Gemma Louise Scoones is back in the news. Never heard of her? I am not surprised. It's not the kind of story the mainstream media likes to report, so pay attention.
Last year, on the basis of nothing more than Ms. Scoones' say so, her 27-year-old ex-husband was arrested and subjected to naked indignities for a rape that never occurred. The man was watching television in bed when police banged on his front door and took him to the police station where he was told to hand over his clothes for forensic examination. “I was stood there naked, with two police officers at one side of me and a doctor at the other side having swabs taken from all over my body," the innocent man said. "It was humiliating and degrading."
It turns out that Gemma Scoones falsely accused the man she had once vowed to love of raping her because she sought revenge over an acrimonious break-up. It is the sort of revenge only available to women. When Gemma was told her ex-husband had been arrested, she declared, "It’s not enough.”
The police treated Gemma as the victim based solely on her say-so right up until the time the truth came out. From the news story last year: "PC Elizabeth Graham, of Durham Police’s domestic abuse investigation team, said the force was very victimfocused and that the allegation of rape had been taken seriously and fully investigated." Of course, if the accuser is the "victim" to police, then the accused must be a rapist. And the innocent ex-husband certainly was treated that way. Gemma was given a twelve month sentence. Here is the news report from last year: http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4266802.Ex_wife_jailed_for_false_rape_claim/
Well, Gemma is out of jail, and she's back at it. On April 18 of this year, Ms. Scoones reported to an ambulance crew that she had been raped. She was taken to hospital where she repeated the allegations, despite being challenged about her account. Medical examinations were carried out at the hospital and police searched her home, but they were unable to find any evidence that the attack had actually happened. When police asked her again about her story, she told them she had made it up.
Her previous custodial sentence did not deter her in the least. She was no sooner out of jail than she did it again. Typically, first-time offenders are afforded more lenient sentences than recidivists. When criminals prove that they haven't learned from an initial sentence, they are typically given a more severe sentence.
That's what should have happened here, but it didn't. Gemma Scoones was given another 12-month sentence, but this one was suspended for two years. The Judge told her that it was a serious offence that deserved an automatic custodial sentence because she had made an "atrocious allegation." But he did not send her to jail.
What spared her from a custodial sentence? "[W]hat saves you from an immediate sentence," the judge explained, "is that I see you are heavily pregnant and it would not be fair on your child to be born in prison."
Gemma's womb, her ability to get pregnant, became a "get out of jail free" card. If a teen male had lied that he'd been statutorily raped, the pregnancy "defense" would not be available to him, and he would be given a harsher sentence than a similarly situated pregnant female rape liar solely because she got pregnant and he couldn't.
And while it certainly isn't fair to any child to have a parent in prison, is it more unfair to Gemma's child than it is to the child of man in prison for committing a crime? Yet, that "defense" never works when the genders are flipped.
It's not enough that society has handed women the power to destroy the life of any man or boy merely by crying "rape," but it insists on doing essentially nothing to deter women when they abuse that power.
The judge did not think this particular rape lie was quite as serious as the previous one because it did not target a specific male. With all due respect, the judge should spend several weeks reading through the actual news stories on this site. As we've reported here time and time again, even rape lies that do not target a specific male often end up causing an innocent man or boy to lose his liberty, fairly destroying his life in the process. There is no such thing as an "innocent" rape lie. Once unleashed, it takes on a life of its own, and it can quickly and unexpectedly destroy the life of an innocent male.
Gemma's second rape lie was akin to firing a loaded pistol into a playground full of children. That act's reckless indifference to human life should not be considered any less serious than if the shooter had taken aim at a specific child.
In words that ring especially hollow, the judge warned Gemma: "But make no mistake, do this again and it will be 12 months to start with, and another sentence on top."
We aren't holding our breath.
Links: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299310/Woman-admits-SECOND-rape-offence-spared-jail-heavily-pregnant.html and http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/01/baby-spares-mum-prison-115875-22455603/ and http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/190582/Woman-who-cried-rape-is-spared-jail
Here is one of the news stories after the jump:
Woman admits SECOND cry rape offence... but is spared jail as she is heavily pregnant
A woman who falsely cried rape for a second time has been spared jail because a judge deemed it 'unfair' for her child to be born in prison.
Heavily pregnant Gemma Scoones, 27, stood before Judge Michael Taylor in the dock at Durham Crown Court on Friday to be sentenced for perverting the course of justice.
Last year, Scoones was given a 12-month jail sentence by the court after she admitted a similar offence involving a false rape allegation against her estranged husband, Anthony Scoones, following the break up of their relationship.
Mr Scoones was arrested, held in a police cell for a day and was only released after his former wife admitted she had made the story up.
In her latest allegation, no one was arrested, and she eventually admitted making up the rape after police questioned her story.
She was given another 12-month sentence, but this was suspended for two years and was accompanied by a supervision order involving the Probation Service.
Judge Taylor told her that it was a serious offence that deserved an automatic custodial sentence and said that she had made an 'atrocious allegation'.
He said: 'But what saves you from an immediate sentence is that I see you are heavily pregnant and it would not be fair on your child to be born in prison,' he said.
He said it was fortunate that no one had been arrested in the latest case.
Lesley Kirkup, prosecuting, gave a brief outline of events, saying that on April 18, Scoones reported to an ambulance crew that she had been raped.
She was taken to hospital where she repeated the allegations, despite being challenged about her account.
Ms Kirkup said that medical examinations were carried out at the hospital and that police searched her home.
However, the officers were unable to find any evidence that the attack had actually happened.
When officers asked her again about her story, she told them she had made it up.
"At the end of the day, she has accepted she was never raped," Ms Kirkup told the court.
Scoones, of Horden, County Durham, admitted the offence at a previous hearing.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299310/Woman-admits-SECOND-rape-offence-spared-jail-heavily-pregnant.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
The American law enforcement community "perverted their protocol" around 20 years ago when dealing with rape accusations.
The gender feminist quackademics that told law enforcement to "pervert thier protocol" told them that "charging false rape accusers, deters real rape victims from "COMING FORWARD"".
I say this smells fishy, and where are the studies that prove this theory???
One very real consequence of no longer charging false rape accusers is the culture of false rape accusations that has developed.
This Gender feminist / law enforcement "ALLIANCE" will go down in history as a stain on the American law enforcement community.
Gender feminists who are getting "Empowered" all over the country by this law enforcment / Gender feminist "ALLIANCE", are not gonna police themselves, for the agitation propaganda that this "Alliance" manufactures for them, gives Gender / Raunch proffessors all over the country loads of ammunition to attack all those nasty hetero-sexuals.
Anonymous - "The American law enforcement community "perverted their protocol" around 20 years ago when dealing with rape accusations."
Back at it, I see.
Please read the stories. Once again, this one did NOT happen in America.
It happened in the UK. The police apparently DID NOT believe her from the start. At least take the time to read this part:
"She was taken to hospital where she repeated the allegations, despite being challenged about her account. Medical examinations were carried out at the hospital and police searched her home, but they were unable to find any evidence that the attack had actually happened. When police asked her again about her story, she told them she had made it up."
She was charged, and brought before a judge for sentencing (likely a plea arrangement), and was given a sentence of jail time - which was then suspended due to her pregnancy.
Now, I don't know how they work in under the UK Nat. Health Care system (and, likely this skank was receiving what they term "assistance", but here in the US, if a prisoner in custody needs medical care, the bill goes to the LE jurisdiction who responsible for the incarceration.
I cannot say for sure, but it occurs to be that the judge may be acting as much to spare the tight budget of LE as much as actually having sympathy on the women. It's just a guess, of course
That women have children is a common reason why women often receive much lighter sentences than men. While I agree that false rape accusers should receive much stronger sentences, having kids is often a "get out of jail free card" not only for false accusers, but across the board.
ironic, isn't Anon? Except for the rare school boy false rape accuser, false rape claims are possible only because they are told by women. Then when it comes time to sentence them, they are given lenient sentences -- because they are women.
Trust me, I know all about the female sentencing discount.
sl, I have a story that is being posted about 9 o'clock Eastern Time tonight that I'd like you to comment on, if you have time.
I speak up for police every chance I get, but we need to hold law enforcement accountable for those cases where they destroy men while they investigate a rape liar's claim. In the case I am posting, the falsely accused man was in custody - police, court and prison - equal to about six days and four hours BUT -- for his bail, he had to move away from his wife and family, and he spent 79 days on bail. "Inhumane" is too kind. And wait until you hear the detective talking about the harm to real rape victims and to the police. Absolutely sickening.
False rape accusations should carry an absolute, inviolable minimum sentence of 5 years.
Though, the average should be closer to 10 years.
A minimum of 5 years would probably be an effective deterrent. Clearly, one year is not enough punishment to deter women from doing this. They need to be punished much more severely. 5 years as an absolute minimum is my suggestion.
Archivist - "I speak up for police every chance I get, but we need to hold law enforcement accountable for those cases where they destroy men while they investigate a rape liar's claim."
My goal has always been to draw a distinction between how police get it right sometimes, and how the completely F' it up at other times.
Praise where praise is due - as an encouragement to keep on trying to get it right and do better.
And, condemnation when they screw up - a bit milder when it's either negligence or lazyness - as a "teaching moment". But much more serious penalties for incompetence (those are typically the ones who should NOT be doing the jobs that they are) and even more so when they maliciously and knowingly do it. [as an aside, one of the detective in the Tim Masters case here in Colorado is going to trial for his role in withholding crucial evidence. He's facing prison time, as he should.]
My primary gripe with our anonymous friend who rants against LE (and, I do mean that I consider him a friend, even though we disagree - I know what he has gone through that has caused him to lash out at LE; but, I believe his "targeting" is seriously in error).
I believe it is a mistake to smear all of LE with the same broad brush. I'd prefer that we selectively target those in LE who are the problem; again, as a way to differentiate the examples of how it's done right, and how it's done wrong.
Snark - "A minimum of 5 years would probably be an effective deterrent. Clearly, one year is not enough punishment to deter women from doing this. They need to be punished much more severely. 5 years as an absolute minimum is my suggestion."
I agree that sentences given are too short to be effective (given the example we have in this case).
But, there is a "silver lining". She was found guilty of a felony charge, which will stay on her record.
From the second of three linked articles on this most recent offense:
"Scoones, of Horden, Co Durham, who had already been given a year's jail for accusing her husband of rape, admitted perverting the course of justice after the second claim. She got a 12-month suspended term at Durham Crown Court."
Now, admittedly, this will primarily only affect those who seek jobs, loans, etc. wherein their backgrounds will be checked.
Perhaps you might set me straight, but I often get the impression that about half of all woman in the UK are on government assistance, and would never bother seeking a job, anyway (so, she may have, in essence, got away with it altogether).
Archivist (and anyone else),
I realize this is completely off-topic, but wasn't sure where to ask. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate place (or delete it if it doesn't fit your purposes).
I found the following quote in an article on preventing campus/fraternity gang rape:
"In fact, in almost all instances, the men involved are unaware that their behavior is gang rape; in their minds they are “only” engaged in group sex with a “willing” partner. The fact that the woman may be intoxicated (even to the point where she cannot give consent) is viewed by some participants in gang rape as meaning that “she asked for it.” The woman’s ineffective protests may be viewed as “consent”; even if her protests are vigorous, her “no” is interpreted as “yes.”
My question has to do with the idea of mens rea, where you have to know what you're doing is a crime in order to be held accountable for it. I may not be wording that correctly, but I'm sure you know that concept.
In cases like this where the man/men involved didn't think or weren't aware that what they did WAS rape, how do you categorize/deal with it?
I realize the bit I am quoting raises many other questions regarding intoxication and consent, but I'm thinking more of the first sentence.
Maybe it's more a legal question, but I've seen this before in articles and always wonder.
Thoughts?
Anonymous said...
That women have children is a common reason why women often receive much lighter sentences than men. While I agree that false rape accusers should receive much stronger sentences, having kids is often a "get out of jail free card" not only for false accusers, but across the board.
Aug 4, 2010 10:36:00 AM
BINGO!
Bingo? Everyone already knows that.
Archivist said...
ironic, isn't Anon? Except for the rare school boy false rape accuser, false rape claims are possible only because they are told by women. Then when it comes time to sentence them, they are given lenient sentences -- because they are women.
Trust me, I know all about the female sentencing discount.
Aug 4, 2010 10:53:00 AM
What are your thoughts/opinions regarding feminisst jurisprudence?
Snark said...
False rape accusations should carry an absolute, inviolable minimum sentence of 5 years.
Though, the average should be closer to 10 years.
A minimum of 5 years would probably be an effective deterrent. Clearly, one year is not enough punishment to deter women from doing this. They need to be punished much more severely. 5 years as an absolute minimum is my suggestion.
Aug 4, 2010 11:37:00 AM
A good and adequate amount of the sentence should require the FRA to be confronted by real victims of rape.
"What are your thoughts/opinions regarding feminisst jurisprudence?"
How much time do you have? It is premised on the most vile concept -- that men make laws that favor men. Thus, we don't treat rape seriously because we can't be raped. Of course that is nonsense. Men can be, and are, raped. But beyond that, men have elevated rape to a level of seriousness that would not be the case if the crime were solely perpetrated against men.
"In fact, in almost all instances, the men involved are unaware that their behavior is gang rape..."
That is true, except a much better way of putting it is that their behavior is not gang rape, because the woman does not protest.
I don't know if there ever has been a proven case of gang rape on a college campus. In every instance where there has been video recording, it showed that it was consensual.
The myth of fraternity gang rape is not only perpetuated by feminists, but by the difficulty many people have in believing that a woman would willingly participate in such behavior. Although considering how promiscuous many college women are, is there that big a difference between wanting a bunch of different penises all at once, and spreading that number of different penises over a longer period of time?
"A[n] . . . adequate . . . sentence should require the FRA to be confronted by real victims of rape."
I am assuming you didn't mean to say THAT, did you?
slwerner said...
Snark - "A minimum of 5 years would probably be an effective deterrent. Clearly, one year is not enough punishment to deter women from doing this. They need to be punished much more severely. 5 years as an absolute minimum is my suggestion."
I agree that sentences given are too short to be effective (given the example we have in this case).
But, there is a "silver lining". She was found guilty of a felony charge, which will stay on her record.
From the second of three linked articles on this most recent offense:
"Scoones, of Horden, Co Durham, who had already been given a year's jail for accusing her husband of rape, admitted perverting the course of justice after the second claim. She got a 12-month suspended term at Durham Crown Court."
Now, admittedly, this will primarily only affect those who seek jobs, loans, etc. wherein their backgrounds will be checked.
Perhaps you might set me straight, but I often get the impression that about half of all woman in the UK are on government assistance, and would never bother seeking a job, anyway (so, she may have, in essence, got away with it altogether).
Aug 4, 2010 11:50:00 AM
Who is affected more by a felony record; a man or a woman? One clue; the societal norm(s) of most of the civilized world.
"In cases like this where the man/men involved didn't think or weren't aware that what they did WAS rape, how do you categorize/deal with it?"
Sigh. I don't have time to answer this fully but if the reason the male did not think it was rape was because the female's outward manifestations (verbal or non-verbal) reasonably suggested consent, then it wasn't rape, anywhere, any time.
If the men just didn't know that having sex with a woman incapable of giving consent was a crime, that's not an adequate defense. It was rape.
Most instances of "gang" rape involve wild consensual group sex where the parties are drinking. The woman almost always regrets it after-the-fact, and as all readers here know, women have a much higher likelihood of after-the-fact regret when it comes to post-one-night-stand romps (a new study proves it). That sometimes leads to claims of rape when rape didn't really occur.
Archivist said...
Bingo? Everyone already knows that.
Aug 4, 2010 2:27:00 PM
Just a response.
She is obviously an unfit mother and needs to have her baby taken away as soon as it is born. Then she can be thrown into prison where she belongs.
We often read about false rape accusers doing it over and over again, which proves that they are doing it to satisfy their sick needs and for no other reason.
Archivist said...
"What are your thoughts/opinions regarding feminisst jurisprudence?"
How much time do you have? It is premised on the most vile concept -- that men make laws that favor men. Thus, we don't treat rape seriously because we can't be raped. Of course that is nonsense. Men can be, and are, raped. But beyond that, men have elevated rape to a level of seriousness that would not be the case if the crime were solely perpetrated against men.
Aug 4, 2010 2:35:00 PM
I have nothing but all of the time left in the world. Being falsely accused and as a result, destroyed, I have nothing else to live for, nothing else to lose.
I'm not trying to antagonize you.
Archivist said...
"A[n] . . . adequate . . . sentence should require the FRA to be confronted by real victims of rape."
I am assuming you didn't mean to say THAT, did you?
Aug 4, 2010 2:36:00 PM
Real victims deserve to confront those who are impostors.Imagine being the victim of a false rape accustion. You may have been found not guilty by a jury or, the fake victim admitted they lied. The fact that either occured cannot give you back anything that was stolen from you. We discussed this before. I am not an enemy. I am a friend. Who else would make an effective derment to those who even think of making a FRA? IMHO, it is like using victims to deter criminals to reoffend.
Off topic but, since this article discusses stories that aren't heard in the news. Has anyone heard of the "smiley face murderers"? Cuz it's a chilling unsolved murder of about 40 college men, all white, athletic, and seemingly well off. Basically all of the men were drugged, drown, and in some cases ruled an "accident" or even better "suicide." Apparently, most law enforcement do not want to see them as related, but given the audience hear I recommend all of you investigate it.
You may have already done so but, the message regarding feminist jurisprudence and it's detriment often bears being repeated for the benefit of new visitors. It and all feminist constructs, and their harms, can never be stressed enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300369/School-caretaker-placed-porn-bosss-laptop-wickedly-evil-attempt-sacked.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300193/Transsexual-criminal-spared-jail-judge-says-awkward-dangerous.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300160/Child-rapist-stamped-death-prison-cell-fellow-inmate.html
"If the men just didn't know that having sex with a woman incapable of giving consent was a crime, that's not an adequate defense. It was rape."
Agreed that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", even though the is becoming increasingly difficult to understand. What if the men didn't know she was incapable of giving consent?
There is a big difference between wide-awake drunk and nearly passed out. As a society, we hold drunk people accountable for their behavior -- except when it comes to college women having sex. If the man/men are also drunk, wouldn't that make her equally guilty of "rape"? Yet, I don't know of single case of a woman expelled from school for having sex with a drunk man.
Young women see false rape as a viable option and a right! This twisted thinking has got to stop! This is a direct result of 40 years of leftist academic feminism.
Support the fight to make all false rape accusations a felony!
"What if the men didn't know she was incapable of giving consent?"
and, "If the men are also drunk, wouldn't that make her equally guilty of "rape"?"
Ohhhh, as in THEY SAID/SHE SAID?
Speechless anyone?
I'm curious to know if when men detainees are stripped naked by police officers, are female police officers allowed free access to witness?
Also, are there any situations in which male police officers are free to watch naked female detainees?
I'm curious. Was her previous FRA brought up in this case? What with rape "shield" laws 'n all....
TMOTS
@ Anon 3:04, on FRA's being confronted by real rape victims --- very interesting. Let's talk more about that, and how you would like to see it work?
"False rape accusations should carry an absolute, inviolable minimum sentence of 5 years.
Though, the average should be closer to 10 years.
A minimum of 5 years would probably be an effective deterrent. Clearly, one year is not enough punishment to deter women from doing this. They need to be punished much more severely. 5 years as an absolute minimum is my suggestion."
I agree. The longer they're locked up, the less harm they can do to other innocent people.
I don't know what the recidivism rate for false accusers is, but I suspect it's fairly high. What's the bet no-one actually knows...
'It's not enough that society has handed women the power to destroy the life of any man or boy merely by crying "rape,"'
I find that line disturbing. Society has given women that 'power'? My immediate thought was of the middle east, where a woman who is raped will be punished, not the man.
It's not a power at all, it's only a power for someone like the woman you wrote about. Most women who 'cry rape' have actually been raped, and therefore it's not a power.
Would you prefer society took this away? And that genuine rape victims were treated like offenders before all the evidence was collected? I think that's the wrong way to go because of the few women that like to cry wolf.
It's already hard for women who have genuinely been raped to come forward, especially young girls. If you start saying it's a 'power' they have, you're very misinformed.
The only thing that should be changed is the way they treat the suspect, that man shouldn't of been treated so horribly without all the evidence.
Why did the "peter and the wolf" theme just come to mind?
Post a Comment