Charissa Bella Shuman made a false sexual assault allegation that landed a man in custody for 23 hours, of which 6 hours was spent at a hospital for an anxiety attack and chest pains.
There is no mention of the second man, and whether he was taken in to custody or not.
I'm glad to see that the Judge, Jim Hunter, acknowledged the harm a false accusation can make:
“The real harm here is that an innocent person may have been prosecuted,"
The good news is that it doesn't appear that the unnamed man was ever charged with anything, so at least there won't be any social stigma that attaches to him.
Add that Ms. Schuman also has received 75 hours of community service, and I think we can say that she has received a just punishment.
While I'm happy to see she has written letters of apology, I can't agree that she didn't have any "malicious" intent. You don't accuse someone of raping you out of the kindness of your heart.
Link:
http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/news/local/False_sex_assault_allegation__lands_young_woman_in_jail_124069214.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Being pulled into a police station on a false rape accusation is an extremely traumatic experience. I can understand why this guy was having chest pains.
How about three years in jail followed by two years doing community service? Well, at least some jail time is a step in the right direction by the judge. IMHO, all false-rapes have malicious intent even if no man is named.
Meanwhile, nationwide in all the major cities women complain that in 'their' city there are no single good men. Ah' yes, the results of the social changes and new laws driven by radical-feminists and the gender-raunchers. If single American women think they have it difficult now with finding men good-enough for them wait another twenty years.
Atlas
OT- This excellent article discusses the pathological lying of media superstar Nancy Grace: http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson317.html
Why is Grace so afraid of the truth? Perhaps it is because Grace herself has had a problem with telling the truth in important situations. When Grace was a college student in the late 1970s, her fiancé was murdered; that much can be verified. Furthermore, Grace, whose shattered life was changed by that event, decided not to be an English major and went into law and became a Georgia prosecutor instead. Unfortunately, after that fact was established, Grace began to play fast and loose with the facts of the case.
Grace publicly has claimed a number of things about the murderer and the case:
The killer was a 24-year-old career criminal who killed her fiancé after robbing him;
The killer denied his crime and a jury took three agonizing days to convict him;
In a moment of weakness, Grace told the court she did not want the killer executed;
After that, the killer filed a series of appeals, further traumatizing Grace and her family.
Thus, her own personal experience, according to Grace, is "proof" that the American justice system is too much weighed toward the "Rights of the Accused," and if we want "justice," the "rights of the victims" must be put front-and-center. While Grace’s emotional appeal seems to be rooted in her tragic story, it turns out that Grace has not been telling the truth. The New York Observer, after investigating the case, found out the following things:
Her fiance was shot not by a random robber, but by a former co-worker;
The killer, Tommy McCoy, was 19, not 24, and had no prior convictions;
Mr. McCoy confessed to the crime the evening he was arrested;
The jury convicted in a matter of hours, not days;
Prosecutors asked for the death penalty, but didn't get it, because Mr. McCoy was mildly retarded;
Mr. McCoy never had an appeal; he filed a habeas application five years ago, and after a hearing it was rejected.
For that matter, Grace has failed even to get the year correct (the murder was in 1980, not 1979) and her fiance’s age right (he was 23, not 25). So, while Grace’s fiancé, indeed, was murdered, the real story does not fit Grace’s "the killer thumbed his nose at the justice system" narrative.
ESB - ”While I'm happy to see she has written letters of apology, I can't agree that she didn't have any "malicious" intent. You don't accuse someone of raping you out of the kindness of your heart.”
Exactly!
And, if you have no malicious intent, why refuse to admit it right away when it has become obvious that you had lied about the event(s)? Why try to keep the rape lie alive if you really didn’t mean to do some harm by it?
From linked article:
”Crown prosecutor Jason Snider said diligent police work uncovered the fact that Shuman wasn’t telling them the truth early in the man’s detention.
Even then, the woman wouldn’t recant, Snider said.”
We see plenty of stories in which as soon as the police begin to have doubts, and address those doubts to the accuser, she folds up almost immediately. If we are to have lighter punishments (on a sliding scale, perhaps), those should be reserved for those who confess quickly – only. If, when confronted with inconsistencies, and accuser continues to try to spin the lies about having been raped, that accuser should automatically be subject to increased penalty. If they don’t intend to harm anyone, and their lie is already crumbling, there is no sound reason not to come clean.
How fucked up does the legal system have to be to believe that you can falsely accuse of rape "without malicious intent?" That's like saying that a rape was non-malicious.
Anonymous - "How fucked up does the legal system have to be to believe that you can falsely accuse of rape "without malicious intent?"
In this case, the claim of having had no “malicious intent” came only from Charissa Shuman herself(likely during the sentencing phase.
Article:
"Shuman told court she didn’t have “malicious intent” and has written apology letters."
Seems her claim didn't get her much.
To his credit, the prosecutor asked for a 6-month sentence, while the defense attorney asked for a suspended sentence.
The judge here seems to have "split the difference" with the three month sentence.
Im surprised Srauss Khan, and that other old man banker didn't have heart attacks during their false rape accusation persecutions
It seems that the main stream media in the US, who create a media circus over every rape accusation, but nearly no media coverage when it is discovered it was a "false rape accusation", should be held accountable for "inflaming prejudice" for their perverted and prejudiced representation of the truth.
There may be a time when these spin doctors will be held accountable for the "inflaming prejudice" against the innocent.
Post a Comment