~ archived since 2018 ~

Dumped girlfriend faked rape injuries

EvilPundit

January 30, 2012

110 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/dumped-girlfriend-faked-rape-injuries/story-e6frf7jo-1226257012718

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Dumped girlfriend faked rape injuries
Author	EvilPundit
Upvotes	110
Comments	48
Date	January 30, 2012 3:28 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/p2i6j/dumped_girlfriend_faked_rape_injuries/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dumped-girlfriend-faked-rape-injuries.1028534 https://theredarchive.com/post/1028534

Comments

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]onemorepost 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, then you're a seriously uninformed bigot, I suppose. DV training manuals are indeed written by radical feminists, and anything based on the Duluth model is included in that. This is a point of pride for feminists, and if you go to AVfM you will see a whole series of articles detailing radical feminists push to criminalize men in Australia. Kyle Lovitt wrote the articles, and they're well researched.

And you've never heard 'only 2% of rape claims are false'? You're full of shit, or you have never talked about rape before...one of the two.

And ever single study done on false accusation puts the number higher than 30% false claims. Which is why feminists dismiss these studies.

OTOH, you're a hardcore feminist, and there's no convincing you. It will be instructional for everyone else to see you dismiss all of that based on your ideological bent, and the need to justify your hatred though.

So, have at er, NeoDworkin...

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

DV training manuals are indeed written by radical feminists, and anything based on the Duluth model is included in that. This is a point of pride for feminists, and if you go to AVfM you will see a whole series of articles detailing radical feminists push to criminalize men in Australia. Kyle Lovitt wrote the articles, and they're well researched.

I will, but I still don't really have any idea why it is particularly feminist. Whatever, I'll check it out.

And you've never heard 'only 2% of rape claims are false'? You're full of shit, or you have never talked about rape before...one of the two.

No I actually haven't. Like, legitimately. Perhaps I haven't buried myself in enough literature, but I'll take your word for it.

And ever single study done on false accusation puts the number higher than 30% false claims. Which is why feminists dismiss these studies.

Right. I'll check them out.

OTOH, you're a hardcore feminist, and there's no convincing you. It will be instructional for everyone else to see you dismiss all of that based on your ideological bent, and the need to justify your hatred though.

Wow, glad we could have such an informative chat. Its the first time I've ever been called "hardcore feminist", a bigot or ideologically bent, or even driven by hatred. Especially as a male.

For the record, I do think men have a hard time interacting with the criminal justice system in a number of ways. Male rapes are under-reported, especially male-on-male rapes but also female-on-male rapes. But whatever, I'm just a hating-driven bigot.

[–]EvilPundit[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not guilty does not mean she must be. No one....NO ONE...has ever said if he doesn't go to jail, she should. That is a contention ONLY feminists make.

I believe that's pretty much you just said. You said that she should be facing the same sentence as he was.

However, if it's proven the accusation was intentional and false, then she DID commit a crime, and should be punished. And I see no reason it should be for less than he was facing.

Because, perhaps, the impetus to disinsentivise rapes and murders is slightly different from the impetus to disinsentivise false reporting.

Or are you contending women are helpless children now?

That's a nicely loaded question there. I simply contended that if you tell people who traditionally don't access the criminal justice system in response to rape (read: prostitutes, men, children, e.g.) and tell them that if it can be proved that they 'made up' their complaint, they will face a truly massive prison sentence, then you're going to affect how many legitimate victims access the criminal justice system. And that's bad across the board, but especially for people who typically don't access the police, for whatever reason.

According to you and most other MRs, women can rort the system either way, so on that basis I can see no reason to raise the sentence. Women will still get off scott free, leaving only other people to face the wrath of the criminal justice system.

I'm just saying that if a case of rape is dismissed for lack of evidence, then surely that same lack of evidence can be used as evidence of a false report to police.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

wow, just wow. Someone who doesn't see how punishment for wrongdoing is...justice. The penalty should be identical, and platitudes about 'fearful victims' won't get anywhere with me. I give that about the same attention people like you give FRAs.

Until women are punished for lying (Salem witch hunt anyone?) they will continue to lie. You don't see a problem with that, but we do. Until rape and false rape accusations are treated with the same seriousness, your position is nothing more than bald-faced bigotry, excusing wrongdoing.

The point is not only to deter false reporting...it's ALSO to punish criminals. As in, people using the justice system as their own personal thug. If it helps, I also think those in the CJS guilty of human rights abuses should face prosecution and imprisonment, even if they were 'following orders', complete with loss of pension, immediate dismissal, etc.

No immunity allowed, and this includes Judges and politicians.

I have ZERO interest in making sure women are OK with this, by the way. Equal protection under the law is not optional, those who undermined this principle are criminals, in my eyes.

And that includes false accusers. No matter how much you advocate for coddling them.

[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Kovahr 14 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Not for citizens, but they are used by law enforcement, varying on a state by state basis.

[–]grimreeper 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kovahr1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]akuta 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]DankoRamone 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DankoRamone 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree, but I don't think that excessively massive punishment is the answer. There's a careful balance between punishing someone for the actual wrongs committed in any given crime, and in sending a message to future potential wrongdoers. The reason the balance is so fine here is because rather than disinsentivising, say, bad things like bank robbing or murder, you risk disinsentivising approaching the police.

The reason the risk exists, of course, lies in the mechanism through which you measure false complaints. If the invalidity of a complaint is measured by the failure of the criminal prosecution, then a lot of claims are going to arise for false accusations. Every Tom, Dick and Harriet, irrespective of their actual guilt or innocence, are going to proclaim the failed conviction is evidence of the victim's lies (whether or not they were actually lying). That's going to lead to an absolute tonne of lawsuits, adding a huge risk to any victim speaking up.

The biggest ramification will, of course, be felt across those would wouldn't ordinarily approach the police for fear of, inter alia, their claim failing. Bringing up a rape charge is a huge onus, and many people, especially men, have a real fear of their claim failing. They've seen men shamed in public for being raped by men or, perish the thought, a woman. Given that the success of those claims is so low, if you criminalise false accusations to such a large extent (or by any extent), you risk alienating people who need the service most, like prostitutes, children and men (but that is only because they usually have access to the system the least).

The only way to ensure that fine balance it to have a system such that only those that are truly guilty are prosecuted. Such a system has never existed in the criminal law before, so you can probably understand why people are generally hesitant about really putting the gavel down hard.

[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

putting genuine victims at odds with the criminal justice system is worse.

The criminal justice system isn't primarily there for victims, it's there for the accused. At least, that's the way it works in countries that aren't police states.

worse than murder.

Strawman. I claimed it was just as bad as armed robbery and murder, and I'll add that this is true in the sense that all are crimes that have an undeniable victim. FRA is not somehow different from murder or robbery in this regard.

then how else do you measure it?

Based on evidence that a deliberate false accusation has been made, perhaps?

And that it would be very easy for lawyers to point to a failure to convict as prima facie evidence of a false accusation.

Only if you assume a law will be passed that makes a failure to convict prima facie evidence of a false accusation, which seems like a very outlandish assumption.

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry? The criminal justice system serves the potential criminals before the victims?

Yes, in a democracy. The purpose of a justice system is to ensure that the accused is in fact guilty. If it weren't, you wouldn't need individual rights, police forces that (ostensibly) are there to capture instead of kill or a trial system. You'd just have an angry mob with torches and pitchforks, a rope and handy tree limb.

Right, but how on earth do you establish that it was a deliberate false accusation?

Confessions, relavent & significant difference between statements and physical evidence, video and/or sound recordings indicating consent was given, specifically identifying an individual who has a solid alibi...

Is it really that hard for you to imagine what a criminal case would be based on?

[–]NeverComments 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]curious67 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A legitimate question for MR; what is the solution to false rape accusations?

1) Treat rape like any crime. Reinstitute due process. Require proof. Corroborating evidence.

Don't arrest anyone upon mere accusations.

Now in this case, with fake injuries, this is more serious. Now there are experts who wrote entire books about fake injuries. All this expertise has to be used.

Google Jörg Kachelmann rape trial to find the articles at Human-Stupidity that mention such experts.

2) don't confuse real forcible rape rape with all the other "rapes": the five second rape, the "we drank too much rape" (unless she has proof beyond reasonable doubt that she was basically passed out).

Basically, the laws as they were valid 50 years ago did not facilitate false accusations. Potiphar's false rape accusation only worked because there also was no due process.

[–]curious67 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't arrest anyone upon mere accusations.

You need a warrant for arrest in order to arrest someone, which requires you to prove to a judge that you have a certain level of evidence. Sorry, but the idea that you can arrest someone upon a mere accusation is false. Not in the least because:

Now in this case, with fake injuries, this is more serious. Now there are experts who wrote entire books about fake injuries. All this expertise has to be used.

Yes, and the best environment for that is in a courtroom, with a judge and jury presiding. Not in a back room of some police station, with a DA desperate to meet his quota (either by rejecting the complaint or by pushing ahead despite the evidence) willing to ignore it. If there is evidence that can be used, use it. As was done here.

2) don't confuse real forcible rape rape with all the other "rapes": the five second rape, the "we drank too much rape" (unless she has proof beyond reasonable doubt that she was basically passed out).

Right. The way Australian law works at least (reformed about 10-20 years ago), is that you only accept evidence of intoxication insofar as it compromised decision making, and then you can virtually discard it if a) it was done voluntarily and b) not to a level that would impede your decision making. The standard of the latter is pretty high, and you need more evidence than "we drank too much" to make it out. A blood test at a hospital, for instance, which would have been taken at the time you got the rape kit.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

At the very least, she should be responsible for what the police did on her behalf as criminal charges. If the police arrested, then that is criminal unlawful detainment. If he was jailed, criminal kidnapping.

Already occurs under tort law. You can bring a suit in trespass to the person if you can show that the person knowingly used the police to commit the false imprisonment.

See, inter alia, Dickinson v Waters Ltd and Myer v Soo; I don't have a lot of cases outside Commonwealth jurisdiction, however.

EDIT: Kidnapping is also quite different. And is just counted as false imprisonment under tort law.

Also, imposing criminal charges is quite difficult, especially, as I noted elsewhere, because of the burden of proof. How do you 'prove' that a charge was falsified? There are obvious instances where that would be so, but does a failed conviction therefore constitute a false claim?

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's already been done before: here, but not with the police as the actors.

Hmm, interesting analogy. Would almost work, and you could use other principles in law like the "innocent actor" rule, which basically says that if you used someone (like a drug mule, for instance) that didn't know they were committing a crime, then you're still charged as the principle offender, despite the fact that someone else physically carried out the deed. Think contract killing, but where the contractor doesn't actually know that they're doing a killing.

The reality, however, is that doing that would set such an enormously awful precedent for pretty much every time the police were ever involved in anything, especially with rape victims.

Imagine if you could be charged with kidnapping, a level 2 offence (punishable by up to 25 years in prison), for calling the police on someone. Because if they ended up in prison and their sentence was later overturned, then they could bring criminal charges against everyone involved in the case, from the witnesses to the victim to the lawyers involved.

So legally possible (very interestingly too), but principally and practically awful.

Nope. Takes more than that to be a false claim.

Right, but by what criterion then? How do you make it out?

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

but principally and practically awful.

No, principally and practically NECESSARY. If you use the police as your agent of violence to get your will performed based on false police reports, you are responsible for what the police has done on your behalf. Otherwise, people (mostly women) will continue to abuse others using the police as their agent.

Right, but by what criterion then? How do you make it out?

By whatever criteria they currently use to prove a false police report, I'd say. That the report or claim is a provable fabrication.

Say I get robbed and I give a description, the police nab someone based on the description, I say that I think it's that person (it's not), and the prosecution loses the case... that's not a false police report because I did get robbed.

Now say I didn't get robbed but I want to fuck with my ex-GF's new BF, so I claim to be robbed and use his description. The police arrest him, but later the case falls apart because it's shown that I was never robbed at all. At that point I should be held criminally (not tort) responsible for what the police did on my behalf as if I had done it myself.

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]loony636 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link