Conference quark::mennotes

    
    Why not let's just define "abuse" as not giving a woman _anything_
    she thinks she ought to have.

    fred();

    
    You're whining again, Fred.  :>
    

    Gee... I want some cheese with my whines.:) 

    
    Dom Perion(sp), 1937.
    
    fred();

    I am partial to white whines. How bout you fred? Red? White? Rose? A
    good blush is fine for middle of the afternoons.:)
    

    When I was in California, I sampled some vintage raspberry wine.
    Delicious.  Gives a whole new meaning to "given someone the raspberry".
    
    fred();

    Com on guys.  You aren't taking this seriously.  Obviously you must be
    guilty.  Heartless, insensitve lugs.
    

    
    >Com on guys.  You aren't taking this seriously.  Obviously you mustbe
    >guilty.  Heartless, insensitve lugs.

    Just a couple of big, lovable Neanderthals ;^).  I just abuse the
    s!!t our of her with roses from time to time.  Does that count?
    And she had to threaten to call the cops on me the other night to
    get me to stop giving her that hot-oil massage. 
    
    fred();

    
      Yeah! Right! Like someone's going to stop a hot oil massage! 

    
    At least you know how to apologize for the kind of behavior you
    told us about earlier (where you grumped to her that if she didn't
    like doing most of the work around the house, she should try trading
    places with you sometime.)

    
    re .10
    
    You'd be amazed at what kind of behavior a single red rose will let
    you get awawy with ;^). (or cause ;^) ;^) ).
    
    fred();

    
    This is a G-rated notesfile, Fred.  :)
    

    .8
    
    If I follow the logic in these cases, you could be in big trouble.  I
    suppose you did not remove the thorns from the roses before you gave
    them to her, huh?  Have you done this more than once?  Has she stuck
    herself with the thorns?
    
    If any of the above are true, you are in big trouble.
    
    I think I'm beginning to understand the incredible stupidity of the
    whole "abuse" issue.  Start with a valid problem and then trivialize it
    to drive a whole different agenda.   All the while insisting that it's
    all one continuum of male abusiveness and historical oppression.
    

    
    It's safe to say that Fred's wife loved the roses, etc.
    

    I'm not Fred's wife, but am willing to play one in notes.
    Roses may be sent to MSO2-1/LOB.
    
    Christine

    .17 So you want some wine sent to your mail stop?:) 

    WOW!! ALL Along I thought this notesfile was at least a high c note.:) 

    Wine will work, too.  I can always take it home to drink :-)

    
    >    It's safe to say that Fred's wife loved the roses, etc.
    
    Especially the etc ;^).
    
    fred();

    Aww, this place is no fun anymore! I come in here expecting a nice,
    down-and-dirty, nasty, mudslinging, name-calling fight, and everybody's
    getting along now. What gives? 

    
    >What gives?
    
    Don't know, I usually don't get this punchy 'til Friday.
    
    fred();

    Looks like George sent the wine to Fred's mail stop by mistake!

    >What gives?
    
    I guess I am tired of the fights. Rather make love than make war mon.:) 
    

    
    >    Wine will work, too.  I can always take it home to drink :-)

    Let's see, I have an old jug of Mogan David around here some where ;^).
    Actually my wife makes what little I usually consume.  We have this
    old antique jug we found at a yard sale.  Wicked stuff.  Next batch
    is going to have to be some of the raspberry stuff.---Hey wait a 
    minute--maybe that's what's been causing all that----naw--couldn't
    be.
    
    fred();

    
    It's amazing what you can do with a jug, couple cans of fruit
    concentrate, cup a sugar, pack of yeast, gallon of water, and
    a condom.

    fred();

    Reminds me of the joke about the two guys standing at the side
    of a boat facing the water and relieving themselves.
    
    One says, "Gee, the water is cold!"
    
    The other one says, "And deep!!"
    
                  

    Back to reality...
    Women can get away with almost any charge of 'abuse' these days.
    
    Case in point:
    
    I hadn't talked to my ex for several weeks last summer. She called me
    up 5:30 Am one Tuesday morning, asks me to come over for coffee and to
    talk.
    
    I arrive at 6:15 Am. Turns out her new boyfriend wants her to sell the
    house, which still has my name on the deed. I say no, let's let the
    courts sort this out.
    
    She flips out and screams "You know, I'm not sleeping well over this!"
    
    I reply "Good, because none of us (the whole family including the kids)
    is sleeping well over this divorce".
    
    *TWO DAYS LATER* she deicides that I issued her a threat because I said
    'Good'. She obtains a *ONE YEAR* restraining order against me,
    absolutely no contact. She even wanted my daughter, who wears a leg
    brace, to have to walk the 400 foot driveway for me to pick her up for
    visitation.
    
    The judge denied the walk for my daughter, but I am not allowed to get
    out of the car in the driveway that I paid for. And I am not allowed
    *any* contact with my wife for one year. even in matters concerning the
    children's welfare (her request).
    
    Suzanne, I don't want to put you on the spot, but is this fair? This is
    a blatant example of a woman ABUSING the system to obtain a restraining
    order for her own convenience; in this case, she was getting heavily
    involved with her new boyfriend.
    
    I support the correct use of restraining orders. I abhor their abuse.
    But in today's climate, a woman can obtain one for no, or for false,
    unprovable accusations.
    
    What say you?
    
    John
    

    RE: .29  John
    
    > I support the correct use of restraining orders. I abhor their abuse.
    > But in today's climate, a woman can obtain one for no, or for false,
    > unprovable accusations.
    
    Even as long ago as 1980, the parents of a close friend went into
    'divorce mode' suddenly - at the point when the friend's mother was
    about to file a restraining order, the friend's father filed one
    instead.  She had to leave the house immediately, etc., and he kept
    the house.  I don't know if either of them had grounds, but it was
    a matter of who filed first.
    
    A lot of terrible things happen in marriages sometimes, and divorces
    can be some of the worst battle grounds of the world.  Not everyone
    even makes it out alive, as you know.
    
    > What say you?
    
    I'm sorry that you've gone through such a bad time.  I went through
    a bad time when I got divorced (years ago), too.  Now I'm extremely
    happily married.                         
    
    I hope things work out well for you, too.

    
    Something that desperately needs to be done in the area of abuse (and
    rape for that matter) is to make the penalty for false accusation the
    same as the penalty for the act.   At this point, a woman can make
    nearly any charge, the man must prove himself innocent, the man can
    often never recover from the stigma of accusation even if he is
    innocent, and the woman walks Scot free even when proven that the
    allocation was bogus in the first place. This is necessary not only for
    he men, but for the credibility of women who really are abused  and
    raped.  In our society, as well as our constitution, we have a very
    strong bias to protect the innocent, often at the expense of letting
    the guilty go.  Every time there is some b.s. charge of abuse or rape,
    the real victims must fight even harder for their credibility. 
    
    fred();

re .31 hear hear!

I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK a female's identity will
always be protected whereas a male's will be made public, regardless of the 
outcome of the case.

This is simply wrong.

//atp

    ..which goes back to biblical times that man is born with sin. Woman...
    whelp... she is pure as driven snow.

    Oh, pullease.

    The vast majority of rapes go unreported (because it's already so
    difficult to get a conviction.)  Rape is the easiest crime to get
    away with, in fact, because it usually takes multiple victims'
    testimony against a rapist for the victims to be considered enough
    for a conviction. Even when the perp's sperm is verified as evidence,
    getting a conviction is still tough.

    Rapists try to get 'off' rape charges by claiming that the women WANTED
    to have sex with them after they broke into the women's houses and put
    knives to their throats.

    A former Digital employee told about being raped on a college campus
    (where a stranger jumped out of the bushes at her), and during the trial,
    the defense attorney asked her if she'd had an orgasm.  (What????????)

    The very, very, VERY last thing we want to do in rape prosecutions is
    to fix it so that if the prosecution loses the case, then the victim
    goes to prison for 20 or 40 years.  That would be idiotic.

    RE: .33  Rauh
    
    > ..which goes back to biblical times that man is born with sin. Woman...
    > whelp... she is pure as driven snow.
    
    Have you ever been near a Bible??
    
    A woman caused humans to be thrown out of the Garden of Eden, per
    the Bible (and women were considered too 'unclean' at certain moments
    of their lives to be allowed into temples or churches to worship.)
    

    In the famous rape case in Connecticut (where the teenage guy was
    accused by two women of the same rape M.O. - and the women didn't
    even know each other), the defense attorneys are trying to get the
    trials to be separate.

    The only way to get a conviction (pretty much) is when more than
    one woman testifies against the accused rapist.  If they make two
    separate trials, then they can tell each jury, "Gee, we have no idea
    why this ONE WOMAN would make up such a story, but no one else can
    corroborate it."

    Both the rapes (which occurred three or four days apart) were the
    same M.O. - the guy said the same things to each of the women (who
    don't know each other.)

    The defense also claims that both women beat THEMSELVES up on those 
    nights so they could accuse him.  (What a coincidence, eh?)  :|

    If we made accusers do 20 to 40 years (or whatever) for accusing
    someone of rape but not getting a conviction, we might as well make
    rape legal in this country.  It would amount to the same thing.

>    The very, very, VERY last thing we want to do in rape prosecutions is
>    to fix it so that if the prosecution loses the case, then the victim
>    goes to prison for 20 or 40 years.  That would be idiotic.
    
    I don't think that was the suggestion.  "False accusation" would
    in itself be a criminal offense that requires the burden of proof.  
    Beyond a reasonable doubt and all that...
    
    In fact under the charge of purgery and perhaps other felony charges
    prosecution for these offenses is already possible.  But it doesn't
    often happen, and definitely not for something issued as routinely 
    as restraining orders.
    
    Glenn
    

    
>    The very, very, VERY last thing we want to do in rape prosecutions is
>    to fix it so that if the prosecution loses the case, then the victim
>    goes to prison for 20 or 40 years.  That would be idiotic.

    Losing the case does not necessarily equal false charges.  Some cases
    of false charges are pretty easy to prove.  There was one accusation
    against a college student by his ex-girlfriend.  His alibi; he was in
    Europe with a ton of witnesses when "the rape" occurred.  The case was
    dropped but years later he still is often referred to as the guy who
    was accused of rape.  She admitted making up the charges and nothing
    happened to her (other than whatever guilt she has).  

    I would guess cases such as these are relatively rare compared to
    unreported rapes.  Ultimately, the number probably doesn't matter much
    ... every case hurts the credibility of legitimate rape victims ... and
    gives folks a (legitimate) beef with the way the system sometimes
    treats men.
    
    Greg
     
                                                                
           

    'Perjury' is a crime in itself (with a much, much smaller punishment
    than rape.)

    If it can be proven that a person knowingly lied under oath, then the
    person should be tried for perjury (not RAPE, if the perjury occurred
    about a rape case.)

    Unless a person can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) to have lied
    under oath, they should not be punished at all.  It isn't enough for
    a person's accusations to fail to be proven in court.

    A person would have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
    committing perjury.  (This is difficult to prove because a person
    can believe s/he is telling the truth, even if the facts are incorrect.)

        re .34

    Oh, Pullease.

    To try to make the case that someone who is guilty of one crime should
    get off simply because someone who is guilty of another crime gets
    off is pure hocum.

    In the case of false accusation, the false accusation would have to be
    proven.  That is even more difficult that proving rape.  Only a few
    cases have actually been proven to be intentional and malicious.  
    However, the damage done by these cases in the form of suspicion
    about the credibility of real victims is a major part of the cause
    of the problem that you so highly deplore.

    Yet I recall one case a few years back where the woman was proven
    to have intentionally filed false charges.  The judges decision
    which included a few days jail time and a public apology was met
    with shrieks of outrage from the victim-feminist crowd.

    The famed DNA matching so highly touted in the O.J. case has been
    a boon to many men in prison for rape.  They have been able to go
    back, and, using DNA "fingerprints", prove that they were falsely
    imprisoned.  Yet for the woman to be prosecuted for intentional
    false accusation would still be very difficult in most of these
    cases.

    fred();

    What of the man who was released some 5 or so years ago, who spent 11
    years in prision for rape, and was let out cause she could not sleep at
    night over it.... Gee... justice?
    
    

    RE: .40  Fred

    > To try to make the case that someone who is guilty of one crime should
    > get off simply because someone who is guilty of another crime gets
    > off is pure hocum.

    Not that I said this, of course.

    > The famed DNA matching so highly touted in the O.J. case has been
    > a boon to many men in prison for rape.  They have been able to go
    > back, and, using DNA "fingerprints", prove that they were falsely
    > imprisoned.  Yet for the woman to be prosecuted for intentional
    > false accusation would still be very difficult in most of these
    > cases.

    One of the men freed due to delayed DNA testing (years later) is
    back in custody for RAPE.  A woman was able to describe the car of
    a man who raped her (with the first three license plate numbers.)
    They found that the car belonged to another woman, but the car was
    not at her home when they looked for it.  So they waited to see who
    would show up in this car.  It was the guy who had been released from
    prison due to the DNA testing.  Surprise, surprise.

    They are now starting to doubt that these men should have been freed.
    The DNA testing was probably faulty.

    Imagine if they'd thrown this man's accusers in jail?  (There were 
    multiple women who identified him as a rapist.) 

    I wouldn't plan on seeing any additional men freed from jail based on
    old DNA evidence.  This defense is in serious jeopardy right now.

    My point about too many people getting away with rape is that the
    last thing we want to do is to make it even MORE difficult to get
    rape convictions by threatening the victims with 20 to 40 years
    in prison if no one believes them.
    
    

    >    Unless a person can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) to have lied
>    under oath, they should not be punished at all.  It isn't enough for
>    a person's accusations to fail to be proven in court.
>
>    A person would have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
>    committing perjury.  (This is difficult to prove because a person
>    can believe s/he is telling the truth, even if the facts are incorrect.)

    Earlier (.34) you deplored the tactics of the defense in a trial where
    the defendant was accused of rape.  Now you trumpet the right to
    "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" for a woman accused of perjury.
    Very telling, Suzanne.

    Once again you have unintentionally supported my argument.  Conviction
    for false accusation would be difficult and probably rare, but for 
    those where it _is_ proven, especially those where the real victim,
    the man,  has had to do "hard time", then I say it is not enough
    to simply let the man out of prison.  What happens to men in prison,
    especially those convicted of rape, is one of the dirty little
    not-so-secrets of the penal system.

    fred();

    RE: .44  Fred

    > Earlier (.34) you deplored the tactics of the defense in a trial where
    > the defendant was accused of rape.  Now you trumpet the right to
    > "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" for a woman accused of perjury.
    > Very telling, Suzanne.

    Asking a rape victim if she had an orgasm during a brutal ('stranger
    jumps out of the bushes') rape is totally outrageous.  It has nothing
    to do with the rapist's guilt or innocence AT ALL - it has to do with
    harassing the victim.

    The defense attorney in a rape case can challenge evidence, etc., all
    they want.  It's what they're supposed to do.  But asking a rape victim
    if she had an orgasm during the rape goes beyond the pale (EVEN FOR YOU!)

    > Once again you have unintentionally supported my argument.

    Once again, you've shown that you don't have the slightest idea what
    makes a valid argument in the first place.

    

    re .42


    >    One of the men freed due to delayed DNA testing (years later) is

    That's one man out of how many? 

>    The DNA testing was probably faulty.

    O.J's accusers are going to be real sorry to hear that.

>    Imagine if they'd thrown this man's accusers in jail?  (There were 
>    multiple women who identified him as a rapist.) 

    Mistakes happen, but if it can be _proven_ that the accusation was
    _intentionally_ false, then something needs to be done.  Not only
    for the men, but for the credibility of the real victims.  I guarantee
    you the damage done to real victims, by making it even harder for them
    to receive justice, far exceeds the damage done to men.

    fred();

>    Unless a person can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) to have lied
>    under oath, they should not be punished at all.
    
    I would disagree.  I think simply making a demonstrably, 
    intentionally false charge in the first place should be a 
    punishable offense.  Arguments you hear all the time such as 
    "this chips away at protections for battered women, rape 
    victims" (arguable anyway) have political aims and not justice 
    in mind.  Right is right, wrong is wrong.  And there must always
    be means for recourse in the justice system to have justice.
    
    Glenn
    

    re .45
    
>    Asking a rape victim if she had an orgasm during a brutal ('stranger
>    jumps out of the bushes') rape is totally outrageous.  It has nothing
>    to do with the rapist's guilt or innocence AT ALL - it has to do with
>    harassing the victim.
    
    It is the _duty_ of a defense attourney to do everything he/she
    _legally_ can to get is client off.  That is the way our court system
    is set up.  Just as it would be the _duty_ of an attourney to get
    someone of false accusation off.  If he doesn't, then the case can
    be overturned on appeal.
    
    
>    The defense attorney in a rape case can challenge evidence, etc., all
>    they want.  It's what they're supposed to do.  But asking a rape victim
>    if she had an orgasm during the rape goes beyond the pale (EVEN FOR YOU!)
    
    Once again your personal attacks prove my point more than support your
    argument.
    
    A better tactic for the victim-feminist crowd may be to educate more
    rape victims on what evidence is needed, and what they will face in court,
    in order to get a conviction.
    
    fred();

    
>    A better tactic for the victim-feminist crowd may be to educate more
>    rape victims on what evidence is needed, and what they will face in court,
>    in order to get a conviction.
    
    All of this has little to do with public policy, our specific 
    laws, and most everything to do with what you can pull over on a 
    jury.  I care about the former, but the latter is a tough one to
    deal with and not just in cases of rape.  Are our laws unfair to 
    rape victims versus other victims?  I don't know, but don't think
    appeciably so.
    
    But the original discussion centered around restraining orders...
    are they too easy to get?  Are the laws and adjudication unfair?  
    Is there abuse?  I think most certainly so.
    
    I guess I don't much have a huge problem with the nervous judge who 
    issues a restraining order based on shaky initial evidence because 
    it's his neck on the line if he doesn't.  But down the line, there 
    should be criminal recourse...
    
    
    Glenn
    

    RE: .48  Glenn

    >> Unless a person can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) to have lied
    >> under oath, they should not be punished at all.
    
    > I would disagree.  I think simply making a demonstrably, 
    > intentionally false charge in the first place should be a 
    > punishable offense. 

    The person would still have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
    of committing a crime (and the punishment should be appropriate
    for the crime.)

    Earlier, Fred wanted to put a rape accuser in jail for a RAPE sentence
    for making a false accusation.  First, there would need to be a full
    trial for the 'lie' (and there better be a specific crime being broken
    in this), and second, the punishment should fit the crime.

    People don't get 20 to 40 years in prison for telling lies.

    Fred, stop throwing personal remarks at me if you don't like it
    when I fire back.
    
    If you don't want to stick to the subject matter at hand, then don't
    reply to me at all anymore.
    

    
>    Earlier, Fred wanted to put a rape accuser in jail for a RAPE sentence
>    for making a false accusation.  First, there would need to be a full
>    trial for the 'lie' (and there better be a specific crime being broken
>    in this), and second, the punishment should fit the crime.
>
>    People don't get 20 to 40 years in prison for telling lies.
    
    Well, let's just say that some lies are more heinous than others.
    And this one, where someone's life is ruined out of vengeange or
    spite or whatnot, rates right near the top.  I can easily justify 
    jail time for such a destructive crime against another's person...
    
    Glenn
    

    RE: .50  
    
    > I guess I don't much have a huge problem with the nervous judge who 
    > issues a restraining order based on shaky initial evidence because 
    > it's his neck on the line if he doesn't.  But down the line, there 
    > should be criminal recourse...
    
    So, should the judge say, "Hey, I'm giving you this restraining order,
    but if you don't get killed anyway, then we'll have to prosecute you
    later for making the false claim that your life was in danger" ??
    
    If the woman worries that her life is in danger, the judge's neck *is*
    on the line if the judge refuses to grant the order.  How do you prove
    later that you really believed that your life was in danger?
    
    It's a problem to prove that a person wasn't really afraid.

>    It's a problem to prove that a person wasn't really afraid.
    
    But it's not a problem (an ethical one I mean; it is a practical 
    one) to prove that a person _lied_.
    
    Glenn
    

    RE: .53  Glenn

    > Well, let's just say that some lies are more heinous than others.
    > And this one, where someone's life is ruined out of vengeange or
    > spite or whatnot, rates right near the top.  I can easily justify 
    > jail time for such a destructive crime against another's person...

    People don't go to jail for slander or libel, though.

    Usually, if a plaintiff wins in such a case, the defendant pays money
    to the plaintiff for damages.

    Why would you want to 'single out' women who report rapes or abuse
    to go to jail if the accused tries to make the case that the accuser
    made a false accusation?

    re .51
    
    >    People don't get 20 to 40 years in prison for telling lies.
    
    When as a direct result of that lie someone goes to prison where
    they will suffer multiple rape and multiple assult, they should
    go to jail for 20-40.
    
    fred();

>                      <<< Note 234.52 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
>                               -< Stop whining! >-
>
>    Fred, stop throwing personal remarks at me if you don't like it
>    when I fire back.
>    
>    If you don't want to stick to the subject matter at hand, then don't
>    reply to me at all anymore.
    
How typically hypocritical of you, Suzanne.
    
    fred();    
    

>    People don't go to jail for slander or libel, though.
>
>    Usually, if a plaintiff wins in such a case, the defendant pays money
>    to the plaintiff for damages.
    
    If they don't, that's not saying it's right.  I can see instances
    where jail time is just as defensible as for perjury.  But we're
    just talking about the penalty here, which is not the key issue.
    The key issue is the false accuser being allowed to walk away, 
    totally unhindered.
    
>    Why would you want to 'single out' women who report rapes or abuse
>    to go to jail if the accused tries to make the case that the accuser
>    made a false accusation?
    
    There's no "singling out".  Whatever the false accusation, allow
    the burden of proof to fall on the prosecution, and the punishment
    fit the crime.
    
    Glenn
    

    Fred, forget it.
    
    All these things you keep saying about me are personal attacks, whether
    your planet recognizes them as such or not.
    
    If you can't handle it when I fire back at your personal remarks, then
    don't write to me AT ALL anymore.
    
    Forget I exist.  You have lost the right to have any further 
    conversations with me.

    
    re .60
    
    I think I'll frame that one and hang it on the wall. <:^).
    
    fred();

    Glenn - again, the last thing we want to do in rape prosecutions in
    this country is to threaten the victims for coming forward.
    
    Too few rapes are reported now - if we threaten victims that they 
    can go to prison themselves for 20 to 40 years if the court believes
    that they lied about it, we might as well make rape legal in this
    country.
    
    It would have the same effect.
    

    
    re .62

    To try to justify false accusation and deny the victims of such justice
    is just as odious, IMNSHO, as trying to justify rape and the denial
    of legal recourse to the victims of such.

    fred();

    Regarding DNA evidence discussed earlier...
    
    The most difficult part is getting a match.  If the evidence has been
    contaminated or damaged, a match will not result.
    
    So, it's easy to see how convicted rapists' DNA could fail to match
    with the evidence years later.  It now appears that some guilty
    people have been released in such cases.
    

    
    re .64
    
>    So, it's easy to see how convicted rapists' DNA could fail to match
>    with the evidence years later.  It now appears that some guilty
>    people have been released in such cases.
    
    Nevertheless, it is almost certain that many innocent people have gone
    to jail.  Which, in our society, is far worse.
    
    fred();

    The vast majority of rape crimes go unreported.  Even the reported
    cases do not go to trial in most cases because rape is one of the
    most difficult crimes to prove in our legal system.

    The last thing we should do is to decide that the very, very, VERY
    few rape cases which get a conviction are probably false accusations.

    It's appalling that raping and abusing women are two of the easiest
    crimes to do in our society without paying for it.  Casting suspicion
    on the victims even MORE is a move in the wrong direction (unless a
    person is looking to make rape virtually legal.)

    .53 > People don't go to jail for slander or libel, though.
    
    THIS IS THE CRUST OF THE PROBLEM!! That if there is slander, false
    accusations, etc. women don't go to jail or held responsible. Case in
    point is the woman who sends the man to the big house for rape for 11
    years and cannot sleep over it. Wish like hell I could remember this
    case. Or perhaps the case of Norm or Jan who have had run in's.
    
    

    HBO (I think) had a special program about violent crime some months
    back, and they showed part of a videotape that a man had made while
    he was raping a woman.

    They showed this tape at the man's trial.  The rape lasted one to
    two hours, and the jury had to watch the whole thing.  It was a
    devastating experience for these jurors.

    They gave him life in prison because SEEING what actually occurs in
    a rape was so horrifying to the jury.  The guy was lucky that they
    didn't vote to execute him.

    re .66
    
    >     -< We need MORE rape convictions in this country, not LESS. >-
    
    I agree, but I find _your_ cure every bit as odious as the desease.
    Actually, given that society finds the imprisonment of the innocent
    far more odious than the release of the guilty, your cure, the
    continued false imprisonment of the innocent in order to imprison 
    more guilty, is worse than the disease.
    
    fred();

To ::CONLON

Some of what you're saying here seems awfully scary to me.  May I ask you to
give a simple answer to the following questions?  

Here's a scenario:

Person A deliberately, maliciously and knowingly makes a false allagation
against B.  This allegation could result in person B spending forty years
in prison.

The allegation is proven to be false.  There is ample evidence of A's malice.

QUESTIONS

1 - Should A be prosecuted?
2 - What kind of sentence should be given to A for the crime?

regards,
//alan

    .66 >We need MORE rape convicitons in this country,
    
    Yes, Lets mount up the possy and go find us a rapest and hang the
    sucker from a tall tree. Perhaps we can find that guy over there who
    looks rather like a rapest. Notice those beady eyes, that sloping
    forhead, those knuckles that drag in the dirt... hummm.. neanderthal
    type all right.
    
    

    re .68
    
    If nothing else, the guy should have gone to jail for stupidity.
    For the life of me, thought, I cannot fathom what .68 has to do
    with false accusation. 
    
    fred();

    RE: .70  Potter
    
    > Here's a scenario:

    > Person A deliberately, maliciously and knowingly makes a false allagation
    > against B.  This allegation could result in person B spending forty years
    > in prison.
    
    Do you honestly believe that any woman can walk into a police station
    and make an accusation which can send any man to prison for 40 years?
    
    Most rape cases DO NOT MAKE IT TO TRIAL (even among the very few that
    are reported) because they are too tough to prove.
    
    > The allegation is proven to be false.  There is ample evidence of A's 
    > malice.
    
    You're saying that this comes out in the investigation?
    
    > 1 - Should A be prosecuted?
    
    If there is enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
    then take it to trial.
    
    > 2 - What kind of sentence should be given to A for the crime?
    
    What is the crime?  Lying?

        re .73

>    Do you honestly believe that any woman can walk into a police station
>    and make an accusation which can send any man to prison for 40 years?

    Can you actually claim, with a straight face, that it doesn't happen.

    >    What is the crime?  Lying?

    Attempted false imprisonment, attempted rape, and attempted assault
    for starters, because of you are a party to the crime, then under
    our law, you are guilty of the crime.

    fred();

    In this country, we have an abysmal history of men getting away with
    rape.

    Yet, some feel that rape should become even TOUGHER to prosecute.

    Some want to cast MORE DOUBT on the victims (those who claim they've
    been raped) supposedly 'for the sake of the REAL victims'.

    What is really bizarre is that the biggest fear that these same men
    have about going to prison is that THEY will be raped by the men there.
    (Gee, if it's so COMMON for violent men to commit rape, then why do
    some people want to cast doubt on women's stories about being raped?)

    
    re .75
    
    And there actaully some who advocate the victimizing and brutalizing
    one group to the benefit of another.  Of which, we seem to have here,
    a prime example.
    
    fred();

    Do prosecutors become accessories to prison rape when they convict
    a man who is later raped in prison?

    Is prison rape legal if the man was guilty of the crime which sent
    him to prison in the first place?

    (Why is it such a 'given' that men rape while in prison?  In women's
    prisons, rape is almost non-existent.  What is it about men that makes
    rape such a danger when violent men are locked up together?)

    Do you honestly believe that any woman can walk into a police station
    and make an accusation which can send any man to prison for 40 years?

With suitable pre-planning and fabrication of evidence, yes.  Look at it
this way, there are > 4,000,000,000 people in the world, of which roughly
half are female.  So yes, I believe that there may be suitably malicious 
people on the planet.
    
    Most rape cases DO NOT MAKE IT TO TRIAL (even among the very few that
    are reported) because they are too tough to prove.

This, while deplorable, is completely irrelevant to the question I was asking.
    
    > The allegation is proven to be false.  There is ample evidence of A's 
    > malice.
    
    You're saying that this comes out in the investigation?

Yep, that'll do as a suitable time for it to come out/
    
    > 1 - Should A be prosecuted?
    
    If there is enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
    then take it to trial.

Good, we agree here.
    
    > 2 - What kind of sentence should be given to A for the crime?
    
    What is the crime?  Lying?

Call it what you want - lying, maliciously trying to cause the illegal
imprisonment of person A.  If money is involved, then it could well be a
case of demanding money with menaces. 

My belief is that someone who attempts to arrange for the wrongful of
imprisonment of another person should be open to suffering the punishment
that would have been suffered by the victim, subject of course to 
extenuating circumstances.

regards,
//alan

PS Just in case you are in any doubt, I find the whole notion of rape
   abhorrent.  

    RE: .78  Potter
    
    > My belief is that someone who attempts to arrange for the wrongful of
    > imprisonment of another person should be open to suffering the punishment
    > that would have been suffered by the victim, subject of course to 
    > extenuating circumstances.
    
    No way!!
    
    Why on Earth would you want to threaten rape victims with the warning
    that they could be sent to prison for 20 to 40 years if no one believes
    them?
    
    	"Do you want to testify against this man for the brutal rape you
    	suffered last week?  You could go to prison for 40 years if they
    	think you're not telling the truth."
    
    No one would press charges.  Rape would become virtually legal.

    
    re .77

>    Do prosecutors become accessories to prison rape when they convict
>    a man who is later raped in prison?

    No.  But a prosecutor who would deliberately and knowingly send _any_ 
    innocent person into such an environment should be prosecuted.

>    Is prison rape legal if the man was guilty of the crime which sent
>    him to prison in the first place?

    No.

>    (Why is it such a 'given' that men rape while in prison?  In women's
>    prisons, rape is almost non-existent.  What is it about men that makes
>    rape such a danger when violent men are locked up together?)

    A lot of prison wardens would like to know the answer to this one.
    If you figure it out, it would likely make you rich.  However, I
    note that you do not deny it exists.  So what should be done to a 
    person would deliberately send an innocent person (man or woman) 
    into such an environment?

    fred();

    I think its time to break out the wine.. :)
    

    > My belief is that someone who attempts to arrange for the wrongful of
    > imprisonment of another person should be open to suffering the punishment
    > that would have been suffered by the victim, subject of course to 
    > extenuating circumstances.
    
    No way!!
    
    Why on Earth would you want to threaten rape victims with the warning
    that they could be sent to prison for 20 to 40 years if no one believes
    them?

That's not what I'm saying.  But liars could go to prison for twenty to forty
years if it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they lied.

Criminal prosecution depends on the evidence of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  

If the jury doesn't believe that an accuser is telling the truth, then the
accused must go free.

Under my suggestion, a possible false accuser would only be punished ifit
could be proved that the accusation was - BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - made
deliberately and maliciously.

Do you understand the difference that I'm trying to get across?
    
    	"Do you want to testify against this man for the brutal rape you
    	suffered last week?  You could go to prison for 40 years if they
    	think you're not telling the truth."
    
    No one would press charges.  Rape would become virtually legal.

What you are defending is a system where men can be extorted with impunity.
Is this any better?

regards,
//alan

    
    >    No one would press charges.  Rape would become virtually legal.
    
    As it is, false imprisonment is virtually legal.  I find it absolutely
    incredible that you keep trying to defend and justify it.
    
    fred();

    I think its time to break out the wine.. :)
    
Well, it's 1830 here and the sun is if not over then at least fairly close to
the yard arm.  However, I've promised to drive my wife over to the health club
and take part in a step class this evening, so it may not be such a good idea!

regards,
//alan

    
    Raspberries all around. ;^).
    fred();

Re: Crust of the problem.

You know, George, I used to wince at your mis-spellings, but nowadays I
really get a chuckle outta them.  Misspell away!

;-)

tim

    Tim, when your writing, answering the phone, and answering questions
    from folks just looking for a good answer to a local problem. spelling
    becomes the lowest level of priority. Sorry for it all, glad you like
    the yucks.:)
    
    Mean time, its going to be another whining day for sum of us>:)
    
    

    Although this has digressed into a discussion of rape, which I did not
    intend, it does seem to somewhat fit with the topic.
    
    The editorial I referenced pointed out that a serious issue, spousal
    abuse and battering, has been so bastardized as to be almost
    meaningless at this time.  Point in question was using the battered
    woman syndrome because a guy worked late and at times would not talk to
    his wife.  THis is a serious example of battering??
    
    The same is true with what is being called rape today.  In way too many
    cases it comes out as lovers remorse the day after.  The attitude gives
    credence to unjustified claims of rape.  that does not mean that it
    doesn't happen, but as in the battering case, it is way over the top in
    terms of appropriateness.  I believe this is what leads to the
    trivialization of the charges.
    
    In this vein, it is more than appropriate that the accuser be held
    accountable for any FALSE accusations.  As was cited in the case of the
    woman who accused the man of rape when he was a continent away.  this
    is inexcusable and the accuser should certainly face the consequences
    equal to what the accused would have faced.  to oppose this very basic
    fairness would identify an attitude that has nothing to do with
    fairness or justice, but rather an attempt at blind vengance.
    

    RE: .82  Potter

    >>	"Do you want to testify against this man for the brutal rape you
    >>	suffered last week?  You could go to prison for 40 years if they
    >>	think you're not telling the truth."
    
    >> No one would press charges.  Rape would become virtually legal.

    > What you are defending is a system where men can be extorted with 
    > impunity.  Is this any better?

    Men ***AND*** women can be falsely accused of crimes without the
    accuser going to prison for making false claims.  You can't possibly
    claim that it's only possible for this to happen to men.

    You simply want to single out rape victims (who are mostly women,
    what a coincidence) to be threatened with jail time when they make
    their accusations.

    Remember - if you think it's so doggone possible for people to go
    to jail unfairly, then RAPE VICTIMS could go to jail just as unfairly
    by a REAL RAPIST with a good lawyer, an airtight false alibi, and
    some friends who are willing to swear that the accuser admitted that
    she lied about the rape.

    Threatening rape victims (without giving similar threats to ALL crime
    victims) is singling women out.  Just imagine the weapon you'd give
    to real rapists:

    		"If you report this rape, my expensive lawyer will make
    		sure that you go to prison for 40 years.  I already have
    		an airtight alibi set up, and I've got friends who are
    		ready to testify that you admitted that I never raped you.
    		(I told my friends that we were lovers and that you were
    		going to want to get back at me for dumping you.)"

    Threatening victims with decades in jail is (literally) the LAST thing
    we need to do in our legal system.

    As people with a reasonable amount of intelligence here know, I'm not 
    defending false accusations.  Hardly!!  It's possible for people to
    go to prison unjustly for robbery, murder and almost ANY crime (whether
    they are men OR women.)  The only way to make sure that NO ONE ever
    goes to prison unjustly is to stop prosecuting all crime in this country.

    Otherwise, the legal system does the best it can.

    If you single out women to threaten when they report rape, you're
    talking about putting extra weapons in the hands of rapists (who
    already have too many weapons in their favor, as it is.)

First of all, anyone who lies on the stand will be arrested for perjury.
Purgery can carry a 10 year sentance and yes, its been told to people who
have reported stalking, threatening and abuse charges.  In fact, its 
been told several times in Massachusetts Police stations.

The accuser is also informed that if they keep a man/women in confinement 
(aka stalking you are held without bail) and they find out that it
was a false charge, the police department, the arresting officer and
the person who made the charges are all going to be sued.  


                                                                      

    RE: .90 
    
    Thank you for this information!
    
    So the problem is already solved (without threatening rape victims with
    40 year prison terms.)
    
    

    RE: .88  Rocush

    > The same is true with what is being called rape today.  In way too many
    > cases it comes out as lovers remorse the day after.  The attitude gives
    > credence to unjustified claims of rape.  

    How many cases is that, precisely?  What percentage?  1%?  2%?

    Considering that rape victims are put 'on trial' (even today) in rape
    cases and that the experience is almost as traumatic as the original
    rape, charging rape when you have 'lovers remorse' is like shaving
    your head after being sorry for getting your hair cut too short.

    Telling people about the situation can only make so-called 'lovers
    remorse' worse.  If someone was sorry about having sex, it would be
    infinitely easier to pretend it didn't happen.

    > that does not mean that it doesn't happen, but as in the battering case, 
    > it is way over the top in terms of appropriateness.  

    So you believe that rape is rare, even though men rape *each other* like
    bunnies in prison.   Perhaps you believe that men are really more
    attracted to other men (in general) than they are attracted to women.

    > I believe this is what leads to the trivialization of the charges.

    Deciding that many (most?) rape charges are 'lovers remorse' leads to
    the trivialization of rape charges.

    
    >First of all, anyone who lies on the stand will be arrested for
    >perjury.

    In practice, though, perjury is _rarely_ prosecuted.  Unless it is
    a Republican testifying to Congress.

    fred();

    P.S. The scariest thing I find about Suzanne is not Suzanne herself, but
    that so many like her, who have demonstrated themselves to be out
    and out bigots, are regarded as heroes by so many in our society.

    If you believe that it's incredibly COMMON for heterosexual men to
    rape EACH OTHER in prison, then why is it so difficult to believe
    it when women accuse heterosexual men of raping women outside of
    prison?
    

    So now Fred calls me a bigot, I see.
    
    He'd cry like a baby if I fired back at him, so I won't.  :/
    

    

>    If you believe that it's incredibly COMMON for heterosexual men to
>    rape EACH OTHER in prison, then why is it so difficult to believe
>    it when women accuse heterosexual men of raping women outside of
>    prison?

    That is a gross exaggeration on your part.  You on, the other hand 
    have certainly provided us with ample testimony that you believe that 
    false accusation never happens, if it does should be ignored in favor 
    of jailing more "rapists".

    fred();

    When ANYONE makes an accusation of a crime about ANYONE else, the
    investigation should (and DOES) include the possibility of charging
    someone with a crime if the accusation was knowingly false.
    
    Rape victims should NOT be singled out, and especially with THREATS
    of 40 year jail terms.
    
    Defense lawyers try to intimidate rape victims on the stand anyway.
    Threatening victims with 40 years of jail time is not in the best
    interests of the legal system.
    

    Only an idiot would read my notes and decide that I want *anyone* to
    go to jail unjustly.  I've never said this and I certainly don't
    mean this.
    
    I don't want rape victims threatened with 40 year jail terms for
    reporting the crime of rape.  It would make rape virtually legal
    in this country.
    

    
>    Rape victims should NOT be singled out, and especially with THREATS
>    of 40 year jail terms.

    I believe the initial premise was that _anyone_ who falsely accuses 
    _anyone_ else of a crime should suffer the same consequence that the 
    accused would have suffered.  The "single our rape victims" is an
    invention on your part to perpetuate your victim-hood.

    fred();

    It would be no better to threaten ALL crime victims with decades in
    prison for reporting the crimes.
    
    We have a system in place to prosecute false reports and perjury.
    These are crimes themselves.
    
    If a witness to a murder turns out to have been wrong in their
    testimony, would anyone here want to see the witness executed?
    
    Get real.

    
    < I want more convictions of real rapists - there are TOO MANY.>-

    I do not disagree with that.  But I, as does society, find your 
    cure for the problem even more odious than the disease.  I have
    offered a perfectly reasonable improvement--to educate more
    women to know what evidence will be needed and what they will
    face in court so that they can back up their accusation in court.

    This attitude of "poor little picked on women" I find repugnant
    coming from someone who so adamantly advocates "equal rights".

    fred();

    First of all, no one singled out rape victims.  the conversation went
    down the rape rathole.  so don't get on a high horse about just
    singling out rape.
    
    Second, as with any crime, the victim should have all of the rights to
    wehich they are entitled.  I believe the legal system gives way too
    many rights to the defendant and way too many guilty people walk free.
    
    That having been free, the only crime worse is false accusation. 
    Unfortunately I have no statistics readily available aon the instances
    of "date rape", but I would aimagine they are available.  It is these
    cases that I tend to think fall into the lovers remorse category.  It's
    a lot easier to claim rape than stupidity or second thoughts.
    
    You do, however, ignore the caseo fhte truly innocent person falsely
    accused. If I am accused of a crime, whether rape or not, and am
    innocent, then the accuser should face the same sentence that I would
    have received if convicted.  A slap on the wrist is no deterent.  See
    our current system.
    
    Also, your scenario about the air-tight false alibi putting pressure on
    the victim, is really irrelevant.  If this guy had such a defense he
    wouldn't go to trial in the first place.  The prosecutor would not
    bother with the case in the first place if the rapist had such a solid
    alibi to start with.  Nice scenario, but irrelevant.
    
    What qabout the woman who claimed battering as a defense when her
    husband worked late.  this woman should fry, and if not, it makes a
    mockery of actual battering.  If you think this is valid, then you have
    an entirely different agenda.
    

    NO WAY IN HELL does this society seek to threaten rape victims with
    40 years in prison if the report is viewed to be false.

    NO WAY IN HELL is our legal system going to change to do this.

    I have no 'cure' for the problems of rape being almost impossible
    to prosecute.  Our legal system is set up to try to avoid convicting
    innocent people, and often, the crime of rape has little more than
    a victim's testimony as evidence.  Most of the time, this simply
    isn't enough (so most rape cases never make it to trial.)

    Perhaps a more accurate 'lie detector test' could be invented which
    would be allowed in court.  This might be the 'cure' we get someday.
    Until then, I have no 'cure' (much less a 'cure' that society has an
    opinion about.)

    

    re .100

>    It would be no better to threaten ALL crime victims with decades in
>    prison for reporting the crimes.
>    
>    We have a system in place to prosecute false reports and perjury.
>    These are crimes themselves.

    1) as you indicate, all victims are _already_ threatened. 2) As
    indicated, those threats are rarely carried out even in extreme cases.

>    If a witness to a murder turns out to have been wrong in their
>    testimony, would anyone here want to see the witness executed?

    If a witness can be proven to have deliberately given false testimony,
    then he would be guilty of attempted murder if the accused would
    have suffered the death penalty.  There has bee more than one 
    case of planted evidence by the police forces.

    >Get real.

    3.14159? ;^).

    fred();

    
    re .103
    
    >    NO WAY IN HELL is our legal system going to change to do this.
    
    At least as long as you or others like you have anything to do with
    it.  Which only goes to further prove my point.
    
    fred();
    

    
>    I have no 'cure' for the problems of rape being almost impossible
>    to prosecute. 
    
    I, however, _have_ provided maybe not a cure, but there is certainly
    room for improvment _without_ ignoreing the rights of the innocent.
    
    fred():

    RE: .102  Rocush

    > Unfortunately I have no statistics readily available aon the instances
    > of "date rape", but I would aimagine they are available.  It is these
    > cases that I tend to think fall into the lovers remorse category.  It's
    > a lot easier to claim rape than stupidity or second thoughts.

    Think about what you're saying.

    If a person 'regrets' having sex, the choices are:

    	a.)  Forget about it (especially since no one else knows it
    		happened.)   Go on with your life.

    	b.)  Tell A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT IT by reporting it as rape.
    		(This includes having to be put ON TRIAL yourself
    		in court by the defense attorney.  Every small thing
    		about your private life would be put IN PUBLIC RECORD.)

    'Lovers remorse' is what the accused rapists claim happened.  If someone
    was truly remorseful for having sex, they wouldn't normally make a point
    of having the police, their families (and everyone else close to the
    case) find out about it.

    The 'big problem' with rape is not false accusations.  The 'big problem'
    is that it's too easy to get away with it.

    Our legal system isn't about to put its energy into going after those 
    who charge rape at a time when way, way, WAY too many rapists get away 
    with this crime.

    We KNOW that rape is a serious crime.  We KNOW that when men are locked
    up together, various men rape each other quite often in prison.

    We KNOW that this crime is under-reported, under-prosecuted and
    under-convicted (whether men rape women or other men.)

    Our legal system is not going to spend its energy threatening those
    who claim to have been raped with 40 years in prison.  Even the
    Republicans wouldn't try something like this.

        
    >'Lovers remorse' is what the accused rapists claim happened.  If someone
>    was truly remorseful for having sex, they wouldn't normally make a point
>    of having the police, their families (and everyone else close to the
>    case) find out about it.

    Again more of a gross exaggeration to perpetuate your victim-hood
    than anything else.  "Lover's remorse" often, but not always, happens
    because someone else _already_ found out about it.  Like his wife
    or her husband.  One famous case of false accusation (the one 
    where some TV reporter got in trouble for asking the accused (who had
    spent years in jail) and the accuser to hug on TV) was caused by
    her having sex with her boyfriend and her parents found out.  So
    she fingered the guy to protect her boyfriend.

    fred();

    fred();

    One case (out of all the rapes which have occurred in this country
    in the past ten years) would show up as a 0.00 on a calculator.
    

Damn - there goes another note...  Fred and Suzanne, this mutual name-calling
has got to stop if you want to continue participating here.  And I don't want
to hear "(s)he did it first!"  I'll unlock this note in a few days.

				Steve