A woman who made twenty -- read that again: twenty -- false reports of rape, abduction, false imprisonment and assault against her innocent husband and other unnamed men will not be jailed unless she breaks a court order to stop wasting police time. Let that sink in: a serial false accuser, who targeted members of one gender, will not spend a day behind bars based on her conduct to date, unless she further breaks the law. (The news story is below.) A five-year restraining order bans her from harassing or contacting more than a dozen named individuals, or from getting someone to do it for her.
But the judge entered "not guilty" verdicts on all charges, and warned the woman that they could be held against her if she repeats her behaviour. Why was she not tried and convicted and given prison time? Doctors were unable to agree whether she was of sound enough mind to realize her claims were false, and that's an element of the crimes.
Consider the implications: the progressives who seek to minimize the prevalence of false rape reports will not count the rape claims here as "false rape" claims, simply because the woman supposedly was so deranged that she didn't know she was lying and so was not convicted. Instead, they will dishonestly suggest that since these claims weren't "false" in the sense of leading to a conviction, that they were actual rapes. You think I'm kidding?
If women were victimized by a man in an analogous manner, this obscure case would be a rallying cry for women's rights. There would be talk of "hate crimes," and widespread outrage that such a monster was able to escape prison and terrorize other innocent people. But since the victims were "just" men, this case will not be discussed beyond the confines of this and similar blogs.
Why is there not far more outrage about this?
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:
Woman who falsely accused husband given court order
A WOMAN who repeatedly made false allegations against her husband could be jailed if she breaks a court order to stop her wasting police time.
Amanda Taylor was yesterday prohibited from contacting more than a dozen named people, including a doctor and police officers in North Yorkshire.
The 34-year-old was due to stand trial on 21 charges of perverting the course of justice, but they were dropped after two days of legal discussions.
The case collapsed after doctors were unable to agree whether Taylor was of sound enough mind to realise her claims were false.
Although a judge entered not guilty verdicts on all charges, he warned Taylor they could be held against her if she repeats her behaviour.
The five-year restraining order imposed yesterday bans her from harassing or contacting the named individuals, or from getting someone to do it for her.
Her barrister, Katherine Dunn, told Judge Howard Crowson she had also explained the implications of the order to her client’s husband, David.
Mr Taylor was named in most of his wife’s false claims made to police between March and September 2009, Teesside Crown Court heard.
Twenty untrue reports of rape, abduction, false imprisonment and assault were made against her innocent husband and other unnamed men.
Then in May last year, she made a series of false reports about her and her husband receiving a number of threatening letters.
At an earlier hearing, Miss Dunn said Taylor, of Rye Cottage, Aldbrough St John, near Richmond, North Yorkshire, accepted making all the untrue allegations, but the issue was whether she knew it was wrong.
Judge Crowson said he believed the prosecution had made the right decision and told Taylor: “I hope that it might be the case that this will never happen again.
He added: “Although it resulted in the acquittal of Amanda Taylor, it is necessary to protect people from harassment by her.
“I have read enough statements – both those prepared for the trial and other documents – which make it clear that each and every one of those people does require that type of protection.”
P.S. Check out our latest piece in The Spearhead: An 89-Year-Old-Statue Helps Unlock the Scorn For Men's Rights