FWIW, 12 weeks in jail is 12 weeks more than this witch got:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/02/07/london-commuter-put-on-trial-for-sex-assault-despite-no-evidence-that-it-happened-5667116/

...and 12 weeks more than any of the police or prosecutors go.

Exhortations to 'believe the victim' miss the point. A legal system that shrinks from testing witness credibility robustly is not an authentic system of justice.

Exactly. The accuser has the burden of proof and rape is not the exception of the rule.

I also notice that Zerlina Maxwell has this misleading statistic in hand, "In fact (despite various popular myths), the FBI reports that only 2-8 percent of rape allegations turn out to be false, a number that is smaller than the number (10 percent) who lie about car theft."

First, visiting the FBI site, I notice they don't report 2-8%. They report that false rape accusations account for 8% of them.

The 2% statistic comes from Susan Brownmiller's book, "Against Our Will," in which she claims that she was told this by an unnamed criminal justice professional.

So, unwilling to let go of that nice, trivial 2% number, when feminists report that the number of false rape accusations, according to the FBI, is 8%, they conveniently change it to 2-8%. The average reading, willing to split the difference, will conclude it's somewhere around 5%.

Even then, the 8% statistic is only those cases are provably false. There are huge number of rape accusations that simply do not go forward due to lack of evidence. What percentage of those cases are false?

I was looking for an article I once used which concluded that the real number of false rape accusations was unknown and most likely unknowable. I wasn't able to find it, but I find this useful webpage: 10 Reasons Why False Accusations of Rape are Common from the "A Voice for Men" website.

There are huge number of rape accusations that simply do not go forward due to lack of evidence. What percentage of those cases are false?

This is an important point.

Hmmm. Wonder how she'd feel about the "cost of calling someone a rapist" if she was the one accused. I knew plenty of vindictive witches in my life who would have accused someone, no problem. I think rape should require evidence, same as other crimes. Rape exams SUCK, no doubt. I get the burning desire to just shower for days, rather than go to the hospital and be photographed more explicitly than porn stars, and asked to describe it in detail over and over. But come on, you NEED medical attention after a rape! The morning after pill, antiretrovirals, immunoglobulins....I don't think expecting a rape victim to be seen by a medical professional is asking too much of them. It's for their own good.

Remember the Innocence Project? How they were such a media darling for a while, and then all of a sudden they disappeared? They lost most of their funding, and all of their favorable publicity, because they were (inadvertently) exposing false rape convictions. The Project continues at a low level, but they don't have much funding anymore. Because fair trials for men accused of rape are misogynist and uncool.

The false accusations are common and often are not reported to the police. I had a girl claim I molested her when I babysat her years ago. The real story is she and her friends approached me and she was trying to appear all grown up an mature. I was hit with nostalgia over babysitting her and her brother years ago and didn't react how she wanted. Her friends later teased her over having a babysitter. So she claimed I touched her. Thankfully she never went to the police but I had to deal with the fallout of her tantrum for quite a while. Good workplace training I guess.

Zerlina Maxwell raped me. You must believe a survivor. I am a survivor.

See also, Katie Couric and gun control.

Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. ~ Zerlina Maxwell

Not in the big picture, Zerlina.

Our system is "innocent until proven guilty" for a reason, it prevents the law from being used as a weapon settle personal scores or subjugate the masses. Being accused of a crime does not result in one being found guilty. It results in the state having to then prove the accusation.

Automatically believing the accuser makes for a system in which false accusations become a weapon to be used against one's political and personal enemies.

Wrongly disbelieving an accuser does not tear the fabric of society. Not being believed may tear at the well-being of the disbelieved accuser, but the system does provide for an investigation (nay, requires an investigation) and a chance to prove the accusation.

Creating a system in which innocents can be falsely accused of rape and subjected to punishment and social opprobrium for said accusations absent proof tears at the very fabric of society by creating a widespread atmosphere of fear and mistrust (see Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Castroist Cuba, etc.).

I'm for those who falsely accuse people of crimes being imprisoned for the amount of time their victims would have gotten -- plus paying restitution for the falsely-accused's pain, suffering, and legal fees.
___________________________________

So why do you very seldom say that (if at all) when it comes to false accusations OTHER than false accusations of sex crimes?

Example: A murders B, which in this case would result in a 20-year-sentence. C, for some psychopathic reason, cold-bloodedly chooses to frame D for the murder. (Maybe C is in love with A.) Would most people suggest that C get 20 years as well as A? No, and there are gut reasons for that which are not necessarily unreasonable. It also goes without saying that just because murder sometimes warrants the death penalty, that does not mean that a false accusation should.

Murder is a poor analogy Lenona. How do the dead falsely accuse someone? Do you sentence the dead guy to double secret death?

A better analogy would be to robbery. If a store owner falsely accuses someone of robbing his store. And to be clear, the accusation is known by the store owner to be false and intentionally made. In that case I don't see much issue with the lying store owner serving the punishment he tried to have inflicted on another.

lenona, I admit I can't summon much outrage toward C, but maybe that's because of the "gut reasons" you hint at (what are they?). But that doesn't make C's actions any less awful.

I don't know why there's a difference in reactions by observers, but the scenarios are different: there's no interaction between C and D to be interpreted. Ms. Carrbuncle raped the guy's reputation.

If you frame someone for a crime, you should get the same punishment that they would get if they were convicted of the crime you accused them of. I don't have a problem with that. Of course, the charge of framing is also subject to trial by jury and presumption of innocence and all that.

Cousin Dave:

If you frame someone for a crime, you should get the same punishment that they would get if they were convicted of the crime you accused them of.

Maybe.

But have you stopped to consider what that might entail? If you falsely accuse someone of misdemeanor battery, you'll be sentenced to a year of probation, anger management and community service.

If you falsely accuse someone of murder, you'll get the electric chair.

These are the two extremes and I'm not comfortable with either of them. The former is too lenient and the latter is too harsh.

To Ben: It's not really poor; I was merely trying to show how horribly absurd the idea of punishment can get. My scenario of the extra party - C - isn't far-fetched. Obviously, there aren't too many cases of "murders" that never happened, let alone cases where someone is trying to frame someone for that "murder" for some spiteful reason. More typically, a real murder happens and the KILLER tries to frame someone else - but even then, I doubt the judge would give the killer 40 years instead of 20.
_________________________________

I don't know why there's a difference in reactions by observers, but the scenarios are different: there's no interaction between C and D to be interpreted. Ms. Carrbuncle raped the guy's reputation.

DaveG at May 26, 2016 10:12 AM
__________________________________

And you think getting arrested for a murder you didn't commit isn't likely to damage your reputation - and future employment - even if your acquittal is just as easy to spot in Google? I doubt it. Sounds almost as bad to me.

To clarify: Many people think "there must be SOMETHING seriously wrong with X if he/she could get arrested in the first place - especially if it wasn't merely a case of mistaken identity."

A murders B

C frames D for the murder of B allowing A to walk the streets unpunished, subjecting D to a long term prison sentence, and injuring D's family in untold ways both financially and mentally.

A should get her 20 years.

C should be killed and then we should all piss and shit on her corpse which should then be mutilated and tossed out to sea with only her head remaining stuck on a pike in front of the court.

D should be released and we should apologize to him for listening and believing.

My 2c.

FWIW: Zerlina Maxwell is not just a writer but a member of Hillary's digital outreach team.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/12/hillary-campaign-hire-says-those-accused-of-sexual-assault-should-automatically-treated-as-guilty/

As a reminder of how many false accusations there can be, just look back at the witch hunts (much worse in Europe). Since there were no real witches, we know all these accusations were false, and thousands died and thousands more barely escaped death. Likewise, under Stalin and Mao, mere accusations were enough to send you to work camps and/or your death. Even accusations that were impossible/nonsense.

"If you falsely accuse someone of murder, you'll get the electric chair."

If you use the justice system to destroy someone else's life, I don't have an issue with that. (The question of capital punishment in general is another matter.)

Cousin Dave: If you use the justice system to destroy someone else's life, I don't have an issue with that.

But what if you use the justice system merely in an attempt to destroy someone's life? For example, if you accuse someone falsely, but they are exonerated before any real harm is done?

Do you still want to fire up Ol' Sparky?

I'm fine with C being punished. I'm fine with it being slightly less severe but restitution needs to be made to D.

But I also think a false accuser who admits that it is a lie before anyone proves it is a lie would get a less severe punishment. There has to be a benefit of admission.

The difference between murder and much of these accusations is with a murder there is an actual evidence of a crime.

If I accuse someone of murder...and there is no dead body, it isn't going to be taken very seriously. I can't accuse someone of arson without evidence of a fire.

Framing another person for a crime you commit is different than accusing someone of an action that never occurred.

It is very difficult to prove a negative unless you have an alibi. If I didn't even know I was going to be accused of something why would attempt to have an alibi? Even if I have an alibi, I cannot prove that action didn't occur.

Rape and sexual assault are difficult to prove, unfortunately this is still preferable to the alternative.

"But what if you use the justice system merely in an attempt to destroy someone's life? "

In our justice system, intent matters. Attempted murder is punished the same as actual murder. That the victim manages to thwart the attack does not let the attacker off the hook in the least.

(There is this: as a practical matter, the capability and competence at attempting to commit the crime counts as part of "intent". Someone may fully well intend to kill me by stabbing me with a crayon, but given the extreme unlikelihood of this attack succeeding, they probably would not face any charges more serious than misdemeanor assault and battery.)

Dave, you're reminding me of the old murder-by-ice trick.

Frozen cobra venom darts. Mechanical deathtraps made of ice. And so forth. Dip a nice sharp crayon in liquid nitrogen?

Cousin Dave:

In our justice system, intent matters. Attempted murder is punished the same as actual murder.

I call bullshit! When was the last time you heard of someone being executed for attempted murder?

We have two separate issues here:

* Should someone who says s/he is raped be believed?

* What should the requirements be for prosecution of a sexual assault.

The first issue, should victims be believed... absolutely. And given medical attention, information on counseling and access to the local rape crisis center (assuming there is one).

As to what is enough evidence to prosecute a rape, that is up to the DA, and anyone who lies about that can be prosecuted for perjury. If a person has been raped, but there isn't enough evidence to prove it, then no prosecution should take place. Period. Innocent before being proven guilty.

Separating these ideas allows for sympathetic treatment of victims, even those who don't have enough evidence for prosecution. It isn't an either/or, it is an 'and'.

Julie G.

According to Linda Fairstein of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.” Source: Fairstein,’s book, Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape.

Lenona,

The situation you presented is analogous to that football/title ix bullshit. Where a third party accused a man of raping someone else. The accuser was not the victim.

Quite frankly it doesn't really matter what the law books say. We don't really prosecute false accusations. So whatever the punishment would be is fairly irrelevant. Same with perjury. Only the most flagrant and political situations ever end up in court.

"I call bullshit! When was the last time you heard of someone being executed for attempted murder?"

We have, in our town (well, actually she's not here anymore; she's in a penitentiary), a woman who is serving a life-without-parole sentence for orchestrating the murder-for-hire of her husband. True, she did not get the chair, but neither did the actual murderer. These days, the state only seeks capital punishment for the most notorious, and best-supported-by-evidence, cases.

So whatever the punishment would be is fairly irrelevant.
________________________________

Are you saying you're disagreeing with Amy? Or what?

BTW, did you ever hear of this, from 2011? The woman was framed by her former boyfriend and jailed - for robberies that never happened.

From that year, the title was "A Revenge Plot So Intricate, the Prosecutors Were Pawns."

The victim was Seemona Sumasar, "a former Morgan Stanley analyst who was running a restaurant." Her ex was Jerry Ramrattan.

Here's the video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43924744#43924744

In the video, at least, she said NOTHING about what the penalty for being framed for such horrendous crimes should be. Maybe she DOESN'T think even such vicious perjury should be punished with a 25-year sentence, which was what she was facing had she caved in to the prosecutors?

Here's that article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/nyregion/a-revenge-plot-so-intricate-the-prosecutors-were-pawns.html

As it happens, Ramrattan faced about 32 years - but he had ten charges against him.

From a 2012 article:

"Justice Buchter railed against the Nassau County police, who had wrongly imprisoned Ms. Sumasar, saying that it did not take 'Sherlock Holmes' to deduce that a 5-foot-2 former Wall Street analyst with no criminal record would not have held people up at gunpoint."

*snark on*

Don't you know we live in a rape culture, and it's so bad we must use the force of the federal government to strip men of their right to due process?

And while we're at it, we must use the power of the federal government to make sure men are allowed to use the women's locker room.

Because, in a rape culture, women are perfectly safe if men can follow them into a locker room.

No contradiction there.

*snark off*