Monday, February 28, 2011
Female Judge: Rape lie that caused two innocent men to be arrested was 'a very human story and in a way understandable'
In the news story summarized below, a woman whose rape lie caused two innocent men to be arrested is regarded by the female judge who sentenced her as almost the victim herself. The judge's remarks are among the most troubling we have reported on this site, and that is saying a lot. They point up a serious problem that the falsely accused face -- when the criminal is deemed the victim, it is no wonder so little concern is shown for the falsely accused.
The judge said that the rape lie -- told to cover up the rape liar's impregnation by a man who wasn't her husband -- was "a very human story and in a way understandable."
Read that again, and let it sink in.
The judge noted that the lie was told "under pressure" from the liar's husband. And that, of course, is a peculiar way of wording it because it suggests the criminal is not fully culpable for her malefactions. She's not a morally free agent, but was "forced" into a criminal act -- by a man, of course. The judge's comments evince a sympathy and a tolerance for one of the foulest crimes that can victimize a male. This particular rape lie resulted in the arrest of not one but two innocent human beings.
The judge is also making certain that this pregnant woman doesn't give birth in jail. (Can someone cite for me a precedent where a male's sentence was reduced because he was about to be a father?)
To suggest that such a lie is in any sense "understandable" is no more appropriate than to suggest that a rape is, in some other-worldly sense, "understandable." Moreover, it is more accurate to characterize this wicked fabrication as "inhumane" than "human" as surely the liar knew that once a rape lie is unleashed, there is no controlling it.
To treat the woman's horrid prevarication as a natural human act deserving of sympathy trivializes the vileness of false rape claims, and their horrible effects on their victims. It is, however, typical of the judicial reaction to this crime.
Here is the news story:
Jailed: The soldier's cheating wife who claimed she was raped to cover up pregnancy while husband was in Afghanistan
Samantha Morley cheated on her soldier husband, Thomas Morley, then falsely claimed she had been raped to cover up the fact she had become pregnant in an affair with another man while her husband was fighting in Afghanistan.
Mr. Morley became suspicious over the parentage of his youngest child because her date of birth meant she was likely to conceived while he was deployed in war-torn Helmand Province. He quizzed his wife, and she told him she had been raped during a drunken night out. The worried husband called police to report the crime.
As a result, two innocent men were arrested. Moreover, police estimated more than 54 hours were spent investigating the rape claims.
The second man arrested was the one with whom Ms. Morley had the affair.When Mrs Morley was arrested in July last year she initially maintained her allegation was truthful, but as the police interview progressed she realised how much officers already knew. She made the rape accusation, not expecting that her husband would contact the police.
Sophie Murray, defending, said that Mrs Morley had become entangled in a web of lies after trying to cover up her affair because she was afraid of losing her husband so soon after giving birth to her now nine-month-old baby daughter.
"This offence was committed not out of maliciousness, but due to a set of circumstances she found herself in by her own actions," she said.
"She did not make the call to the police, but once the wheels were in motion she felt she was unable to extract herself from the situation and she felt she had to go through with the charade to keep her family together."
The mother-of-three was jailed for 12 months for perverting the course of justice.
However, Judge Mary Jane Mowat said she would only serve six months and would not have to give birth to her new baby behind bars. The judge said: "After some questioning you came around to admitting that you had made a false allegation of rape under pressure because of the early birth of your child.
"It is a very human story and in a way understandable, but the result for the two men arrested and suspected of one of the worst crimes in our law was undeniable.
"The effect that false allegations have on the plight of genuine victims of rape has to be considered.
'The more the public hears about false allegations the less likely they, and juries, are to believe the true ones."
Brunette Mrs Morley wept loudly as her sentence was read out and began to hyperventilate as she was led from the dock to police cells.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361529/Jailed-The-soldiers-cheating-wife-claimed-raped-cover-pregnancy-husband-Afghanistan.html#ixzz1FJSMGFSb
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
She should have been given the same sentence that would have been given to the men if they had been found guilty. There is never any degree of understanding when it involves accusing someone of such a heinour crime. For what, just to save her marriage. How selfish, and sadly she was only slapped on the the hand by the judge.
I find it disturbing that this woman judge finds the crime "understandable" and thinks it was "not done out of malice." This is one of the most malicious hate crimes imaginable and this sentence is totally inadequate.
The judge's comments do provide an insight into the way many women seem to cover for and justify the bad behavior of other women. Sisterhood at its finest. Indeed, there does appear to be, at least among a certain class of less scrupulous women, a certain unspoken but understood deal or code, a kind of 'honor amongst thieves'. Basically, I will agree to cover up and not expose your shit if you in turn do the same for me.
Men are much less likely to cover up or justify the bad behavior of other men. The only exception is normally if the other man is a close friend, or if a man is closely implicated or compromised by what has happened, or is indebted in some way to the other man. But few men would feel much sense of obligation or loyalty to a similar man in the position of this judge relative to them.
But the judge did chide her for the harm she caused to genuine rape victims. Because, of course, undermining women's victimhood currency is an infinitely more unforgivable sin than destroying the lives of innocent men. She let the side down, and that, if nothing else, deserves a rap over the knuckles.
This one's weird. What the judge said was utterly wrong; yet she seems to have given a longer sentence than many who have been far more harsh.
As if this brave soldier's wife cheating on him wasn't enough, then his wife led to believe that she was raped (which must have been devastating). But do you think that's the end of the indignities? Not even close. He now gets to spend the next 18 years with a living reminder of his wife's treachery. And if he decides that he can't bear to do that, he loses half of his wealth and a huge chunk of his income for the next 18 years, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT HIS KID! To characterise this as an injustice is a grotesque understatement.
Look at the positive -- at least the judge is making her serve a year's time.
Here's hoping her soldier husband isn't on the hook for 18 years of child support.
Men must react strongly for these types of things.
In America the scumbag would have been given a free pass from her local nifong.
I know this is what Pierce said, but:
Just for the record, the judge in the country that supposedly originated justice and freedom called the act of sending two innocent men to jail a "very human story" and "understandable".
Yup. The paragon of justice just did that. Awesome!
Nick S - "The judge's comments do provide an insight into the way many women seem to cover for and justify the bad behavior of other women. Sisterhood at its finest. Indeed, there does appear to be, at least among a certain class of less scrupulous women, a certain unspoken but understood deal or code, a kind of 'honor amongst thieves'. Basically, I will agree to cover up and not expose your shit if you in turn do the same for me."
Nick,
You beat me to it. This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the article (and how I intended to respond).
While it’s good that the woman was give 6 months, given that most other women being convicted of the exact same crime are getting 1 to 2 years, it does appear that she is being given a lesser sentence due to the female judge being better able to “relate” to what the criminal has done. It’s just a bit too much on the slippery slope of “validating” the motives for which women tend to make FRA’s for my tastes. As I see it, it’s not unlike the way in which women tend to seek to justify women’s infidelities (relative to the way the judge men’s); and even the way they try to rationalize murders committed by women as somehow “more justifiable”.
Just as you say, ”Sisterhood at its finest”
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. The rape lie was completely human and can certainly be understood. The judge's comments are also completely human and understandable. Had the acuser actually been raped, that would also be completely human and understandable.
However, all three acts should be considered repugnant, repulsive, and reprehensible.
The only person involved in this story whose actions should be lauded is the husband. Concerned for his wife (and possibly the rest of the community) he believed her lie and took the appropriate action. For that, he now gets to be the scapegoat and must now bear the blame for his wife's lie and the damage done to the innocent victims.
Funny isn't it how the one virtuous person is the one who is demonized.
TDOM
TDOM: you really believe that the judge didn't mean to express sympathy for the criminal by that? Come on; wake up.
This judge does not understand the false accuser or her actions at all; hence the inappropriately mild sentence.
We're talking about some of the lowest scum on the planet!
Funny isn't it how the one virtuous person is the one who is demonized.
***
Not funny. At all.
"Brunette Mrs Morley wept loudly as her sentence was read out and began to hyperventilate as she was led from the dock to police cells."
Awww, poor thing.
What does a woman have to do not to receive sympathy from the news media? Apparently, murder and statutory rape aren't bad enough. If a woman committed an act of violent terrorism, I wonder what the reaction would be, that she needed help?
Humans make mistakes. Humans are not perfect.
It's perfectly understandable. *sob*
Andrea Yates murdered several of her children in a bathtub. The media responding with an outpouring of sympathy, scapegoating her husband.
It is well nigh impossible for a woman to be blamed for anything in this warped feminist society.
Rape hysteria and false rape accusations got alot of black men lynched around a hundred years ago. Now the lynch mob is targeting all men who are even around women.
It is a societal and law enforcement perversion to have let the "culture of false rape accusations" get this far into our culture.
the criminal is deemed the victim
////////////////
wow
Well there you have it- not only does a woman acknowledge a rape lie, but goes on to rationalize and make excuses for the lie- from the bench no less! So we can once and for all put to rest the canard that women never lie about rape.
Malice in law is the intent, without justification excuse or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another. Malice means the wrongful intention and includes all types of intent that law deems to be wrongful. Legally speaking any act done with a wrong intention is done maliciously.
Her intention (to cover her infidelity) is malicious because she has a wrong intention. Malice in law does not mean the same as in common language(done for some hateful purpose) and the judge should know this.
so she will be let out for the birth of her baby? Will she be let back in right after? Cause sure as hell I bet babies don't reduce a mans sentence.
Anon: but it isn't malice if you believe (like this judge apparently does) that false accusations are no big deal and that their victims are insignificant. She probably wouldn't have given this pervert any time at all if it wasn't for "the harm done to real victims."
OT: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/01/heather-mills-rep-says-lied-paul-mccartney-abuse/?test=faces
In the suit, Parapluie, a publicity company, claims Heather often made allegations about Paul McCartney to the firm, claiming he was a drunk, drug-abusing wife-beater. Sources connected with the publicity company tell TMZ they believe Heather made the abuse stories up.
It is quite human and understandible that a 30 year old virgin man, who never gets laid, in his despair slips some Rohypnol into a woman's drinks so he finally can have sex.
If then he uses condoms, that is the final proof that he has no ill intents against the woman.
Women call him a loser and nerd, so if he punches a women out of pent up anger of years of abuse, that also is perfectly understandable.
I rest my case.
Mar 1, 2011 5:30:00 PM
I heard she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
A5.13- then this female shouldn't be a judge because she doesn't even know the definition of malicious as applies to the law.When laymen say malicious the connotation is of someone acting in a vengeful or hateful manner against some one but in law it means that the actor had the wrong intention, in this case to hide her bad conduct from the husband and blame it on someone else. She didn't hate the man she accused but still it's defined as malicious under the law.She knew or should have known that the man would be arrested and harmed and should have immediately told her husband the truth when she saw he was going to the cops based on her lie.
And I must say she's a wonderful wife. She has a 9 month old infant to take care of at home but yet she goes out and gets drunk and gets some man to have sex with her all while her husband is risking his life and limb. Well, I suppose the tension was too great for her worrying about him so she just had to get drunk and laid lol
Human Stupidity, that is an excellent point. Imagine the reaction if a male judge sympathized with a convicted rapist, calling his actions human and understandable.
There would be deafening cries of outrage across the land. But a female judge sympathizing with a female offender. Not a murmur.
Post a Comment