Started by neoteny, Jul 18, 2003, 03:26 AM
It is that slippery slope again. In cases like this where clearly the woman lied she should be procecuted. But not every woman who fails to get her rapist convicted is lying. SO do you punish only those who admit they were lying? Do you punish those whom the evidence points to as lying? Do you punish all women who's accused gets aquitted? And how many women would then get falsly accused of false allegations? How many would choose not to report their rape? Wouldn't that be the same as now, but just the other gender?I don't know. Something needs to be done as a deterrant, but I am not sure where the line gets drawn. I will say that when women thought they would get dragged through the mud along side their accused, there were far less false allegations.I do think that as soon as the case is dismissed, her name should be publicized, and her information put in a data base. If this happens often there should be consideration. Outside of that, I am not sure.
Uhm, I don't see a problem here at all. The line can be easily drawn. If she admits she lied, nail her arse to the wall with the various releveant criminal charges, take it to trial if necessary or to avoid expenses make it a law if they admit it they get punished.
Where evidence beyond a reasonable doubt exists, she should be prosecuted; where a preponderance of evidence exists, a civil remedy might be pursued.