I have avoided writing about the recent idiocy dripping from the pen of some jurist who sits on the Supreme Court of India -- that Indian women don't lie about rape. That enlightened judge should have taken two minutes to scan through False Rape Society before writing such an obvious falsehood because he or she would have found ample evidence of the very thing that supposedly doesn't happen.
As impossible as it may seem, India has topped itself. It has decreed that every woman who testifies that a male raped her will be handed the equivalent of 4,374.96 US dollars, a not-insignificant sum anywhere, but a huge payday in India. "A rape victim will be entitled to a compensation of Rs 200,000, provided she testifies in a court of law against the accused." See it here. "[A] victim will get Rs 20,000 within a fortnight of lodging a rape complaint as interim relief. Another Rs 50,000 will be provided for immediate rehabilitation and medical expenses."
India has given women and girls a huge financial incentive to destroy innocent males. How huge? The average annual income in the US is more than 45 times that of India -- so this payday is actually equivalent to $200,000 in U.S. dollars. That's not compensation for an injury, for many people, that's a retirement.
What if the woman falsely cries rape? She keeps the money, of course. "The scheme, however, doesn’t have any provision of recovering compensation, in case the complaint is false, a provision sought by police bodies. 'Our aim is to provide financial succour…,' Women and Child Development Minister Krishna Tirath said."
Paying women to cry "rape" is not unique to India. The UK is among the nations that writes out a check in exchange for a rape complaint. If India's goal is to jack up rape convictions, it is unfortunate that it did not study the UK's failed model: the UK enables women to lie about rape by paying them and then wonders why its conviction rate for rape is so low. Not only do monetary schemes like this attract charlatans who think nothing of grabbing the money even if it destroys the life of some hapless man or boy, but they taint even actual rape victims with a significant motive to lie. Juries aren't stupid -- they know that every woman who testifies that she's been raped has been paid, and that naturally raises questions about her motives.
We've previously written about how the UK Gives Women a Monetary Incentive to Lie About Rape at Glenn Sacks' site: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3452. Certain truths about UK's compensation system are equally applicable to India's:
The premise of those who assert women don’t lie about rape is that women have no incentive to lie, and that the criminal ordeal a rape accuser is put through outweighs any possible benefit from lying.
This, of course, is not true, and the Compensation Scheme indisputably furnishes a monetary incentive to lie about rape. It is well to note two things: (1) the compensation paid for sexual offenses is scarcely insignificant; and (2) women lie about rape for far less rational reasons. In Professor Eugene Kanin’s landmark study of a mid-size Midwestern city over the course of nine years, he found that 41 percent of all rape claims were not just false but actually recanted. Two of the three principal motivations for false claims identified by Kanin are the following: women lie to obtain attention/sympathy, and for revenge.
If significant numbers of women are willing to lie about rape simply to get attention or for revenge, is it not all the more plausible that some women will lie for the more rational reason of obtaining a significant sum of money? The question scarcely survives its statement.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
If you are a man in India, Rs. 2,00,000 is in something like 90% of cases more than your annual salary. If you are a woman, it is something you can get for making a false rape allegation.
This is among the most barbaric and sick things we've seen -- encouraging women to destroy males for a monetary bribe. Certainly some legitimate rape victims would benefit from it, but every rape accuser will from now on be tainted with this possible financial interest. And juries know this, too -- is it any wonder juries don't convict in rape cases since they know that accusers have a financial interest to lie? Honestly, the world has gone mad.
FRS needs an India correspondent. once the news spread on the streets, FRAs gonna be rampant. we will hear about it in the english-language publications. i hope this gets some attention in india.
"but every rape accuser will from now on be tainted with this possible financial interest." good point there Archivist. i've been to india and can confirm that 200 000Rp. is a large sum of money for most people. actually i believe this might lead people to believe rape isnt harmful because the victim will receive a large compensation. especially if the victim is poor.
I'm in two minds about this...
As you say, to an Indian (peasant) women this is a vast amount of money, far far far in excess of what you can basically buy a child for.
What this means is that, as Archivist says, EVERY SINGLE rape accusation is going to be seen in this light, with that in view...
... it could be that this ruling is going to make all "he said / she said" rapes non-prosecutable, leaving only the violent / forensic proof (traditional) rape prosecutable.
it *might* be a case of doublethink...
AfOR
I don't know what to say.
Kill feminists?
That's about all I can come up with right now.
And make no mistake about this one, Snark: this is a feminist invention.
Multinational corporations should reconsider outsourcing their programming and customer service to India, now that their male workforce is vulnerable to prosecution.
We have that here in the US. Victim's compensation.
CBGirl
As Russian comedian Yakov Smirnoff used to say of the US, "What a country" [I may be dating myself a bit here].
So, just give any woman who can enunciate the word rape a big financial payout, er... financial succour - and with no penalty for lying...now, people, what could possibly go wrong?
Archivist - "And juries know this, too -- is it any wonder juries don't convict in rape cases since they know that accusers have a financial interest to lie?"
We should start a "pool" as to when Rape Shield Statutes will be expanded to hide such information from juries.
My false rape accuser also got a chunk of money from the womens Rape crisis center that she never had to pay back.
She never had to pay the money back because these centers "Always beleive the women"..and in my case "Always beleive the women"..EVEN WHEN THEY ARE LYING!!
The article says "The conviction rate is below 20 per cent, among the lowest in the world."
Interesting that these articles never seem to suggest that countries could 'learn from' jurisdictions with higher conviction rates.
Why rob a bank a risk going to prison.....when you can just say you were raped and get more money and it's all perfectly legal.
We have VAWA money here in the U.S. to not only encourage false rape/sexual assault accusations but, false accusations for real or imagined violent crimes against women.
The international war against men continues as billions of men remain silent.
Slwerner, i'm curious ... and your wife would know the answer to this regarding the Rape Shield Laws.
What if a case went to trial, and the plaintiff forfeited this law, challenging the defense to find anything negative in her past?
Is the forfeiture decision made by the judge? ... and how would it work?
(I'm sure the word "forfeiture" is not the correct legal term).
GG - ”Is the forfeiture decision made by the judge? ... and how would it work?”
I’m told it’s considered presumptively irrelevant evidence.
It would be against the general rules of admissibility of evidence. The judge would make the determination as to admissibility.
While she can only be certain of Colorado law, she informs me that most states are quite similar in the application of such laws. The information which would be covered by Rape Shield is termed “presumptively irrelevant evidence” and is absolutely inadmissible. Introducing such information during a trial would almost certainly result in a mistrial.
The general rules of criminal law/proceedings preclude irrelevant evidence. Otherwise, it would become possible for attorneys (either side) to “cloud” pertinent issues with all manner of extraneous information, or – as Rape Shield Statutes were intended to address – information which has no direct relation to any crimes being addressed could be used to prejudice a juries perception of any one of the a trials participants (defendant, alleged victim, or any other witness).
Oh okay, then any evidence unassociated with the issue at hand is irrelevant. I get that.
How about is BOTH parties forfeit the Rape Shield Law ... so that either party can dig into the past of the other?
I'm probably taxing your brain and ruining your saturday evening. You already know this is not an urgent issue .... but humor me with an answer whenever you have time (at your convenience)!~
TY.
That was a really mundane question, wasn't it! To clarify, what if BOTH parties said "Sure, go ahead and dig up anything in my past, I'm innocent".
Would the judge honor this mutual request from both parties?
In my particular case, the attacker had a definite pattern ... wouldn't this pattern be crucial to the case?
GG - "Would the judge honor this mutual request from both parties?
In my particular case, the attacker had a definite pattern ... wouldn't this pattern be crucial to the case?"
Ah! I suspected this was where you were going with this.
The Rape Shield Laws (RSL) cannot be by-passed. Allowing what you are suggesting would create what is termed "reversible error", meaning that any verdict could be thrown out on appeal.
What you are suggesting – giving up RSL protections is something which not only cannot be done, but even if you could, doing so would not get you what I’m guessing you envision.
As to your specific intentions herein, the pertinent evidentiary rule would be 404B, which would cover evidence of prior charged or uncharged conduct which is similar to any charged criminal conduct which serves to establish a pattern.
Here it is:
Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes
(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
You’d have to argue that there is evidence of other “bad acts” in HIS past (asking for a 404B exception) – but this has nothing to do with the RSL, which would only cover YOUR prior acts. Accused rapists get no such protections for any and all potentially prejudicial behaviors – which is why we (the anti-FRA-types here) so often raise complaints as to the obvious discriminatory nature of the RSL. There are instance in which RSL are correct, but they are often extended so as to “hide” evidence which is actually quite relevant to the charges from juries.
And, yes, it is cutting into my (and my wife’s) evening. If you’d like some examples, ask me next week.
I believe the McDonnell study at 60% being the false rape accusation and today 60% is a conservative estimate.
The international war against men continues as billions of men remain silent.
Therein lies the problem.
The general rules of criminal law/proceedings preclude irrelevant evidence. Otherwise, it would become possible for attorneys (either side) to “cloud” pertinent issues with all manner of extraneous information, or – as Rape Shield Statutes were intended to address – information which has no direct relation to any crimes being addressed could be used to prejudice a juries perception of any one of the a trials participants (defendant, alleged victim, or any other witness).
This is what enables FRA.
"... yes, it is cutting into my (and my wife’s) evening ..."
Okay I'll shush up and leave ya'll alone lol
I pasted your whole comment on Rule 404 to my HD. Thank you much!!
If there are enough false rape claims (ones proven to be false, ideally), then the pool of money available for giving this money out should dry out. I hope lots of women claim this money and then get proven wrong. It could even be a plot between a husband and a wife.
Husband: Accuse me of rape so that you get money.
Wife: OK
*accuses husband of rape and gets cash* [and later gets proven wrong]
Husband and Wife: We were poor and had to work hard. Now we're much better off and do not have to work!
Government: We provided financial support to a raped woman.
My brother who lives in the US had married a girl from Chandigarh who wanted to get a greencard for the US and was having an affair throughout the marrige. When my brother left her, she falsely accused my brother-in-law for raping her and then her family hired people to vandalize my sister's home in India. Now, she has taken over $250,000 USD for her false claim and still continues to threat us via the email and telephone for more gains. This has been such an aweful episode for our family and has left a bad taste for brides of India. The image which Indian women are ought to portray is one of integrity, loyalty and ethics not adultry, bigotary, and falsehood. I am very embarrassed of my fellow Indian brothers and sisters for fostering such unethical roots of communities that thrive on the innocent for financial and personal gains. Shame on you ex sister-in-laws!
Post a Comment