Prof. Samuel Pillsbury, Loyola Law School, has published a new book, and here is an excerpt:
"In the 1970s and 80s, rape reformers argued that the percentage of false claims was very low and certainly no higher than other crimes of violence. . . . . Reformers argued that the disincentives to claiming rape, both legal and cultural, were so great that few if any women would make a false claim.
"More recent studies suggest that the problems of false claims -- at least at the initial investigation stage -- is real. There are a significant number of claims that, on police investigation, appear to be false. Some of these claims may be made to avoid bad personal consequences from consensual sexual activity. Fortunately, the great majority of such claims never result in formal criminal charges."
Samuel H. Pillsbury, How Criminal Law Works: A Conceptual and Practical Guide, Pages 272-73 (2009).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
This is exactly right. I would add that for a person in mainstream academia to say pretty much what we say here requires enormous courage.
Please note that this site generally deals only with the tip of the iceberg, according to the Professor. The claims that are formally charged.
It's sad that in modern day America an entire class of people are allowed to be victimized-and their victimization is even encouraged. I'm referring,of course,to men.
This book may be written in a manner than even *I* can understand, and from the Table of Contents, it looks interesting. I might actually learn something.
Can you tell me what Men's "Rea" means?
Also, is there a self-guide section that shows the reader how to submit a formal civil complaint w/o consulting an attorney?
Atom
criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal).
It is usually a necessary element in prosecution, that the defendant willfully and knowingly comitted the crime, with the knowledge that it WAS a crime.
If I'm incorrect on that, I'm sure Pierce will correct me. :)
I see, okay, thanks.
Atom,
there was a book+ (cited here ealier this year) written by the some Radfem lawyer. It talked about getting rid of the need to prove Mens Rea in Rape trials.
And she certainly isn't the first feminist to suggest that.
Atom/GG - "Can you tell me what Men's "Rea" means?"
Technically, It's "mens", meaning "the mind", not men's, as in the possessive form for that belonging to men. (think of mensa)
Odd that for "guilty" it should be feminine form "rea" rather than the neuter form "reum"
Perhaps our legal ancestors where on to something?
sorry to post this here guys, my email is offline, but I thought you might find it interesting,
from the Daily Telegraph (UK)today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6468036/Prison-inevitable-for-false-rape-claims.html
Prison 'inevitable' for false rape claims
The Court of Appeal said false allegations damage conviction rates of genuine rapes and are "terrifying" for innocent victims.
The judges spoke out as they dismissed an appeal by a former nurse who was jailed for two years after falsely accusing a man she met online.
He said the two-year sentence was "well-measured" and warned: "An immediate custodial sentence is inevitable when a false allegation of rape is made."
It was an offence which "attacks the criminal justice system". Scarce police resources were also diverted and innocent victims faced a "terrifying allegation", he said.
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "False allegations of rape are an insult to the victims of this horrendous crime and contribute to the disgracefully low conviction rates.
“Those who make false allegations maliciously should expect to be dealt with in the strongest possible manner.”
“Those who make false allegations maliciously should expect to be dealt with in the strongest possible manner.”
Bit of an empty threat, isn't it? Two years is the "strongest possible manner"?
Anon, two years is good. It's a long time -- not long enough -- but if every one of these claims got two years, I suspect the problem would largely go away.
"Anon, two years is good. It's a long time -- not long enough -- but if every one of these claims got two years, I suspect the problem would largely go away."
Definitely better than nothing, I agree.
“Those who make false allegations maliciously should expect to be dealt with in the strongest possible manner.”
Bit of an empty threat, isn't it? Two years is the "strongest possible manner"?
LOL! The strongest possible manner, huh?
Meaning that one in a thousand false rape accusers get a whole two years, while their victims remain tarnished for life?
Two years is nothin'.
@Arch,
"two years is good"
I agree; and this is the one single area where I disagree with Warren Farrell, who says, as a blanket statement, that the punishment for a false accuser should be equivalent to the punishment for rape.
Although perhaps there should be a little flexibility allowed in sentencing for the injustice suffered by the accused, like if he was already in prison for a long time before exhoneration, or if he was beaten senseless by an unruly fascist mob, or the like.
I don't agree. The criminal should never be threatened with less time than the victim potentially faced. Many falsely convicted men would love to have served only two years.
There are women who would love to see men serve more than they already do.
Anonymous I don't agree. The criminal should never be threatened with less time than the victim potentially faced. Many falsely convicted men would love to have served only two years.
Oct 31, 2009 6:42:00 PM
But they don't just serve two years - even if their jail time is two years, they face a lifetime of registration. Registration means living restrictions, job restrictions, and whatever ex post facto laws come into play in the future.
It's a life sentence.
Post a Comment