The single greatest editorial we've seen in a long, long time:
This case was a crime: DAs must learn tough lessons from false rape conviction
Five years after crying rape and sending a man to prison for a crime that never happened, Biurney Peguero has been slapped with a one- to three-year sentence for committing perjury.
She deserves that much - and more. Peguero should have been required to spend at least as much time behind bars as did William McCaffrey, the innocent man she locked away.
That Peguero eventually admitted fabricating her account of a brutal assault by McCaffrey and two other men does not mitigate her offense. Nor was hers garden-variety perjury of the kind that witnesses perpetrate to, say, dodge an indictment.
Peguero's sworn words stole the freedom of a blameless individual as surely as if she had kidnapped and held him hostage for 50 months. Her eligibility to apply for parole in a year pales in comparison.
She also played the criminal justice system - the police, the Manhattan district attorney's office, a judge and two juries - for fools. They bought a story that in the clear light of hindsight had grounds for doubt.
And, so, the Peguero case must serve as an object lesson for law enforcement authorities and judges as to the makings of a wrongful conviction. It should also reinforce for them the need for speedy reconsideration when there is substantial evidence that an injustice has been done.
Peguero's tale was horrifying. She said she met McCaffrey after a long night of drinking in upper Manhattan and wound up with him and his friends in a van. In graphic detail, she described being raped at knifepoint by McCaffrey and two others. She offered as evidence a bite mark.
So convincing was Peguero that Supreme Court Justice Richard Carruthers slammed McCaffrey with a 20-year sentence - more than the recommended maximum - saying, "she gave up caring what you and your accomplices were doing in sexually assaulting her; hoping only that you would not take her life."
But a medical exam had turned up no evidence that Peguero had been raped at all, let alone by McCaffrey, let alone by three men.
But she had also told a friend there had been only one rapist.
But the men returned Peguero to her friends rather than dumping her on the street.
But police couldn't bring cases against the other two supposed attackers.
But a witness said Peguero had gotten into an unrelated fight with her friends, the melee in which she suffered the bite mark.
The DA's office says it investigated to the fullest extent possible. Still, this was that most dangerous of prosecutorial entities: the single-witness case. And it went horribly wrong.
Later, in 2007, after advances in DNA technology, McCaffrey's lawyers asked for access to DNA left with the bite mark. The material should have been provided forthwith, in keeping with then-DA Robert Morgenthau's stated policy. But a year passed before a DNA test proved that McCaffrey had not bitten Peguero, as had been presented at his trial.
Then, after Peguero recanted her story in March 2009, it took yet another nine months before he was freed.
When that day finally came, Carruthers apologized profusely and called the conviction a catastrophe for both McCaffrey and the criminal justice system..
The judge was right on both counts. Now, the goal must be never to stumble into another such disaster. New DA Cy Vance made a campaign issue of preventing wrongful convictions. He is moving to create a special unit for that purpose.
The horrible saga of McCaffrey's imprisonment must be part of the curriculum.
Link:http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/02/26/2010-02-26_this_case_was_a_crime.html#ixzz0geBXg5OA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
"But a medical exam had turned up no evidence that Peguero had been raped at all, let alone by McCaffrey, let alone by three men."
Then what evidence was there? It also sounds like there was exculpatory evidence impeaching her story.
This is another example why we need to re-instate laws requiring corroborating evidence for rape accusations. If a case isn't strong enough without the alleged victim as a witness, then it shouldn't be prosecuted.
The comment I left under the original editorial:
This is the greatest editorial I've seen anywhere in a long, long time. Finally, an important voice has declared that the lives, the liberty, of innocent people should not be cavalierly dismissed as collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. Finally an important voice has declared that the victimization of our sons should not be treated as less serious, less deserving of our protection, than the victimization of our daughters. That Mr. McCaffrey was charged and convicted in the first place, based on nothing more than the say so of an admittedly drunken false accuser, is frightening almost beyond words. These sorts of things don't happen in the United States, do they? Do they??? The answer is not one we want to hear. That the victim, Mr. McCaffrey, will have served more time than his false accuser is morally grotesque. But at least she was charged and sentenced, which is more than what happens to most false accusers (e.g., the Hofstra false accuser). Thank you, Daily News. Thank you.
Off-topic: France is about to pass their "psychological violence" law:
France May Make Mental Violence a Crime
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/world/europe/26paris.html
How long before legislation like this gets enacted throughout the E.U. and similar laws are passed in the U.S.??
Anon, funny, isn't it: no-fault divorce isn't enough for these people. These laws assume that women lack any free moral agency to walk away from a man. Now they can have him jailed for being mean to them.
And the world has gone completely insane.
The Real problem here lies in the fact that current practices of law enforcement are fostering and enabling women and girls to falsely accuse men and boys of Rapes that simply did not happen. The police could have sniffed our her fishy tale, but when they have to placate their gender feminist hysterics, they lose sight of protecting the innocent. That's why I say we need to get gender feminism out of our law enforcement, for they are causing perversions of the law.
In my false rape case, i watched first hand the perversion of the officers that handled my case. They re-defined what the meaning of is, is, in order to leave no paper trail that she had made a false Rape accusation against me.
I was the second guy she falsely accused of raping her in that same year. Why didn't the law enforcement stop her the first time, I'lle tell you why, because there is now a law enforcement perversion between gender feminism and our legal system that will only be broken with a civil rights act.
scott
Comment from another site:
"She demonstrated that on her word, and on her word alone, she could put a man in prison for years, then on her word again have him released, and the courts were little more than lackeys doing her will."
This reveals the solution to the debate whether or not false rape accusers who recant should be prosecuted. One side says that a false rape accusation is sufficiently deleterious to be considered a crime in and of itself. The other side says that such prosecution might discourage a false accuser from recanting and exonerating an innocent victim. Others claim that it might discourage actual victims from coming forward, but that doesn't make much sense since an accuser who knew she was telling the truth wouldn't have anything to fear.
However, if her word does not matter, then whether she recants or not would not matter, as far as the criminal justice system is concerned with the alleged rapist. While her confession would be evidence of making a false accusation, her recantation would not be relevant otherwise, because it could not exonerate someone would who was not convicted in the first place.
This does not mean that the police should not investigate claims they believe are false, or ignore alleged victims of rape. If they find sufficient evidence that the accused is guilty then he should be prosecuted, and if they find sufficient evidence that the accuser is deliberately lying, then she should be prosecuted. If they don't find sufficient evidence either way, then it ends there.
Less is more. Not only will justice be better served, this will save everyone involved a massive amount of time, money, and aggravation. Prosecuting false rape accusers will both discourage false accusations and strengthen true accusations. Barring the accuser's word as evidence will increase the validity of rape convictions in sentencing and parole, keeping more rapists off the streets. By not having to hang on to every piece of trash, someone in SVU might even get a glimpse of the actual surface of their desk. It will be easier to enforce violent and stranger rape, and cases involving children and kidnapping. It will deter women from bringing made up nonsense to divorce hearings and family court. It will reduce the judicial bottleneck. It will keep the sex offender registry from becoming the size of a phone book. IT WILL KEEP INNOCENT MEN OUT OF PRISON.
Do the math. Everybody wins.
Archivist: The law in France can also be used against a nagging wife. All of the grounds for this law can also be used by a man. Wife is too controlling and won't let you do what you want? Or tells you what you can spend you money on? Well that's financial oppression.Under a FAIR and Impartial system it's the men who would actually benefit from these laws since it's generally the female who is doing the opressing whether it's psychological, financial or just plain nagging and criticising the man.
"The Real problem here lies in the fact that current practices of law enforcement are fostering and enabling women and girls to falsely accuse men and boys of Rapes that simply did not happen."
No, the real problem here is that the prosecution thought they could win by putting a pretty young woman, a natural object of sympathy, on the stand. And they were right. The solution is to change the law so juries can't hand over convictions based on their emotions.
Anon at 11:38,
Actually, although the law appears gender-neutral, the rationale behind it is explicitly femme-centric. All about how psychological abuse of women 'always precedes' physical abuse of women.
A child can see the faulty logic here: even if this were true, it does not imply that all 'psychological abuse' leads to physical abuse.
Lawyers aren't too keen on it either, because they know that it's impossible to distinguish between ordinary behaviours e.g. spats, and what will now be deemed a criminal offence.
But the left and right of the French parliament are all for it. Support is near-unanimous in the French legislature. Even worse, today it was announced that men who are 'likely to become violent' will be electronically tagged in France. Read that again - they don't even need to commit acts of violence, they just need to be deemed 'likely to become violent' to be fitted with a tag.
The left and right in France, united in their misandry. And of course women's groups love it. A step closer to literally putting men in chains.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8537591.stm
Snark, thanks for your usual astuteness.
We are seeing in this French proposal something akin to the rape continuum with teeth. Minor male "transgressions" (which aren't transgressions at all) are deemed to be of the same class, if not severity, as rape. A lustful look, a glance at a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, a nasty look at the girlfriend, are all deemed not merely improper, but as a kind of Rape-Lite that need to be stopped, however possible. And we all know that there are plenty of feminist legal "scholars" who would advocate for laws that forbid these and many other perceived male transgressions.
How long before all those things are made crimes?
In France, the male objective is clear: no matter how beautiful she is, no matter how smart, men need to insure she's thick-skinned. Overly-sensitive women will find themselves looking dates every Saturday night because they just aren't worth the risk to men.
Two things I will agree to in the whole incident coroborative evidence should be there in rape cases and second it's a crime to be poor or with bad history , nobody trusts you and a woman is always considered true, we should only see the facts of the case that's all.
Two things I will agree to in the whole incident coroborative evidence should be there in rape cases and second it's a crime to be poor or with bad history , nobody trusts you and a woman is always considered true, we should only see the facts of the case that's all.
Anon at 11:38
No law is written to include women.
Women are basically EXEMPT from any punishment for murder or rape or severe bodily harm. This new law will be no different. It will be 99% men that will face punishment for it even if women commit 90% of the violations.
Look at false accusations. Ever wonder why there is not a severe penalty for them????? Because women make the vast majority of them.
There are policies within the police department that are in fact "manufacturing the 2% false rape accusation statistic.
So if there can be police policies as strong as this "manufacturing the 2%), then there should be equally protective policies of protecting men/boys from false rape accusations. With the law enforcements efforts to bring more and more rape accusations forward, (and they have), and a large percentage turning out to be false; should there not be equally protective measures in place to "protect the innocent" from a false rape accusation.
Men would be held accountable if they made false rape accusations, and wasted police time, and taxpayer dollars.
Anonymous said...
Men would be held accountable if they made false rape accusations, and wasted police time, and taxpayer dollars.
Feb 26, 2010 5:46:00 PM
Men are always held in contempt via VAWA and feminist jurisprudence.
"There are policies within the police department that are in fact "manufacturing the 2% false rape accusation statistic."
No, they aren't. Susan Brownmiller pulled that number out of her ass in 1975. The police had nothing to do with it.
Post a Comment