Why wasn't she already in jail?

[littlelolligagged]

If a woman is raped, the chance of her reporting it, having someone and charged with the crime and eventually convicted is already very low - if the woman thought she would then be accused of making a false accusation, that she could do serious jail time, would she even bother reporting it?

This x1000.

[Catgrrl]

I thought I read before that she had some sort of mental illness, which is why they didn't go after her the first time....

I'd have to look into it....

[Loki]

This x1000.

Does that mean we shouldn't punish women who intentionally cry rape in order to get a man in trouble?

[littlelolligagged]

Does that mean we shouldn't punish women who intentionally cry rape in order to get a man in trouble?

If it can be proved that a woman is intentionally crying rape, then yes.

If a woman cries rape and the man isn't convicted for it that isn't sufficient cause, though.

[Loki]

If it can be proved that a woman is intentionally crying rape, then yes.

If a woman cries rape and the man isn't convicted for it that isn't sufficient cause, though.

Is anyone actually making the second argument?

[LittleFuzzy]

Does that mean we shouldn't punish women who intentionally cry rape in order to get a man in trouble?

You already can, just not generally with police power.

[LittleFuzzy]

Why does the bar being high mean that there won't be any prosecutions? The bar should be high in ALL criminal prosecutions. Heck the US has the Death Penalty, is the bar not high for them?

Because it is substantially harder to prove.

[Loki]

You already can, just not generally with police power.

Yeah, suing someone with no money will show them.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah, suing someone with no money will show them.

Since what's being discussed is, of course, a new application of law which affects only this person (despite that being an ex post facto violation, for shame) and no other.

Or are you claiming that the bulk of "false rape" accusations, however many it turns out there are, are done by penniless women trying to soak rich lacrosse players? I mean, there is a systemic problem, right, or else you would not be trying to institute a sweeping general fix like invoking criminal law?

[Loki]

Since what's being discussed is, of course, a new application of law which affects only this person (despite that being an ex post facto violation, for shame) and no other.

Or are you claiming that the bulk of "false rape" accusations, however many it turns out there are, are done by penniless women trying to soak rich lacrosse players?

I'm saying that the costs of a lawyer are higher than the net worth of a vast majority of people in this country. It only makes sense to sue if they have millions of dollars.

[Lewkowski]

There are only three possible results in the real world to this.

Nope there are more then three possibilities.

I feel so sorry for you that someone already being in a lousy situation leaves you with no tools to harass them.

What the hell is wrong with you? Does being in a lousy situation excuse someone for nearly ruining three lives? It excuses the utter waste of millions of dollars? It excuses extortion, blackmail and evil?

Your like the poster child of old school liberalism justice, "Well they had a hard life, their childhood is rough we can't punish them!"

In Family Law there are horrific accusations (yes false ones too) made by one parent against another on an almost regular basis - do we apply this law here too?

Actually yes. If proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has in fact falsely accused someone of a crime that involves prison time then they too should be charged with a crime that results in prison time. Theoretically it should be no different then attempt of kidnapping and theft. Kidnapping of the falsely accused and theft from the state for all the money wasted.

[Flixy]

Filing a false report with the police already IS a crime. And perjury in court is, too. It's just really hard to prove.

[Loki]

Perjury is actually not that hard to prove. Making wildly inconsistent statements to the police and the court would be sufficient (the woman in question had something like 15 different stories).

[Being]

Nope there are more then three possibilities.



What the hell is wrong with you? Does being in a lousy situation excuse someone for nearly ruining three lives? It excuses the utter waste of millions of dollars? It excuses extortion, blackmail and evil?

Your like the poster child of old school liberalism justice, "Well they had a hard life, their childhood is rough we can't punish them!"



Actually yes. If proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has in fact falsely accused someone of a crime that involves prison time then they too should be charged with a crime that results in prison time. Theoretically it should be no different then attempt of kidnapping and theft. Kidnapping of the falsely accused and theft from the state for all the money wasted.

Than.

[Khendraja'aro]

There's a little difference between a proof and circumstantial evidence. Besides, doesn't intent once again come into play?

[LittleFuzzy]

What the hell is wrong with you? Does being in a lousy situation excuse someone for nearly ruining three lives? It excuses the utter waste of millions of dollars? It excuses extortion, blackmail and evil?

Your like the poster child of old school liberalism justice, "Well they had a hard life, their childhood is rough we can't punish them!"

This has nothing to do with what someone deserves, and everything to do with what can be done effectively without overstepping. Functionalism, as ever, the top interest. You will not always be able to effectively "punish" someone, and you will have to live with the occasional injustice of that. You have no problem accepting that with the rich, somehow you will have to adapt to it with the wretched, too.

And then, of course, I am opposed to the concept of criminal justice as punishment. Because it exacerbates the problem. The only thought you ever have in your head is deterrance, but deterrance is not a panacea. You can't just reach for a bigger punishment, a bigger hammer, when the last attempt fails and be assured it will work. I don't want to punish crime. I don't give a crap whether justice is served and crime is punished. I want to prevent crime. Which, among other things means keeping it from reoccuring. Those prisons you want to send every petty lawbreaker to end up making people's behavior in normal society worse. Constantly. Your solution is to just never let any criminal out. Three strikes laws, harsher punishments on reoffenders, etc. Besides being fairly ineffective, it's also inefficient and a "smashing eggshells with sledgehammers" approach. There are more effective ways. Concentrate on rehabilitating people, integrating them into society without committing crimes. Work-release programs, probation, alternate forms of incarcaeration, etc. These tools don't have a 100% success rate, of course, but they perform a damn sight better than jail time and more jail time.

And in this case, it's got nothing to do with any liberalism "think of the poor" sentiment. I don't care what her state in society is. It's meaningless. You're the one who thinks it is relevant, because you feel it gives you less than adequate means to punish her. I'm opposed to something which, if it's to be effective, is going to have to sweep up a lot of other things along with it. Particularly since you already can't see a difference between civil and criminal offenses. I suppose there's also a problem when poor people get jail time while rich offenders get soaked in civil suits, but meh, that's already endemic to our legal system, and everyone else's. It will hold true as long as money is a useful tool.

[Loki]

Do you care about criminals harming innocent people when let out, Fuzzy? Does the "right" of a criminal to a second change trump the "right" of an innocent person to not be harmed by someone who's already been caught committing a similar crime?

[Khendraja'aro]

So, what's your solution? Kill all criminals so that they won't offend again?

DUI? Shoot them. Perjury? Shoot them. Rape? Shoot them. Theft? Shoot them. Tax evasion? Shoot them. Littering? Shoot them.

Oh yes, that will work just fine.

[Nessus]

NOOOO

If you feed him, he will only grow stronger!

[Loki]

So, what's your solution? Kill all criminals so that they won't offend again?

DUI? Shoot them. Perjury? Shoot them. Rape? Shoot them. Theft? Shoot them. Tax evasion? Shoot them. Littering? Shoot them.

Oh yes, that will work just fine.

Dorothy, is that you? I don't think anyone else can love strawmen nearly as much. Is this how you boost your self-esteem? By assuming that anyone who thinks differently from you is a raving lunatic?

[Khendraja'aro]

My dear, you asked if the rights of a second chance for criminals outweigh the rights of an innocent citizen.

That argument only holds water if you assume that recidivism is a given (never mind that recidivism is dependant on the treatment a criminal receives during and after jail and also is dependant on the type of crime committed). As soon as recidivism is NOT a certainty, however, you cannot make a broad and sweeping statement lacking any and all qualifiers.

Thus we have to assume that you think that all criminals have to be done away forever since only then the innocent citizen does not suffer the slightest risk of running afoul from a recidivist criminal.

I always find it astounding that people want to overthrow the law because of a single incident. When that same people are griping about the amount of regulations.

Guys, the amount of regulations is directly linked to the singular instances of an incident you want the law to take care of. In short, you're being wildly inconsistent - but, hey, that's nothing new.

[LittleFuzzy]

Do you care about criminals harming innocent people when let out, Fuzzy?

Since the entire thrust of the post was about preventing that, how prison tends to contribute more to recidivism than rehabilitation-focused methods, I would have inferred that it is a concern of mine, yes.

[Loki]

Since the entire thrust of the post was about preventing that, how prison tends to contribute more to recidivism than rehabilitation-focused methods, I would have inferred that it is a concern of mine, yes.

How many crimes would a person have to commit after a rehabilitation-focused approach before you stop trying to rehab them? Should the same approach by adopted for say rapes and murders? If a murderer is no longer a threat to society, should they be let out?

[Aimless]

how often and how severely does imprisonment have to fail before you start putting serious effort into alternatives?

[Loki]

Define what you mean by fail.

[Aimless]

hey btw does this mean we'll be imprisoning people who were responsible for putting innocent men and women into prison??

[Illusions]

NOOOO

If you feed him, he will only grow stronger!

Only if its after midnight...we're fine for now...so long as no one waters him...

[Aimless]

Define what you mean by fail.

i mean what fuzzy's talking about. making the criminal element bigger and badder

or

[Loki]

i mean what fuzzy's talking about. making the criminal element bigger and badder

A) Prove that he wouldn't be big and bad anyway.
B) If you don't let him out, it doesn't matter if he's bigger and badder.

[Aimless]

A) Prove that he wouldn't be big and bad anyway.

are you proposing a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled study involving the release of dangerous criminals??!

B) If you don't let him out, it doesn't matter if he's bigger and badder.

are you proposing not releasing anyone from prison EVER??!?!