Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Another Dangerous False Accuser on the Loose

“A woman drove a man to suicide by crying rape and forced a second innocent man to consider taking his life after falsely accusing him of a similar sex attack.

Despite being exposed in court as a serial liar, legal restrictions mean the 21-year-old woman can never be identified.“
Reference

Consider this woman’s actions. She has maliciously accused at least two men of raping her. She must be aware of the fact that one of them committed suicide. Yet she shows no sign of ever stopping. It seems likely that this woman has the potential to become a serial life destroyer if left unchecked; she will spend the rest of her life getting as many men as possible falsely imprisoned. Like a kind of serial killer by proxy, driving as many men to suicide as possible. This is someone who is probably a clinical sociopath. She is demonstrably a danger to the public. Yet it seems that no action has been taken against her, and she remains protected by legal anonymity.

How can this situation be explained? The problem is that false accusations are only ever seen as a crime against the State, not as a crime against the person.

All victims of crime have a right of redress. In a democracy, we relinquish our personal right to revenge, and instead transfer it to the State, which acts on our behalf.

Ms Jones alleges that Mr Smith has raped her. She seeks help from the State. In the ensuing trial of the Crown vs Mr Smith, it transpires that Ms Jones has been lying all along. However, her motivations for having done so are rarely examined. Her action is seen only as an offence against the Crown; wasting taxpayer's money, or wasting the judicial system's time and resources. It is not seen as a crime against Mr Smith.

As I mentioned above, whenever a crime is committed, the victim has the right to seek redress. In such cases as this, the Crown usually chooses to forego its right. If the false accuser is charged with anything at all, she will only be charged with crimes again the Crown; wasting police time, or perverting the course of justice. In many cases, the accuser could be charged with the more serious crime of perjury, but this almost never happens. The State wishes to appear magnanimous and merciful, and the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office have been comprehensively penetrated by feminists who do not believe that women should ever be charged with criminal offences, certainly not with offences against men. Thus accusers are almost never held to account for their actions.

However, even when they are, look what happens. A false accusation, if it is even seen as a crime at all, is seen only as a crime against the State; it is not seen as a crime against the wrongly accused. She may be charged with wasting police time; she will not be charge with crimes against Mr Smith. Yet she has made a concerted attempt to destroy his life.

Men, it seems, simply have no right of redress against women, due to an ideological assumption that it is impossible for women to commit offences against men. Ms Jones has not committed an offence against Mr Smith by accusing him of rape. She has only committed relatively minor offences against the State, by wasting its time, and these can usually be overlooked.

However, this is profoundly wrong and unjust.

In lobbying for false accusers to be dealt with by the courts in order to discourage others, many people have been asking for the wrong things. Some have been asking only that the state does not forego its right of redress, and that false accusers are charged with perjury or perverting the course of justice as a matter of course. Perhaps they should.

However, we should always be making the far more radical demand that false accusations are recognised as a serious crime against the person. The accused man must be given a right of redress also. The crime against him is far more serious than the crimes against the State which have been committed, and he is far less able than the State to treat the offence with equanimity.

In a rape trial, the law regards the accuser as the victim, until such time as it becomes clear that she is lying. After that, the law regards itself as the victim. At no time does the law ever recognise the interests of the accused man. This is what needs to change.

4 comments:

tiredofitall said...

In such cases as this, the Crown usually chooses to forego its right. If the false accuser is charged with anything at all, she will only be charged with crimes again the Crown; wasting police time, or perverting the course of justice. In many cases, the accuser could be charged with the more serious crime of perjury, but this almost never happens.

Which is bullshit anyway, the false accuser should face the full legal weight that the person she accused would have. Namely years spent behind bars getting rammed by sociopaths, and actual rapists.

WizardKing78 said...

Another great article by Heretic. It's interesting to se it from that perspective; that the state only regards either the woman OR itself as the victim, never the falsely accused.

The problem here is that the state has too much power; too much power to be partial. The size and scope of the state needs to be reduced. So also will its power to discriminate.

BrusselsLout said...

However, even when they are, look what happens. A false accusation, if it is even seen as a crime at all, is seen only as a crime against the State; it is not seen as a crime against the wrongly accused. She may be charged with wasting police time; she will not be charge with crimes against Mr Smith. Yet she has made a concerted attempt to destroy his life.

Women have become the sacred cows of government, big business and media. These institutions don't want to upset women because they are their lifeblood.

Women scare more easily. This gives governments the excuse they want to pass more laws and expand police departments.

Senior members of governments and large businesses like to promote a woman into a high position. This serves a dual purpose. Women are more docile than men and, in the current feminized cultural and political climates, it's good PR to have a token woman there.

Women spend 80% of household earnings. So how can business remain lucrative if women's favourite passtime of spending money was curbed?

Women watch more television than men. Hence the growing amount of rubbish on television and the ongoing dumbing down of the BBC.

In short, powerful institutions NEED women. Hence, they can commit no crime. They are needed out there to vote, vote, vote and spend spend spend.

Matt said...

"Police said false reporting has reached an epidemic level."

http://www.wesh.com/news/23991233/detail.html