This is among the more important posts we've done here, because it goes to the crux of the false rape problem.
Perhaps the single most glaring reason false rape accusations are not deterred is that making a false rape report is not treated in our criminal statutes as a serious crime. Our criminal laws are supposed to be statutory articulations of how seriously society disapproves of various forms of misconduct. A good indicator of how much society disapproves of a particular crime is the maximum allowable sentence for its commission. The maximum sentence for rape, for example, is typically second in number of years only to murder. In contrast, the statutory laws that punish false rape claims are proverbial slaps on the wrists. The maximum sentences often allow just six months to two years, depending on the jurisdiction.
In addition, our criminal statutes often do not treat false reporting of rape any more seriously than false reporting of other crimes. This is so even though: (1) the FBI tells us that false rape reporting is multiple times more common than false reporting of other crimes (and it is more common because it is so easy to do -- the he said/she said nature of the rape claim means that it's usually impossible to know for sure if she lied), and (2) a man or boy convicted of rape will serve more prison time on average than for any crime except murder.
It has become obvious to many people in recent years that false reporting of rape is a special problem in need of special attention. The brilliant legal scholar Professor Alan 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.”
Exactly how did we reach this point? Until relatively recently our criminal laws typically required some form of corroborative evidence to prove rape. In days gone by, the lone accusation of a woman or a girl was not enough to charge or convict for rape. Starting in the 1970s, rape laws underwent sweeping reforms to make it easier to convict men and boys. The requirement of corroboration was among the first casualties of the old laws. Feminist legal scholars provided the intellectual firepower to justify the changes in the law. They insisted, contrary to what we now know is true, that women hardly ever lie about rape. It was during this era that the two percent canard (i.e., only two percent of all rape claims are false) was invented out of whole cloth. Due to these changes in the law, fueled by dishonest statistics, it is now possible to charge and to convict men and boys of rape solely on the say-so of lone accuser. Men and boys, for the first time, face the spectre of having their lives destroyed if a false accuser is a good enough actress. As but one recent example, because it is not necessary to have corroboration, it was possible to arrest and charge four innocent men at Hofstra University based on the say-so of one "troubled" young woman.
When the laws requiring corroboration were repealed, the power of a lone accuser was greatly enhanced. She could send her rapist to prison for many years. The trouble was, she could also send an innocent man or boy to prison for many years. Because of the political climate, it was verboten to discuss the possibility that the rape accuser might misuse her newly enhanced power, or to suggest that the misuse of this power should have serious consequences. Such sentiments were contrary to the culturally accepted myth that women don't lie about rape. In short, society handed theoretically every female in America the power to destroy theoretically any male above a certain age, but it didn't bother to change the laws to penalize the misuse of that power. We are still stuck with the old false reporting statutes that were in place back before the need for corroboration was eliminated from our rape laws.
Political correctness be damned, women do lie about rape, and frequently. The fact that we have given females the power to destroy men and boys means that we need to hold them accountable for misusing that power. As Professor Dershowitz said, they are not being held accountable at present.
We need to amend our criminal statutes to impose greater penalties for false reporting of rape and sexual assault. Only then will false accusers be deterred. Only then will they be punished justly. And only then will we treat the victimization of our sons with the seriousness that we treat the victimization of our daughters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
You also need to amend Police procedures.
In my police "interrogations" I repeatedly pointed out to the police that my accusers were not merely lying, but demonstrably perjurers.
The police had less than zero interest in this, they were only interested in securing a conviction, for an alleged crime that never happened, while deliberately ignoring a serious crime (attempting to pervert the course of justice) that did happen.
It is going to get worse too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-secretary-alan-johnson-announces-new-powers-on-domestic-violence-1794915.html
AfOR
The post I've put up will become the drum we meed to incessantly beat. The change I am advocating will do more to deter false rape reporting than anything else could. It will signal to the would-be false accuser AND to the police that false accusations are a serious matter. At present, no one believes that they are, outside of a few of us who congregate at this site. I need everybody to get behind this initiative.
P.S. Anon at 9:29: Re: the news report you've cited: the country that gave the world due process of law is now taking it away from half its population. And men tolerate this . . . why?
Thank you, Pierce and Steve! I found this very interesting and enlightening. I don't think most readers here understand why we are where we are, and what needs to be changed. I agree that if we're going to give women and girls the power to nab their rapist, we need to hold them responsible for misusing that power.
A gun has a lot of power, too. Society has no problem punishing gun owmers for abusing that power. But false accusers? Forget it.
Excellent post.
I'm behind you! This is ground-zero for the false rape movement.
Awesome post! "Rights without responsibilities" is an excellent description of women's situation in the US. This has to stop!
Thanks Anon at 12:18. I agree with other comment -- this really is ground-zero for what we do here.
Pierce,
this is off-topic, but how's your book going? I am interested in getting it at first opportunity.
"In my police "interrogations""
'Inquisition by a death squad' is a better way to put it word.
'word' should not be there in the above.
Norm, hoping to have a draft by the end of the year. Thanks for asking.
Within the article:
"Exactly how did we reach this point? Until relatively recently our criminal laws typically required some form of corroborative evidence to prove rape. In days gone by, the lone accusation of a woman or a girl was not enough to charge or convict for rape. Starting in the 1970s, rape laws underwent sweeping reforms to make it easier to convict men and boys. The requirement of corroboration was among the first casualties of the old laws."
You are focusing on corroboration as a requirement for conviction prior to the 1970. That's when society became aware that scores of women were being raped with only a handful of official reports because of the shame, fear, and stigma attached to victims. Therefore most victims refused to file charges (victim blaming).
Had society NOT implemented tougher rape laws, women would still be unequipped to bring her attacker to justice.
Actually, even today, it is extremely hard to get a conviction against a rapist.
Why don't you give PLENTY of several examples of "corroboration" as it pertained to the laws PRIOR to the 1970s?
You're a liar, a-troll. The lowering of standards for rape prosecutions was driven by feminist whining and man-blaming, not by anything practical. Lowering the bar accomplished nothing.
The reduction of rape rates was accomplished by tougher penalties on crimes other than rape, which lowered the overall criminal presence on the streets.
Atom at 2:07: You have not, because you cannot, refute a single point in my post. The two percent canard was feminist overkill to gain sweeping reforms of rape laws. Many of those reforms were good, and would have come about if the proponents were simply honest. They were not honest. Ed Greer's landmark law review article (I am sure you've read it) traced the two percent claim to its disingenuous source).
The purpose of the post was not to attack the no-corroboration rule -- I could have simply advocted for its abolition. The purpose was to assert that with the enhanced power given to accusers, there needs to be corallary punishment in the event that power is misused.
We will not have this issue sidetracked. That is what we are addressing here. If you would prefer to discuss a different issue, you should start your own blog.
"Actually, even today, it is extremely hard to get a conviction against a rapist."
And almost impossible to get a conviction against a false rape claimant, because they aren't charged. They are let of the hook because they are women.
It is easier to falsely convict a man of rape or molestation than anything else.
And a-troll is obviously a feminist; the housewife disguise has worn off.
I think the A-troll is a college student taken women's studies classes. Her teacher helped her with that last comment.
"Ed Greer's landmark law review article (I am sure you've read it) traced the two percent claim to its disingenuous source)."
Not only that, but Warren Farrell himself actually called and spoke by phone with a high-ranking person at N.O.W., and she admitted there was no evidence for the 2% claim. I believe he names her in one of his books, either 'Myth of Male Power', or 'Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say'.
Rape hysteria seems to be a societal cyclical thing. The last huge bout of American Rape hysteria..was when black men were being beaten to death, sexually mutilated, and hung ..over Rape accusations in the south.
The turning point in American history of the lynchings of the Black men over Rape accusations; was not when the north beat the south in the civil war...The turning point that shocked America out of it's Rape mass hysteria...lynch mentality..Was in fact the scottborro boys case. Prior to the Scottsborro boys case...Prior to thee scttborro boys case, Society just could not believe women / girls ..would EVER EVER EVER ..lie about something like that.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/scottsboro/scottsb.htm
But a few generations have passed since the Scottborro boys case woke folks up to the RAPE KLAN LYNCH mentality...that accompanies Rape accusations. AND RAPE HYSTERIA IS BACK!!! But the patriarchy is so broke we can't fix it
Norm,
It was Myth of Male Power. I just got done reading it....again. I'll pull up the exact quote and page later today when I get home.
Atom,
You are focusing on corroboration as a requirement for conviction prior to the 1970.
Starting in the 1970s, rape laws underwent sweeping reforms to make it easier to convict men and boys. The requirement of corroboration was among the first casualties of the old laws.
No, the post talks of the lack of corroboration needed in todays environment, and how that started to change in the 70's.
The very first comment from AFOR has it. What needs to happen is there needs to be neutral investigation by police, who follow up every bit of evidence, no matter where it comes from, before any arrests are made.
The biggest, and most glaringly obvious thing that needs to happen, is that all involved should be provided anonymity, until such time as a conviction is obtained. No press releases of names, and if the press does, they can't hide behind the 1st amendment. Because the 1st amendment doesn't protect from comission of a crime (hindering a police investigation).
Steve/The Archivist is correct about the necessity for neutral investigation before any arrests are made, and about anonymity. In case it's not apparent, those were two of the three prongs in our false rape poll last summer -- the third was the subject of our post: the need for greater accountability.
If we can change those three things, we can shut this site down.
Pierce, YOU said:
"Starting in the 1970s, rape laws underwent sweeping reforms to make it easier to convict men and boys. The requirement of corroboration was among the first casualties of the old laws."
So why did you accuse me of "sidetracking" when I asked you for specific examples of how the requirement of CORROBORATION played out prior to the 1970s?
Answer the question!
I think anon 4:18 is a psycho.
Atom, i think you are a pervert, and should be held accountable for the harm done to innocent men/boys.
The last huge bout of American Rape hysteria..was when black men were being beaten to death, sexually mutilated, and hung ..over Rape accusations in the south.
**********
That's right, and black men are still being screwed over by white women. At the very least feminism is a complete distraction from the real historical oppression, which has been discrimination against black men.
Which is not to say that we don't need to put those issues to rest at some point -- but come on; white women are the big victims in history? Give me a break!
Atom,
GET OUT OF HERE!
I think anon 4:18 is a psycho.
This coming from a nutso who calls for the Hofstra boys to be "euthanized!" Just for having consensual sex!
Rape hysteria is being propelled by the current law enforcement / gender feminist misinformation ALLIANCE.
Who gave the law enforcement community the authority to manufacture and distribute faulty and inflammatory misinformation to the public??? Our in house hogwash expert ATOM, points out that the American perversion ALLIANCE started around 1970.
I have really understood the true meaning of the term HOGWASH.
HOGWASH...is the language or non-sense arguments...used by hogs to distract or control the dialogue.
No, I posted nothing about the 1970s -- that was Pierce. And he still evades my 6:01 question.
His answer is pivital in this discussion because he is the one who brought up the subject of "corroboration" ... a requirement prior to the 1970s.
The results of lowering the bar on proof in rape cases is painfully obvious to those of us who read this blog regularly, and who aren't here to get attention by being a jackass.
If YOU were accused of rape by some lowlife who was making it up, wouldn't YOU want there to be a high standard of proof?
Feminists always throw the Golden Rule out the window in their quest for special victim status.
@6:59, my question remains unanswered.
@6:59, my question remains unanswered.
Get used to it.
His answer is pivital in this discussion
There is no "discussion" going on. You have clearly indicated that your intention is to sabotage any real discussion which might take place, and that you will ignore the very answers you are trying to demand.
We could just ignore you, but you probably couldn't figure out that was happening and just keep throwing tantrums. You have no power here except what is given to you by gentlemanly standards of social discourse.
Now that you have proven you have no interest in engaging in such, we no longer have any reason to acknowledge your existence other than to remind you how insignificant you really are.
"I think the A-troll is a college student taken women's studies classes. "
I myself think she's a no-account floor sweeper working the graveyard shift in some warehouse some place, using the company's DOS computer, like the boss told her not to do...I don't know - maybe Dunn Geep, Idaho. Not being near an urban center, she cannot find help for her disorder(s), this is why her comments seem to be from outer space.
"HOGWASH...is the language or non-sense arguments...used by hogs to distract or control the dialogue."
Or, it could be hog urine they keep using to hose us. That's what feminists use for perfume anyway.
"That's right, and black men are still being screwed over by white women. At the very least feminism is a complete distraction from the real historical oppression, which has been discrimination against black men."
off-topic, but,
White women have been screwing over blacks since at least the sufragists moveement. This movement was an elitist one, and these women made it perfectly clear that it was only for white women, i.e., not black women.
Feminists often spew forth historical items such as that women gained the right to vote "even later" than blacks. Now, that statement right there gives away the elitism.
And besides, it is wrong - blacks didn't fully have the right to vote until LBJ created the Civil Rights Act in the 60's.
In the workplace: Since unlike women, blacks have truly been historically disadvantaged, it is a valid argument for affirmative action for them. But for women? Ludicrous. Feminists use arguments like, 'females are under-represented..' But if we were to act on that, we would have to have at least one more black person on the Supreme Court, not to mention an Asian, another Hispanic person, an American Indian, and even a Lithuanian midget. (Sorry if anyone's Lithuanian or short but you get the idea). The reality is that feminism is an ideologically-driven special interest group - it has nothing to do with equality.
Now, what's interesting is, in spite of all of this, feminists attempt to side with blacks, and gay people, and others to upend the evil white heterosexual male patriarchal structure. The MR movement will begin to be much more successful when all men unite and realize what is being done to them as a class.
That's fine, say whatever you wish, but you've made it very clear:
Pierce totally ignored the question. How eerie! Apparently, I hit on something big that none of you are willing to tackle.
Once again, how did CORROBORATION play out prior to the 1970s, as Pierce claimed ... in the article.
Tres interesante!
lol, what?!
now you're bring RACE into this?
You have a computer, I assume, and you can type, I assume, and you know what google is don't you? your attempt to get other people to do your research for you is just a smoke screen - you are trying to make it look as if there is an important question 'dangling', but the reality is you are too lazy, and you don't want to find out for yourself because you wouldn't like the answer.
I'm addressing someone else's comment, dipstick. And, I acknowledged it was off-topic. But all that doesn't matter anyway, as this has nothing to do with whatever you and Pierce were talking about. In fact, I just now got around to looking at your other comments.
Apparently, I hit on something big that none of you are willing to tackle.
No, we are just annoyed with your drivel. You are useless, but only as bothersome as we allow you to be. The only reason some of us even bother to read your comments is to find something to pick at you about.
This is beyond anything even the most mentally limited self serving child would do. No will answer your questions, no one will engage you. If you want to stick around and keep making a complete fool of yourself, be our guest.
you are trying to make it look as if there is an important question 'dangling'
Mostly she is just seeing how obnoxious she can be. I've met lots like her. She can't get anyone to interact with her in person, so she gets on the net and does her imitation of painful rectal itch hoping she can irritate someone enough to scratch at her.
"Once again, how did CORROBORATION play out prior to the 1970s, as Pierce claimed ... in the article."
I accidentally saw this question. How did corroboration play out? Far fewer false rape claims.
The "big" change was allowing wives to cry rape. (Now understand that prior to the 70s wives always could cry "assault and battery"). You know that that change meant? Essentially nothing.
No more sidetracks from this fucking troll. I am suggesting a complete ban on responding to Jeana, Atom and Renee and anyone else who acts like a jackass.
"Once again, how did CORROBORATION play out prior to the 1970s, as Pierce claimed ... in the article."
I accidentally saw this question. How did corroboration play out? Far fewer false rape claims.
The "big" change was allowing wives to cry rape. (Now understand that prior to the 70s wives always could cry "assault and battery"). You know that that change meant? Essentially nothing.
No more sidetracks from this fucking troll. I am suggesting a complete ban on responding to Jeana, Atom and Renee and anyone else who acts like a jackass.
I am suggesting a complete ban on responding to Jeana, Atom and Renee and anyone else who acts like a jackass.
I only skim their posts to see if I can find something to pick at and see if I can piss them off by shoving the fact that they are absolutely powerless in their faces. But, if you will really stop, then so will I.
But, that really means to just ignore them entirely and do not dignify their drivel with a response.
This is a classic feminist tactic - just keep at you until they wear you down. Repsonding to them as though they were actually dealing in good faith just eggs them on in their disruptive techniques and validates that such techniques remain effective no matter how badly they are overused.
Somebody took a lame stab at answering "how corroboration played out prior to the 70s?
Here's his answer:
"Far fewer false rape claims".
Considering that there were hardly any reports of RAPE back then? duh
What an absolute absurd response. You should have remained MUM like your peers.
"she gets on the net and does her imitation of painful rectal itch hoping she can irritate someone enough to scratch at her"
You mean she's a hemorrhoid? I agree.
Considering that there were hardly any reports of RAPE back then? duh
What an absolute absurd response. You should have remained MUM like your peers.
********
There are far fewer women crying rape everywhere else in the world. Do you think maybe that's because so many women in the US lie about rape because they're encouraged to? Or are there really ten times more rapists per capita in the US than in many other countries?
Common sense. Use it.
Political correctness be damned, women do lie about rape, and frequently.
I agree that women do lie about rape, however, I disagree that we can accurately state how often it occurs. Most rape cases do not involve evidence either way, therefore we possess no conclusive means of determining the actual rate of false reports. That said, I do agree that we should have a higher burden of proof because of the easy with which a person can tell a believable lie. I do not think this should be limited to rape cases either. I think all crimes should have a higher burden of proof than simply someone making an accusation. The problem is that many real victims do not report their abuse or rapes until some time after the assaults occurred. This would mean that actual cases of rape would fail to be prosecuted, particularly if the assaults were not violent and left no scars.
I think this is why certain aspects of rape shield laws should either be lessened or removed, particularly the aspect in which an accuser's history of accusations of rape and challenges of the accuser's credibility. In some instances an accuser's sexual history is relevant to the case, yet rape shield laws block any mentioning of that. Cases with gross inconsistencies often make it to trial, bu the accuser's actions before and after the alleged rape are not necessarily allowed in as evidence, all of which forces the accused to prove (typically) his innocence. Those are changes that I think should be made in order to ensure that false reports are caught.
The fact that we have given females the power to destroy men and boys means that we need to hold them accountable for misusing that power. As Professor Dershowitz said, they are not being held accountable at present.
I agree with this. While feminists and women's groups claim that placing more stringent sentences on false accusers would deter real victims from coming forward (something that is simply claimed without a shred of proof supporting it), I believe that the possibility of facing a stiff sentence would make women think twice about making a false claim out of pure vindictiveness. The first thing that must be challenged, however, is the notion that women who make these claims are simply "emotionally disturbed." That excuse, which is often used to excuse female rapists and pedophiles, needs to be thrown out. Most rapists suffer from some form of mental issue or personality disorder that makes them emotionally unstable, but we do not allow that as an excuse for a pass. The same thing should apply to false accusations, particularly given the social impact a false accusation can have on a person's life.
Do you know why the feminists say that? Because they don't want to go to jail.
"I disagree that we can accurately state how often it occurs."
I agree with you on that, and I have never said I know what that number is. We are aware of a number of unbiased studies that show us a pretty good-sized range, likely from 18 to 60 percent. But whatever the number, it's significant.
"I think all crimes should have a higher burden of proof than simply someone making an accusation."
All crimes DO have a higher burden of proof -- "beyond a reasonable doubt" means exactly that. The problem is arresting and charging when it's not clear if a rape has occurred.
"The problem is that many real victims do not report their abuse or rapes until some time after the assaults occurred."
"Many"? I don't know what this number is, either, but I have recently posted a very authoritative piece by a respected writer who concludes that underreporting (not the same as delayed reporting, I know) may or may not be true -- the entire field is too politicized to know if this is a real problem. My suspicion is the same is true for delayed reporting. I have no idea how many delayed reports are true.
". . . this is why certain aspects of rape shield laws should either be lessened or removed . . . ."
The far more significant problem for the falsely accused is Fed.R.Evid. 413 and its state law progeny. These are the most unjust laws in our entire jurisprudence.
"The first thing that must be challenged, however, is the notion that women who make these claims are simply 'emotionally disturbed.'"
I agree with this. "Emotionally disturbed" -- the same thing probably could be said about Beethoven and Van Gogh, and nobody suggests they weren't responsible for their actions.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a joke. Jurors just apply whatever standard they feel like applying.
Post a Comment