Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I feel like we need to take whatever the minimum punishment is for rape and use that against liars.

Example: if in a certain state the minimum sentence for rape is 5 years..then a person lying about being raped should be jailed for 5 years. If their lies actually lead to someone being incarcerated, I want those years added on. So if in a state with a 5 year minimum for rape a woman lies and a man spends 3 years in jail before the truth is out? That woman spends 8 years in jail.

I also would love to see as much of a public uproar over women who lie about rape not being punished as we have seen over actual rapists not being punished enough. Let's not pretend being falsely accused of rape can't mess up a persons life just as much as being raped could.

Let's be honest here, rape is a draconian crime. And if my but-hole stretched as wide as a woman's clitoris, I would any day of the week, month or year take being raped over spending any more than a white collar's term time in Prison.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
Let's be honest here, rape is a draconian crime. And if my but-hole stretched as wide as a woman's clitoris,

The Clitoris stretches? i guess that explains a few things. I thought i was doing something wrong.


As for the topic. A falsified rape accusation doesn't strike me as anymore intense than a simple theft accusation. I don't mean to imply that i think, simple theft is as egregious as rape just the accusation.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
As for the topic. A falsified rape accusation doesn't strike me as anymore intense than a simple theft accusation. I don't mean to imply that i think, simple theft is as egregious as rape just the accusation.

I have to disagree because rape itself is more intense than theft. I know you already said that, but it is because that rape is more intense that an accusation is worse when compared to theft.

The consequences to a person are far more severe, even if they eventually do get shown to be innocent. First off, people in prison for rape tend to be in more danger from other inmates than people there for theft. Theft can be petty, rape really isn't. Stolen goods have the potential to be returned, but you can't unrape someone. Just like if you kill someone you can't undo that, hence why these types of crimes are especially heinous, they strip you of something you can't ever get back or replace.

Damage to the reputation, even if shown to be innocent, is still probably worse than if you get falsely accused of theft. If you don't get shown to be innocent, you'll be a registered sex offender for the rest of your life even after you get out of jail.

Accusing someone of rape when you know you weren't raped can have devastating effects on their life, just like if someone is actually raped.

What makes you think the allegations against Trump are false?

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like we need to take whatever the minimum punishment is for rape and use that against liars.


Maybe if it had resulted in a false conviction. But you would have to really be careful with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard - it has to be proven with near certainty that the accuser was lying, and just pointing out inconsistencies in a story or late reporting isn't enough for that.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
The Clitoris stretches? i guess that explains a few things. I thought i was doing something wrong.


As for the topic. A falsified rape accusation doesn't strike me as anymore intense than a simple theft accusation. I don't mean to imply that i think, simple theft is as egregious as rape just the accusation.


You're joking, right?

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like we need to take whatever the minimum punishment is for rape and use that against liars.

Maximum sentence which would have been awarded to the accused.

Time added on for bad behaviour.

Yes, lets deter even more women from reporting rape. That makes sense.

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like we need to take whatever the minimum punishment is for rape and use that against liars.

Example: if in a certain state the minimum sentence for rape is 5 years..then a person lying about being raped should be jailed for 5 years. If their lies actually lead to someone being incarcerated, I want those years added on. So if in a state with a 5 year minimum for rape a woman lies and a man spends 3 years in jail before the truth is out? That woman spends 8 years in jail.

I also would love to see as much of a public uproar over women who lie about rape not being punished as we have seen over actual rapists not being punished enough. Let's not pretend being falsely accused of rape can't mess up a persons life just as much as being raped could. Awful, wow.

Also I'm finding your stat circumspect (or rather downright false):

https://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/06/06/are-33-of-convicted-rapists-exonerated-by-dna/

Could you provide some counter evidence to allay my fears that your spouting shit?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Also I'm finding your stat circumspect (or rather downright false):

https://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/06/06/are-33-of-convicted-rapists-exonerated-by-dna/

Could you provide some counter evidence to allay my fears that your spouting shit?

You do realise the feminist article linked here agrees with my stat...

Oh dear, perhaps you didn't read it properly.You're dismissed.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Oh dear, perhaps you didn't read it properly.You're dismissed.

Oh dear, it looks like you need to read properly, because none of that contradicts the stat.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Yes, lets deter even more women from reporting rape. That makes sense.

Why would this deter them from reporting a rape unless they are lying?

If there is a punishment specifically for lying about rape then nobody should be worried unless they plan to lie.

So because liars will now actually be held accountable for their actions..that would make a true rape victim not want to come forward? That just confuses me.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Awful, wow.

I know, hypocrisy and double standards tend to be awful. Why shouldn't women be held to the same standards as men? Why shouldn't they receive harsh punishments for trying to destroy someone's life?

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
Oh dear, it looks like you need to read properly, because none of that contradicts the stat.

Originally posted by Surtur
I know, hypocrisy and double standards tend to be awful. Why shouldn't women be held to the same standards as men? Why shouldn't they receive harsh punishments for trying to destroy someone's life? That's not the point at all, the point is you are intimidating rape victims into not coming forward. Of course is such a law was implemented their would be instances in which women were wrongly convicted, simply for being raped.*

That prospect doesn't appall you at all?

If your issue is with the reputation of men being tarnished, then the easy solution is to have their identity remain undisclosed until the accusations can be proven. But threatening women with potential incarceration is stupid beyond belief and benefits no one.

*There's also the added issue of rape often involving intoxication, making it difficult for the victim to accurately recall the facts, even more reason to be afraid to come forward.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
That's not the point at all, the point is you are intimidating rape victims into not coming forward. Of course is such a law was implemented their would be instances in which women were wrongly convicted, simply for being raped.*

That prospect doesn't appall you at all?

If your issue is with the reputation of men being tarnished, then the easy solution is to have their identity remain undisclosed until the accusations can be proven. But threatening women with potential incarceration is stupid beyond belief.

*There's also the added issue of rape often involving intoxication, making it difficult for the victim to accurately recall the facts, even more reason to be afraid to come forward.

The prospect doesn't appall me anymore than the prospect of innocent men being jailed over this. So no, there need to be heavy consequences for doing this.

So no, it's not stupid to give women consequences to their actions. Especially given how easily some of these women have been able to get men jailed. Sometimes based SOLELY on their word.

-

Originally posted by Surtur
The prospect doesn't appall me anymore than the prospect of innocent men being jailed over this. So no, there need to be heavy consequences for doing this.

So no, it's not stupid to give women consequences to their actions. Especially given how easily some of these women have been able to get men jailed. Sometimes based SOLELY on their word. Lol, well that's a rather weak non-answer. I take it you have no response to my points then.

Originally posted by Beniboybling


The study you're citing documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.

At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.

The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned. They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Lol, well that's a rather weak non-answer. I take it you have no response to my points then.

Well lets see..you say some women might be falsely convicted and ask if that appalls me. I say it doesn't appall me anymore than men being falsely convicted, and there's a problem if it bothers you more for one side than the other.

You talk about reputation and how the solution is so damn easy, and if it's so damn easy then how the hell did we have these variety of rape cases that turned out to be false and yet we knew the names of those accused? If it's so easy to prevent..why would they possibly want their names out there? Explain to me how anyone benefits from that? If anyone it's the names of the supposed victims that I have seen hidden. Hell the Rolling Stone thing just referred to the liar as "Jackie" which wasn't her real name.

Then you bring up the added issue of intoxication and how it makes it difficult to recall the facts and again: that goes both ways. Since these facts a person fails to recall could just as easily prove they weren't raoed as they might prove they were, right?

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
The study you're citing documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.

At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.

The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned. They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources. I don't care lol. The same source literally came out and stated this isn't basis for any meaningful conclusions lmfao.

Regardless, good to know you didn't actually copy and paste the quote as you claimed, but falsely reworded it.

What would you do if you were raped? and the rapist got away?

a) Get even and risk jail yourself

b) Try to get justice by calling the rapist it out

c) Take the loss

I think this particular problem lies with women being taught that they were raped if they had sex with someone and later regret it.

I've also noticed some weird double standards when it comes to drunken sex. I completely understand that a guy taking advantage of a girl who is black out drunk is indeed rape. However, I've also seen some women put forth this notion that if both people are really really drunk it's still somehow the guys responsibility to stop sex from happening.

Unfortunately there has been more than one occasion where a woman has gotten drunk and hooked up with a guy and then regretted it the next day and accused the man of rape. I remember this one video where the girl(who was lying) got very very pissy with the cop who dared to even question her story, and this cop was female.

Even if only something like 10% of rape accusations turn out to be false..that would still mean 1 out of every 10 rape accusations is a lie.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well lets see..you say some women might be falsely convicted and ask if that appalls me. I say it doesn't appall me anymore than men being falsely convicted, and there's a problem if it bothers you more for one side than the other.Which doesn't address the problem I raised. Nor did I ever claim that men being falsely convicted of rape is not abhorrent to me. However, your (absurd) solution is that we essentially make it equally bad for both parties.

Because it's not law. I'm offering a suggestion as to what should be made lawful.

And that's exactly the point, the line of argument could easily be taken to falsely accuse women of being liars. Heck, that's exactly what the defence almost always attempts to do, but with your suggestion it would now come with a prison sentence. Women know this, and that's why they'd be afraid to come forward. On top of being scared of being proven liars in general.

I want a prison sentence if it can be proved they lied. Not based on the mere accusation of lying.

Just like I don't want men arrested based on the mere accusation of rape.

As for the reputation, okay you say it's not the law and stuff when it comes to reputation. Let me ask you this: do you think there would be any kind of backlash from feminists if they made a law where you couldn't release the rapists name until it can be proven?

I have even seen bizarre arguments where women have said it's sexist to want a rape victim to have a rape kit done before they go off arresting someone over this. So some women would definitely have issues with not releasing his name unless he's proven guilty, because they'll say it would give him the chance to rape other women before guilt is established.

But okay let me ask this: if jail is too much, then what should the consequences be for lying about rape? Especially if it resulted in the man spending years in jail?

Surely the current consequences aren't sufficient, since at times the consequence to this can be..nothing at all. Not even community service.

To branch further out, what steps can we take to change the fact that women are more likely to receive lenient sentences for violent crimes when compared to men who commit the same crimes?

Originally posted by Surtur
I want a prison sentence if it can be proved they lied. Not based on the mere accusation of lying.

Just like I don't want men arrested based on the mere accusation of rape.You mean false accusation, and subsequent false conviction. You've already admitted that the justice system is fallible given that men are have been falsely imprisoned for rape, now you are essentially advocating that the same thing happen be allowed to happen to women. Again, this benefits no one.

Women definitely need to understand the male position when it comes to rape, and the serious damage rape accusations can do to their reputation, which is why there's a serious case for them having the same rights as women in this respect i.e. anonymity, yeah.

However, there is a case against that as well, this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/society/womens-blog/2016/oct/18/extending-anonymity-to-sexual-suspects-is-a-bad-idea-heres-why

Originally posted by Surtur
But okay let me ask this: if jail is too much, then what should the consequences be for lying about rape? Especially if it resulted in the man spending years in jail?

Surely the current consequences aren't sufficient, since at times the consequence to this can be..nothing at all. Not even community service. Well first of all we need to make a distinction between lying about rape and being mistaken, or the act simply not warranting imprisonment. Normally this comes down to issues of consent, which is always a subjective grey area.

It doesn't seem particularly fair to punish a women for what was deemed poor judgement.

Well that's just the consequence of a general pervading bias, you can't really address that with a law.

Oh Ziggy and Surtur, I thought you really hated whiners?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Oh Ziggy and Surtur, I thought you really hated whiners?

I hate double standards as well.

It's also funny, for all of your saying I whine about others whining. You..whine about me whining about others whining.

Perhaps you legitimately don't see that. After all, you admitted everyone lives in a bubble.

You also are correct, sometimes it's time to stop complaining and just embrace some of the better things in life. Like the fact Emma Watson hid copies of Maya Angelou books on NYC subways.

Originally posted by Surtur
I hate double standards as well.

It's also funny, for all of your saying I whine about others whining. You..whine about me whining about others whining.

Perhaps you legitimately don't see that. After all, you admitted everyone lives in a bubble.

No, because I'm not whining about you whining because I hate whining, but rather because it's hypocritical of you. So there's no contradiction.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
No, because I'm not whining about you whining because I hate whining, but rather because it's hypocritical of you. So there's no contradiction.

There is because you keep whining about it. Pointing it out once is an observation, more than that? No dude, you're whining too lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is because you keep whining about it. Pointing it out once is an observation, more than that? No dude, you're whining too lol.

...

Ok, let me repeat myself: me whining doesn't contradict anything because I don't have an anti-whining stance. I was calling you out for the hypocrisy, not for the whining. For my whining to be hypocritical, I would have had to have opposed whining, but I never did.

This isn't even politics, it's reading comprehension, and no offense but it's consistent screwups on your part like this that make me feel smug and smarter than you.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
...

Ok, let me repeat myself: me whining doesn't contradict anything because I don't have an anti-whining stance. I was calling you out for the hypocrisy, not for the whining. For my whining to be hypocritical, I would have had to have opposed whining, but I never did.

This isn't even politics, it's reading comprehension, and no offense but it's consistent screwups on your parts that make me feel smug and smarter than you.

Okay let me repeat myself: you are whining about others whining. You keep trying to defend this, and you just come off as more smug than ever.

The truth of the matter is..you aren't anywhere as smart as you feel you are.

Stop whining about others whining about whining.

Do you understand? Just say "Yes Surtur, I understand". You see I rather don't care why you're whining. Nobody does.

Guilty until proven innocent should mean guilty until proven innocent.

A mere accusation has actual, real world consequences, that stick to someone even after being found innocent..

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay let me repeat myself: you are whining about others whining. You keep trying to defend this, and you just come off as more smug than ever.

The truth of the matter is..you aren't anywhere as smart as you feel you are.

Stop whining about others whining about whining.

Do you understand? Just say "Yes Surtur, I understand". You see I rather don't care why you're whining. Nobody does.

Where in here do you even try to make an argument or respond to any?

The point of criticism is the contradiction, not the whining. Do you want me to draw a flowchart for you?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Where in here do you even try to make an argument or respond to any?

The point of criticism is the contradiction, not the whining. Do you want me to draw a flowchart for you?

I don't want a flow chart, after how wrong you were in predicting the election I feel any chart you make would be suspect.

Also there is no contradiction unless I said that whining in any context is always wrong. But I never did.

You keep whining about whining. I don't care what your angle or reasons are, I'm just pointing out the fact you can't stop whining about my whining.

This is a circle of whining.

Originally posted by Beniboybling

*There's also the added issue of rape often involving intoxication, making it difficult for the victim to accurately recall the facts, even more reason to be afraid to come forward.


Knowingly False Statements Of Fact

Where applicable: http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/

The Constitution of The United States provides for Every Case to be judged on its individual merits.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/fTrials/conlaw/lying.html


As regards to statistics:

In Law. Statistics have nothing to do with The specific and unique situation in each individual case.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't want a flow chart, after how wrong you were in predicting the election I feel any chart you make would be suspect.


It's almost as if you're trying to pretend that you thought Trump was going to win or something. mmm

Dadudemon already pointed out the logical fallacy in this statement anyway, but I don't think you understood it, there were lots of polysyllabic words used.





LMFAO

"whining in some contexts is OK"

"I don't care what the context is"

Go home, Surtur.

You don't seem to get it. I don't care what the context is of *your* whining. You specifically. Because we keep going around in circles. That is the effect you have on people.

Also I already am home.

I also never said I thought Trump would win. I said multiple times I didn't.

I was just making fun you, specifically you, and your wrongness. I was wrong too, but I wasn't a smug dick about it.

Take the polls for instance, I can actually understand the reasons they missed the mark. But because you were so smug with your polls and all that stuff..I just find it funny to continually point this out. In fact I definitely plan to continue acting like the fact you were wrong shows that every single thing you ever believed in is wrong.

You see because it's funny. Especially for someone with your ego.

It's so incredible how someone whose entire purpose for existing on these forums is to whine about political correctness is so obsessed with pointing out my rudeness.

I know you have 101 rationalizations lined up to explain this double standard, but the matter of fact is that you haven't thought out your "I hate political correctness" position very well. Whenever something rude or even "smug" is directed at you, you freak out. And no, claiming that it's "funny" doesn't change the point, lol.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It's so incredible how someone whose entire purpose for existing on these forums is to whine about political correctness is so obsessed with pointing out my rudeness.

I never said you can't be rude. I'm merely saying that going back and forth with you and your constant smugness is what leads me to laugh at your butthurt.

I make fun of SJW's who get their feelings hurt over political correctness. The ones who feel they have to go into a safe space if some controversial speaker comes to their school.



But nobody freaked out. Nobody yelled at you or reported you. If I had put you on ignore the moment you were smug that would be the double standard.

You also continue to fail to grasp simple concepts and yet you keep talking about my intelligence. For instance, I've explained my views on political correctness more than once in that I don't feel it's just about "don't be rude" anymore. I feel like it's fleeing from ideas. Multiple posters here have had that discussion with me. So like I said, if I tried to block you because you were smug then you would have a point. Or if I reported you to a mod.

This doesn't mean I also don't think it is silly when someone is rude to someone else and that person needs some kind of safe space.

So calling it funny doesn't change the point because I don't need to change the point lol.

Lol, if our dynamic is for me to be smug and you to laugh at me for being smug, I guess neither of us can really say anything about it. But I do think that there are times when you employ this to get out of actually debating the issues, and that is a problem.

I do find your attempt to denigrate my intelligence to be pretty silly, because you and I both know that I'm smart - and trying to pretend otherwise doesn't really make for interesting conversation.

As for the OP, I actually think it's reasonable to have better privacy for defendants of criminal or civil cases until the case is actually resolved.

On the subject of punishment for women who lie about rape, this is at least a start:

Woman, 34, who LIED about being raped by an innocent man jailed for three years

Though the article is from 2014. Hopefully it might cause people to think twice before lying.

TIL: Lying about rape is worse than actually being raped

Well my post said nothing about that, but okay.

It was aimed at the thread as a whole, sport

Originally posted by Robtard
It was aimed at the thread as a whole, sport

But nobody in the thread said that either, at least not that I recall.

They are, but women as a whole don't face much punishment across the board for any sexual crimes.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
They are, but women as a whole don't face much punishment across the board for any sexual crimes.

On top of that, they tend not to get as severe a punishment for any violent crime..compared to the amount of jail time a man would usually get for the same crime.

It's actually across all crimes at less than half the time served on average

Yep that's ridiculous, but you rarely see the feminists who say they want equality discussing those issues.

They will speak out about Brock Turner though.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
They are, but women as a whole don't face much punishment across the board for any sexual crimes.

Hear the one about a judge who served out two different sentences for the same crime?

One was an older male with a minor. The other was an older female with a minor. Practically the same age spread. Cases happened within months of each other.

Of course, the older male got a much stiffer sentence. And the judge, when call on it, admitted he screwed up.. He said BOTH should have gotten the harsher sentence.

Doubling down bs, obviously.

The fact is though, most men do treat men and women differently, and these people are judges and lawyers. I've even seen some da's admit outright that there's a double standard, and that there SHOULD be one.

Originally posted by cdtm
Hear the one about a judge who served out two different sentences?

One was an older male with a minor. The other was an older female with a minor. Practically the same age spread. Cases happened within months of each other.

Of course, the older male got a much stiffer sentence. And the judge, when call on it, admitted he screwed up.. He said BOTH should have gotten the harsher sentence.

Doubling down bs, obviously.

You have a link to that story, I want to see how the Judge came to said decision, and what else influenced him.

Originally posted by SquallX
You have a link to that story, I want to see how the Judge came to said decision, and what else influenced him.

Looking for it now. It was years ago, so might be impossible to dig up.

But I did find this article that talks about similiar things, and justifies the disparities in sentencing on the logic that women suffer greater consequences for sex than men:

http://inpublicsafety.com/2014/08/legal-perspective-men-and-women-often-receive-disparate-sentences-in-sex-cases2536/

I also remember the story, it was in the "women seducing young boys" thread. It definitely happened.

It's just..for some reason I'm struggling to recall all of the press this story got. Surely women were up in arms over a rapist(statutory, but still a rapist) getting a lenient sentence.

It's like I know feminists must have made a big deal over it, but the memories of that have just been deleted from my mind. Weird, right?

I like the way the UK does things in regards to false accusations:

109 women prosecuted for false rape claims in five years, say campaigners