And what should we be doing then?

OPINION
When Sexual Assault Victims Are Charged With Lying
Across the country, police have prosecuted women for false reports that turned out to be true.
By KEN ARMSTRONG and T. CHRISTIAN MILLER

Not sure that police prosecute. Still, I’m also pretty sure that whoever it is that does prosecute has also charged and tried allegations of sexual assault which turn out not to be true. You know, a fairly large portion of those accused of such do turn out to be innocent after all.

If only we had some system of deciding these troubled cases. You know, a system of looking at the evidence, some group of people who were asked to decide about it all, a set of rules for how such an investigation into the truth or not of such a claim are to be run?

It’s a real pity that no human civilisation has yet come up with something like that, isn’t it?

25 comments on “And what should we be doing then?

  1. You mean have the Leftie SJWs denounce all cis-men as serial abusers and then pronounce judgement on them as, if they have a dick, they must be guilty?

  2. Although just because person A is found not guilty doesn’t mean that they didn’t actually do it (lack of evidence, conflicting evidence, perverse acquittal) and certainly doesn’t mean that “it” didn’t happen.

  3. Doesn’t mean that it did either.

    And when the “assault” is touching some woman’s knee neither does it matter.

  4. Anecdata is all the Left needs to prove that all rape allegations are TRUE, and should result in the incarceration of the accused.

    Unless they are Muslim.

  5. I think the issue is not that they were charged with lying. It’s that they were charged with lying on the basis of absolutely no evidence.

    Accusations, charges, prosecutions, and so on *in either direction* need to be based on solid evidence. Not hearsay, or biased assumptions, or political correctness. It’s not OK to say that because some men have been prosecuted without evidence, that it’s OK to do that to women too. They’re not the same women.

    And who the hell said any of the women being prosecuted in the story were left-wing?! The newspaper is, but no data is provided on any of the people they interviewed or reported on. Don’t mix up left-wingers with the sympathy groups they use to mask their campaigns.

    And don’t tell me that it’s OK so long as there’s a trial. “The process is the punishment”, as they say.

  6. 1. The rozzers don’t prosecute.

    2. Complainants in all manner of criminal allegations routinely find the named defendants are acquitted.

    3. This includes cases where it is the complainant’s word against the defendant’s. Such cases commonly are non-sexual.

    4. In such circs, complainants are mostly not prosecuted. For what, I hope, are obvious reasons.

    5. For a complainant to be prosecuted for perjury or perverting generally requires evidence over and above the failure of their complaint to result in a conviction.

    6. I am going to have a brief folding of the hands.

  7. Andy, yes, but more fundamentally most interest groups are authoritarian. And puritan (as to which, I repeat you).

  8. What would the specific charge be in the case of someone prosecuted for making a false rape claim? The most grave I can think of is perverting the course of justice. I suppose wasting police time could plausibly be invoked. Since I’m not a lawyer I suppose there could be others. Is the evidentiary standard for prosecuting a false rape claim any different from that for prosecuting a false assault claim, or a false theft claim, or a false fraud claim? I doubt it (to put it mildly). So this is not something we need to worry about specifically in the case of rape but only if there are spurious prosecutions in general.

  9. ProPublica is a communist organization. Any cause they support is compromised. Their reporters all deserve rape.

  10. What would the specific charge be in the case of someone prosecuted for making a false rape claim?

    It really depends how far through the criminal justice system the complaint progressed. If the police dismissed the matter at the initial inquiry stage (obvious bullshit, vexatious, serial complainer, etc.), then I would expect no comeback more serious than an unofficial warning.

    If substantial police / forensic resources were deployed before the woman in question ‘fessed up / was found out then I would expect a charge under Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (“causing a wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report”), although the reality is this would only apply to serious / serial offenders, since there are too many drunk, drugged up and mentally ill complainants to apply it universally.

    If the charge actually goes to court and is discovered during or after the trial to be a fabrication then perjury charges would apply, the more serious the perjury (i.e. falsified testimony / evidence), the more time being served.

  11. I think a few people here don’t realize that the linked piece is about the USA. I thought it seemed a bit odd until I looked it up as I get the impression that there are very few prosecutions in the UK.
    There were at least two cases near me in the last couple of years where there was huge local publicity about separate attacks on women which were then proved to be false. There were no prosecutions of the accusers despite there being a great expenditure of police time. I doubt there would have been any public mention of the false accusations at all if they hadn’t be so widely publicized in the first place so I suspect there are plenty of others we don’t hear about.

  12. JS: Yup. The US is about the only country where these life-ruining accusations are actually punished.

    It would also not be entirely surprising if the women in question who the Stalinist organisation ProPublica (as funded by the ‘Open Society Institute’) is promoting had previous form for false allegations of rape, or just generally being insane.

  13. Do they actually provide an example of someone who was jailed for making a complaint that later turned out to be true?

    Because it is trivial to find examples of men jailed for claims that turned out not to be true. The Scotsboro boys for instance.

  14. Sorry, no, I’m completely wrong. None of the three were jailed.

    Only one appears to have been actually prosecuted and she got a suspended sentence plus a load of the nonsense Yank judges like to tack on for odd reasons.

  15. I am not sure what they mean by “turned out to be true”. That the police can persuade a low life with mental problems to admit to all sorts of crimes is not exactly the gold standard of proof. But let’s be generous and say that all four of their cases are actually true.

    Four cases in a country the size of the US over whatever time frame they have chosen – none of which seem to have ended up with real jail time – is not a lot.

  16. “I am not sure what they mean by “turned out to be true”. That the police can persuade a low life with mental problems to admit to all sorts of crimes is not exactly the gold standard of proof.”

    The rapist had taken photos of them being raped. What standard of proof are you looking for?

    “Four cases in a country the size of the US over whatever time frame they have chosen – none of which seem to have ended up with real jail time – is not a lot.”

    Interesting. How did you find out there had been only four cases in the US actually occurring? Do you have some of that ‘gold standard’ evidence?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.