Nothing in my scenario fails to prevent the rights of an accused perpetrator to maintain their innocence. In our ‘the justice system always gets it right’ hypothetical, to be accused =! to be guilty. So I’m not seeing where ‘failing to punish false accusers’ challenges the right of an accused to defend the presumption of innocence.

The problem is that merely being accused of rape causes harm – it’s a stigma that never entirely goes away. For example, look at Jill’s article – she’s still claiming that the false accuser was raped, despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever that would back that up (the “evidence” she cites above is wrong in every particular – apparently she failed to get the memo that Mike Nifong lied his ass off about the strength of his case, because she’s still quoting his long-discredited claims as gospel truth). Even if the charges are completely false, there will still be a number of people who are still going to treat you as if they were true.

I think that outweighs a “feeling” that is actually without basis, but that’s my calculus – yours is apparently different, but hey, that’s cool.

I’m not sure how much I trust anybody’s statistics. I’ve seen statistics that would indicate that somewhere around half of rapes reported to police turn out to be untrue, and of course Jill cites another statistic that indicates that only 2% are untrue. Who knows. And of course, I am virtually certain that most rapes aren’t reported at all – I know several victims, and none of them reported it for various reasons.

Nothing in my scenario fails to prevent the rights of an accused perpetrator to maintain their innocence. In our ‘the justice system always gets it right’ hypothetical, to be accused =! to be guilty. So I’m not seeing where ‘failing to punish false accusers’ challenges the right of an accused to defend the presumption of innocence.

I also think that ‘feeling’ you can’t file charges against your rapist constitutes actual harm over and above the rape itself, so I still think we’re talking about equal things.

But that’s okay, because you acknowledge that you come down on the side of ‘preventing false accusations’ over ‘encouraging legitimate accusations’ out of self-interest. I don’t think your risk of being falsely accused of rape compares in either likelihood (that it’ll happen) or magnitude (of the harm) to my fear of being raped without a way to punish the rapist. And of course, the statistics are on my side.

But hey, it’s been a useful discussion. And just for the record, I’m a lawyer too.

But based on the information available currently in the public record, I’d say that if she were prosecuted, on that evidence, she would probably be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted.

And I wanted to say something about the Granny hypothetical above. Most crimes are not in the national media. Most local police departments do not talk to each other, particularly if they are some distance apart or in another state. There would be a VERY good reason to post Granny’s picture with ‘liar’ on it – to prevent her from committing the same crime again elsewhere, particularly if she wasn’t officially prosecuted for it the first time. I’ve watched plenty of real life crime shows where criminals have gotten away with things for years just by moving around alot, so they get a ‘clean slate’ and can victimise again. That’s why we have sex offender registries. And I think that’s why those who lie about crimes need to be publicised, and perhaps put in a registry. Sorry, but you don’t get to lie like that and then get a free ride to do it again. And if you later have a real crime to report, but are not believed, you have no one to blame but yourself for the first false report. Of course, all complaints should be investigated, but if it is something that comes down to just your word, and your word is proven bad, well, again, and this needs to be made very clear. Don’t lie. Ever. Not about matters like crime.

Of course, my pet peeve about this is still the prosecutor and police action.

In which case you are also saying that being falsely accused (and then acquitted with no gaol time) is worse than being the victim of a violent crime and feeling that you have no way of getting justice.

We’re on the same page here. What you have in the quote above is a situation where one party (the falsely accused) has suffered actual harm through no fault of their own, while the other party (the real victim) is suffering a “feeling.” (Obviously they are suffering plenty of actual harm from the rape, but that’s outside the focus of this discussion.) The thing is, that “feeling” is not based on truth – they actually can get justice (again, assuming that the justice system works, which again is a leap of faith, but one we’re taking as a given for the purposes of this discussion).

In the end it’s a policy decision, and like most policy decisions there’s no perfect solution. As an attorney, I certainly lean towards favoring protecting the rights of the accused to maintain their presumption of innocence. And frankly, the fact that as a man I’m a lot more worried about being falsely accused of rape than I am about being raped almost certainly influences the policy I would favor. I imagine that as a woman the fact that you presumably have the opposite worry probably influences that policy you would favor as well. Perfectly reasonable.

I think that in the case at hand, the facts are *so* extreme (regardless of what Jill wants to believe, there is zero chance that the accuser was raped at the lacrosse house), and it is *so* certain that the charges were utterly false that if there’s ever a set of circumstances where we should agree that a false accuser should not be entitled to the protections that real victims deserve, this is it. As I think I said previously – if it is justified one time in a million, then this is that one time in a million.

I think that arguing that someone who made patently false allegations should be entitled to the same protections that real victims are entitled to weakens the case for those protections for the real victims, because that is such an unreasonable position. That’s why I think that continuing to support a false accuser is ultimately counter-productive.

Look.

If you have faith in the legal system, then you believe that those who are falsely accused will not be convicted, and those who are legitimately accused will be. Can we take that as a given for the purposes of this argument? That we’re only talking about the harm to reputation, etc?

So the only purpose of shaming accusers/alleged victims would be because you believe that, in general, false accusations should be avoided more than legitimate complainants should be encouraged to complain. With me so far?

In which case you are also saying that being falsely accused (and then acquitted with no gaol time) is worse than being the victim of a violent crime and feeling that you have no way of getting justice.

Let me ask this simply. If the statistics were 50:50. If it was zero-sum. If by increasing the possibilities of shaming, one false report was discouraged for every one legitimate complaint that never got heard. If the laws were changed in the other direction, so that one legitimate victim was able to complain where she would never before have dared and one false accuser was emboldened to do the same.

If this was the case, do you think it more important to stop the false accusations, or encourage the silent victims to seek justice?

A couple of side notes:

Imagine you’re the director of human resources and one of these guys is interviewing for a job with your company. I’m sure YOU won’t hold it against them, but will it influence your decision that some of their potential coworkers might? Or that the company might lose clients over it?

Jill: sorry, but I have to say this.

“I haven’t seen any definitive evidence that she was not raped.”
“show me CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that no rape occurred”
“if in fact they were not involved with the assault”
“if there was any conclusive evidence that a rape never occurred”

You think it is the responsibility of the accused to PROVE that no crime occurred?

“there’s a 98% change that she was raped”
“my believing that she was raped, that it happened in that house, and that there were multiple assailants”

What are you basing this on? The medical exam did NOT show evidence of assault, despite what several have said here

My understanding was that Finnerty called a man an epithet used to denote gays while in a some kind of a drunken shoving match. I don’t think the guy actually was gay. It sounds like it was a bar fight; if he’d targetted a person for attack for being gay, that probably would have been an exacerbating circumstance, which would have made the attack a felony. DC is a very Democratic town, and I’m sure their hate crime statute covers sexual orientation.

It does. Their hate crimes statute (DC ST § 22-3703) does not, however, automatically elevate to felony status. It allows a discretionary multiplier to be applied to the sentence. Please at least look or, alternately, get your JD, before blithering about what the law “must” say.

– ACS