(Female) DA: "I'm certainly not saying it didn't happen

Started by neoteny, Jul 18, 2003, 03:26 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

neoteny

The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

URnotmeRU

Even though she clearly LIED, he still suffers from discrimination from his business connections. She gets away scott free, as usual.

I think there should be a penalty and a public display of her arrogance that lead the the defamation of his character and name, the BITCH.
nd the time will come when you'll see we're all one and life flows on, within you and without you. - George Harrison

blackmanx

I SECOND  THAT  !!!! :D
y book, Men's Rights Activists.

http://www.lulu.com/content/418976

LST

I like it how they revealed his name in the article, but not hers. Even though SHE IS THE CRIMINAL HERE !! Why can a woman falsely accuse someone and walk away freely ? Why is there no anonimity protection for the accused ? With their opposition to protecting the anonimity of the accused, they show openly how bigoted and hateful they are.
o pity for feminazis.

The Biscuit Queen

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.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

LST

Um...
What the hell is my post doing here ?
I certainly don't remember posting it in this topic. Am i going crazy, or is it the board ? 8--<
o pity for feminazis.

FP

Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
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. Tack on a database and loosen rape shield laws to allow that evidence in if it exists. For the ones with evidence pointing to their guilt, take them to court. Thats what its for, to let a jury/judge decide. If the criminal courts wont do it, then the victim should take the liar to civil court. Sane, logcial people/courts are not going to punish a woman because an accused gets aquitted if there is no evidence provable to say she was lying about a rape.

Of course, the problem these days if finding sane, logical people in the court system.  :?  :wink:

daksdaddy

Quote
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.


The problem as I see it, Wimmin would stop admitting they lied!
t is perhaps a terrible thing to say, but "rights and freedoms we are not willing to fight for are rights and freedoms we don't deserve."

The Biscuit Queen

he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

powder-monkey

Where evidence beyond a reasonable doubt exists, she should be prosecuted; where a preponderance of evidence exists, a civil remedy might be pursued.

daksdaddy

Quote
Where evidence beyond a reasonable doubt exists, she should be prosecuted; where a preponderance of evidence exists, a civil remedy might be pursued.


Hmmmmmmm!

This quote would be for Both sides?(of evidence) Yes??????
t is perhaps a terrible thing to say, but "rights and freedoms we are not willing to fight for are rights and freedoms we don't deserve."

powder-monkey

Yes.  
In the case of rape allegations, it would, of course, represent a toughening of standards needed for conviction.
AS for the problem of recantation, a sliding scale of punishment might be instituted so that a woman who drops the charges early is not subject to the same penalties as one that sees it through to a jury verdict.  Whenever independent evidence is generated of false accusation, prosecution is in order.

contrarymary

DAs are mostly concerned with saving their sorry asses as well as their jobs, not with the truth.  There are some good ones out there, but they are few and far between.

Similar comments were  made to the press after the charges against my fiance were ....I can never remember the word...not dropped, but not processed (it's a French word).  "Well, we don't know it (repeated incest) did not happen.  We have no reason to believe she's lying."

Oh, really?  How about the fact that she changed her story every time she told it and there was absolutely no physical evidence?

In the end, everyone knew she was lying but couldn't, "of course", come out and say so.
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde

Go Up