Liars who cry rape strike at the heart of our justice system
By Richard O'haganLast updated at 2:00 PM on 22nd July 2009
Rape. It’s a hugely emotive issue, so let’s get the basic stuff out of the way first.
Rape and other sexual assaults are, without doubt, the second most heinous crimes on our statute book, ranking just behind those offences which result in actual death but well ahead of all the other assaults that can be perpetrated against an individual.
At the core of the justice system, which exists to punish those who commit crimes, is the expectation that victims will tell the truth about the things which have happened to them.
Lying subverts the whole process and, arguably, to lie in court is to commit a far worse offence than the one committed against you. Quite rightly, the courts are quick to punish those who lie to them – as Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer found out to their cost.
All of this makes it even more remarkable that anyone would want to falsely claim that they have been raped, yet such cases appear to be on the increase.
The conviction of Jennifer Day is just one of several cases this year - yet each case is apparently no deterrent to others.
One of the reasons for this may be the comparatively light sentences handed out to the accusers.
A man convicted falsely of rape faces a sentence of life imprisonment, whereas the false accuser’s jail term is unlikely to exceed the two years given to Ms Day. That is a heck of a discrepancy, whichever way you look at it.
The obvious answer is to make the punishment for lying about the offence akin to the punishment which the wrongfully accused would have faced if convicted of it.
This would bring lying into line with the law on criminal attempts; attempting to commit a crime and failing attracts exactly the same penalty as committing the crime in virtually all situations.
Would Ms Day – or any other woman convicted of the offence in the past – have done something quite so foolish if she had known it would lead to a potential life sentence?
As Judge Ian Graham rightly pointed out to Ms Day, lying about rape makes it that much more difficult for other rape victims to have their cases taken seriously and that much more difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions in even the most deserving of cases.
What he could have gone on to say is that liars strike at the very heart of our justice system. Judges now need proper powers to sentence them.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1201418/Liars-rape-strike-heart-justice-system.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Richard O'hagan - "The obvious answer is to make the punishment for lying about the offence akin to the punishment which the wrongfully accused would have faced if convicted of it."
I would add a caveat here, however. False accusers should only be given a comparably stiff sentence (to that which the accused faced) if their lie is discovered by means other than their own voluntary recantation.
Leaving open the possibility to reduce their punishment by confessing themselves (the earlier, the lighter) would likely act to encourage more of them to do so.
slwerner,
Agreed. Here, is another article on the same story. The last 2 paragraphs of this one are to me, the most poingant:
The courts have begun to recognise the trauma suffered by those who are falsely accused, with one taxi driver whose 'life was ruined' by false claims expected to receive a five figure payout, while a former magistrate who spent two years in jail on false rape charges is currently suing his accuser for £300,000.
However victims of false charges say the law needs to immediately grant accusers anonymity until proven guilty.
Slowly but surely we are starting to see more custodial sentences handed down for false accusations. Now if we can just get the MSM to stop sensationalizing the stories, and naming the accused, we'll have made some major headway.
We can dream.
Rape and other sexual assaults are, without doubt, the second most heinous crimes on our statute book, ranking just behind those offences which result in actual death but well ahead of all the other assaults that can be perpetrated against an individual.
Oh really? Having your boobs grabbed in a bar is worse than, say, identity theft?
Sorry, meant to add this.
In that last sentence, I assume they meant to write:
However victims of false charges say the law needs to immediately grant accused anonymity until proven guilty.
I'm waiting for an explanation as to how rape is "way ahead" of false rape accusations as an assault on an individual. The latter is much, much more damaging to the victim.
Filing a false police report is a felony, but I don't know if making it equal to the crime accused will work. I have a situation where there is insurance fraud and a false police report. People get away with this on a daily basis. When someone is accused of a crime the justice system doesn't always consider the source very carefully or investigate them. Rather, the system moves to protect the witness--even when a deeper investigation would conclude that the "witness" is giving false testimony.
This is true -- although it isn't necessarily the law the needs to be changed. Laws are already on the books in many states that provide very severe penalties for felony false police reports. But if a bunch of phonies are running the legal systsem then those laws don't count for much.
"Rape and other sexual assaults are, without doubt, the second most heinous crimes on our statute book..."
There's so much doubt it's too silly to say.
Not all rapes are equal. Apparently having sex while drunk (both parties) is rape. Engaging reluctantly in a new sexual position with an otherwise regular sexual partner is rape.
How is that worse that a brutal beating leaving a man brain-damaged and unable to talk or feed himself for the rest of his life?
Given the choice, which fate would you choose?
"Second-most heinous crime" my right-royal rump!
It's just plain ludicrous to suggest that rape is worse crime than all other forms of assualt. A guy getting beaten within an inch of his life is certainly worse. Elevating the crime of rape to some special high status is due to how we 'big up' women, and how seriously we take subversion of the male dominance hierarchy.
Who strikes the heart string of a jury, and the general public more; A "victim" giving tearful testimony or, an accused man who, no matter what his facial expression or behavior are, is already presumed guilty because of the imposed image(s) of men by the media and law enforcement?
"an accused man who, no matter what his facial expression or behavior are, is already presumed guilty because of the imposed image(s) of men by the media and law enforcement?"
Sort of a tangential issue, but I'd go one step further about facial expressions (and voice tone, and etc.)
and say that especially when it comes to our justice(sic) system, people read stuff into those nuances of behavior because of their preconceived notions about a given case.
More specifically, if a man is assumed guilty of rape, then if he
1)cries, he is ipso facto faking, so let's really nail him.
2)speaks evenly and/or exhibits 'lack of affect' in his facial expression, he is callous so let's really nail him.
3)speaks intelligently, so he knew what he was doing...
You get my drift.
p.s. Pierce, did I use 'ipso facto' correctly? Actually I have a Latin dictionary on my shelf, but it's just there for show, and besides I'd have to get up to go look at it.
You got the idea Norm.
"All Intercourse is rape."
You better start believing it. Today's heterosexuality comes with a silent, secret refund policy.
Post a Comment