A NEWLYWED woman who lied that she had been raped after a girls’ night out has been sentenced to a two-year jail term.
Emma Watson, who is deaf, broke down in tears after she was sentenced for falsely claiming she had been raped following a night out in Warrington town centre.
After the 32-year-old pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to perverting the course of justice, Judge Henry Globe QC jailed her.
He warned such false allegations make it more difficult for genuine victims to get justice, a message echoed by senior detectives in St Helens.
Liverpool Crown Court heard that Watson, who had been married for only six weeks, went out on November 7 last year with a group of women.
Prosecuting, Michael Stephenson said that while out she met a 20-year-old man and they returned to the home of the man’s parents and had consensual sex.
He said: “At some point she became distressed and this may be connected with the receipt of text messages from her husband expressing concern about her whereabouts.”
After claiming to her parents and husband she had been raped, Watson, of Fernhill Walk, Clock Face, repeated the allegation under police interview on Nov 17.
The man she accused was arrested on suspicion of rape and detained for 14 hours before being released on bail.
But in January she admitted the claim was false and apologised for the accusation.
Her defence solicitor Steven Swift said Watson recognised the gravity of her offence.
He suggested the false allegation was generated by “regret and pangs of guilt” about the damage having sex with the man would do to her marriage.
Judge Globe said: “"Every false allegation of rape increases the plight of those women who are the victims of this dreadful crime.
“It makes the offence harder to prove and, rightly concerned to avoid the conviction of an innocent man, a jury may find itself unable to be sufficiently sure to return a guilty verdict.”
Reacting to the sentence Detective Inspector Ged Seddon, of St Helens CID, said: "Merseyside Police will investigate and prosecute every complaint of rape thoroughly.
"If, during the course of an investigation, it transpires that the complaint is not true, then we will investigate that false allegation robustly.
"A false allegation of rape undermines the entire criminal justice system and detracts officers from supporting genuine victims of rape. Fortunately, these cases are very rare."
Link:
http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/8409605.Newlywed_jailed_for_false_rape_claim/
Posts
10 comments:
ACTUAL rapes are rare.
FRA's are the norm.
Trouble is it takes a confession to the Police for the CPS to ever take it to trial....
"A false allegation of rape undermines the entire criminal justice system and detracts officers from supporting genuine victims of rape. Fortunately, these cases are very rare."
They certainly don't seem rare.
”After the 32-year-old pleaded guilty…”
She plead, and got two years!?!? I’d call that encouraging progress towards the realization that women have to start being adequately punished for the crime of making and FRA in order to have a credible deterrent to others.
”Her defence solicitor Steven Swift said Watson recognised the gravity of her offence.
He suggested the false allegation was generated by “regret and pangs of guilt” about the damage having sex with the man would do to her marriage.
Even though she made a “play” for sympathy in acknowledging the harm of what she’d done, the judge still had the moral fortitude to sentence her to jail. He didn’t do what some others have done, and unilaterally decide that her remorse showed that she already been punished enough. Judge Henry Globe should be acknowledged as a man of true honor.
She deliberately put her lover in the way of potential serious consequences just so she could try to maintain the illusion of her own honor. How cruel, crass, and selfish. And, it seems she maintained the lie for 2 months, while her lover waited on “pins-and-needles” wondering if he was going to be charged with rape. We cannot know the mental anguished he must have suffered, and the press account seems to have forgotten that he even exists.
Two years may seem excessive (to some) in light of her confession and plea; yet, unless woman start getting “the book thrown at them”, we will never have a truly effective deterrent for keeping others from choosing to try the FRA approach in dealing with their own issues.
I cannot help but remember that Danmell Ndonye walked away Scott-free after being labeled a “trouble young women” for doing much the same thing as Emma Watson. The injustice between the two cases is not that Watson didn’t get a free pass as did Ndonye, but rather that Ndonye didn’t get two years as did Watson.
Unfortunately these cases are very, very common.
Charging false rape accusers will deter false rape accusers from "coming forward" with their twisted and destructfull lies.
A Webb site where False Rape accusers can be named?
This might be an excellent deterrent.
Arod99k
They already have a sex offender registry that lists guys that pee in public and moon people and other crap that hurts no one.
As long as that exists EVERY FRA should result in a lifetime on the sex offender registry.
"They already have a sex offender registry that lists guys that pee in public and moon people and other crap that hurts no one." How can you conclusively say that showing your genitals in public hurts no one? Most people who do these types of things and exhibit this type of behavior are most often drunk or high and do not care who sees them. Children have in a lot of cases been witness to these actions. Does that not impact them? Falsly accusing someone of rape is wrong, but lets not get ahead of ourselves and excuse any and all behavior under the basis that a person was not physically touched so it must not be harmful.
[responding to this remark]"They already have a sex offender registry that lists guys that pee in public and moon people and other crap that hurts no one."
Princess Thunder Kitty said...
”How can you conclusively say that showing your genitals in public hurts no one? Most people who do these types of things and exhibit this type of behavior are most often drunk or high and do not care who sees them. Children have in a lot of cases been witness to these actions. Does that not impact them? Falsly accusing someone of rape is wrong, but lets not get ahead of ourselves and excuse any and all behavior under the basis that a person was not physically touched so it must not be harmful.”
Oct 20, 2010 1:59:00 PM
While I do not know this person, nor where they might actually stand in regards to the issues of lewd and raunchy behavior, I found myself a bit annoyed at her remarks, because, as I interpret her written words, I find it smacks of the further villainization of male sexuality – even inadvertent acts which have come to be regarded as sexualized.
Given that she is responding to a remark about men facing the possibility of landing on the sex offenders registry for public urination (and that lewd act of exposing their genitals), with remarks about the supposed harms that might come to some (female) child happening to catch a fleeting glimpse of some guy's flaccid penis while he urinates; I did suspect that she was doing as we have seen so often, making the genitalia of men out to be, in and of themselves, evil and harmful to children to have to see.
To be clear, we are not talking about some perv in a trench coat exposing himself to and harassing women and children. Yet, Princess Thunder Kitty seems to feel that there is NO distinction between the flasher seeking a form of twisted sexual gratification (at the expense of those he encounters) and a guy who, perhaps having had a bit to drink, makes an ill-advised choice to relieve himself without taking every single possible precaution to ensure that any children who happen to be out-and-about at the times that such an occurrence is likely to happen (while it seems unlikely that any children would be out at such hours, it cannot be ruled out as an absolute impossibility) would not be able to see him in an exposed state.
Silly as this must seem, the reason that this even comes up in discussions on this forum is that, due to the fact that male genitalia will typically be uncovered during the act of urination, it technically fits under the same laws intended to be used against those trench-coated flashers. And, a man who is caught urinating in public does face the possibility of having to register as a sex offender – same as the guy caught flashing little girls at the park. While it is unlikely that authorities would actually wish to pursue forcing a guy to register, the possibility does exist.
But, what I believe that Princess Thunder Kitty fails to consider is that the “lewd” act of public urination is NOT limited to those of the male gender. In fact, when it come right down to being lewd and sexualized about public urination, young women seem to be far worse than young men. Many young women photograph themselves and friends urinating in public places, and post pictures on their social networking sites. Some even make a spectacle of themselves by going into men's restrooms and trying to use the urinals (again, with cameras and camcorders preserving the act).
[to be continued]
[continuing]
I wonder, does this Princess Thunder Kitty have the same sort of concern about such behaviors seen in women as she does for the much tamer version seen in men? If I had to guess, I'd figure her for one of those who's view would call the more sexualized lewd behaviors by women as “empowerment” while reserving the sexual offender status for men and their evil penises.
And, I'll go further. Since Princess Thunder Kitty seems so concerned about children possibly seeing some guys penis, lets consider another offense which also qualifies (technically) as a sexual-based offense – women flashing their breasts. As most anyone knows, woman will do this at numerous public settings, particularly where there is a crowd of people to see them showing off their “wears”. Some venues are even likely to have children in attendance. Does Princess Thunder Kitty care on whit about the “harm” done to any (male) children who might be exposed to a not-so-fleeting view of a woman's breasts exposed in public? I'm guessing not. Another means to a woman's (sexual) empowerment.
And, speaking of women's sexual empowerment, I believe it is widely known and understood that men are more likely to be aroused by female nudity (especially when in a sexualized manner) than the reverse. Given this, shouldn't a woman's blatantly sexualized exposure be considered a greater crime than some guy's inadvertent exposure?
And, even without completely exposing themselves, women also seek to show off their “wears” in highly sexualized ways (and, I suspect, with the intention of their own sexual gratification, not unlike the perv in the trench coat). They seem to enjoy putting men and boys “on the spot” to have to (try to) look away, or be accused of lewd behavior for staring at them. And it's not just that they will wear tiny thong bikini's to “family” venues like water parks, but some will even wear bikinis specifically chosen because they become rather see-through when wet (I've heard numerous accounts from friends of such behavior by women at a local water park. One can Google the term wicked weasel bikini, but I suspect that it is Not Safe For Work).
Given that Princess Thunder Kitty seems so concerned about the remote possibility of some child being at the same place and same time as some drunk guy who needs to urinate – and the grave harm that such a child might face if an evil male penis were to be seen, I wonder what she might have to say about women who “target” venues where children are actually quite likely to be, and make no effort to make ensure that no children see them “exposing” themselves.
Wait, let me guess. Behaviors that might land a guy on a sex-offender registry are simply another form of “female empowerment” to her?
Sorry to have gone off on that, but that remark of her just hit me the wrong way, I suppose.
Post a Comment