Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Illegally copying a DVD can get you a five year prison term; lying about rape -- one year maximum


Depending on the jurisdiction, the maximum sentence for false reporting of rape is the same as falsely reporting that you saw someone steal a pack of gum. The maximum varies from state to state, but the range is generally six months to two years.

In this recent case, for example, a 36-year-old woman fabricated a rape story "that left officers racing through city streets to find the suspect." The news account notes: "Authorities said they planned to charge her with submitting a false report to law-enforcement officials. The charge, a Class 1 misdemeanor, carries a maximum sentence of one-year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500." Police stopped a Ford explorer and questioned the passengers (can you guess the gender of the persons questioned?), and released them. "After three interviews with investigators, the woman came clean, said police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Walker."

Fortunately no hapless male was arrested, jailed, or convicted. It would not have mattered: the maximum penalty for the false report would be the same regardless of what happened to any man or boy arrested. The gross injustice of this is demonstrated merely by reading through the stories we report on this site. There are innumerable examples of the terrible effects of false rape reports on innocent men and boys. Rape lies have caused males to be killed and to kill themselves; to be incarcerated often longer than their false accusers are legally permitted to be imprisoned when their lies are finally brought to light; to lose their good names, their jobs, their businesses, their life's savings, their wives, and their girlfriends; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain good employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and finding the horrid accusation. Virtually every falsely accused male will be affected by his ordeal. Many develop emotional problems that will plague them for the rest oft their lives; most will not be able to trust women, for at least a time and sometimes forever.

Now contrast that potential jail term for falsely reporting a rape with the familiar FBI warning found at the start of DVDs you buy. If you illegally copy a DVD, you can get a five year sentence. I use that example because everyone has seen that scary little warning at the start of DVDs and the contrast is both glaring and ludicrous. I could have easily illustrated all manner of other crimes. These are by no means the worst, just ones I have come across lately:

*Last year, a judge sentenced a man to six months jail time for yawning in his courtroom.

*In Georgia, a seventeen-year-old boy was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend (I am sure the girl's parents are happy the "monster" is locked away).

*The "drug free" school zone laws can be applied in ludicrous manners: possession of illegal drugs, even marijuana, within so many feet of a school -- often 1,000-- can get you multiple years behind bars in some places, so if you live near a school or day care center, you'd better not have marijuana in the house.

*The laws that tack on sentences for gun possession are another source of perfectly legal cruel and unusual punishments: In California, a 24-year-old man was sentenced to 59 years in prison for three marijuana sales of $350 each. On each occasion, he had a gun in his car, which tacked on 55 years to his prison term.

*The "three strikes" laws can have terrible consequences for people: a man was given a 50-year sentence for shoplifting videos ("Cinderella" and "Free Willy") for his children. In fact, in California, hundreds of individuals are serving life sentences for shoplifting small amounts of merchandise.

*In Florida, multiple juveniles are behind bars for life -- not for murder or even robbery: for burglary.

And we haven't even talked about the obvious: the incredible disparity between sentences for rape and for false rape claims, despite the fact that, depending on the case, the latter can do far more injury to a person than the former.

You get the picture. Society punishes far less serious crimes far more severely.  Just keep this in mind: five years for copying a DVD versus one year for destroying a male's life. Protecting someone's intellectual property rights in an insipid Hollywood film that tanked is worth more than the life of a man or boy falsely accused of rape. That's about what we should have expected, don't you think?

___________________________

Perhaps the single most glaring reason false rape accusations are not deterred is that our criminal statutes do not treat making a false rape report as a serious crime. Our criminal laws are statutory articulations of society's disapproval of various forms of misconduct. The maximum sentence for rape, for example, is typically second only to murder among all crimes. In contrast, the statutory punishment for false rape claims is a proverbial slap on the wrist.

Our criminal statutes often do not treat false reporting of rape any more seriously than false reporting of other crime. 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 (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 wrote the following: “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.”

When the laws requiring corroboration for a rape conviction were repealed, the power of a lone accuser was greatly enhanced. It became easier for her to get her rapist arrested and to send him to prison for many years. But it also became easier for her to send an innocent man or boy to jail for weeks or months and 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, you see, 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. So we are stuck with the old false reporting statutes that were in place back before the need for corroboration was eliminated from our rape laws.

___________________________

How do we respond to those people who claim increasing sentences will only prevent false accusers from recanting? We have been confronted with this argument many times at False Rape Society, and refusing to increase sentences for fear of putting off would-be recanters would only serve to perpetuate, indeed encourage, a vicious cycle of more and more and more false rape claims. The cycle must end. The solution to the false rape problem is not to continue to hand women and girls the power to lie and destroy with impunity the lives of innocent men and boys -- and I mean quite literally without punishment -- all in the hope that some of the false accusers could, or might, or possibly will decide, at their own whim and unilateral discretion, to recant and spare the falsely accused victim further pain.

The solution is to deter these lies from ever happening in the first place, as much as possible.

There are innumerable false rape cases where the accuser does not recant, despite the current absence of serious punishment for lying about rape. So, relying on recantations to spare falsely accused men is a slender reed on which to rest any argument opposed to increasing maximum prison sentences for false accusers.

We advocate a sliding scale for sentencing, allowing lenient punishment for recantations that occur before identifying a specific individual; greater punishment after identifying but before an arrest, etc. Early recantations should be encouraged and rewarded, but even they need to be subjected to more serious punishments than currently exist. This will have the salutary effect of encouraging early recantations.

It is well to note that fears about discouraging would-be recanters with increased sentences are based on the present state of our law and culture where false accusers know they can lie with impunity and there is no effective deterrence whatsoever. If the law is changed to impose greater sentences for false rape reporting, it will be clear that lying about rape is a serious crime, like rape, and there will be far, far fewer Dukes and Hofstras.

Every other criminal act is assigned a sentence to deter others from committing that act. The more serious the crime, the greater the need for deterrence, and the greater the sentence. (There are, of course, other purposes for sentencing as well, but deterrence is one of the most important.) Underlying the claim that increasing sentences will hurt innocent men seems to be an unstated belief that deterrence simply does not work. That belief, of course, bucks centuries of collective wisdom. I am not prepared to agree.

False rape accusers lie because they can, and because they believe they have some need to do so. If we convince them they can't lie without serious consequences, it is likely we'll see a significant decrease in false rape claims.

In addition, it is a matter of simple justice that false rape claimants deserve to be punished in a manner consistent with the serious harm they cause. At present, that isn't happening.

___________________________

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. 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.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hear the pain, but you are rapidly turning into a global English language blog, so you want to think globally.

Here in the UK, making a false rape accusation is prosecuted as Perverting the Course of Justice (PCJ)

The maximum tariff for PCJ is life.

Prison is now mandatory for FRAccusers, and 2 years is about the default sentence.

Here in the UK, copyright violation carries a fine and / or an injunction, no jail time, no how.

Perhaps, for shits and giggles, you could do a clickable world map (like the do for the age of consent) showing maximum sentence for rape and FRaccusations...

AfOR

Pierce Harlan said...

AfOR, see, that's why we need people like you to help us. The issue in the US is also more complicated than we have time to explain. For example, when the accused is tried, the false accuser will testify -- and if she lies, that's a somewhat more serious perjury charge.

I am sure that in the UK we could compile a list of inane harsher sentences for lesser crimes. The point would still be the same: FRAs are not punished with sufficient severity.

DadsDivorce said...

Great job showing contrast in how crimes are prosecuted. We hear a lot about dads going through a divorce who are falsely accused of sexual assaults by their (ex)wives in order to portray them as monsters so the mothers can keep their children.

It's much too prevalent an issue to go ignored. Hopefully these laws will be changed.

Anonymous said...

Pierce..

Surely in the USA lying in an affidavit, before it ever gets to Court, is still perjury?

In the UK perjury carries a maximum tariff of seven years.

While I hear the comment about disproportionate sentencing for various crimes, you have to remember that being released from prison after serving 2 years for PCJ, and being released from prison after serving 2 years for dangerous driving, are *UTTERLY* different things.

A custodial sentence for PCJ means, in effect, you never work again, not even cleaning public toilets or sweeping the streets.

Personally, I applaud this.

It also makes it *really* hard to find yourself another man, and *really* hard should you find yourself the victim of a crime...

AfOR

Archivist said...

AfOR, the US is different. False reporting to the police -- which is the most that the majority of women we talk about commit -- is a misdemeanor almost everywhere, and it carries a minimal sentence. Moreover, most such offenses are NOT charged. Remember the Hofstra case over here? A terrible injustice. Duke lacrosse -- same thing. Six months to two years is the norm. Now if the matter gets to trial, perjury is somewhat more serious but not devastating.

Anonymous said...

wow

here we have the idea that the US has "misdemeanour" and "felony", and that felony was "federal" eg crossing a state line turns a misdemeanour into a felony...

here we have "summary" and "indictable", where indictable means the right to trail by jury, you can steal a snickers bar from a shop and ask for trial by jury, but not for speeding 50 in a 30.

perjury here is not limited to utterances in court (under oath obviously) as affidavits are also under oath, and affidavits cover other evidence submitted, Aitken submitted a forged witness statement from his daughter, got 18 months for that perjury, and 18 months (consecutively) for PCJ.

Lying in a police witness statement isn't *necessarily* perjury, but the instant the police use that statement as part of a prosecution at trial it becomes perjury.

Here in the UK, perjury and PCJ are two offences you really do not want to be up on, because in effect it is like standing in court and telling the judge to go fuck himself, they (judges) *really* don't like it, and appealing it always gets you a heavier sentence... (see J Henriques oct 09 mandatory prison for false rape accusers, eg PCJ)

summary offences, those held in a magistrates court usually, but a proper judge *can* hear them, just no jury either way, are less serious, mainly because magistrates (laymen, no legal training) maximum sentencing is 6 months for 1 offence, or 12 months for 2 or more offences.

only the terminally clueless trifle with Judges in proper courts, whether hearing a summary or indictable offence.

I guess the legal system over there is really very different... strange as it came more or less from ours

AfOR

Snark said...

Here in the UK, making a false rape accusation is prosecuted as Perverting the Course of Justice (PCJ)

The maximum tariff for PCJ is life.


Thankyou, AfOR - this brightened up my day a little after reading this article.

I do, however, still feel a great deal of sympathy for my American brothers, who receive ridiculous punishments for minor misdemeanours, and whose false accusers get away with a slap on the wrist.

Although, isn't there some consolation in that these people will have a criminal record for life - thus closing off a lot of doors?

Anonymous said...

Yes Snark, I'm learning (slowly) about US criminality, steal three times from HMV music shop and get 20 years...

I genuinely had no idea the US "Justice" system was so horribly broken.

I can only liken it to some african countries I have lived in, where a black man who had never owned a bike could accuse a white man of stealing his bike, and the white man goes to black man's prison, or pays his way out.

I left that country pretty sharpish, well, as soon as the years contract ran out.

If the US justice system is as bad as it sounds, I'd do the same, leave.

Seriously, zimbabwe sounds better.

AfOR

Pierce Harlan said...

Well, gentlemen, not to belittle the UK, but, um, it seems to be run by misandrists of the first order, does it not? I mean, one of them wants quotas for rape convictions! Hell, the UK commissioned a radical feminist to do its official rape study, which is now the roadmap for how to lock up more men! And your newspapers' features writers seem to speak with one voice -- one man-hating voice. I know of no group of persons more hateful than the UK's female features writers.

Sorry, gents, I love Britain, and we've got our flaws here, but I'll take the USA any day of the week.

Anonymous said...

"For example, when the accused is tried, the false accuser will testify -- and if she lies, that's a somewhat more serious perjury charge."

Technically, that is true, but when was the last time you heard of a FRA prosecuted for perjury? If a rape accusation makes it as far as court, then it wouldn't be so obviously false, at least according to the State, that the accuser would be charged.

Anonymous said...

Imho, the balance between discouraging FRA and discouraging recantation is not easily solved.

Part of the problem is that many people do not accept an accusation as false unless she recants.

Of course, on the extreme end, I've read feminists who wrote the Hofstra "victim" recanted due to "second victimization", even though the incident was recorded on video.

Anonymous said...

Pierce, I hear what you are saying...

but...

If there is one thing USains do *not* get about Europe (which includes the UK) it is our in built lack of respect...

Harriet Harman, she is a joke, and treated as such by 99.99999% of the population, same goes for newspaper feature writers, well, Liz Jones is a classic example, a legend in her own lunchtime, then she bought a property down here (eg, *not* a small self important London social sect) and whoopee, didn't she manage to alienate *everyone* within a couple of weeks.

Do americans all wear large loud check jackets, stetsons and cowboy boots and smoke cigars?

Steal three times in a row from HMV and you won't get 20 years... you probably won't get 20 weeks...

-----------------

Harriet Harman and her ilk would call for castration of all male first born, provided someone convinced her it would be a high profile vote winning cause with some minority electorate group or another.

she's just a political whore on the menu del dia

can we in europe judge all americans by dubya, or obama?

still, at least the USA is now allowing the HIV+ entry into the country, which makes you better than Colombia, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sudan, and Yemen.

no, what counts is what the average man on the street thinks and has access to.

the average man on the street here is not influences one jot by the likes of Harriet Harman or Liz Jones...

the average man on the street here can buy a national newspaper, or a local one, and see false rape accusers photographed, named, and shamed, and their prison sentence stated.

I'm guessing reader Scott is USain, I bet he'd love to walk into court waving back copies of the NY Times, Globe, Herald, all containing such stories.

Shit Pierce, Gordon Brown is our PM, and nobody takes any notice of him either, or thinks he is anything but a useless asshole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goxbvmfR9LQ

AfOR

Snark said...

Well, gentlemen, not to belittle the UK, but, um, it seems to be run by misandrists of the first order, does it not? I mean, one of them wants quotas for rape convictions! Hell, the UK commissioned a radical feminist to do its official rape study, which is now the roadmap for how to lock up more men! And your newspapers' features writers seem to speak with one voice -- one man-hating voice. I know of no group of persons more hateful than the UK's female features writers.

Sorry, gents, I love Britain, and we've got our flaws here, but I'll take the USA any day of the week.


You're quite right, though probably we can't say for certain where we'd rather live unless we've actually lived there for some time.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply that 'my country is better than yours' or any such childish nonsense.

As for newspapers speaking with one man-hating voice - true for most. Particularly the Guardian, which has some truly horrible, hateful female writers who have even 'jokingly' called for random killings of men and such things (in contexts which it would obviously not be acceptable about any other group). True story - I sometimes googled these women's names under image search, and they were always fat and dumpy. LOL!

But the Daily Mail is an exception; although poor in many ways, it is the one newspaper 'ahead of its time' in this respect, as it has been putting out anti-feminist propaganda fairly regularly for a while now.

Pierce Harlan said...

Snark, I don't need to be shot in the head to know I wouldn't like it. But actually -- all kidding aside -- I've spent some time in London and would say it's my favorite city in the world. I would love to live there. And thanks for the rundown on the writers -- hilarious.

AfOR, what you say about your leaders is most disconcerting. Why don't you all elect someone you like? But, hey, some of our left wing loons here used to say the same sorts of things about Ronald Reagan (and I understand he wasn't well liked in Europe, either, even after he played a large role in winning the Cold War -- not just my opinion, Gorbachev's, too). Now, lots of people are not much liking our so-called intellectual president, who actually used the untriggered reflexive in a public statement recently.

Anonymous said...

@ Pierce
AfOR, what you say about your leaders is most disconcerting. Why don't you all elect someone you like?

Like I said, USAians always get this wrong about europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party

AfOR

Anonymous said...

Get gender feminism out our our law enforcement community. The gender feminist / law enforcement missinformation Alliance will run itself into the ground...but it will wreak perversion and destruction in its wake before it falls.
Civilised communities in the future will ask..how did society get so sick, how did the tax payers let the legal system get so perverted??
I would say the the root of the sickness is the fostering and enabling of hysteria...which comes from the hystera...and shows
itself in the form of lies.
It is the lie, after lie, after lie that has got us here, if you add that with a community with an "ad-gender," and you have the perfect perversion.

Anonymous said...

Pierce

I think you live in the same state as me.

They are running ads on tv saying that filing a false insurance claim is a felony. And in the commercials of course the bad guy is always a white male that is filing the false insurance claim.

So filing a false insurance claim is a felony.

But filing a false rape claim that can ruin a guys life or kill him is a misdemeanor.

As far a the UK stuff goes I notice anytime a false rape claim has jail time on it it is NOT in the United States. Even in the most extreme cases like the Duke Lacrosse. She got REWARDED for lying with a scholarship and a book deal.

That is how sick it is here in the United States.

No offense to the UK guys but I would not want to live there either.

If I went to Europe I would want to be in Germany or the Netherlands.

It would be nice to know the penalties for filing a false rape claim by country and if there are "rape shield laws" there also....just something I am curious about.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "So filing a false insurance claim is a felony.

But filing a false rape claim that can ruin a guys life or kill him is a misdemeanor."


A false insurance claim is an attempted fraud - a felony. An FRA is a false police report - a misdemeanor. Yes, that is unfortunately how it stands. The monetary value of the attempted fraud makes it seem like a greater crime than it seems merely misleading the police is. Except that we understand the severe consequences that can come from the police being mislead.

In this one, the Brit's have a leg up on us, as they have the PCJ law which can address the potential seriousness of the outcome of a false report.

But, in a related vein, if insurance fraud is so damned important, why isn't knowingly committing paternity fraud also a felony? The real cost of paternity fraud can easily reach 6-figures.

Pierce Harlan said...

I am told by someone who should know that the ads about false insurance claims are not meant to deter people from committing insurance fraud. They are meant to send a message to juries that people do commit insurance fraud.

Anonymous said...

@ Pierce.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Lloyds of London will, famously, insure anything...

How about an insurance policy against a false rape accusation?

Silly?

Well, consider this, nothing is more certain than death, but you can buy insurance (or assurance mebbe) against it.

Why can't you buy insurance against less likely shit like divorce or FRA's?

don't dismiss it, work it through logically... high premiums, yes, who will pay..

AfOR

Anonymous said...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6978170.ece

Anonymous said...

I had a question on the insurance issue that Afor brought up.

If you have an umbrella insurance policy with your car and homeowners policy would that cover your defense against a false rape claim?

I know it would vary from one policy to the next but just generally.

And would it only cover the costs of a civil defense and not a criminal charge?

I just wondered that.

Anonymous said...

IS THERE A BETTER MEN'S RIGHTS ADVOCATE IN THE WORLD THAN ARCHIVIST?

Notice the all caps to get your attention? Let me answer that: I don't think so.

This site ought to be universally acknowledged as the leading MRA site. I suspect your audience is huge, but whatever it is, it ought to be bigger.

You, sir, are a real advocate. You, sir, are what this movement needs. We don't need any more of these introspective men writing long pieces showing why feminism is intellectually bankrupt. That stuff is preaching to the choir. Your pieces, in contrast, actually have a purpose, and you take it to them. Your stuff is in-their-face, well written and impossible to argue with. Mainly because you actually know your subject.

You, sir, need to take a more prominent place in the MRA constellation. I am sending you a private email with some ideas.

Pierce Harlan said...

Anon at 6:12: see my email response. Thanks very much for the kind words.

Our focus on this site is limited here, and I don't have the background in other areas to lead a movement. We have a number of readers from other blogs here -- Snark, EW, and of course Fidelbogen among others -- who are excellent writers and leaders. John Dias, too. We serve the movement by making this the best site we can for the falsely accused.

scott said...

Pierce and archivist...since this site first started..You have developed double if not triple the amount of regular commentators. I have high hopes for this site to develop into a major leader in the move to "raise awareness" of those falselly accussed of rape...and the tragic consequences it has for all involved.
If you can keep up this momentum...concerning the plight of the falselly acussed..you will definatelly make one of the greatest impacts in our time.

Anonymous said...

Afor

"The maximum tariff for PCJ is life."

Not in practice.

In the UK there has been no sentence greater than 10 years for PCJ over the past 100 years.

Anonymous said...

Afor

"A custodial sentence for PCJ means, in effect, you never work again, not even cleaning public toilets or sweeping the streets."


No.

Criminal convictions can be 'spent' if the sentence was less than 2.5 years.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous...

Criminal convictions can be 'spent' if the sentence was less than 2.5 years.

are you *really* that naive?

Here are some FACTS.

1/ criminal convictions are NEVER taken off your record.

2/ employers have ALWAYS had access to this info, moreso now than ever before. Now you don't just get "yeah, his name is known to us" you get chapter and verse, even ALLEGED offences that you were never arrested for, see Enhanced CRB.

3/ not all convictions are equal, 2 years for dangerous driving is a world away from 2 years for PCJ.

4/ You have a legal duty, on pain of prison, to disclose ALL convictions on an employment application form.

5/ tell it to google...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Jennifer+Day&meta=cr%3DcountryUK|countryGB&btnG=Google+Search

6/ learn to read, "spent" in spent convictions means no more than the fact that the next time you are up in front of the beak, your last conviction won't be held against you, and even THAT doesn't apply in practice for any new offence of any seriousness.

AfOR

Norm said...

Regarding the lenghty sentences for petty crimes, I remind you guys that a while back, people said they wanted to get 'tough on crime'. See how good things work now? Just like the death penalty -works like a charm.

(when will someone at least come forward and say the bottom line is revenge? Will we have to wait until the U.S. has 51% of the world's prison population?)

Norm said...

"Our criminal laws are statutory articulations of society's disapproval of various forms of misconduct"

yes, and one thing that can never be changed is society's disapproval with rape of women by men. This is because men who have raped have circumvented the male dominance hierarchy, which normally strictly controls access to women based on a man's status. Our innate psychology cannot allow the possibility that some mentally ill homeless guy will rape Kelly Prejean.

Masculist Man said...

Part of the problem is that many people do not accept an accusation as false unless she recants.


Fuck those assholes. Hold every little thing against them and see how they like it.