Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on June 05, 2019, 12:42:39 PM
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47977/alabama-bill-aims-punish-false-accusations-rape-ashe-schow
Alabama Bill Aims To Punish False Accusations Of Rape. Media Cries Foul.
The article is part news and part editorial. I just hadn't heard this was going on. Looks like a good test case for this issue.
Alabama State Rep. E. Richard “Dickie” Drake (R-Leeds) is trying to change that. Earlier this month, Drake introduced AL HB544, a bill that would punish false accusations of sexual crime. As it stands, false accusers are only charged with filing a false police report, a misdemeanor. Drake’s bill would make it a Class C felony to “willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent,” make “a false report of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, or sexual torture.” The allegations would need to be proven false in order for the accuser to be punished.
The bill also makes it a Class A misdemeanor to “willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent” make a “false report of rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, indecent exposure, enticing child to enter vehicle, house etc., for immoral purposes, sexual abuse of a child under 12, or foster parent engaging in a sex act, etc., with a foster child.” Again, the allegations would need to be proven untrue.
The bolded part should make this applicable only for the worst of the rape accusations.
The outlet also spoke to the director of the Alabama Coalition Against Rape, who said this bill would keep victims from coming forward. “It’s not solving a new problem,” she said. “It is a problem if someone makes a false report, and that’s rare. It’s an effort to silence men and women who are coming forward about sexual assault. It’s an effort to make them afraid to come forward.”
I think the high instance of false accusations already makes women afraid to come forward. Add some disincentive for false accusations might reduce the false claims.
-
https://www.euronews.com/2019/06/04/noa-pothoven-raped-girl-17-dies-by-legal-euthanasia-in-the-netherlands
I don't want to derail my own thread, but I saw this link this morning. I was reminded of it since the girl said she was raped at age 11 and didn't tell anyone out of shame. I imagine bottling up that mental trauma didn't help her. When I look at this case, I don't think a law against false accusations would have any effect on whether she chose to speak up. Those reasons were there already.
-
Assuming the law makes a distinction between "false" and "mistaken," I see nothing wrong (and a lot of right) with punishing people who make false accusations -- of rape or any other crime.
-
If you intentionally accuse someone of a crime then you should be held accountable. Given the legal penalties, civil liability, and societal stigma associated with be accused of sexual assault, rape, etc., I think Class C felony is getting off light.
Brad
-
Sounds like a great bill. It should be expanded to cover all false accusation crimes, not just rape though.
-
If you intentionally accuse someone of a crime then you be held accountable. Given the legal penalties, civil liability, and societal stigma associated with be accused of sexual assault, rape, etc., I think Class C felony is getting off light.
Brad
The punishment for intentionally making a false accusation ought to be on a par with what the potential punishment for the falsely accused would be should a conviction result.
-
The punishment for intentionally making a false accusation ought to be on a par with what the potential punishment for the falsely accused would be should a conviction result.
Up to and including the death penalty.
It should also be extended to any and all police, prosecutors, DAs and judges and other "officers of the court" that are found to have committed prosecutorial misconduct such as perjury, deliberately withholding exculpatory evidence and other attempts to railroad an otherwise Innocent defendant.
-
Up to and including the death penalty.
It should also be extended to any and all police, prosecutors, DAs and judges and other "officers of the court" that are found to have committed prosecutorial misconduct such as perjury, deliberately withholding exculpatory evidence and other attempts to railroad an otherwise Innocent defendant.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/g2Bp8SqYrnE?start=40&end=43
-
Sounds like a great bill. It should be expanded to cover all false accusation crimes, not just rape though.
Let's expand it to also make police and prosecutors personally liable, culpable, and prosecutable for all instances where the defendant is proven innocent. Personal liability for the resultant costs of defense, and criminally culpable for the false accusation and false imprisonment during the trial.
-
Let's expand it to also make police and prosecutors personally liable, culpable, and prosecutable for all instances where the defendant is proven innocent. Personal liability for the resultant costs of defense, and criminally culpable for the false accusation and false imprisonment during the trial.
Are you saying that police and prosecutors must be able to ...what?? --- perform a Vulcan mind-meld on the subjects to establish the accuser is telling the truth?
What happens if there's a case where the circumstantial evidence and testimony appears to support the accuser's claim of rape, all the investigators acted in good faith, but something blows up the case in an unforseen blessed mannef?
If there is deliberate malfeasance, sure, I get it. If there is a false accuser, ding the accuser.
-
Are you saying that police and prosecutors must be able to ...what?? --- perform a Vulcan mind-meld on the subjects to establish the accuser is telling the truth?
What happens if there's a case where the circumstantial evidence and testimony appears to support the accuser's claim of rape, all the investigators acted in good faith, but something blows up the case in an unforseen blessed mannef?
If there is deliberate malfeasance, sure, I get it. If there is a false accuser, ding the accuser.
The link I posted said the law required the accusation to be proven as false and be done with malice/intent. That is a pretty tough standard to prove. You would almost have to get a confesion. If you would able to prove all that for prosecutorial / police misconduct, I might agree with the idea of punishing them harshly. However, just screwing up and forgetting about evidence or mis-remembering something (meaning that is all that can be proven), then it might fall back to some sort of liability / minor punishment / firing / disbarment.
-
One example might be a case of a woman knows she was raped by a guy who looks a certain way. The police round up a guy who looks that way and tells her they caught him and she just needs to testify it was him. The cops know they have no evidence it was that guy. Where does that fall as far as liability / punishment? I think it depends on what can be proven in court.
-
The link I posted said the law required the accusation to be proven as false and be done with malice/intent. That is a pretty tough standard to prove. You would almost have to get a confesion. If you would able to prove all that for prosecutorial / police misconduct, I might agree with the idea of punishing them harshly. However, just screwing up and forgetting about evidence or mis-remembering something (meaning that is all that can be proven), then it might fall back to some sort of liability / minor punishment / firing / disbarment.
That, I could go with. ;)
-
Is the media included in this? I seem to recall instances where the media basically tried and convicted persons for rape. The Duke case comes to mind at the moment
-
Is the media included in this? I seem to recall instances where the media basically tried and convicted persons for rape. The Duke case comes to mind at the moment
Revising how we handle libel and slander is an entirely different discussion.
-
Are you saying that police and prosecutors must be able to ...what?? --- perform a Vulcan mind-meld on the subjects to establish the accuser is telling the truth?
Of course not. That'd be a 4th Amendment violation.
What happens if there's a case where the circumstantial evidence and testimony appears to support the accuser's claim of rape, all the investigators acted in good faith, but something blows up the case in an unforseen blessed mannef?
If there is deliberate malfeasance, sure, I get it. If there is a false accuser, ding the accuser.
It's all fun and games to cops and prosecutors when they have mountains of immunity to hide behind, and gobs of other peoples' money to spend to prosecute someone (that then has to use his own money to defend himself).
Proving you're innocent is pretty damn hard when a prosecutor has a hard-on to prove you guilty. And most people lose their life savings or go heavily into debt to secure their freedom.
Hell, yes. Prosecutors and cops need accountability for false accusations. These are PEOPLE, the same as a false rape victim, ruining lives. They're making deliberate choices to do so. It's not a faceless machine, they're people.
-
Of course not. That'd be a 4th Amendment violation.
It's all fun and games to cops and prosecutors when they have mountains of immunity to hide behind, and gobs of other peoples' money to spend to prosecute someone (that then has to use his own money to defend himself).
Proving you're innocent is pretty damn hard when a prosecutor has a hard-on to prove you guilty. And most people lose their life savings or go heavily into debt to secure their freedom.
Hell, yes. Prosecutors and cops need accountability for false accusations. These are PEOPLE, the same as a false rape victim, ruining lives. They're making deliberate choices to do so. It's not a faceless machine, they're people.
As I said, if it can be proved the cops knew the defendant was innocent, fine, arrest them.
As a mythical example, remember the old tv series, THE FUGITIVE? The Lt. Philip Gerard character, who arrested Dr. Kimble and pursued him after his escape. He honestly believed Kimble was guilty, and Kimble had been tried and convicted.
Should Gerard have been arrested and tried for his role in incarceration and persecuting an innocent man?
Not in my opinion. Gerard had tried to find the "one armed man," and after interviewing dozens, came to believe there was no such person. The jury agreed.
Despite being wrong, Lt. Gerard's actions were in good faith with the law.
Now ... in a mirror-universe version, an evil Philip Gerard who planted evidence at the crime scene to convict an innocent Richard Kimble, yea, arrest the sob!
-
Y'all are conflating posecutorial misconduct and false accusations. Same principal, but not the same thing.
Here's a case I kinda remember from a few years ago in Texas; I had to look it up: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/project_press/2015/summer/former-texas-district-attorney-disbarred/ IMHO, disbarment was not enough, Mr Sebesta should have been tried for attempted murder. :mad:
-
As I said, if it can be proved the cops knew the defendant was innocent, fine, arrest them.
As a mythical example, remember the old tv series, THE FUGITIVE? The Lt. Philip Gerard character, who arrested Dr. Kimble and pursued him after his escape. He honestly believed Kimble was guilty, and Kimble had been tried and convicted.
Should Gerard have been arrested and tried for his role in incarceration and persecuting an innocent man?
Not in my opinion. Gerard had tried to find the "one armed man," and after interviewing dozens, came to believe there was no such person. The jury agreed.
Despite being wrong, Lt. Gerard's actions were in good faith with the law.
Now ... in a mirror-universe version, an evil Philip Gerard who planted evidence at the crime scene to convict an innocent Richard Kimble, yea, arrest the sob!
There's a huge difference here.
The US Marshals Service isn't tasked with investigation, they're tasked with apprehension/capture.
Beat cops (ugh, I'm going to defend them for a second here) aren't investigators, they're errand boys.
But... the detectives, or the FBI special agents, or investigating agents that issue orders to the Marshals or to police departments for a APB/BOLO/etc, are fully culpable for the quality of the investigation that leads to the manhunt/arrest/conflict. And the DA that makes the decision to prosecute the case is fully culpable for evaluating the legitimacy of the evidence and the scope of harm he could cause to the defendant if the prosecutor's case is inaccurate but he proceeds anyways.
-
There's a huge difference here.
The US Marshals Service isn't tasked with investigation, they're tasked with apprehension/capture.
Beat cops (ugh, I'm going to defend them for a second here) aren't investigators, they're errand boys.
But... the detectives, or the FBI special agents, or investigating agents that issue orders to the Marshals or to police departments for a APB/BOLO/etc, are fully culpable for the quality of the investigation that leads to the manhunt/arrest/conflict. And the DA that makes the decision to prosecute the case is fully culpable for evaluating the legitimacy of the evidence and the scope of harm he could cause to the defendant if the prosecutor's case is inaccurate but he proceeds anyways.
I was actually refering to the excellent, original tv series in which Lt. PHILLIP Gerard was a Lt. in the Stafford, Indiana police department's homicide department, not the so-so movie in which Tommy Lee Jones (an excellent actor) played U. S. Marshal SAM Gerard.
Barry Morse played the original character, who portrayed the Gerard character as intelligent, insightful, superficially obsessed with capturing the escaped fugitive, but not unconcerned with the truth or unable to alter his worldview to accept new facts.
-
I was actually refering to the excellent, original tv series in which Lt. PHILLIP Gerard was a Lt. in the Stafford, Indiana police department's homicide department, not the so-so movie in which Tommy Lee Jones (an excellent actor) played U. S. Marshal SAM Gerard.
Barry Morse played the original character, who portrayed the Gerard character as intelligent, insightful, superficially obsessed with capturing the escaped fugitive, but not unconcerned with the truth or unable to alter his worldview to accept new facts.
That's from a world long dead and gone. That form of law enforcement no longer exists.
-
That's from a world long dead and gone. That form of law enforcement no longer exists.
You mean intelligent, insightful, police work? :police: [popcorn] .... :facepalm: