda number" which is (2%).
Recantations aren't always made willingly. Sometimes they happen because investigators have evidence that the liar can't refute.
If somebody admits to having committed a murder that someone else was convicted for, should that person then be immune to prosecution just because we want more people to come forward? That's ridiculous.
We need to treat false rape accusations the same way we would any other major felony. This is a crime tantamount to rape or attempted murder.
Mom's arguments are an attempt at misdirection. One could argue that someone who falsely accuses another of theft should not be charged after recanting, lest they never recant! Same could be said for all crimes yet the only time this seems to happen is in discussions about false rape accusations. The obvious fact is that if these women knew there would be a heavy price to pay for falsely accusing someone of rape they would be far less likely to do so to begin with. As it is they know they'll probably get away with it, and so have no incentive to not lie.
On a personal level, if someone recants because they've developed a moral back-bone, they've also accepted that they will face the consequences.
If they will only recant if there are no adverse consequences, then it's not really moral at all. It's the right thing to do, but so also is dialing 911 if someone's been hurt. Doing so is not evidence of any great character, but not doing so is evidence of great evil.
I think the argument that punishing recanters will dissuade them is a specious one. Although it's no doubt true, the sheer number of false rape accusers would diminish overnight if only one or two were severely and very publicly punished. That would mean the indecently large numbers of men wrongly accused who would benefit from a recantation would also drop. Better to have fewer men in need of recantation that will never come, than to have much greater numbers in need of a recantation that has a better chance of coming (and probably only a slightly better chance at that).
...an 'attempt at misdirection?...
You gotta be kidding.
I've spent the past 10 years being shunned by my neighbors because my innocent son is a registered sex offender.
They walk by my house whispering and pointing to their children fearfully. Stay away from them. Don't talk to them.
I had to enroll my younger son in a private school in a nearby town after some 'concerned mom' began letting all the other moms know his brother was a registered sex offender. One mother tried to have him removed as hockey captain - so her son could replace him.
My older daughter's fiance broke off the relationship after his 'ex' threatened him with custody issues if he continued seeing her ' after all, her brother 'might' be a danger!
The wonderful young couple next door lost their shirts trying to sell their home - next door to a registered sex offender.
My husband suffered a heart attack at age 48 after seeing our son's battered face and broken wrist incurred during his jail stay. We were told we could sue because he was refused medical treatment - but no jury would award knowing what he had been charged with.
...and you want to imply that I am some weak kneed namby pamby because I wish for this to someday to end?
That I'm somehow in league with false accusers because I no longer care about vengeance - I just want this to end?
Fine.
Guilty as charged.
I "get" what you're saying, Sgt. Mom. I certainly won't question your motives or your suffering. Keep up the fight.
Greetings, FRS crew.
Word gets around, sometimes to odd places. The following might be of interest - notice what the link links to!
http://tinyurl.com/pfq82k
sgt. mom, communication may be hard between folks on this very painfull topic,but have faith that those that blog here are on the same side as you are.
I blog here, because ( as someone who was falselly acussed of a rape that simply never happened) this is one of the only places that gives a voice to men/boys, and now even mothers of boys, that have been falsely acussed of rape.
Please let you're son know he is not alone, for it will comfort him more than anything else you can do. Let him read some of these stories here in the archives, for again, the greatest comfort he will get is to know he is not the only one who has been through this.
Another thing that is not being mentioned here with these false accusations is if the accusation was false then these poor men and boys were put through this hell based on NO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE!!!
That is really sick and scary to think that just lying can do that much damage to someone. It's wrong to let people's lives be ruined over what someone says with no evidence. And like I said before you KNOW there was either NO evidence or evidence that was fraudulent.
And as far as not punishing a false accuser goes because you are afraid they might never recant.
The same goes for murderers. There are countless murderers that came forward on their own and I bet not even one was spared serious jail time.
Rape accusations are less serious than murder USUALLY... some guys do get killed over rape accusations. But none the less letting false accusers off with nothing for recanting is the same as letting a murderer off with nothing after they confess. It's a double standard.
Here is something interesting I found. It may be old but, it holds true today
http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/2005/06/moratorium-on-rape-called-for.html
To answer your question, Archivist, my son has been 'off paper' over 8 years. For a juvenile ajudication, he registers with the local police dept., he wont be publicly listed on the internet until the Adam Walsh act is implemented.
For now, interested parties have to go to the police dept. pay copying fees to find out where he lives, where he works, what car he drives,& all phone #s.
For now, he is considered lowest risk, lowest tier. After the AWA is implemented, he will be ranked the worst of the worst...but then so will thousands of others.
False rape accusations aren't less serious than murder. To be a false rape accusation victim is a fate worse than death.
"waiting for mothers to bring their sons justice, they may be waiting a while, for some mothers put their legal immunity "super power", before the welfare of their boys.
It will be men of the constitution that demand the rule of the law, and not rule of gender feminist hysteria that will protect innocent boys."
We live an era when women are also subject to false accusations and severely punished as well.
There's no immunity or super powers for women falsely accused of child rape or molestation.
The rise of the Child Abuse Industrial Complex has spared no one. Men, women, even children have borne the brunt of false accusations.
We're all aware of the daycare witch hunt hysteria. Women, even elderly women, were imprisoned and railroaded like any man has ever been.
Virginia McMartin. Peggy Buckey. Kelly Michaels. Violet Amirault. Cheryl LeFave.
Over 40 people in the town of Wenatchee, WA, mostly women, were rounded up and imprisoned for child molestations. Social workers and a Minister were in turn accused when they tried to question what was going on.
Every case except for those who accepted Alford pleas were overturned.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terror/
The media likes to imply these witch hunts were a one time aberration, something from the '80's.
No so. It's alive and well, quietly devouring one accused person at a time.
More and more frequently you see female teachers getting busted for having sex with students or their children's friends, and merely getting a slap on the wrist for it, while men in the same situation get slammed.
Those are people actually guilty of the crime.
Innocent people falsely accused who try to maintain their innocence end up being horrifically punished for being 'in denial'.
Child abuse accusation have become so frequent in divorce cases, men actually get a break - it's recognized somewhat.
The AWA is insane. John Walsh is a nut who brags about wanting to stick explosives up the butts of convicts and then set them off.
He's been hauling in money ever since his son died. Why doesn't he contribute all of that money to a fund for victims, if that's all he cares about?
The rise of the Child Abuse Industrial Complex has spared no one. Men, women, even children have borne the brunt of false accusations.
That's right, but mostly it's men. Our system in its present form is evil incarnate. It must be heavily reformed.
Sgt. Mom,
Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it. It sounds like he has found someone who will stand by him through thick and thin.
That's right, but mostly it's men. Our system in its present form is evil incarnate. It must be heavily reformed.Anon, while I certainly agree with this, keep in mind, that while Pierce and I have false rape accusations as our main target, I don't want this to turn into a contest of who the biggest victim is. We should be concerned for all victims of crimes. That is the main difference between the Rape/Child Abuse Industry/Domestic Violence Industry and what we fight for. They only see specific gender in the status of victims.
While the falsely accused are, in the majority, men, with the rise in the number of lesbian rapes, I don't think it will be long until you start seeing more and more false rape accusations leveled at women. I plan to be there for them as well. And I hope those who stop by here will be supportive of that.
Ultimately, this isn't a contest. It is about what is right, and what is moral. Funny, isn't it, that those two things don't always translate into what is legal?
" That's right, but mostly it's men. Our system in its present form is evil incarnate. It must be heavily reformed "
I agree but,there aren't enough people to care about the way the system is run or, who it is run by. Unless someone is affected ro effeted by a false accusation, they aren't as liekely to understand the damages such thing cause4.
fallowing anon's post, there are many womens advocates who are paid lots of money to advocate for women, and they themselves have never been raped, or abused. Pierce and Steve have never had a false rape acussation, and i feel they are doing an excellent job "advocating" for the falsely acussed that cannot seem to advocate for themselves.
"Pierce and Steve have never had a false rape acussation, and i feel they are doing an excellent job "advocating" for the falsely acussed that cannot seem to advocate for themselves."
Thanks, Anon. I, too, disagree with the previous comment -- "there aren't enough people to care about the way the system is run or, who it is run by."
It doesn't take many people to make a difference -- as shown by the marginalized radical feminist left. They have never been, and never will be, a majority in our society. If you took a poll, our positions would beat theirs in a landslide -- no question. Now the trick is convincing enough people that the system is being abused.
You're all retards. It's clear as day. The boy did pull, not just eventually, but within a very short time frame. It's not like he forced her to continue violently (as is apparent by the story), so what the hell is wrong here? The law is flawed. The law should be entirely in the hands of logical people. Men.
This women, she should be punished, she has a victim.
I get what anon means. The majority of people don't care. They are still following the words of feminists and the misinformation complex. Even when the accused and/or convicted are cleared or exonerated, people still hold the accused and convicted in suspicion. Some still believe the crime(s) occured.
Just out of curiosity, does anybody know if a website exists for guys to publicly identify women who withdraw their consent during sex or who try to make these kinds of deals?
Post a Comment