Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Top Posters Since October 2003
dp1	4000+
orolan	4000+
Navigatr1	2500+
Silvert...	2500+
1dadof5	2500+
Valerie	2000+
steve	1500+
victori...	1000+
myoung	1000+
rabbitr...	750+
HPierce	750+
poetsdr...	750+
Renunci...	750+
lj	750+
fallenone	500+
DoTheCr...	500+
marta	500+
momhelp...	500+
prozac	500+
rebel51	500+
PVulcan	250+
anti	250+
rodsmith	250+
LockEmUp	250+
Quest	250+
artie	250+
KK	250+
LostTime	250+
TGoodman	250+
amberleaf	250+
deadmom...	250+
brennus	100+
scarlett	100+
mousein...	100+
thepar	100+
assumpt...	100+
lildrafire	100+
JakeLF	100+
MrTruth	100+
june5	100+

Newest Users
Registered within the last 72 hours.
dholla1031
Pooter
tlgrjlfromsc
tsand

Forum: Polls

Thread (Discussion): Poll 1032 - Should people convicted of making a false sex crime claim appear on a public registry?

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 122695 (In Reply to Message 122694)

Posted by orolan on Dec 04, 2003 07:22 PM | Also by orolan

Gender: Male, Age Bracket: 40 - 49, State: N/A, Country: United States

I think the problem here has to do with "crime". The poll question asks simply if false accusers should be on some form of public registry. It doesn't ask if they should be charged with a felony criminal offense. So why the necessity for a trial and due process protections? As I see it, this is an administrative action, a "record-keeping" move. Nothing more. People are put on "lists" all the time without being afforded full trials by jury to decide if they indeed should be on that list. Just look at the CPS abuse registries for an example.

You said:
"One can not be forced to serve as both witness and defendant in a trial for one's life or liberty"
True. But we aren't talking about taking away anybody's life or liberty, are we?

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.

Switch to Flat View

Message 122694
Oh no, no. Can't have that.

Posted by marta on Dec 04, 2003 04:09 PM | Also by marta

Gender: Female, Age Bracket: 30 - 39, State: N/A, Country: United States

>>>
That's a tough one. No state is going to want to foot the bill for a second trial.
>>>
First of all, if falsely accusing someone of rape is a crime, it's not a second trial, it's a different one with a new defendant.  A defendant who has every right to all of the due process protections afforded the person accused of rape.

The state will pay for what trials need to be had.  If a crime has been committed, they are duty bound to pursue it vigorously.

>>>
Maybe it can be treated like the sentencing phase of capital cases? After an acquittal, have the same jury make a determination as to the truthfulness of the victim?
>>>
This will NEVER be the case.  One can not be forced to serve as both witness and defendant in a trial for one's life or liberty.  It has to be a separate trial.  There is no way around it.  You can not short-change someone's right to due process by doing it any other way.

>>>
But I did wonder about "such a severe consequence". Those of us on registries are constantly reminded that it is a simple administrative procedure, much like getting a permit to build a house. It isn't punitive and deprives us of no rights. So why would it be a "severe consequence" when applied to a person making false accusations? Especially if there are no criminal penalties to go along with it?
>>>
When I say any of the above things, I'll respond to this query.  Until then, this line of questioning doesn't apply to me.  I have never belittled the consequences of putting someone on a registry, and I refuse to answer for those who have.

Thread

121965, admin, Nov 19, 2003 08:36 PM [Introduction]
      122001, Navigatr1, Nov 20, 2003 06:35 AM [False Accusations Need To Be Taken Seriously...]
            122007, TGoodman, Nov 20, 2003 10:01 AM
                  156449, mawmaw, Jul 17, 2005 07:44 AM
            122031, orolan, Nov 20, 2003 06:58 PM
                  122183, marta, Nov 23, 2003 12:04 AM [Trial v. Hearing]
                        122653, orolan, Dec 03, 2003 11:22 PM
                              122694, marta, Dec 04, 2003 04:09 PM [Oh no, no. Can't have that.]
                                    122695, orolan, Dec 04, 2003 07:22 PM
                                          122708, marta, Dec 05, 2003 05:02 AM [Hmmm]
            122325, marta, Nov 25, 2003 05:06 PM [Vindictiveness has nothing to do with it]
            151936, mysticfyre, May 18, 2005 05:48 PM [Absolutely]
      122608, alambert, Dec 02, 2003 06:24 PM [yes they should]
            142515, rebel51, Dec 18, 2004 12:38 PM
                  142539, orolan, Dec 19, 2004 02:49 AM
                        143488, oioi, Jan 08, 2005 05:23 PM [1032]
      147933, monkey4u, Mar 24, 2005 04:31 AM

Forum Home | Top of Thread

Tell a Friend about this page.

Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Forum: PollsThread (Discussion): Poll 1032 - Should people convicted of making a false sex crime claim appear on a public registry?

Message 122695 (In Reply to Message 122694)

Message 122694Oh no, no. Can't have that.

Thread

Forum: Polls

Thread (Discussion): Poll 1032 - Should people convicted of making a false sex crime claim appear on a public registry?

Message 122694
Oh no, no. Can't have that.