Putting such things into place would greatly lower the chance of the falsely accused person of ever getting out of jail as no one would ever be willing to come back and admit they fucked up. The victim should always be the priority. dealing with the perpetrator always has to take a back seat to that.
But in this case the “victim” IS the perpetrator. Now those guys are the victim and they lost 26 years of their lives. Family members dies thinking they were shit, they missed births, baptisms, graduations, and deaths of family members. They lost 26 years of earning potential, they will struggle to find employment now that technology (even in building and trades) has passed them by. She should be jailed for the rest of her life. If this was one of my brothers I’d want her dead.
Would you rather have more people that were falsely accused get out of jail via the liar admitting they lied or would you rather have the liars punished. The victim that needs to come first is the person that was falsely accused. Making it so people that lie to get someone jailed get thrown in jail themselves will only serve to make it so the falsely accused never get set free. You can't have both.
I have to lean towards agreeing with bethorien on this one. In a perfect world we'd never have this issue in the first place, and if we DID we'd be able to punish the people accordingly. However, we don't live in that world. I'm almost all for seeing people suffer the same fate they'd so easily condemn another person to.
"
However, telling someone "look, if you come forward and admit you lied, we GUARANTEE you're going to prison for a good quarter of your life, and having everything you care about and enjoy taken from you for the duration. The chances of you being able to rebuild when you get out are zero."
'
Almost nobody would ever be willing to admit they had lied in this scenario-- they'd rather stick to their story. If they're willing to tell a lie like that in the first place clearly their narcissism is already out of control, so putting the well-being of their victim ahead of their own is astronomically slim
Meanwhile the guy they spoke out against is still rotting away. Likely viewed and treated as a sex-offender. It's a fairly well known idiom about just how well sex-offender do on the inside.
'
Granted, if there are no repercussions, no one will ever see the harm in lying, and they will literally use their sociopathic idiocy to undermine the entire justice system. True victims of assault have fought damn hard to be heard and deserve better than these lying pieces of garbage trying to hop on the bandwagon. And people who have never commited a crime deserve some level of recompense for all they're put through.
'
People who lie about rape are either severely mentally ill and should probably be institutionalized as they are now a harm to themselves and others... or among the lowest dregs of society.
'
And all that in mind, I still (and will always feel) that it is better to let a guilty man go free (or have a lesser charge) than condemn the innocent.
You would have no consequence upon her? That’s not right. The real victim gets fucked. Under your system there is no consequence for taking a man’s life. He’s have been better off if she had killed him and gotten away with it.
I forgot that factor, the real victim was sodomozed brutally for 26 years and could now have several diseases. He would have been better off dead. Hang her in the village square.
so you are actively saying you'd rather have a much larger amount of falsely accused people forced to stay in prison. You can either 1. have falsely accused people freed by people admitting to their lies or 2. punish the liar. They are mutually exclusive and you seem to rather prefer punishing the guilty than saving the innocent.
You didn't read my whole comment, or else you misinterpreted it. I never said they shouldn't have consequences. I spent quite a while saying they DO need consequences, or there's no incentive for them not to lie.
'
What I said was: if you put forward an extremely severe consequence, any sane person with this level of narcissism is going to see their options as:
-if I don't say anything, no one will ever know. I'll be great.
-if I say something I'm going to be raped, beaten, etc for the next 25 years.
'
No one would ever come forward. Meanwhile the guy is trapped in that hell for the rest of the sentence, and when he DOES get out, that hell will not end. He will be labelled a sex offender. He will get hate mail and death threats and likely have an impossible time getting a job. He will get harassed and abused and bullied and it will never end until he dies.
And I am NOT advocating for no jail time for people who lie about rape even a little. However, I place much higher value on making sure whatever is left of this victim's life is salvagable.
'
If a man keeps a teenage girl prisoner in his basement. Rapes her, tortures her, impregnated her and kills her children, If I had to choose between saving her and arresting him, I would rather see her saved from that situation, given safety and therapy and comfort and love and some chance at life.
'
And just the same, if a man has been falsely convicted I want him out of that situation and to have his life rebuilt. What happens to his accuser is secondary
That in mind, as near as I can tell the best solution would probably be: if you come forward and admit you lied, you get a lesser sentence. If you never come forward, and you're found out, then all bets are off. They can throw the book at you until your face caves in.
'
It's not entirely fair, but it saves time and hassle and at least offers minor incentive to admit you lied.
'
They do the same thing with murders and other crimes, so it's a place to start at least
@bethorien iIt is this fucking simple; If you were incarcerated and sodomized for 26 years because somebody lied to put that upon you would you want that cunt dead or walking around free of consequence?
Sorry @xvarnah. Your comments were so long and numerous that I lost track of who had the insane idea of letting them go. Yes the victim is more important, but there cannot be no consequence.
@bethorien
“They are wasting public resources in a futile attempt to make as many people's lives harder as they can simply because they are worthless cunts that are pissed they can't get any. They are garbage people doing garbage people things and are trying to hide behind "oh im doing my civic duty" as an excuse to not get flak for it.
These worthless cunts should get arrested for false reports as they know damn well what they are doing and are doing it with malicious intent but that would be too much of a waste of time to fuck with.” You posted this ten hours ago in relation to people being reported for tax evasion. I now believe you have no set of beliefs or morals and just want to argue.
There is a VERY strong difference in what is being said here. No one that I saw has argued that rape shouldn’t be held to the same standards of perjury or false reportin as any other crime. What I have not seen mentioned? What is the burden of proof? What is the HARD legal line, in legal language, that would separate the legitimate differences in human perspective, the unintentional failings in human memory common to all people? How would you separate between a person who legitimately believed a person raped them, and a person who intentionally lied? Not “you can tell...” what is the legal standard that ALL people would be potentially judged on? Further- what is the SPECIFIC legal precedent or logic behind having a special law to punish false rape accusers differently from someone who falsely accuses a person of murder or any other crime?
Keep in mind- whatever criteria you select that will determine the burden of proof that a person is lying in a rape case, also sets the standard of evidence for rape. If you require for instance- video proof- then any person who is raped and Does not have that proof, had no legal recourse. They cannot pursue a rape charge without likely having a defense attorney turn their case insider out on them, ending up with them in prison and the person they are accusing going free- and this applies to real victims too. Because the moment someone fails to meet your burden of proof- they can be declare a liar, and the moment they are declared a liar, they have no case. So whatever you require they provide to prove they are not bringing false accusations- will be the thing required by ALL rape victims to even seek justice or speak about being raped.
What I see here is a fundamental missunderatanding of the justice system. A trial is not a debate. You do not go in gladiator style. It is a defense. The prosecution will present all evidence they have, the defense will present theirs. If the evidence is sufficient for judge or jury they will convict. If not, they will acquit. If afteryour trial you believe you were falsely accused, or come into new evidence you request an appeal. The notion of creating punitive laws against those pressing charges destroys that system because every hearing becomes a fight where each side is seeking to put the other in prison. Anyone can accuse you of a crime. The question of taking away the rights of anyone to accuse people of a crime is ridiculous. If you want to examine something, examine the burden of proof. That is what this is really about. Punishing a false accuser after a conviction or trying to run two trials concurrently is like locking the stable after the horse is stolen.
You realize that the ENTIRE point of the justice system is 4 fold:
1. Protect the general public from threat.
2. Make whole, or as whole as possible all parties as they were before a crime.
3. Discourage and rehabilitate against future criminal action.
4- and probably most important: protect and uphold the rights of all humans.
If is not always possible to get all of these perfect. The system is designed and (hopefully continually improved,) to do as well as it can, but without total surveillance of body and mind, it is not possible to KNOW guilt, an accusation is made, a burden of proof is set, the accuser must prove the guilt of the accused or the accused may walk. It is possible to wrongly convict for ANY crime and if it happens just 1 time- that is a travesty that we should try to avoid, but NOT by forgetting the fundamental reasons the legal system exists.
So- if it is better to let 1,000 guilty men walk than let 1 go to prison for a crime they didn’t commit- if in so many peoples opinions it is best to protect the potentially innocent against false prosecution- how would you propose we then protect those who make accusations of rape? Because now they can be prosecuted simply for reporting a crime- yes. The “guilty ones.” But how is guilt determined? By trial. And IF a trial could perfectly and flawlessly determine guilt- we wouldn’t be discussing this because any man accused of rape who was innocent wouldn’t be convicted right? So the same justice system that can fail those people can fail people making accusations legitimately and label THEM guilt you of a crime they didn’t commit right? So how do you then protect them from that? And what is the punishment then- if someone is accused of rape- and they claim it is false. The rapist is acquitted and accuser is convicted- but then- on appeal the accuser is acquitted? Who do we punish...
... for that, and how severely? Where do we draw the line now that we opened the door for 100x jeopardy, where the convicted can turn around and try and imprison theor accuser, and then the accuser can do the same? How many times does someone have to be accused of the same crime back and forth before you just say duck it and let them both walk- or throw them in jail for life, or... what then? It’s not a well thought out stance- and it is NOT inline with justice or our justice system, let alone everything we know about how human beings react and learn based on imprisonment. The whole idea is ludicrous. If you want to discuss something intelligent- discuss how to change the way rape is prosecuted. You don’t need a “revenge” clause in the law if you do your damndest to get it right the first time. If you do the best- and it goes wrong- yeah. That sucks. Shit happens, and it still beats mob justice.
In the given example the original accuser said the event never happened. She lied intentionally. I’m not looking for a revenge clause. I’m looking for justice for the newly revealed victim. Perjury should carry a very stiff penalty, especially in cases like this.
Admittedly I'm not a lawyer, but lying is not the same as mistaken identity. And mistaken identity can be quite common. This is why eyewitness testimony is often not viewed as reliable anymore. Further-- intent is always something that they're supposed to try to establish when they're prosecuting a crime. Malicious intent in particular, if it can be established, carries a MUCH weightier penalty. It can be the difference between manslaughter and murder. Or lying and mistaken identity.
'
I suppose I never said it outright, but I was exclusively addressing people getting others convicted when they know damn well the person did nothing wrong
Additionally, I think it's a much simpler thing to accuse someone of commiting rape than it is of murder. Or rather, much simpler to convince people. Rape, despite it being a vicious crime, often has little by way of evidence. Murder you have to at least have a body. And then, in a murder case there is usually evidence that will either condemn or exonerate the accused. Rape, the evidence is often the same. Semen? Bruising? They saw the accused rapist enter the supposed victim's room? Could all be consensual sex... or not.
'
But if all that goes aside, if someone intentionally tries to get a person convicted of a murder, there are a lot of crimes they can be held under. Miscarriage of justice possibly; providing false evidency/testimony; possibly conspiracy/framing (idr the exact terminology). All of which I imagine are what they process false rape crimes under, but as I said I'm not a lawyer. I haven't dug deep enough into the technical law aspects of it to know all the ins and outs
I don't actually know if you were even addressing me at all or just Bethorien and pokethebear ("The question of taking away the rights of anyone to accuse people of a crime is ridiculous. If you want to examine something, examine the burden of proof. That is what this is really about. Punishing a false accuser after a conviction or trying to run two trials concurrently is like locking the stable after the horse is stolen." Didn't seem to reflect any of the points I was making so idk), so I'm just addressing a few of the things you brought up
"These worthless cunts should get arrested for false reports as they know damn well what they are doing and are doing it with malicious intent but that would be too much of a waste of time to fuck with.” You posted this ten hours ago in relation to people being reported for tax evasion. I now believe you have no set of beliefs or morals and just want to argue. "
Those are two very different situations. In the one we are talking about is lying to get someone put in prison for doing something to you. This situation requires that punishment be light or nil for those that lie to protect the actual victim as anything else would make it impossible for the actual victim to ever get out of jail.
The situation you are quoting is extremely different
(nice mixture of an ad hominem and a strawman by the way fucking hell)
In the situation you are quoting me on the victim isnt going to jail. The victim does not have any need to be protected. The "victim" of the crime in legal terms is the state...
the woman being forced to show tax documents on social media to not get their way of making money is not in need of protecting as prosecuting the liar in this case does not harm anyone in the case you are describing.
@pokethebear- are you saying that the burden of proof you would require, to prove that a person accusing rape lied, is that person must fully confess and admit to lying? As for increasing the penalty for perjury- The crime of perjury is a felony carrying 1 year federal sentence, it is also a state crime but each state treats it differently with sentences up to 5 years and permanent fellon status along with hefty fines. Someone who lacks the foresight to think that is an offense that isn’t worth perjuring ones self is unlikely to think more seriously on a longer sentence- so what would be the actual impact of the change? 3 strikes laws which put people in jail for repeated offenses of an often trivial nature were not shown to reduce crime at all- people have trouble conceiving long term consequences and balancing those against short term impulse. (we’d all have huge saving accounts and amazing careers, investments, be in good shape etc otherwise...) So until someone receives a...
... punishment they often don’t realize just how bad it is. Moreover, locking people away long term does little to teach. That person isn’t learning not to commit crime, they don’t have the opportunity and usually end up in a worse place than they started which can increase the likelihood of crime. Long prison sentences also acclimate people to prison to the point it becomes normalcy, which takes away much of the preventative nature of the threat and replaces it with an increased desire to not be caught. But even more so, others don’t learn. There’s no real impact to most people when they hear someone was put in prison for a long time because “they aren’t bad” like them. Drunk driving, people who killed someone while texting and driving, on and on- and the impact isn’t very jarring to most, who despite others being convicted everyday generally continue to behave as they always have. And since most people who aren’t prisoners spend very little time with prisoners or in prison, they have
very little concept of just how bad it is- they know “prison sucks,” but they don’t KNOW it. It isn’t a personal truth but a general truism like not staying up late, drinking lots of water, not eating junk food, or any number of things we know are bad ideas and can lead to bad consequences but we don’t actually realize the impact unless it happens to us, or at the very least to someone close to us. Despite many millions of deaths people still smoke and drink or do drugs, and one thing that is often heard from people who have quit is that someone close to them actually died. Seeing it, being able to relate to it made it “real” for them and not a statistic or a generic warning it’s “bad.” So there isn’t any compelling evidence I have that says extending prison sentences has a positive effect. I mean- if a kid hits another kid at daycare- and you make them stand in “timeout” for 5 hours instead of 5 minutes will it really have an increase in effectiveness to justify it, will the 5 hours..
... deter them more next time than the 5 minutes? Likely not in most cases. At least according to psychology. Humans don’t actually remember duration very long. Wether it was an amazing meal or a terrible illness, years after it has passed we remember it was a “good meal” or that it was a “bad time” but we are removed from the concept of time except for possibly a recollection we wished it was longer or shorter at the time. So- what actual constructive benefit does imposing extremely harsh sentences do to the crime of perjury, when someone was already willing to lie to police and a court, and sentence an innocent person to a crime they knew they didn’t commit? What justice is done by it? An eye for an eye? In what way does it “make whole” the person falsely accused to add extra years to a persons life long felony conviction sentence?
How does it help put their life back together, how does it do justice to the innocent families or children of the perjurer? Anyone can walk into a bad situation and make it worse. That’s easy. Yeah- the perjurer committed a crime and should be punished- but to what ends? If justice is the goal, then shitting all over an already shitty situation isn’t the way to it. Why not use the state and federal money of prosecution and incarceration as restitution instead, to help the falsely accused victim put their life back togther? They can’t be returned the years lost even if those years are taken from someone else- and even still if I lost my 20’s, the chance to find young love, 20 years to build a career, buy a house, discover who I was, i don’t see that a fair trade for 20 years of someone who’s had all that, who’s had a chance to enjoy the fruits of their labors and to have a family and to explore the world and themselves, who didn’t spend their developing years in prison developing a
Personality born and bred in a penal system. And if we were to increase the penalty for perjury- that increase applies across the board. Suddenly anyone found guilty of perjury is looking at 25 to life- because judges need flexibility in sentencing, but there are boundaries- otherwise justice becomes stilted. Otherwise when some Stanford wunderkind commits a crime a judge says “boys will be boys” and when someone else does it they get 40 years for saying they didn’t see a blue van when they did. So then we once again have created an inequity of justice. Now- one couuuuld in theory classify false accusations of rape as a sex crime. That’s still a slippery slope, but it doesn’t effect other perjury laws, and the person convicted would be a fellon and registered sex offender. It still bears the question of burden of proof- perjury is a crime of intent. It is not enough to prove a person lied, you must prove they knowingly lied AND did so with malicious intent- so we are back to square one
@xvarnah- just a general comment not aimed at anyone. You are correct that perjury goes beyond simply being mistaken. One must demonstrate that a person lied, knowingly lied, and did so with specific intent. You are also correct in saying that rape is different than other crimes. The act of rape carries much less evidence, rape can be committed while leaving effectively no physical evidence and just the circumstantial evidence of testimony from those involved, witnesses, and alibis. Character and other things can inform a verdict- but given the primal and somewhat random nature of the crime, we ant say for certain that the guy on 4chan saying he would rape so and so is more likely a rapist than the beloved community pillar who’s helped others for 40 years. We also can’t pull the same: “where’s the body?” As we do with murder, otherwise all we would have to prosecute rape is you’d need semen, and a video of the attack, and likely a signed affidavit from the accused saying they did it.
So it’s a sticky pickle there. Interestingly- rape is not a crime of intent. It can be committed without any criminal intent at all from the perpetrator. In the taking of a life, we have manslaughter, murder, and carrying degrees to differentiate intent and specifics of the crimes. In sex crimes we pretty much only have one nail for the gavel of Justice to use wether it’s hanging a picture or a house. THAT is the discussion that needs had. If we want to protect men and women, we need to have some lines that define better what types of sexual crimes there are, what the criteria are, and what the burdens of proof are. But.... that’s another long post. On this subject- the similarities between perjury and rape for our discussion are as you say- they are hard to PROVE. We can more so view then almost as bearing a burden of what is the most likely thing that happened as opposed to the thing which certainly happened. There are cultural and human flaws at work to cause the reactions people..
.. and jurors have to rape- but the justice system is supposed to work around those, changing society is necessary, but if that were a viable solution we wouldn’t need a justice system, when there is racism in society it is prudent to design a justice system that counterbalances that, when there is an emotional response to rape which, with other social factors makes people more likely to convict on emotional response than evidence- there needs to be a way to deal with that too. But Let’s examine the argument: people are saying there should be harsher penalties or a larger burden of proof against rape allegations that turn out to be false. Ok...
So... the same applies to allegations of rape which may or may not be false. The ENTIRE point of a rape trial is to determine if a rape did or did not happen. If the dengendent says it didn’t, the accuser said it did- we are to determine who’s story to believe. The ways a person can bring legitimate rape charges and loose are primarily:
- Faulty memory, trauma plus other factors of memory causing a mistake of identity or events.
- Perception, the perceptions of events between the two individuals differed, and based on available evidence it was determined that a criminal rape was not perpetrated by the accused.
- A verdict in error do to skillful legal tactics, lack of evidence, or lies and deception of the defense.
So- a legitimate rape case can still lose right? And we are having this discussion because a false rape case can win- you can produce enough evidence for a judge or jury to label a person a rapist when they did not. Perjury follows the same guidelines. Perjury...
... requires proof of a crime that happened inside a persons head. You can demonstrate they were wrong about the details, that testimony they’ve given contradicts itself. This can be done even in a legitimate rape case, where the victim has either made statements of denial or in shock which refute the details or even that the crime happened, or out of social pressure or fear of stigma. Beyond that trauma and circumstances like drugs or alchohol can also cause such conflicting statements. We need more. We need to prove that they didn’t make a mistake, but they lied. Knowingly. So now you have to prove what a person knows and what they felt when they were saying and doing things. My point being- that is rather messy, as you describe the crime of rape- one which doesn’t have the solid slam dunk evidence of a physical murder or many other crimes.
So if by the logic of this argument- rape allegations should carry a burden of disprove greater than other allegations, under penalties of perjury, or possibly more severe than perjury, because rape allegations are easy to make and hard to disprove- then that same logic applies to accusations of perjury, which by their nature are easy to make and harder to prove. So now- when someone brings forth allegations of perjury on you- do they suffer a greater burden of disproof as we would ask on this discussion be carried by rape? Do those allegations, if proven faulty or malicious, themselves carry possibly greater penalties as well? You see where I’m going? Then we have to define how we prove that you intentionally and maliciously accused me of perjury for maliciously accusing you of rape, and It all goes in a big circle- but the same exact system that would try to determine these crimes that have little or no evidence is the same system trying the original rape- and if it were capable of..
.. reliably identifying and proving or disproving crimes requiringblittle or no evidence- then we wouldn’t have people getting falsely sentenced for rape would we? If we are sure enough that the system can identify someones intent to falsely accuse rape- a crime which literally the only evidence is inside their mind- theor knowlee of wether they actually believed what they were saying, or wether they did it for revenge- that we could advocate harsher sentencing or lighter burden of proof of false accusations- than we would need to be equally sure that the same system could determine between guilt and innocence in rape. If the proposition is that the system is broken in <this> way- and we copy and paste <this> that is broken and just change the crime- what does that fix, is it “justice” because now accusers and accused have an equal chance of being convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, or walking away from one they did?
@guest_ fair enough haha. you've made some good point, I'm not arguing with that, and if there's something specific you want me to address I'd be happy to, but the conversation has gotten a bit intense for me. So at this point I'm bowing out. I can only handle one lengthy comment chain at a time it seems :)
Lol. Sorry. And no- no argument or ill will from me either. It’s a complex topic that inevitably involves emotions and many perspectives. I think (hope,) we can all acknowledge the two points that it is important to treat anyone claiming to be a rape victim with care, respect, and seriousness, but there are flaws in our social and justice systems which make it so that the mere allegation of a crime can be just as severe as conviction of that crime, and that isn’t right either. No one has the answers. I can’t tell anyone the “perfect solution” to the problem- but like many I have my own opinions on how to try and improve it, and how not to.
If we now started prosecuting the liars, the people that are falsely in jail NOW wouldn't get out, but the chances of future false accusations would be fairly slim due to consequences.
That’s why we saw such huge reductions in crime in states where “3 strikes laws” or “minimum sentences” were enacted. That’s also why the death penalty is so widely used. Harsher and more wide spread use of punishment is an effective deterrent against future crime. That’s why few families have multiple generations of criminals too- when someone’s father, brother, grandmother gets convicted of a crime, they are less likely to be criminals too. Look how well it’s worked on mass shootings. Shooters know they will end up in prison or dead, and so America is seeing less of these crimes than ever in history.
False accusations are still extremely uncommon. If he willing to bet the ‘victim’ in this circumstance is white, bc white women is the only group which commonly and historically falsely accuse black men... When it comes to rape, social norms dictate how most of us act tbqh
Women who lie about getting raped should be prostituted by force. For free. Just put them in the middle of the street, stripped naked, for all to use. Without protection.
"
However, telling someone "look, if you come forward and admit you lied, we GUARANTEE you're going to prison for a good quarter of your life, and having everything you care about and enjoy taken from you for the duration. The chances of you being able to rebuild when you get out are zero."
'
Almost nobody would ever be willing to admit they had lied in this scenario-- they'd rather stick to their story. If they're willing to tell a lie like that in the first place clearly their narcissism is already out of control, so putting the well-being of their victim ahead of their own is astronomically slim
'
Granted, if there are no repercussions, no one will ever see the harm in lying, and they will literally use their sociopathic idiocy to undermine the entire justice system. True victims of assault have fought damn hard to be heard and deserve better than these lying pieces of garbage trying to hop on the bandwagon. And people who have never commited a crime deserve some level of recompense for all they're put through.
'
People who lie about rape are either severely mentally ill and should probably be institutionalized as they are now a harm to themselves and others... or among the lowest dregs of society.
'
And all that in mind, I still (and will always feel) that it is better to let a guilty man go free (or have a lesser charge) than condemn the innocent.
'
What I said was: if you put forward an extremely severe consequence, any sane person with this level of narcissism is going to see their options as:
-if I don't say anything, no one will ever know. I'll be great.
-if I say something I'm going to be raped, beaten, etc for the next 25 years.
'
No one would ever come forward. Meanwhile the guy is trapped in that hell for the rest of the sentence, and when he DOES get out, that hell will not end. He will be labelled a sex offender. He will get hate mail and death threats and likely have an impossible time getting a job. He will get harassed and abused and bullied and it will never end until he dies.
'
If a man keeps a teenage girl prisoner in his basement. Rapes her, tortures her, impregnated her and kills her children, If I had to choose between saving her and arresting him, I would rather see her saved from that situation, given safety and therapy and comfort and love and some chance at life.
'
And just the same, if a man has been falsely convicted I want him out of that situation and to have his life rebuilt. What happens to his accuser is secondary
'
It's not entirely fair, but it saves time and hassle and at least offers minor incentive to admit you lied.
'
They do the same thing with murders and other crimes, so it's a place to start at least
“They are wasting public resources in a futile attempt to make as many people's lives harder as they can simply because they are worthless cunts that are pissed they can't get any. They are garbage people doing garbage people things and are trying to hide behind "oh im doing my civic duty" as an excuse to not get flak for it.
These worthless cunts should get arrested for false reports as they know damn well what they are doing and are doing it with malicious intent but that would be too much of a waste of time to fuck with.” You posted this ten hours ago in relation to people being reported for tax evasion. I now believe you have no set of beliefs or morals and just want to argue.
1. Protect the general public from threat.
2. Make whole, or as whole as possible all parties as they were before a crime.
3. Discourage and rehabilitate against future criminal action.
4- and probably most important: protect and uphold the rights of all humans.
If is not always possible to get all of these perfect. The system is designed and (hopefully continually improved,) to do as well as it can, but without total surveillance of body and mind, it is not possible to KNOW guilt, an accusation is made, a burden of proof is set, the accuser must prove the guilt of the accused or the accused may walk. It is possible to wrongly convict for ANY crime and if it happens just 1 time- that is a travesty that we should try to avoid, but NOT by forgetting the fundamental reasons the legal system exists.
'
I suppose I never said it outright, but I was exclusively addressing people getting others convicted when they know damn well the person did nothing wrong
'
But if all that goes aside, if someone intentionally tries to get a person convicted of a murder, there are a lot of crimes they can be held under. Miscarriage of justice possibly; providing false evidency/testimony; possibly conspiracy/framing (idr the exact terminology). All of which I imagine are what they process false rape crimes under, but as I said I'm not a lawyer. I haven't dug deep enough into the technical law aspects of it to know all the ins and outs
Those are two very different situations. In the one we are talking about is lying to get someone put in prison for doing something to you. This situation requires that punishment be light or nil for those that lie to protect the actual victim as anything else would make it impossible for the actual victim to ever get out of jail.
The situation you are quoting is extremely different
(nice mixture of an ad hominem and a strawman by the way fucking hell)
In the situation you are quoting me on the victim isnt going to jail. The victim does not have any need to be protected. The "victim" of the crime in legal terms is the state...
- Faulty memory, trauma plus other factors of memory causing a mistake of identity or events.
- Perception, the perceptions of events between the two individuals differed, and based on available evidence it was determined that a criminal rape was not perpetrated by the accused.
- A verdict in error do to skillful legal tactics, lack of evidence, or lies and deception of the defense.
So- a legitimate rape case can still lose right? And we are having this discussion because a false rape case can win- you can produce enough evidence for a judge or jury to label a person a rapist when they did not. Perjury follows the same guidelines. Perjury...
I agree with you, Jason