In a story we'll be reporting on soon, a Florida woman who didn't want her boyfriend to leave her for cheating made up a story she was raped. Police are prepared to ask her to pay for the six hours of investigation instead of jail time. Beneath the story, readers left typically outraged comments, and one said this: "Jail time PLEASE , someone could have gone to jail for a very long time because of her lie. Fraud is against the law, make her pick up trash along side the road with a sign on her back 'I cried Rape Falsely.'"
This got me thinking that I love the idea of forcing false accusers to wear signs in public places. It would brand them for what they are in a very public way. The element of shame might actually deter young women who assume they retain lifelong anonymity regardless of their fraud merely because the word "rape" passed their lips.
But somehow I doubt that we'll ever see it. It's because we have powerful forces who don't think false accusers are real criminals who deserve to be shamed. There was a case twenty years ago where a judge's sentence required the false accuser to apologize to the man she falsely accused in half-page advertisements in four newspapers and 10 spot announcements on two radio stations. The judge explained: ". . . the rape charges were all over the papers, but when [the innocent man] was exonerated nobody hears about it. I told [the false accuser] the only way to get it out was to have her do it.'' Yet the ACLU fought it, alleging among other things that an apology constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Did you get that? Cruel and unusual punishment. This, after the woman's rape lie led to the following: an innocent man lost his job; his family was harassed; his children were taunted at school; his one daughter was forced to quit school altogether; his wife got to the point that she hated even going shopping; people in town were buying guns because of this innocent man; and women feared him.
But, you see, it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to require the liar to apologize for the grievous harm she caused. Heaven forbid she should apologize for destroying a man and his family.
Now compare that to the case from several years ago at Milton Academy, Massachusetts. A 15-year-old girl engaged in group sex with five teenage boys in the boys' locker room. They were 16. We all know what happened: only the boys were expelled and charged with statutory rape, and the court ordered the boys to publicly apologize to the girl and her family, and to do community service. Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and criminal defense lawyer whose daughter attended Milton Academy, said: ''This represents the most senseless use of prosecutorial discretion I've seen in a long time." He added: ''The idea that these youngsters should be branded rapists and the girl should be labeled a victim is preposterous."
Read on only if you want to get your blood boiling. The 16-year-old boys composed and read their apologies to their statutory rapist -- the girl -- and her family, in open court, as part of their plea bargain. One boy read this: ''Not a day has passed since the incident that I don't wish I had shown more respect for you, myself, and everyone involved. 'I understand that by taking part I put myself in a very dangerous situation with consequences none of us had dreamed of." Another boy read this: ''Every day I am sorry, so sorry, for what happened. Ad every day I think of how hurt you must be and how upset your family must be. More than anything in the world I wish that I could turn back the clock. . . . All I can do at this point is truly and sincerely apologize for my actions and wish you happiness."
The girl and her family sat there stony-faced as the boys were publicly emasculated.
And, dear readers, if the double standards here don't sicken you, if they don't stir a loathing within you for the injustice described, I am not sure what will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Archivist,
Did the ACLU get their way in the case you cited? In Mass., were the 5 boys convicted of statutory rape or did they get a plea deal? (I'm not trying to prove a point. I just want to know the end of the "story.")
The woman did not appeal her sentence for fear that she would receive something worse, so apparently she placed the ads.
The boys were tried as juveniles and entered into a plea bargain. Aside from the apology, they were forced to undergo counseling, complete 100 hours of community service, and serve at least two years of probation. Which is, of course, a much greater sentence than many false accusers get for destroying someone's life.
Oh, and by the way: in the Milton Academy case, the boys' names were printed in the newspaper!!!! The poor "victim" retained her lifelong anonymity.
False rape accusers should be on the sex offender registry for life.
In addition to serious prison time of course.
But having them on a public registry would protect innocent guys from going to prison for being around them.
"make her pick up trash along side the road with a sign on her back 'I cried Rape Falsely"
Now, there's I idea I can get behind. A little public shame will go a long way in teaching not only the thoughtless lair, but others who would have thought to use a rape lie for their own ends.
Bravo!
"A 15-year-old girl engaged in group sex with five teenage boys in the boys' locker room. They were 16. We all know what happened: only the boys were expelled and charged with statutory rape..."
I don't know MA law, but, in Colorado, by statute, for underaged participants, there has to be a 3-year age difference for it to even be considered for a statutory rape charge - and even with the age difference, it can still be declined for prosecution based on the situation (i.e. no parents pushing for a punishment)*.
Milton Academy, hum?? I'm guessing the little skank's family had a lot more money than her boy-toy's families.
*[I cannot tell you how many prosecutors (not just my wife) who I've heard decrying having to prosecute teenage sex (typically, when a parent insists that they do so). They are so glad when the is less than a three year age difference so they can dismiss such cases with the backing of the law. When some parent is up in arms wanting some boy’s life ruined because their daughter wanted to f*ck, they can be told, “sorry, there’s no crime we can charge him with”.
Just something I wanted to point out for all those obsessed with the supposed law enforcement conspiracy. I know it bound to offend, but I still believe that you need to hear a little balance on this one]
There was no age differental law in Mass at the time -- my guess is that there is now. It's so damn obvious that there should be.
And there was the case out of New York last year that said prosecutors can't selectively enforce statutory rape law based on gender. HOORAY! It's easy to make the "oversexed" boy the villian, but that's not what the law says.
I agree that false accusers should be made to publicly wear signs while they do community service.
Their names should also be publicised, and they should be placed on the sex offenders register for life.
I totally agree Snark!
true,this double standard makes me so sick that i almost needed to puke reeading this.
They should make prosecution of FRA's (and any other lies made in/to court) mandatory with a harsh sentence.
And there was the case out of New York last year that said prosecutors can't selectively enforce statutory rape law based on gender.
Prosecutors have unlimited discretion as to whom they charge and under what statute the crime falls. If a prosecutor declines to charge women and girls with statutory rape, as is standard practice, who is going to force them to do otherwise?
Who is going to force them? The appellate court, that's who. I said NY, I meant Mass. See Commonwealth v. Bernardo, B., 453 Mass. 158, *; 900 N.E.2d 834 (2009): In holding that prosecutors may not selectively enforce statutory rape laws based on gender, the court noted, inter alia: "Prosecutorial discretion, however, is not unbounded. . . . . The Federal and Massachusetts Constitutions guarantee individuals that the government will not proceed against them in a manner that is arbitrary or based on 'an unjustifiable standard,' such as membership in a protected class." This includes discriminatory enforecment of impartial laws."
I even Shepardized it for ya.
I remember a case where a guy got his girlfriend pregnant after she told him she could not have kids.
He made it clear to her he did not want kids and she lied about not being able to get pregnant.
He wanted to be able to not have to be required to pay child support because he felt it was unfair that she had the right to an abortion. But even though he was lied to he was stuck with no way out. He felt this was a total double standard and that he was being treated unfairly under the law. Which is supposed to provide equal protection.
The court ruled that they do NOT have to treat people equally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe someone knows of this case....I think it is total BS. If you give women 9 months to opt out of a pregnancy then a guy should have the same right.
The point is when I read that story I could not believe that the court could just say basically...yes we do not have to give you equal protection!
"The girl and her family sat there stony-faced as the boys were publicly emasculated".
Not only a natural born false rape accuser but also a future feminist.
Karma will bite her later in life.
Post a Comment