Skip to comments.Should False Rape Accusers Be Sued?
Posted on 12/17/2013 5:04:38 PM PST by OddLane
Eighty years -- that's about how long it took the state of Alabama to posthumously pardon the last three of nine men who were falsely accused and wrongly convicted of raping two white women on a train. They infamously were called the Scottsboro Boys, because the nine black men were just 12- to 19-years-old when they were arrested in 1931.
It turned out that the women, Ruby Bates and Victoria Price, had lied to police about the rapes. At one of the trials, Bates recanted her testimony, saying she had made it all up. Still, the all-white jury convicted the boys, one after another.
Forty-three years later, a similar story: This time it was Delbert Tibbs, who died recently of cancer. Tibbs spent nearly three years in prison in Florida after he was convicted in 1974 of a rape and murder that he had nothing to do with, according to the Florida Supreme Court.
Ancient history, you say? We've moved past those shameful days of unequal justice, you insist. Think again.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Can George Zimmerman sue the media?
They should be dropped into a pot of pugi sticks and 2 gallons of scars dropped on them.
They should be sued for all they have and then and imprisoned.
Brawley, Duke LAX, so many others...
Of course the liars should be sued. They should have their wages garnished for the rest of their lives. If they marry, the husband’s wages should be garnished.
The low bar should be $10 million per accused person.
I think that they should be prosecuted.
A thousand times yes!
Perjury should be punished with imprisonment, not a civil suit. All perjury. Perjury in rape cases. Perjury before a senate committee.
Sued ? .... Yes
After they serve their prison sentence for their crime....
Jail and monetary fines to the falsely accused.
Who could say no?
No, they should be jailed. The same sentence that the person they falsely accused got, or would have gotten if convicted.
False rape should receive a punishment similar to rape.
The Boogieman has got it right.
That’s: “two gallons of Scarabs dropped on them”
They should be jailed.
Notable absence in the article, of falsely accused Whites.
Sued? no, incarcerated? yes. For a term equal to what the accused would face.
After the false accuser has been criminally charged with filing a false report/complaint, they should be subject to all manner of civil liability.
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, false accusers should be punished. On the other hand, the knowledge that they will be punished could keep some false accusers from recanting. I don’t like sex crimes. Never did. For those who actually commit them no punishment is enough. But there also a lot of people whose lives have been ruined who did nothing wrong.
And often there is no good way to tell which is which.
Sued back to pre-puberty.
The problem with imprisoning accusers who recant is that it discourages recantation. It’s a horrible choice, but we need to temper justice with common sense. On the flip side, accusations of rape need some sort of corroboration or at least a whiff of plausibility.
They should be given the same sentence as a would be rapist would. And...any money, property or future proceeds as well.
Okay, that makes a bit more sense.
I have several women friends who are LE “Victim’s Advocates”. A whole lot of what they do is talking dumb Bambi-ettes out of the morning after regrets:
“So, you willingly got pissed with this guy? You willingly went back to his apartment? You willingly went into his bedroom? And NOW you decide that was a dumb idea, and, as a consequence, you want to ruin his life by accusing him of rape?”
Most come to their senses; a few are hard sells - the ones who want to CYA with mommy and daddy.
The way I see it, the knowledge that they could be punished could keep some false accusers from lying in the first place.
You over estimate the deterrence effect of possible punishment. The types who do this are just not that smart.
Don’t forget the only way these guys are cleared in the first place is when these sl*ts recant unless physical evidence suggests someone else.
IMHO, not a safe assumption.
Someone admits to lying about such a serious matter and is willing to ruin another persons life should be dealt with in some fashion. Of course the lawyers don’t see a big money payout for themselves in most cases so naturally they aren’t interested.
A victim may not want to sue since their own conduct may not have been entirely above board either and have ones life dissected endlessly is not a prospect most of us would relish.
A fine book on civil suits for slander, a true story, is QBVII, which later became a movie.
Lastly, win or lose, all the lawyers collect their fees. So how much justice can a person afford?
should be charged with perjury, with the same sentencing guidelines as the rape charge.
True, but there are a lot of false accusations made in the heat of the moment without thought of the consequences.
“The problem with imprisoning accusers who recant is that it discourages recantation.”
Good point, that could be an issue. However, if there no repercussions, we are encouraging false accusations, since the accusation alone can be used as a very dangerous weapon. Along with accusing someone of domestic violence, or molestation, it’s one of the worst, and most effective character assassination tactics around (and all three are overwhelmingly used against men).
Saying that we need corroboration may help alleviate the chances of imprisonment for the falsely accused, but it does nothing to shield them from the consequences of the accusation on all other aspects of their life. So, it doesn’t reduce the value of the accusation as a weapon much either, and people will still choose to use it as such.
One thing we can do to help which shouldn’t really be controversial is a two-way rape shield law. If the accuser’s identity is protected, then the accused’s identity should also be protected, until an actual conviction has happened.
But I think there's a middle ground...something perhaps like a reverse statute of limitations, i.e. If you recant within one year, there's no criminal penalty, but you remain civilly liable. Recant between 2-5 years after the fact and face up to a year imprisonment. Over five years and you serve the full punishment the wrongly accused faced. That is only for those who recant. If the wrongful accusation is discovered independently of the accuser (i.e. by the defense counsel, law enforcement, etc.) all bets are off and the accuser receives none of the early incentives if discovered within the first five years.
It’s getting so that most people are quite skeptical of rape accusations, anyway.
I know a guy who was falsely arrested for rape.
He was the last guy you would ever think would have raped anyone and in fact he didn’t. He was head of a Federal Law Enforcement Agency in the city. He was a deacon in the First Baptist Church and a straight arrow if there ever was one.
The woman saw him driving by and got his tag number and accused him. It didn’t take the cops too long to realize they had the wrong guy but it took a few weeks before they caught the right one. He did not look anything like the guilty one.
He was able to get his arrest completely removed from the records.
False rape accusers should be prosecuted, and if found guilty, they should receive the same sentence that would have been awarded to the accused rapist. THEN they should be sued for all legal costs to the falsely accused rapist and the court.
After they are prosecuted and jailed.
False accusers should face the same sentence as the crime they lied about carries.
I wonder if they are including the false rape claim of Erica Kinsman, the gal who claimed Florida St QB Jameis Winston raped?
For some reason the media believes the White girl over the black athlete in this one....even though the gal’s story is bogus
Remember that the Scottsboro Boys’ trial was the Zimmerman trial of its day.
With help from the *American Communist Party*, the case was appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed seven of the eight convictions, and granted thirteen-year-old Eugene Williams a new trial because he was a juvenile. They were also later aided by the *Communist Party USA*, a different organization.
Chattanooga Party member James Allen edited the Communist Southern Worker, and publicized “the plight of the boys”. The Party used its legal arm, the International Labor Defense (ILD), to take up their cases.
Two ILD attorneys were charged with attempting to bribe Victoria Price, the woman who recanted her testimony.
So the bottom line is maybe the boys were innocent, and maybe they weren’t. Unlike those who were clearly guilty, yet made into public causes for the far left, such as Sacco & Vanzetti, and twenty years later Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
The boys didn’t get a fair trial by today’s standards, which is not in doubt, but that does not prove innocence or guilt, either.