|
|
Forum: Old Message Board
Thread (Discussion): Moral Equivalent? - Re: Moral Equivalent?
Message 118055
Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 10, 2003 06:17 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Trying to Survive, please tell me if you think the women in the following stories are as morally reprehensible as the woman who falsely accused you of raping her:
An unmarried 16-year-old female had sex with her
boyfriend and later became concerned that she might be
pregnant. She said she had been raped by an unknown
assailant in the hopes that the hospital would give her
something to abort the possible pregnancy.
A 37-year-old woman reported having been
raped "by some nigger." She gave conflicting reports of the
incident on two occasions and, when confronted with
these, she admitted that the entire story was a fabrication.
She feared her boyfriend had given her "some sexual
disease," and she wanted to be sent to the hospital to "get
checked out." She wanted a respectable reason, i.e., as an
innocent victim of rape, to explain the acquisition of her
infection.
An unmarried female, age 17, had been having violent
quarrels with her mother who was critical of her laziness
and style of life. She reported that she was raped so that
her mother would "get off my back and give me a little
sympathy."
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 118128 (In Reply to Message 118055)
Yes
Posted by x_HPierce
on Oct 13, 2003 09:03 AM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Yes, they are. In any of those cases a false rape allegation was made. It is reprehensible because it shows that women will use rape as an alibi or excuse to get services. The means doesn't justify the end.
It is also wrong because of the possible damage inflicted on others. Men and women's lives are ruined by the allegation of rape. The smaller the community they live in, the worse it can be.
It is wrong because it undermines and casts doubts on those that file honest rape reports.
Considering that false rapes are anywhere from 20 - 70% in any given population in any year, crying wolf too many times is never a good.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118055)
Message 118145 (In Reply to Message 118055)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_TryingtoSurviv
on Oct 13, 2003 10:59 AM | Also by x_TryingtoSurviv
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Tricky question - I'll give it a go.
For all of them, they seem to have cried rape but didn't have some guy in jail over it not real or potential. They may have their own problems but at least no innocent second party is doing time.
I know where you are going with this one but will answer honestly. False rape claims that do not finger an innocent party only bolster the case of feminazis in the broader political sence but do not harm an individual - only society as a unit by making society more recpetive to the aforesaid.
They have their own problems to deal with and that is sad. People in a tight corner tend to have a slight regard for the truth.
Complainants that give a name and a face do so for the same reasons and I dont think they realise the harm they do to another human being and hence I do not call them "morally reprehensible" - just dangerous and out of hand. They are too dim witted to know and that isnt thier fault.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118055)
Message 118165 (In Reply to Message 118128)
I wasn't asking you.
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 04:38 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Re-read the post.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118128)
Message 118166 (In Reply to Message 118128)
But while we're at it
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 04:42 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
>
> Yes, they are. In any of those cases a false rape allegation
> was made.
That's not what I asked.
> It is reprehensible because it shows that women
> will use rape as an alibi or excuse to get services.
>
> It is also wrong because of the possible damage inflicted on
> others. Men and women's lives are ruined by the allegation
> of rape. The smaller the community they live in, the worse
> it can be.
>
> It is wrong because it undermines and casts doubts on those
> that file honest rape reports.
I didn't ask if false claims of rape without identifying a suspect are wrong (I know they are). I asked a man (Trying to Survive) who had actually been sent to jail on a false accusation whether he thought that such claims were AS BAD as those made by a woman who intentionally identifies an innocent man as a rapist when no rape occurred.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118128)
Message 118171 (In Reply to Message 118145)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 07:08 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
trying to survive wrote:
> I know where you are going with this one but will answer
> honestly.
I respect and appreciate you trying to remain objective.
> False rape claims that do not finger an innocent
> party only bolster the case of feminazis in the broader
> political sense -
I agree. It is yet another contribution to the hysteria about sex. They also harm victims of actual rape by creating doubt in reasonable people's minds about ANY rape claim. Another relevant, and related point though, is that people who keep insisting, in the face of well-supported arguments to the contrary, that false rape accusations are higher than they actually are, are in effect doing the same thing the feminazis do when they claim that false rape accusations are lower than they actually are. Claiming artificially high/low levels of false rape accusations causes some percentage of people, when they discover the deception, to stop paying attention to the debate alltogether. The less certain people are of what the real data is, the less likely they are to care at all.
> Complainants that give a name and a face do so for the same
> reasons and I dont think they realise the harm they do to
> another human being and hence I do not call them "morally
> reprehensible" - just dangerous and out of hand. They are too
> dim witted to know and that isnt their fault.
Oh, I emphatically disagree. The only possible mitigating circumstance for such an act is mental illness (and I'm not just talking about depression). I don't believe that women who do this are just dumb. I believe that they are liars, that they are likely people who can not be trusted in many other situations because of their lack of maturity and responsibility, AND that they are ignorant, in bad circumstances, etc. I guess I'm saying that you shouldn't insult all the good, honest poor people who, even if backed into a corner, would never falsely accuse a person of anything, much less rape, by claim poverty and bad circumstances are sufficient explanation for such accusations.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118145)
Message 118185 (In Reply to Message 118145)
Trying to Survive
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 07:44 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
In case you didn't guess, the three cases I posted were among 21 cases (out of 109 total rape reports, 45 of which turned out to be false for one reason or another) in the Kanin study where the accuser did not point the finger and, when pressed, eventually admitted that a rape had not occurred.
What do you think of that in light of the rest of the discussion on the Kanin study?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118145)
Message 118243 (In Reply to Message 118145)
That's What I Thought
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 14, 2003 06:25 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
I'm sure you can figure this out without me having to say anything.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118145)
Message 118245 (In Reply to Message 118145)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 14, 2003 07:20 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
"They are too dim witted to know and that isnt thier fault."
They aren't too dimwitted to know that a false rape complaint is wrong. On the contrary, they are smart enough to know that they probably won't be prosecuted for making the false claim. And if they are prosecuted, the penalty will be laughable.
And it definitely IS their fault, but the legislature shares some fault for not toughening up the penalties for false rape complaints.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118145)
Message 118253 (In Reply to Message 118245)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 14, 2003 08:45 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> "They are too dim witted to know and that isnt thier fault."
>
> They aren't too dimwitted to know that a false rape complaint
> is wrong. On the contrary, they are smart enough to know that
> they probably won't be prosecuted for making the false claim.
If such women are not prosecuted, it is the man's fault, and no one else's. Where legal remedy is available, what more should we do? And why should men falsely accused of rape be given any different treatment than people falsely accused of murder, child molestation, or any other felony?
It is an individual's responsibility to vindicate themselves in such situations. I sure as hell would.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118245)
Message 118275 (In Reply to Message 118253)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 15, 2003 10:50 AM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
I agree. But as a male who was falsely accused by a female of aggravated stalking, I know what happens when a person attempts a prosecution. Absolutely nothing. The prosecutor says such complaints are "vindictive" in nature, and the prosecutor's office isn't in the revenge business. At least that's how they do it around here.
The records at the county courthouse indicate that nobody has been prosecuted for filing a false report to LE or making a false complaint for ANY crime in the last 8 years(that's as far back as they go on the computer. The rest would require hand-searching documents).
The problem isn't the men. It's the judiciary and the legislature. Why not mandatory prosecution for false accusations?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118253)
Message 118292 (In Reply to Message 118275)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 15, 2003 08:07 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
> The records at the county courthouse indicate that nobody has
> been prosecuted for filing a false report to LE or making a
> false complaint for ANY crime in the last 8 years(that's as
> far back as they go on the computer. The rest would require
> hand-searching documents).
And there are documented cases of false reports?
> The problem isn't the men. It's the judiciary and the
> legislature. Why not mandatory prosecution for false
> accusations?
The problem IS the men. They simply don't want to go through the process of fighting for their name. And prosecutors have nothing to do with it: we're talking about defamation here, a civil wrong. You'd be suing either for money, or for an injunction forcing the woman to make a public recantation.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118275)
Message 118300 (In Reply to Message 118292)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 15, 2003 11:28 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
There are myriad documented cases that have been dismissed or nolle prossed due to several reasons like "Witness statements are not credible", "Accused was incarcerated at the time so could not have committed the crime"(would you believe 5 of these in 2002 alone?), "Victim recanted statement", etc.
Another indicator is that the Sheriff's Department arrests around 80 people per week. These arrests are printed in the paper once a week. Also printed is the court calender, listing out who was convicted and who entered a guilty plea that week. This number averages 60 per week. So what happened to the other 20? Granted, some are dismissed because the evidence isn't "strong enough". But you can bet that many are also dismissed because the charge is an absolute falsehood. And of course their is my own case.
A civil suit shouldn't be needed. After all, the girl didn't go pay a lawyer to sue me for stalking, did she? No.
So why should I have to spend money to clear my name, when I can be vindicated in a court of law when she is convicted of filing a false report of a crime?
Nope, its not the men. Its the system, a system that thinks if we prosecute for false claims, people will be reluctant to make real ones.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118292)
Message 118318 (In Reply to Message 118300)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 16, 2003 07:59 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> There are myriad documented cases that have been dismissed or
> nolle prossed due to several reasons like "Witness statements
> are not credible", "Accused was incarcerated at the time so
> could not have committed the crime"(would you believe 5 of
> these in 2002 alone?), "Victim recanted statement", etc.
> Another indicator is that the Sheriff's Department arrests
> around 80 people per week. These arrests are printed in the
> paper once a week. Also printed is the court calender,
> listing out who was convicted and who entered a guilty plea
> that week. This number averages 60 per week. So what happened
> to the other 20? Granted, some are dismissed because the
> evidence isn't "strong enough". But you can bet that many are
> also dismissed because the charge is an absolute falsehood.
> And of course their is my own case.
Are we talking about rapes, all crimes, or what? Your manipulation of these numbers is also a wee bit unconvincing here. That's why I like formal studies.
> A civil suit shouldn't be needed. After all, the girl didn't
> go pay a lawyer to sue me for stalking, did she? No.
And if you're suing for defamation, you don't have to pay a lawyer either. Defamation is a civil cause of action, like negligence. You do not pay unless you're a defendant and you lose. Even if you're a plaintiff and you lose, you still don't pay. So all you've got to do is go find some attorney who is just as worked up about women who maliciously lie about being victims of crime as you are, and get him to take your case. If you've just won a criminal trial, the tide is in your favor. And the standard of proof in civil trials is far lower than that in criminal trials. Given all that, if a guy sued for an injunction to force the woman to publicly recant (+lawyer's fees), a jury would look upon him even more favorably because it would be clear that he's not out for money, and (from the criminal trial) that he was found innocent of the crime by a court of law. The jury would be tremendously biased in favor of such a man. And yet nobody does it.
> Nope, its not the men.
It is the men. See above.
> Its the system, a system that thinks if we prosecute for false > claims, people will be reluctant to make real ones.
If you don't change the system, who will? Bureaucracy is blind to ALL of the sufferings of people who must live by it. Unless you make a hell of a lot of noise, nothing will change.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118300)
Message 118321 (In Reply to Message 118171)
Re: Rape VS BS
Posted by x_SurvivorForeve
on Oct 17, 2003 01:11 AM | Also by x_SurvivorForeve
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
marta wrote:
>
> I agree. It is yet another contribution to the hysteria
> about sex. They also harm victims of actual rape by creating
> doubt in reasonable people's minds about ANY rape claim.
> Another relevant, and related point though, is that people
> who keep insisting, in the face of well-supported arguments
> to the contrary, that false rape accusations are higher than
> they actually are, are in effect doing the same thing the
> feminazis do when they claim that false rape accusations are
> lower than they actually are. Claiming artificially high/low
> levels of false rape accusations causes some percentage of
> people, when they discover the deception, to stop paying
> attention to the debate alltogether. The less certain people
> are of what the real data is, the less likely they are to
> care at all.
>
Marta,
You are so correct.
Ironically, if we all look and the number of women who post to this board alone, who are looking for help in a rape situation., what is the first thing MOST of the posters say????They don’t believe them at all.
Survivor
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118171)
Message 118327 (In Reply to Message 118318)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 17, 2003 12:04 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Sorry about my "number manipulation", but there is no formal study of trends in my community. And I am obviously speaking of my community and not the whole country, as I said "Here where I am" or something to that.
The offenses I looked at to find out why they were dismissed were all crimes against persons, ie assault, rape, battery, domestic violence, stalking, etc. There were numerous others that were property crimes, but I passed over them.
The newspaper count is by no means 100% accurate. But it does show an "average" trend of more arrests than prosecutions.
"And if you're suing for defamation, you don't have to pay a lawyer either"
I don't know where you are, but around here lawyers expect to get paid. What you speak of is contingency fee arrangements. Not everybody does that, and good luck getting a contingency lawyer to sue somebody that has a net worth of 5 bucks.
I am working to change the system. But it will be by law, not by lawsuit.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118318)
Message 118336 (In Reply to Message 118321)
Re: Rape VS BS
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 17, 2003 08:28 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Survivor Forever wrote:
> Marta,
> You are so correct.
> Ironically, if we all look and the number of women who post
> to this board alone, who are looking for help in a rape
> situation., what is the first thing MOST of the posters
> say????They don’t believe them at all.
>
> Survivor
While I see what you're saying, I think it's important to remember the composition of a community when evaluating its behavior. Many of the people who post here are legitimately afraid of the justice system because of their sexual proclivities and the hysteria that surrounds sex.
I do agree that some others on this board seem to have . . . how should we say it, irrational, hysterical streaks? But even those people seem only to be reacting poorly to the experiences that they've had. It is a common enough error to assume that what you see around you is the same stuff of which the universe is composed.
What can you do?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118321)
Message 118338 (In Reply to Message 118327)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 17, 2003 08:40 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
> I don't know where you are, but around here lawyers expect to
> get paid. What you speak of is contingency fee arrangements.
In America, defamation and other torts are ALWAYS pursued under a contingency fee arrangement.
> Not everybody does that, and good luck getting a contingency
> lawyer to sue somebody that has a net worth of 5 bucks.
I think that if you made an effort, i.e, if you REALLY, REALLY wanted it, you could find a lawyer to sue for an injunction to make the woman publicly recant her false accusation. Much as I hate some of them (for their bias - much like the feminazi sites), try checking out some of the men's rights websites. I'm sure you could at least find someone who knows how to find such a lawyer. Actually I just typed "Men's rights attorneys" into google and up came a bunch of links. Most of them relate to custody and paternity issues, but all of the firms listed are places to start looking for a lawyer who might be interested in taking your case.
> I am working to change the system. But it will be by law, not
> by lawsuit.
What motivated you in the first place to do anything? And what laws are you suggesting?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118327)
Message 118340 (In Reply to Message 118336)
Re: What to do!
Posted by x_SurvivorForeve
on Oct 17, 2003 11:11 PM | Also by x_SurvivorForeve
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Take them all for their word. If you don't have alything nice to say - don't say anything at all.
Here is my proof for the unbelievers.
http://www.sexcriminals.com/news/11437/
I found this site by chance one night - looking for information on my rapiest.
(this is why I am here) Chances are that I was not the only one to just find this site by chance!
Survivor
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118336)
Message 118350 (In Reply to Message 118338)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 19, 2003 11:57 AM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Yes, I could probably find a lawyer eventually who would do it for free. But I could also do it myself. I'm already in two lawsuits pro se, so it wouldn't be that big a deal. But my position is that I shouldn't have to. If I sued anybody it would be the state, for not prosecuting her.
The system is always changing, and my involvement doesn't hinder or hasten the changes. Our country has existed for over 200 years, but for some reason over 500 people still get together every year in Washington to write new laws, repeal old ones, and change others. And thousands do the same thing on the state and local level. One would think that after 200 years, there wouldn't be anything left to make laws about. But an ever-evolving society dictates that laws be changed to suit the needs and desires of that society. All I'm doing is putting in my two-cents worth as a member of that society.
What laws I'm suggesting is too broad. In my home state, I'm involved in a total re-write of the Criminal Code, for submission to the state Senate. I met just yesterday with several of the other principals in this matter, one being the Senator who will introduce the bill. Our aim is to simplify the Code, eliminating the archaic laws against spitting on the sidewalk, cohabitation, tying your horse to a lampost, etc. Eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possessions of 1/4 oz or less, limiting police "sting" operations to buying only(no more selling to addicts and then busting them), ditto prosecution stings. The general flow here is to de-criminalize many "victimless" crimes.
Laws that would be on-topic here involving sexual offenses include de-criminalization of sexual contact between minors when force is not involved(but in some cases a "civil" infraction will be provided for, as a tool to force counseling), tougher evidence laws involving sexual assaults in an effort to eliminate he said/she said situations, mandatory reporting timeframes to obtain a sexual assault charge (24 hours for "date rape" charges, for example), bringing back "lack of chastity" as a valid defense for a statutory rape charge.
With over 600 illegal activities codified in our state laws, there is no way I can give them all to you. But the above is a sample.
On the national level, the task is more daunting. I don't have the contacts to easily effect or introduce such a change. But I do have a cousin who is an 8th-term US Representative from a state in the Northeast. We are involved in a dialogue at this time on introducing a bill that would "unify" the AOC nationwide at 16 and also implement the lack of chastity defense for those cases involving minors over 12 and under 16. Personally, I think we have a better chance of getting the state re-write passed than this Federal statute, but that doesn't keep me from trying.
The alternative is to just plod along like sheep, trusting that the government knows best and we should just keep our mouths shut. I look at the history that brought this country into existence, wondering where we would be if the Founding Fathers had kept their mouths shut. And then I open my mouth and shout with new-found vigor.
We should also move this topic to the new board if we are going to continue it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118338)
Message 118353 (In Reply to Message 118350)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 19, 2003 08:14 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> But my position is that I shouldn't have to. If I sued anybody
> it would be the state, for not prosecuting her.
For what? The state is charged with providing security to the bodies and property of its citizens. It is not within the legitimate scope of the government's duty to go after people who defame others. And I, for one, am glad that it isn't. What kind of crazy fascist government would that be? Defamation is a personal, not a public, wrong. It's your job to fight it, not the government's.
> The system is always changing, and my involvement doesn't
> hinder or hasten the changes.
Then what does?
> Our country has existed for over 200 years, but for some
> reason over 500 people still get together every year in
> Washington to write new laws, repeal old ones, and change
> others. And thousands do the same thing on the state and local > level. One would think that after 200 years, there wouldn't be > anything left to make laws about. But an ever-evolving society > dictates that laws be changed to suit the needs and desires of > that society. All I'm doing is putting in my two-cents worth
> as a member of that society.
It's not clear to me why you wrote this. I don't recall asking you to justify anything. . .
> tougher evidence laws involving sexual assaults
> in an effort to eliminate he said/she said situations,
> mandatory reporting timeframes to obtain a sexual assault
> charge (24 hours for "date rape" charges, for example),
> bringing back "lack of chastity" as a valid defense for a
> statutory rape charge.
Given that all I asked about was your proposed changes in "he said/she said" related laws, I would have expected a lot more detail than this. Give it up. You've written new statutory language. Let's hear it.
> also implement the lack of chastity defense for those cases
> involving minors over 12 and under 16.
What is the "lack of chastity" defense?
> We should also move this topic to the new board if we are
> going to continue it.
Go ahead.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118350)
Message 118363 (In Reply to Message 118353)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 20, 2003 03:41 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
"It's your job to fight it, not the government's."
Then why is filing a false report against the law? Why is perjury against the law? If these are civil issues, there shouldn't be criminal statutes that prohibit them. But since there are statutes, I am entitled to that "security" under them that you speak of.
"Then what does?"
Society, as I spelled out in the paragraph you don't understand because you didn't ask me to justify anything. Society dictates change. But society can't all talk at once. A few individuals try to express what society wants, and I see myself as one of those individuals.
"Given that all I asked about was your proposed changes in "he said/she said" related laws"
Actually, you asked a very generic "And what laws are you suggesting?"
"What is the "lack of chastity" defense?"
Come on now. You're the one in law school. And you don't know what this is?
As an example, Mississipi Code § 97-3-67 prohibited a person over the age of 18 years from having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex between the ages of 14 years and 18 years of previous chaste character.
Under this statute, an adult could not be charged if the minor involved was not a virgin at the time of the offense. This law was repealed in 1998(but we used it in our re-write), and replaced with a law that states in part "lack of chastity is not a defense".
Incidentally, the Mississippi Code still contains this language, relevant not to statutory rape but "adult" rape:
...but no person shall be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of the injured female.
Our number one Rule of Evidence for he said/she said rape situations.
I wish I could provide you with our new statutory language, but I can't. If we're still "speaking" when it goes to the Senate, I'll see about it then. But the two things I showed you above are an integral part. Yes, we "borrowed" them from Mississippi. But we did that all over the country, picking and choosing what we wanted and didn't want from a lot of other states. So we haven't really "written new statutory language". We've just used the best(in our opinion) language from all over.
Since you're reluctant to move to the new board, we'll leave this here until Steve says we have to go.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118353)
Message 118370 (In Reply to Message 118363)
Re: Moral Equivalent?
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 21, 2003 09:10 AM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> "It's your job to fight it, not the government's."
> Then why is filing a false report against the law? Why is
> perjury against the law? If these are civil issues, there
> shouldn't be criminal statutes that prohibit them. But since
> there are statutes, I am entitled to that "security" under
> them that you speak of.
The fact that an alleged criminal is acquitted does not mean that there is sufficient evidence of a malicious motive on the part of the accuser in filing the report. It certainly does not mean that the report was automatically false. The state does not believe (and neither do I) that malicious reports will go undetected. It is my belief that while it may be clear to you that the woman maliciously filed a false report, unless the same is clear to others involved in the case, it's up to you to prove it.
> "Then what does?"
>
> Society, as I spelled out in the paragraph you don't
> understand . . .
And society is composed of? ? ?
> Society dictates change. But society can't all talk at once.
Yes "it" can, and, to varying degrees over time, "it" does.
> A few individuals try to express what society wants, and I
> see myself as one of those individuals.
Thank god we live in a democracy.
> Actually, you asked a very generic "And what laws are you
> suggesting?"
Except that in BOTH of the remaining threads on the board that you and I are having a discussion, the topic revolves around prosecution of women who maliciously file charges.
> "What is the "lack of chastity" defense?"
> Come on now. You're the one in law school. And you don't know
> what this is?
What is with you people who aren't in law school???? What makes you think that a rising second year law student is going to know every stupid defense ever written into law, in every part of the country? I don't know about the lack of chastity defense because it is a retarded argument for reducing the culpability of an adult for having sex with a minor. That's why I don't know about it.
> Incidentally, the Mississippi Code still contains this
> language, relevant not to statutory rape but "adult" rape:
> ...but no person shall be convicted upon the uncorroborated
> testimony of the injured female.
>
> Our number one Rule of Evidence for he said/she said rape
> situations.
What is your problem with getting a man and a woman in a room and letting them tell their stories of what occurred? It is my opinion that if the only thing supporting a finding of rape is the woman's word, she's going to lose, unless there are substantial credibility problems with the accused, and the woman is CLEARLY telling the truth.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118363)
Thread
118055, x_marta, Oct 10, 2003 06:17 PM [Moral Equivalent?]
118128, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 09:03 AM [Yes]
118165, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:38 PM [I wasn't asking you.]
118166, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:42 PM [But while we're at it]
118145, x_TryingtoSurviv, Oct 13, 2003 10:59 AM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118171, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 07:08 PM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118321, x_SurvivorForeve, Oct 17, 2003 01:11 AM [Re: Rape VS BS]
118336, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:28 PM [Re: Rape VS BS]
118340, x_SurvivorForeve, Oct 17, 2003 11:11 PM [Re: What to do!]
118185, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 07:44 PM [Trying to Survive]
118243, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 06:25 PM [That's What I Thought]
118245, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:20 PM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118253, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:45 PM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118275, x_orolan, Oct 15, 2003 10:50 AM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118292, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 08:07 PM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118300, x_orolan, Oct 15, 2003 11:28 PM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118318, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:59 PM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118327, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 12:04 PM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118338, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:40 PM [Re: Moral Equivalent?]
118350, x_orolan, Oct 19, 2003 11:57 AM [Re: Moral Equival...]
118353, x_marta, Oct 19, 2003 08:14 PM [Re: Moral Equiv...]
118363, x_orolan, Oct 20, 2003 03:41 PM [Re: Moral ...]
118370, x_marta, Oct 21, 2003 09:10 AM [Re: Mora...]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
