TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

This female teacher pretended to be a 14 year old girl to accuse a male teacher of sexually abusing her. No jail time for this calculated attempt to destroy a man's life.

BaronBilgewater

February 1, 2017
16640 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.itv.com/news/london/2017-02-01/teacher-posed-as-abused-pupil-on-childline-to-falsely-accuse-colleague-of-being-paedophile/
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title This female teacher pretended to be a 14 year old girl to accuse a male teacher of sexually abusing her. No jail time for this calculated attempt to destroy a man's life.
Author

BaronBilgewater

Upvotes 16640
Comments 469
Date February 1, 2017 1:17 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5rfeem/this_female_teacher_pretended_to_be_a_14_year_old/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-female-teacher-pretended-to-be-a-14-year-old.1072238
https://theredarchive.com/post/1072238
Top posts by BaronBilgewater

Twice as many boys (aged 5-10) have mental health issues compared to girls. Ignored in article, but appears in graph.

2494 upvotes
November 22, 2018
/r/MensRights

Footballers branded rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 in damages to woman who says she was too drunk to give consent. There was never a criminal trial.

582 upvotes
January 17, 2017
/r/MensRights

Most female homicide victims are killed in the home... (BBC quietly mentions later that 80% of murder victims are men).

249 upvotes
November 25, 2018
/r/MensRights

BBC Newsnight just described falling sperm counts as "another blow for western patriarchy", and did so with a smirk. What the hell is happening?

222 upvotes
July 26, 2017
/r/MensRights

Robin Thicke's ex-wife says he "traumatised her and their son by demanding visitation". He is now only allowed supervised visits, despite being cleared of her abuse claims.

185 upvotes
January 27, 2017
/r/MensRights

Men are the ruling sex in politics? Not in the UK; Prime Minister and Queen are both women, neither were voted in. There's a Minister for Women and Equality (a woman) and no minister for men. There's a Parliamentary Committee for Women and Equalities (chaired by a woman) and no committee for men.

182 upvotes
January 11, 2017
/r/MensRights

"Clearly, a drunk can consent" - says Canadian judge

158 upvotes
March 4, 2017
/r/MensRights

BBC tricked me. This article about the challenges of being a man is actually just about ‘toxic masculinity’. No mention of fear of false accusation or misandry. Sources of material were replying to Caitlin Moran.

115 upvotes
October 20, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Proteus_Marius 506 points507 points508 points 9 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

What factors mitigated her prison sentence?

[–][deleted] 327 points328 points329 points 9 years ago (92 children) | Copy Link

She paid the guy compensation.

[–]Covalency22 439 points440 points441 points 9 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

Was it a few million so he can retire in the middle of no where and live out his life in peace? If not, then she should be going to jail.

[–]NeedHelpWithGerman 83 points84 points85 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can't we do both? Compensation and jail?

[–]Covalency22 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We can. But we don't have the power to do so.

[+]apathetic_lemur -80 points-79 points-78 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

so only poor people go to jail. got it

[–]elberts 138 points139 points140 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Poor people who try to ruin life for other human beings - yes

[–]ZenPyx 155 points156 points157 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, but he should receive a large amount of monetary compensation from her. No jail.

[–]Miguelinileugim 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, technically that counts as a "get out of jail" card for the rich. That's literally, technically what it is. If you're rich you can get away with some crimes if you're willing to pay, if you're poor you have no such luxury. And it's only legal because it's a deal you make with the victim.

[–]Lokitheanus 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like really real jail, for an appropriate amount of time for their crimes? Yeah mostly.

[–]fuckyou_dumbass 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If someone tried to fuck me over but couldn't, I'd rather get a few mil from it than have them go to jail.

[–]sarcasmcannon 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If this was an actual punishment, we would have less fraud.

[–]shill_account_46 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Does it matter how much money you have if you go out of your way to do something this spiteful?

[–]apathetic_lemur 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

the point was the rich people can just pay some money and go on living their lives while the poor person goes to jail. I think both should go to jail

[–]shill_account_46 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What difference does it make? Do you seriously think either one would learn something meaningful in jail? American prisons are a joke in terms of rehabilitation. Should a rich person be able to walk away from a situation like this? No but that's a problem pertaining to capitalism and that would need its own thread.

[–]apathetic_lemur 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Jail would need its own thread as well. But whether jail sucks or not, I think the punishment should be equal no matter what your income is. Or do you think its ok for rich people to do what they want and simply pay a fine?

[–]grubernack276 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Would the victim have a say in this? and if he prefers out of court settlement money to her punishment then shouldn't it be allowed?

[–]LandMineHare 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That depends on a number of circumstances, but usually it is out of the victim's hands unless they refuse to come forward/testify.

[–]apathetic_lemur 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have no clue. I like the idea of a percentage of income so fines, etc sting a little more equally but it doesn't take much effort to find problems with this (hiding assets for the wealthy, a percentage of income is zero for poor/jobless)

[–]shill_account_46 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or do you think its ok for rich people to do what they want and simply pay a fine?

From my own post that you're directly replying to:

Should a rich person be able to walk away from a situation like this? No

Also, how would fines based on % of income work more effectively? What if you're wronged by someone very poor with zero income, what is your recourse at that point?

[–]Boogilywoo2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You must be fun at parties.

[–]faithle55 48 points49 points50 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

That's not mitigation in English law. She has to pay compensation whatever.

Newspaper reports typically don't give details on aggravation and mitigation - it's like it's too hard for the journalists to understand.

She may have pleaded guilty early, she may have (probably has, by the sound of it) been suffering from mental illness of some sort....

[–]baskandpurr 64 points65 points66 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

A man who commits a crime is never suffering from a mental illness of some sort. At least, not in a way that gets their sentence reduced. Mental illness make a man more dangerous while it makes a woman more blameless.

[–]Diriel 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

This is factually very wrong. Men have mental-illness considered in the course of sentencing as well. The law does not draw an arbitration between genders and mental-illness.

[–]eadala 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

To echo your sentiment and angrily reply to /u/baskandpurr 's assumption, here is an instance where a man burst out in court because his son's murderer, who pleaded guilty, also used mental illness as a way to avoid prison and instead go to a mental hospital.

Edit: to reinforce admittedly anecdotal evidence, mental illness is a commonly used tactic in court by lawyers for both men and women to evade lengthy prison sentences. I think it used to be called an "insanity plea" but it is completely and inarguably something done by both genders, sometimes illegitimately.

[–]baskandpurr 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women get away with many things under the guise of mental conditions. They murder their husbands and children and get lighter sentences because they were stressed in some way. Men do not.

In this case for the video you show, the police psychiatrist decided that Kendle was psychologically damaged. I don't see any evidence that calls the diagnosis into doubt. The fact that the victims family doesn't like the result doesn't make it wrong. They weren't at the club and they aren't impartial.

Besides, Kendle isn't getting a reduced sentence. He will be considered a threat to the public for much longer than a woman would in the same position.

[–]eadala 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not arguing that men and women serve different sentences for the same crime. I'm saying that both men and women are wholly capable of using mental illness (using could mean either succeeding in faking it, or honestly having it) as a means to evade prison or reduce the sentence.

If a man murders his wife for cheating on him with his best friend, recognize that this can be proven not to be the exact same thing as a premeditated 1st degree murder. Name me an instance where a woman murdered her husband and succeeded in using "I was just so stressed out" as a defense.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-12-17/news/9412170296_1_pms-husband-suffering

Found this pretty easily. Jan Painter killed her husband Jim in 1994 with a knife and was found not guilty because of PMS.

[–]bufedad 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No one has argued that men NEVER have mental illness affect sentencing, only that when a woman is charged, there's always some reason she needs a light sentence (if any at all). It's one of those jumping through hoops to not incarcerate women.

[–]eadala 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I apologize for coming off as confrontational, but please reread what /u/baskandpurr said:

A man who commits a crime is *never suffering from a mental illness of some sort. At least, not in a way that gets their sentence reduced.

I was addressing him directly; to disprove an absolute I used the anecdote. And to echo something else I said (not in the post you're replying to; the other one on this thread), I never said that men and women receive the same sentence for the same crime. And I never argued that women and men appeal for lighter sentencing successfully to the same extent; I find it somewhat obvious that women are treated softly in criminal processing. Just got irritated because bask was making it sound like men and women categorically behave differently in court, when they both can achieve a lighter sentence in this fashion, even if the success rate of such attempts is different.

[–]bufedad 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, he used hyperbole. Maybe that's not coming across to you, but it clearly is to me.

[–]eadala 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Would you like me to assume that? Because it seems to be a pretty strongly-worded stance, hyperbole or not. Even if it is, I included an edit long before your reply that begins:

to reinforce admittedly anecdotal evidence, mental illness is a commonly used tactic.

Ergo if whether he was using hyperbole or being completely serious, I covered both the easy anecdotal rebuttal and the general counter. I thought I worded things pretty clearly, but I'll be more careful in the future.

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

and instead go to a mental hospital.

So men till get punished while women are allowed to walk? Even with you anecdote, the man is still being put in a prison, just not the same type.

[–]ownworstenemy38 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Certainly makes a distinction between the sexes when it comes to sexual offences though.

[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

That's true but while a woman can claim pretty much any mental illness (including ones she makes up on the spot) and have people believe her a man can do the same and expect very little in the way of people taking the claim credibly. He pretty much has to have half his brain in a jar with him when he shows up to court.

I can't remember how many times I've read about a woman claiming she was depressed and have it pretty much get her out of jail. Nevertheless, I wouldn't use mental illness as a chance to avoid prison. It's still basically prison and typically inmates in mental hospitals spend longer in them than they would had they simply gone to prison. Of course, it's a much softer kind of prison so there's that.

[–]Diriel 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You will hard pressed find a jurisdiction in the US, Canada, or the EU whereby a judge would consider "mental illness made up on the spot" while sentencing.

Sentencing hearings are still subject to rules of evidence. If a claim is not reflected in the evidence supporting the sentencing materials, it will be given little to almost no weight.

And again, that is not a gendered issue. The law draws no distinction in the rules of evidence pertaining to sentencing simply due to gender.

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet there are many jurisdictions where a mentally ill man will be forcefully committed to a mental institution for life after they have served their jail time.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree. While mental illness is considered for both genders, it or any other excuse will more often b used to prevent punishment for women.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At least, not in a way that gets their sentence reduced.

You have never once actually been involved in the criminal justice system in any capacity, have you? Happens literally all. the. time.

[–]faithle55 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Didn't understand that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was speaking colloquially, not legally, but I get your point.

[–]faithle55 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OK.

[–]brown_monkey_ 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm confused, the article says she "was sentenced to 11 weeks prison suspended for two years." Did I miss the part where the sentence was commuted?

[–][deleted] 63 points64 points65 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

A suspended sentence is one where you don't typically serve that sentence, because it's held in reserve to see how you handle yourself during the suspension period. The sentence actually only gets levied if the supervising judge deems that during her 2 year window, she's not showing signs of cleaning up her act.

So, it's quite unlikely that she'll ever see a day in jail.

[–]factbasedorGTFO 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Thanks.

I always wondered what a suspended sentence meant, but never looked it up like I usually do.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was on a suspended sentence, and the way the judge explained it to me was "if you litter, you'll be locked up".

[–]hawker101 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It wasn't commuted, it was suspended (basically probation). If they catch her doing anything wrong within the two years she'll go directly to jail and serve her eleven weeks. If nothing happens within that time then the sentence will have been carried out. Eleven weeks is still too short of a time for something like this though.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Eleven weeks is a pathetically short sentence for what she did though wether she serves it or not.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is probably the case for punishing people for framing innocents of crime in general.

If we look at the worst crime though, murder, faking your death to pin a murder on someone (I remember some movie with that plot) is usually worse if the deception is uncovered (not always, for some reason alleged sex crimes sometimes get longer sentences than real assaults) I posit that false rape accusations are potentially worse because of their effects even when a not guilty results.

If a murder victim turns up alive then the accused murderer has an untarnished reputation. But if a rape accusation results in a not guilty or even if it gets retracted before charges are pressed, it still results in mass societal prejudice and persecution against the accused. "where there's smoke there's fire" is an axiom I have heard from several women in my life and it terrifies me. Beyond lacking presumption if innocence they ignore even the possibility. Society is filled with these people. Even those who don't think that way still embrace such people and value their opinions.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

(I remember some movie with that plot)

Double Jeopardy is one with that plot that I really enjoyed.

I posit that false rape accusations are potentially worse because of their effects even when a not guilty results.

I agree completely. In fact in terms of how the perpetrator is viewed, I'd even go so far as to suggest that in a lot of ways rapists are viewed even less favorably than murders. With murder, there's certain circumstances in which people will, to a degree, excuse it. It's like they can see where if it were them in the situation they can't really be sure they wouldn't have done the same thing. But with rape, the immediate reaction is "wow that person is just an irredeemable monster."

[–]Choice77777 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So now it's time for him to set her up within 2 years for maximum payback? Sweet.

[–]billyjohn 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And 200 hours of community service.

[–]KToff 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I have no experience with American law traditions, but I could imagine the lack of success was one factor. The damage was smaller.

Had she managed to get her colleague into jail the issue would be different.

[–]Drunken_Economist 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This was in the UK, but same idea applies

[–]icanhazrobot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Take the red pills in small doses

[–]drippydick 364 points365 points366 points 9 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

It's a witch trial when women can point a finger and automatically be assumed a victim and innocent.

I know a person who broke up with his ex and out of spite she had her daughter accuse him of rape. This poor guy ends up getting life because a polygraph on a minor is inadmissable.

Even the Innocence Project couldn't help. Yea great judicial system we have.

[–]DigNitty 125 points126 points127 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

I was going to call bullshit because rape of a minor doesn't seem like life in prison.

Looked it up, it is in many states.

[–]mwobuddy 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

rape of a minor

Yes, because rape of anyone is possibly life in prison.

Now sex with willing but underage participants, thats another matter.

[–]DankSouls1337 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Statutory rape*

[–]mwobuddy 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

which is no such thing as rape at all. The fact of its being conflated or even compared to an actual horrific crime is proof enough of the fallacy.

[–]ChainsawSnuggling 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

What fallacy? Minors can't consent. Any sexual activity with a minor, no matter how "willing" is taking advantage of them.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People don't get this. There's also power dynamics at play, usually.

[–]mwobuddy 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

By legal statute. Not reality.

if you really feel this is true, then a 16 year old in florida fucking a 18 or 40 year old there would be taken advantage of, and a victim, and the law punishes.

However, in Nevada, that same 16 year old would not be a victim and the law would not punish.

You can't have it both ways. When the laws differ by state, there is a human rights violation occurring. Either 16 year olds are getting "willing but taken advantage of" legally, or people fucking 16 year olds in florida are being unjustly persecuted and harmed for fucking 16 year olds.

If the law is making a statement irrespective of actual harm, it is a law based on social values that harms individuals, not a law based on discovery of harm.

[–]ChainsawSnuggling 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

  1. Romeo and Juliet laws exist to protect 18 year olds in those situations.
  2. If you're 40 years old and fucking a 16 year old, chances are something isn't kosher. Most likely this individual is in a position of power over that minor like a teacher or something. Or, they're an adult and this person is a minor. Because adults always have the power in a relationship with a minor.
  3. If you know it's illegal to fuck a 16 year old, then don't fuck a 16 year old. This isn't rocket science.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

R&J laws often simply downplay the criminal offense from felony to misdemeanor, and still require registry as sex offender. If you think it protects them, then tell that to all the 14-18 year old males on the sex offender registry, all 100,000 of them.

"Chances are" doesn't mean shit. either it is or isn't.

If you live in nevada your whole life, then move to florida, suddenly the legal sex you were having with someone 16 becomes 'rape'.

The entire exercise is in pointing to the fallacy of age of consent law, and the basic human rights violations they are, if they arbitrarily destroy one person while letting another person go free in the same country, just because of where you happen to be in that country. You're bringing up irrelevant red herrings.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/us/dating-app-sex-offender-registry/

https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/when-a-sex-offender-isnt/?_r=0

you better watch your male children, because sex offending is about control and destruction of males almost unilaterally. It was designed that way from the start of the raising of age of consent in the 1850-1920 period, and it was invoked by Purity Movement Feminism, the largest, cohesive branch to get things done, with a religious bent to them. Males of all ages, even 'underage' themselves have been punished for sex with/as teens since this went into effect that long ago, and it continues today.

And you know what? If it does harm teens to have sex, if it is so harmful to their fragile little minds, yes, teens themselves should suffer the sex offender registry just like an adult. After all, they've irreparably damaged someone. I know, you'll probably trot out the tired rhetoric of "when its adult and teen, then its abusive and damaging, but not teen on teen because its natural" fallacy. Bullshit. Teens have the potential abuse each other just as easily as adults, in fact I'd argue moreso because being closely grouped as peers puts more pressure to perform acts to get the validation from the biggest group that matters. In fact, by age of consent law, abuse is considered matter of fact. R&J exceptions usually only downgrade the offense level for teens, not get them off the hook completely, and if sex harms teens, (read the book Harmful to Minors), then it should be that even the underage teens get on the sex offender list.

You keep using mystical arguments that have no solid foundation, and move the goalposts during argumentation about whether or not sex with teens and adults is abusive vs teens and teens not being abusive, but you'll cycle back to "they just dont know any better", or vague claims of "sexual power imbalance" that causes harm in the end. The arguments your kind use are circular.

And if you think age of consent isn't anti-male, then you better read this link and think again.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5p6omu/canadian_motherofthree_23_is_jailed_after_having/dcq9fo2/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ox61b/thanks_to_donations_from_mensrights_austin_a_teen/dcpkdr8/

A boy who has sex with a girl under 16 is breaking the law. Even if she agrees.

If she is 13-15, the boy could go to prison for two years.

If she is under 13 he could be sentenced to life imprisonment.

IF SHE IS UNDER, not HE.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ox61b/thanks_to_donations_from_mensrights_austin_a_teen/dcpgy5l/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ox61b/thanks_to_donations_from_mensrights_austin_a_teen/dcpc1uz/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ox61b/thanks_to_donations_from_mensrights_austin_a_teen/dcpbk9x/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ox61b/thanks_to_donations_from_mensrights_austin_a_teen/dcp8uqx/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ox61b/thanks_to_donations_from_mensrights_austin_a_teen/dcp3bno/

And finally, we go to the prospect that age of consent laws are violations oh human rights based on the grounds that people age differently. if people age differently, then it is quite unfair and arbitrary to punish someone who is delayed in development as an equal. And yet only EXTREME delays that are based on IQ or mental disability, rather than brain maturity delays, would be accounted for.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5p6omu/canadian_motherofthree_23_is_jailed_after_having/dcqpb7p/

So there you have it, all the strings, all the information you need to know. AoC is designed for anti-male purposes, it even punishes underage males, it is based on ideologies that conflict with even themselves and the known science of the different aging coefficients of humans in general.

As far as power goes, nearly all power is a form of belief and worship. Hitler could never have done what he done without power, and what was his power? Did he launch the ships alone? Did he drop the bombs alone? It took a massive number of people to do it, to believe in his power.

Suppose you have an adult that feels powerless, they're not going to have much "power" in that relationship with a minor, legal or not. Because power is based on belief and the struggle for that belief to be spread to the other person in the relationship.

In fact, someone in a relationship with a minor should actually feel quite powerless, because they're a desirable and much more spontaneous individual, leading to the possibility of losing them as a mate/lover/relationship, whatever you want to call it. Power also plays itself out when one person is more attractive. If both individuals know that they're valued for their looks, then the one ho knows they're more attractive has more power, however, as I've stated, this power is belief based even so, and must be shared, like an infection with the other party.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kinda funny you are looking at power in respect to attractiveness and not the glaring fact that a minor can leverage revealing their relationship to coerce the adult into pretty much anything. Even without a minor actively doing that, a pressure exists for an adult to cave to a minor's whims because society advertises the victim complex and the slightest dissatisfaction could lead to exposure of the affair.

It is similar to how children rely on parents and would not want to risk displeasing a family member in fear of losing familial support. Parents never volunteer resources that exist to help children being abused by parents. Even those who do not abuse will not give that access because they want the sword of Damocles to hover.

An adult raped by a minor, for example, would not report it for fear of being seen as the aggressor. Especially if it happened after mutually consented-to relations. The rare instance you see this happen is when it is a woman with a gang of boys because she holds confidence of playing the "gangraped" card.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most likely this individual is in a position of power over that minor like a teacher

I doubt there is any evidence to support this assumption.

Or, they're an adult and this person is a minor.

You already established that by stating the ages of the parties.

adults always have the power in a relationship with a minor

That simply is not true. Being an adult gives no privilege in respect to minors except the right to vote, which is a power imbalance applied very indirectly.

Certain adults in positions of authority such as parents, teachers, police, doctors, social workers, employers, do hold power over minors, but those are privileges not inherent to adults.

People with more skills or intelligence hold power over those.who lack them but adulthood is no guarantee of those traits, nor do we ban 28 year old PhDs from banging 28 year old high school dropouts.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

16 with 18 year old is rape. Retarded. There should be room in the law for the jury to decide if the minor was taken advantage of and to what extent instead of a law that has little wiggle room.

[–]ChainsawSnuggling 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is wiggle room. Look up Romeo and Juliet laws.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean there should be more than that. Also not all states have Romeo and Juliet laws.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Age of other party should not matter. If a 16 year old can't consent to a 28 year old then she can't consent to an 18 year old or an 8 year old either.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Not true. A 16 year old should be able to consent to another person near that person's age. That would be hard to figure out otherwise, in court for example if a 16 year old has sex with a 16 year old and they are both not allowed to consent, then who gets charged? Do they both get charged?

[–]CurtisAxelmania -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes they should both be charged, for their own protection, since they are both in danger from the sex.

[–]rinkima 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why age of consent is often 15+ because it's assumed they're old enough to understand what they're agreeing to.

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Legally speaking, minors (under the age of consent) can consent, but even with consent it is still a crime.

Forcing a minor to have sex against their will = rape of a child

Having sex with a minor who consents = statutory rape

These carry very different sentences and often different sex offender designations.

Also, note that a minor can consent with someone who is close enough in age, indicating that consent is possible.

Law treating it as a crime even with consent is not the same thing as saying consent didn't exist.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

note that a minor can consent with someone who is close enough in age, indicating that consent is possible.

Minors can consent with anybody. What should be weighed is informedness and mental stability at the time in relation to the act and its risks.

You can get an std from a minor as well as an adult so I don't see why we should treat sex with I the minors as a lesser crime when it holds equal dangers.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Minors can consent. It just isn't legally valid consent. Consent is not considered legally valid if given under duress or coercion or misinformation or mental instability and consent from minors is considered some mix of the last two.

[–]DankSouls1337 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know, merely reminding everybody of the proper terminology in the current system

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In most laws even rape isn't called rape, much less statutory rape being called statutory rape. These are very much layman terminology.

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That is also often life as well, at least as a maximum term.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not at all.

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In many states the maximum term for forceful rape of a minor is life if not death (though SCOTUS bans death being applied to any case where someone didn't die).

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Which is not solely an age of consent violation but a violation of rape law in general

[–]wzil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Generally rape of a minor (not statutory rape) is treated as worse than rape of an adult, while statutory rape is treated as not as bad (in terms of punishment). That was the point of my post. Sorry if my over reliance on pronouns left that a bit unclear.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You seem to imply the court treats rape f minors and willing sex with minors differently. I dont think it does.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, yes it does. See, actual rape is a universal crime, it has no age limit, and the punishment is universal. "willing sex" is different because it exists as age of consent violation, which is a statute violation. Rape is not a statute. Go do your research.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I amnaware of the reference but while some states treat them differently I am not t convinced there is universal distinction. Particularly in places where the misnomer "statutory rape" exists. Where consented-to statutory situations are called "unlawful sex" the distinction exists but I don't believe all places do that. It seems like some don't bother to discern. I think some don't bother to assess the potential presence of consent they wikk ignore in the end.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unless you're a white male with a bright future ahead of you, you shouldn't be punished for making a dumb mistake /s

[–]SmilsumKcuf 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In Florida rape of a child under 12 is a capital felony with a mandatory life sentence attached.

[–]emberfly 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

God Florida is so fucked up

[–]mediaboy 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I would hope there is more evidence that witness testimony alone. Something tangible and physical, not words and suggestion and inferences. Memory is infamously bad. I don't know the specifics of this case, but the generalities - as always - worry me.

I feel like evidence outside of testimony should be a minimum for all cases. And yes. That means that you're going to struggle to convict someone five, ten, twenty years in the future. But at the same time, is it worse to let the guilty walk free or force the innocent to serve time for crimes they have never committed?

Testimony is not evidence. Testimony puts evidence into a context. Testimony should serve as the method through which alternate viewpoints suggest how the parts of the story that the evidence reveals are fitted together.

This said don't know what percentage of cases are decided by testimony alone however. Maybe there an inordinate amount of cases where there is nothing but hearsay to support a conviction. But then that in itself would suggest a problem.

And the current UK government said that they left innocents alone too long already. So I'm pretty sure they're going to go the other way.

[–]drippydick 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

All done on testimony and the young girls "account"

Poor guy couldn't afford a proper lawyer and the court appointed had better things to do that day. Told him to sign guilty plea and would get probation. How ducked up was ThAt? And to top it off English wasn't the guys first language and repeated cries for proper translation went unheard.

I send him money when I can. I accept his letters and write back with whatever kind words I can muster.

It's been 7 years. Innocence Project won't touch it because like everyone says it's already a lost cause considering the accusations. He's been trying over and over for a retrial, learned the English language and just trying to survive.

Cherry on top? We are in Texas.

I always, always side hug minors even my own family members after this experience. Left me really jaded with the system.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hugging minors at all, lol, not jaded enough. That is something only women can risk doing now.

Which naturally leads to women being loved more as the nurturing caregiver so that children will take their side in any dispute.

Including supporting false accusations of domestic abuse which can get women off of murder charges.

This is why nobody should date moms, you must be their complete submissive puppet or they can just kill you in cold blood.

[–]Strelock 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, you definitely don't want to be front hugging minors with a name like drippydick.

[–]Roskal 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

is it worse to let the guilty walk free or force the innocent to serve time for crimes they have never committed?

People who want to argue its worse to let the guilty walk free exaggerate how many guilty walk free with presumed innocence and say barely any innocent get wrongly convicted when presumed guilty.

[–]ThirdTurnip 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's because of this:

Cases of false claims like this are rare...

They're not.

There should be but isn't always a presumption of innocence in sexual allegation cases. Especially when it isn't the police investigating. Employers all too often conduct a sham investigation, throw the guy under the bus and that's that.

[–]paracelsus23 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd love all law that bars rape convictions without physical evidence - testimony isn't enough. It'll never happen but it'd be nice.

[–]emberfly 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Polygraphs are also notoriously unreliable. I find it hard to believe your story.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm so glad I'm out of the dating game. I'm all for women's rights too. I mean there are plenty of asshole guys out their that treat women like dog shit, cheat on them, etc. But more and more I'm hearing about this type of shit. The police, sometimes I wonder what the fuck their deal is. All a woman has to do is call them and accuse you of something and an automatic investigation? Is that how it work? God, I don't think I'm ever going to talk to a woman or a girl I don't know ever again. You want directions, you speakity sign language?

[–]drippydick 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My sentiments exactly.

[–]pwilla 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And if you get robbed and have GPS pointing to the suspect's home, they won't lift a finger.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm all for women's rights too. I mean there are plenty of asshole guys out their that treat women like dog shit, cheat on them

Depends on the statistical requirements one outs on plenty. I could say there are plenty of furryfans in America but they still probably comprise a minority of the population.

I believe that women treat men like dogshit more often than vice versa. I believe women cheat more often than men do.

If it appears different that is just because they are craftier at hiding their vices and free to complain when wronged.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree that more women treat men like dogshit than vice versa. Being a man, I know of more men cheating than women..

This sub, I like. People are actually reasonable unlike those pro whatever you are subs.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know of

You probably know more men than women.

Women would similarly know of more cheating by other women by having more observation if their intimate details.

[–]dfinkelstein 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

FYI: Polygraphs neither reliable nor valid. There is no way to know for sure if somebody is lying. Maybe someday soon with fMRIs.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why I will never date single moms. Or anyone who babysits or has younger sis <18 just too much risk. Bad enough to worry about false rape accusations from a scorned woman without that on top.

[–]Fallingdamage -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

getting life because a polygraph on a minor is inadmissable

Because teenagers are known to lie?

[–]drippydick 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Adults Aren't? It's just odd to me how in certain scenarios a lie detector is an accepted method of questioning, yet in the most crucial of moments it is dismissed as quackery.

[–]Fallingdamage 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That was my point. Somehow a minor cant be accused of lying? Is anyone a parent of a teenager here?

[–]SkeptiCynical 166 points167 points168 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

My best friend in college (a female) had 2 kids (a girl and a boy) with her ex husband. Her ex was a nasty, spineless douchebag but his mother was even worse. She would take it upon herself to drop by "to see the grandkids" at 10 or 11pm - well after they had gone to sleep. Then she'd report everything back to her son - whether she had company, if there was an extra car in the driveway, if she had a glass of wine at dinner.

As much of a cheating, unlikable asshole as he was, he didn't want his ex wife to have friends at her house and his mother shared his disdain. His mother called Child Protective Services with an anonymous tip that the boy (aged 5) was inappropriately touching the girl (aged 3) in the bathtub.

When CPS gets involved, you are guilty until proven innocent, especially with sexually based accusations. Two CPS agents and two police officers descend on the house. You don't have a choice but to let them in - if you don't, you are taken into custody pending an investigation and the children are handed to the state in the interim. The children were separated from the adults and each other, then interviewed in separate rooms. After an admittedly short investigation with no wrongdoing found, *the 5 year old boy had a sealed record of sexual predation on a minor for 2 years *.

This was a 28 year old mother of 2 beautiful kids living in a nice house in a lily-white community - so it's not as if this was happening in a crime-ridden ghetto. Any mechanism for reporting crime anonymously is easily abused for revenge or spite.

[–]notenoughroomtofitmy 101 points102 points103 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

the 5 year old boy had a sealed record of sexual predation on a minor for 2 years

the system has thoroughly failed...

[–]SkeptiCynical 62 points63 points64 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The record is expunged now. But to think that a father and grandmother would willfully put a 5 year old in this position - and that there is a system that allows this to happen - is seriously fucked.

[–]Erudite_Delirium 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The temptation then would be to raise 'anonymous concern' about 'distressing rumors', again not accusations, just 'concerns' about entire CPS departments. Of course nothing would come of them because they consider each other a protected class, and its prob one of the few times theyd do a thorough investigation of the person raising the concerns.

The sad thing is that they also wouldn't want to investigate cps because the odds of finding real abuse would be v high imo due to attracting scumbags and power-trippers and they most likely know that.

[–]because_zelda 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really hope karma finds them and beats them in the ass

[–]boredtodeathxx 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

you're not forced to let her in afaik.

[–]WilNotJr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

correct. You don't have to let DHS in at all. DHS show up with the police in an attempt to intimidate the accused into letting them in. They will also threaten to get a judge to sign an order to twice the kids if you don't cooperate and let them in.

[+]SkeptiCynical points 9 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Not forced, but it's like refusing a breathalyzer. You're presumed guilty and treated as such.

[–]boredtodeathxx 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

i meant you're not forced to let their grandmother in. especially not at those times. you can request that she comes at "more christian hours or not at all" or just leave her outside.

[–]SkeptiCynical 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd agree with you there. The house was also in hers and her son's name so until my friend bought it out from them, there was shared ownership. Regardless, there was no reason for her to be there, especially after we figured out she was only spying.

[–]boredtodeathxx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

that does change things a bit though. best of luck with that.

[–]emberfly 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Refusing the breathalyzer is always the correct choice and the only correct choice. No matter what.

[–]L3tum 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not quite rapey, but my father bought a couch for me when I was like 4-6 years old. Since it was my couch the bill was on my name (which is fine in my country afaik, if a parent is there to agree to the bill) and guess who didn't pay his credit card?

Well, after two months of writings from that company to please pay the couch (which my father always threw away without me or my mother knowing) a debt collector got involved and wanted to take away my belongings as payment. He wanted to take away the fucking plastic toys of a ~5 year old. Plus it'd be on my record (a lovely thing called "Schufa") if my mother didn't tell him to fuck off cause I'm 5.

Well, what follows is at least a little bit pleasant, cause he went to my father and absolutely raped him how he could do that to his son(me). I never heard anything of it again and afaik it isn't listed anywhere, since the company where we bought that couch also got sucked in by another company.

[–]chrisbojangles 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"I just didn't know what to do to convince people I would never do anything like that to a child"

The scary part is that there is nothing you can do when you are accused of something like this. When it is an instance of accused sexual assault someone can just make up an accusation, and your life will be turned upside down even if you are innocent.

This is why the punishment for falsely accusing someone should carry the same punishment of the accused crime.

[–]ShiningConcepts 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

remind me again, why do we live in a patriarchal rape culture that oppresses rape victims?

[–]chrisbojangles 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Short answer is we don't. We live in a society where people accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent vs innocent until proven guilty.

Once accused of rape, wether or not you are guilty, your reputation is never the same. You are always known as "that guy in the rape case".

[–]CurtisAxelmania 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. Same is unfair.

False accusations of rape should carry heavier penalties, perhaps double, than actual rape.

It is harder to live as an accused rapist than as an actual rape victim. I would be interested in seeing suicide studies in relation to this.

[–]Rethgil 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Isn't there another obvious double standard in feminism, in that they act like its no big deal if a man has to deal with once being accused of rape, yet also act like rape is the worst possible thing that can happen to a woman, ever, and that rapists (male ones) are the most evil people, ever?

Surely they have to start admitting that if you falsely accuse someone of doing something you claim is the worst possible thing, that that is a terrible and huge thing to do??

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

False accusation has to be considered rape. It's just as deplorable.

[–]ShiningConcepts 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the woman does not get pregnant or any STDs then it is unambiguously worse because it's a long-term problem.

[–]ianconspicuous 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

She should be held to the same punishment as the victim would have been if he committed a crime.

She deserves the maximum penalty he would have faced in the court of law as a man who molested a mentally disabled child.

Nothing less is acceptable.

[–]ThirdTurnip 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Such laws do exist. Eg. in Queensland (a state in Australia), falsely accusing someone of murder carries the same sentence.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s131.html

If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusation is false, I think it's completely fair to subject the false accuser to the same sentence.

[–]ianconspicuous 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's how it's done!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hi mate. I've not worked in the Qld legal system, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but s131 reads as a conspiracy offence. So at least two offenders putting their heads together to conspire against an innocent person. The law normally takes a dimmer view of those who conspire, hence the tough max penalties back when the law was made. That prosecution cannot commence under this section without the approval of the Attorney General and an arrest cannot be made without a warrant hints to me that the Queensland Police have other, fresher powers to use in cases of false allegation/statement. I googled and couldn't find a reference to a recent charge or conviction for this offence. Could be wrong and someone might be tossed into a Qld Court dock tomorrow on a charge of s131! In NSW the max penalty for what this women did is 7 years and I think we might find it is something similar up your way. In any case, it is nice to know there was a time when our law makers thought an eye for an eye was a reasonable thing in regards to sentencing crooks. Cheers.

[–]ThirdTurnip 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good point - I've got my facts straight but wrong section of the criminal code there. Sorry about that.

Perjury is what we're after.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s123.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s124.html

[–]JordMcFar 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How do you falsely accuse someone of murder? Would it be in a case that was deemed to be manslaughter of something?

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People can be framed for crimes they don't commit. Including murder.

X goes missing. Someone comes forward and falsely claims "I saw X put an axe in missing person's head."

I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted under this law though. It might be one of those laws which exist on paper but are never enforced.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It isn't fair. The sentence should be higher. Double is simplest.

Even with murder where an exonerated (due to person bsng alive) accused is socially unoersecuted, a difference exists that in concocting a crime intended for persecution, someone framing for murder is intentionaly burdening the legal system.

At least real murderers usually try to cover it up and hide the body, to have it written off as runaway or something. Or confess to it and minimize bereaucratic strain.

Framers are trying to get someone jailed which aside from trial also burdens society with the expense of supporting the convict. Real murderers don't necessarily do that, so they should be punished less.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree about nothing less but disagree with same.

In addition tonany sentencing, men accused ( much less charged or convicted) of sex crimes face social penalties women will never suffer.

Due to that, for true fairness she should have double the penalties.

She should also have to work in prison to be able to eat, otherwise let her starve.

[–]MooseFlyer -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

No, she fucking shouldn't. Her actions are reprehensible, but they are not as reprehensible as raping a child.

[–]ianconspicuous 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So trying to take someone else's life by putting them in prison (for something that if you go to prison for, you most likely wont survive), destroying their reputation, causing them irreversible stress and mental issues, destroying his families lives and loved ones, and then if he makes it out his life is still shambles of what it should be since he's on a list, can't get a job, can't find anywhere to live or anyone to love him, etc.

And this woman WANTED that so bad to the point she made false accusations to the police to make it happen.

She deserves every bit the same punishment he would have received under the court of law.

[–]kiinalainen 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it would be fair, you try to frame an innocent person for a crime with punishment x, if you get caught you get punisment x.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are wrong. That is unfair. Getting 2x is closer to fair.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's not about how reprehensible the act is but deterring people from trying to frame others.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Upvoted for discussion.

The thing is, her false accusation translates to more children getting molested/raped while the police and authorities waste their time investigating her bullshit. On top of this, she stigmatizes victims of rape/molestation, including children, by obscuring the statistical reality of rape with false reports.

So in a way, her actions kind of are that reprehensible.

[–]ThirdTurnip 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It absolutely is. Though he wasn't falsely accused of rape. He was falsely accused of grope.

Doing anything like that to a child is abhorrent. So imagine you're falsely accused of it. Put in the position of having to defend yourself against that accusation. Somehow.

What? You've never molested a child? Prove it.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We should preemptively cut off our hands and film it as proof we could not have groped a female at any date afterward. It is the only way.

[–]Choice77777 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Are you a feminist?

[–]MooseFlyer -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I would call myself one, but I believe in equality, think there are plenty of issues with how lots of feminists ignore anything bad happening to men, and believe that a commitment to equality does necessitate trying to solve issues like the higher rates of male suicide.

[–]annul 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I would call myself one, but I believe in equality,

these are contradictory

[–]Choice77777 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well i think the "but" implies that she realises there's a problem with current feminism.

[+]faithle55 -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

She should be held to the same punishment as the victim would have been if he committed a crime.

That's ridiculous.

[–]alclarkey 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why?

[–]ianconspicuous 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Why so? This woman went out of her way to make a plan to destroy a persons life FOREVER. She then put the plan in action, getting the police involved, wasting tax payer money and police officers time, to try to have an innocent man in prison, and piratically taking his life. If she has the want and warrant to take someone else's life due to whatever reasons she feels, she should in turn have to give hers in the manor she tries to take from others.

Not to mention she has a history of getting the police involved with false accusations on multiple people, this woman is a threat to society.

[–]BitcoinBoo 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

if you read the article you would see that the police said she had a long history of similar claims. Time for a consequence to fit the crime.

[–]baskandpurr 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The sentence should relate to the harm the crime does, no? The fact that she didn't get away with the crime doesn't change the harm it wouldn't have done. People don't get a lighter sentence because they got caught after robbing a bank.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Apparently you have a different opinion on her punishment than a lot of the other people in this thread. Maybe you should just take your opinion somewhere else, because nothing you're saying is helping your argument. Or perhaps you could propose an alternative punishment, rather than just disagreeing with everyone.

[–]faithle55 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a public forum, isn't it?

Or perhaps it's a gathering of snowflakes?

[–]Mon_arch 531 points532 points533 points 9 years ago* (110 children) | Copy Link

There is jail time but it is suspended for two years. At the bottom of the article it lists the full sentence. Which includes 200 hours community service, and 11 months weeks of jail time, along with being tagged and having to pay the guy some money.

Title is sensationalist.

It says nothing about the depth of the investigation or what happened to the guy in the article. So without knowing what he went through we can't say whether or not this was adequate punishment.

The article does state she has a history of falsely calling the police.

EDIT: Fixed a snafu with literacy

[–]mrmcdude 218 points219 points220 points 9 years ago* (52 children) | Copy Link

The sentence is barely even a slap on the wrist given the severity of her crime.

edit: your post seems to have confused a lot of people. The woman's sentence is 11 weeks not 11 months. It is suspended for 2 years, and if she doesn't get in to trouble in that span she will very likely serve no time

[–]paracelsus23 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

When there is proof someone lied to put someone else in jail, they should get the sentence the innocent person they we're trying to frame would have gotten.

[–]wzil 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And in the same prison he would've been sent.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The problem there is with variable sentencing you could only guarantee equality if someone is already sentenced. Otherwise the minimum sentence would always be chosen even if a man woukdnhave gotten sentenced higher.

Instead the policy should be double the maximum sentence of the crime.

[–]paracelsus23 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd agree with that. There was already an element of compromise built into my original idea.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As open as I am to compromise, we will get that anyway by people taking a middle path between what is now and what is advocated so we may as well bid high and be idealists.

[–]Mon_arch 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fixed

[–]faithle55 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for your opinion. Official sentencing guidelines suggest otherwise.

If redditors and internet commentators were in charge of sentencing, it would be several months prison for the most trivial offences, life sentence for being mean to your neighbours, death sentence for any offence which leads to serious injury or death no matter what the circumstances.

Thank goodness other people are in charge.

[–]32BitWhore 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

The article even says she's done it in the past, yes she continues to get away with it. What's to stop her from doing it again and actually ruining someone's life if all she gets is 200 hours of picking up trash on the highway and zero jail time? Punishment is meant to deter you from committing a crime. She deserves worse than she got. Also, this sub isn't about what the punishment is, it's about what the punishment should be for trying to have someone falsely arrested, jailed, put on a sex offender list, lose their job, home, and future all because of what, maybe they had a disagreement one time?

If you want to talk about inappropriate sentences that Reddit likes to dole out, how about asking this woman if she thought all of those things were an appropriate sentence for this guy who probably never did so much as get into a slight argument with her.

[–]MJGUHD 70 points71 points72 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Official sentencing guidelines suggest otherwise

That's the whole point of this subreddit/movement?

[–]bcrabill 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Mmmm, pretty good point actually.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

muh hyperbolic strawman tho

[–]mrmcdude 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I don't think a fine and community service and 11 weeks she doesn't have to actually serve is enough. You keep showing those strawmen who's boss though

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If redditors and internet commentators were in charge of sentencing, it would be several months prison for the most trivial offences, life sentence for being mean to your neighbours, ...

you forgot castration with pliers for failing to make an woman feel good about herself for a few seconds.

[–]_Bubba_Ho-Tep_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But media piracy would be ok.

[–]faithle55 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And this week's Non-sequitur Award goes to....

[–]_Bubba_Ho-Tep_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It isn't at all.

Reddit wants blood for the smallest of crimes but has no issue with stealing media.

[–]faithle55 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no such thing as 'reddit', in that sense. It's millions of people. At any given time they don't all agree on anything.

But apart from that, it was a non-sequitur. You could have made it not a non-sequitur, but you didn't.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't matter. Salty feminists from around the world, streaming in from /r/all, will cling to this as their only rebuttal. Because that's what they do, any thin reed at all.

[–]Mon_arch 51 points52 points53 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Full sentencing

" Last week Boll, of Woodstock Road, Forest Gate, East London admitted malicious communication and was sentenced to 11 weeks prison suspended for two years.

She was tagged and given an overnight curfew for a month as well as a 12 month supervision order.

Boll was also given 200 hours community service and ordered to pay costs and compensation to her victim."

Copied straight out of the article

[–]ThogOfWar 86 points87 points88 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

While she was sentenced to 11 weeks prison, it's been suspended two years.

Meaning, depending on the judges discretion, as long as she finishes the community service and restitution to the victim, she may serve no prison time for her crime of trying to ruin the life and livelihood of a person.

[–][deleted] 68 points69 points70 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And this for a repeat offender. That she called off most of her previous attempts shouldn't change the fact this is an established m.o. for her.

[–]coltninja 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

FWIW, that "malicious communication" law would likely violate the 1st amendment in the US. The traditional remedy for something like this was always a civil penalty. The UK doesn't have the same protections on speech so the MCA statute says it is unlawful to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety." Well, that's textbook intentional inflection of emotional distress. The legal theory is that she's taken something from him and will be required by law to make him whole. In a capitalist society that means putting a monetary value on it. She'd have to cross more lines here to bridge the gap into harassment or stalking, which is incredibly difficult to prove. In other words, there are a lot of ways people can "try to ruin the life and livelihood of a person" that are torts, rather than crimes.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Justice should try to repair communities not imprison them.

[–]Jah_Ith_Ber 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That would be great but until women are held to the same standard men are nobody is going to be interested enough to question whether our sentencing is appropriate.

[–]Loki_d20 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If only that was equally held as the standard for men who commit the same crimes.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am all for indentured servitude as an alternate punishment but that doesn't seem popular.

[–]SkeptiCynical 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Title isn't sensationalist, it's accurate. Being an educator falsely accused of sexual impropriety is a potential career-ender.

Suspended sentence != jail time, it is dismissed at the end of probation if the defendant avoids arrest during the suspension.

[–]Mon_arch -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I realized that I misread 11 weeks as 11 months.

Like I said in my original we do not know the severity of the investigation.

There is a very large difference between two cops showing up and asking questions and her admitting to it immediately, and something on a grander scale with more suffering and pain on his part.

So that is a key bit of information before we start dusting off the pitchforks

[–]Naked-On-TheInternet 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Would you mind editing you original comment to reflect that it is 11 weeks? Just to avoid possible misinformation.

[–]Mon_arch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cock-up corrected

[–]baskandpurr 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm more interested in why she did it but the article says nothing. This is not the sort of thing somebody does for shits and giggles. It doesn't sound like she had any reason to think he actually did something so what was this about?

Looking at another article I found this:

Investigators discovered she had made numerous formal complaints to police against employees of organisations and businesses in recent years – many of which she later withdrew after claiming she had them resolved privately.

Is she an attention seeker or trying to get a payout for something?

[–]macgarthur 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Might have just been looking for a payout and went too far. Who knows what the reasons were but she definitely had some.

[–]ThirdTurnip 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is she an attention seeker or trying to get a payout for something?

Something like that.

She almost certainly belongs in the borderline personality disorder category of false accusers.

They like attention and especially sympathy. They like wielding power over others. False accusations give them plenty of both.

[–]faithle55 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

She's ill.

[–]baskandpurr 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sadly, that's the only reason I can see that makes sense. She wouldn't get attention or a payout by reporting this person anonymously. Perhaps she had chosen to hold some kind of grudge against him but the leap from a grudge to what she did seems like something only a mentally damaged person would make.

[–]Jah_Ith_Ber 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe she's one of those people who thinks "a man who works with children must, like, totally be a pedophile, ...I bet."

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You two don't appear to weigh the possibility this is something she may do to people who slight her or to remove career rivals or critics.

[–]baskandpurr 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That had occurred to me. Perhaps she was in some way jealous of how much the children liked this man and saw an easy way to be rid of competition? No idea if that fits into her history of complaints. Maybe she thinks that any man who works with children must be a paedophile but that also doesn't relate to the history of complaints.

[–]faithle55 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What tipped me off was that she's been doing this for some time. Seems like obsessive behaviour.

[–]Choice77777 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh wait... She needs medical help now? She's a victim herself, isn't she... Poor thing...

[–]faithle55 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Could be.

But that's not what I said, is it?

[–]Choice77777 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So why say it? Nobody cares if she's I'll.. She's probably fake that too.. The only think there is to know about here is that she should do a couple of years minimum inside.

[–]faithle55 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck off.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So?

[–]Choice77777 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She did it cause she's a cunt and thinks it's her god given feminist right to shit on men without repercussions.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

11 weeks, not months.

[–]Mon_arch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shit , glad I posted the full sentence below my post. That does change some of my argument.

[–]BitcoinBoo 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

yeah but she had a history of doing it like 5 times. She has OBVIOUSLY not learned her lesson. Consequences are there for a reason...to teach.

[–]TheAmosBrothers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An extra bit of context. The incarceration rate in the United States is 4.75 higher than England and Wales. It would seem that that jail times for comparable crimes would have to be much lower in England and Wales.

[–]chillmonkey88 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The title is incorrect... not sensationalist.

[–]mrmcdude 779 points780 points781 points 9 years ago (244 children) | Copy Link

I found out that an anonymous call had been made to Childline naming me as a paedophile, in that I had groped the breast of a student.

Hmm... let's set up a system where you can accuse somebody of a serious crime completely anonymously. What could go wrong?

[–]andysaurus_rex 1273 points1274 points1275 points 9 years ago (211 children) | Copy Link

No I'm sorry but all crimes should be able to be reported anonymously. There should be no deterrent for people to report a crime. The real issue is lack of investigation. Let's focus on the real issue and not the one that jeopardizes crime reporting.

[–]mrmcdude 78 points79 points80 points 9 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

The right to face your accuser is there for a reason. It is exceedingly hard to defend yourself if you don't know who is accusing you. Anonymous accusations are loaded with the potential for abuse. Someone can call your anonymous line, and now there are police showing up at your workplace and your house asking questions about your behavior around kids. And God forbid you have children of your own, I can't imagine they would let you around them if you are under investigation. So now your coworkers and family know what you have been accused of, and you may never know who did it. It is allowing the police to be used as a consequence-free tool of harassment. They were lucky they caught the woman in this case.

[–]peppaz 332 points333 points334 points 9 years ago* (94 children) | Copy Link

While I agree with that, how would you feel if I anonymously accused you of being a pedophile, dragging you through an arrest, jailtime, all before a costly trial? You'd lose your job and who knows what else, for nothing. The accuser gets minimal criminal repercussions (no prison in this case).

[–]SpeedflyChris 73 points74 points75 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

While I agree with that, how would you feel if I anonymously accused you of being a pedophile, dragging you through an arrest, jailtime, all before a costly trial?

The solution there is that an anonymous accusation on its own should not be grounds for anything more than perhaps an interview under caution.

[–]Swineflew1 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea, there's quite the leap from an anonymous tip to arrest.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps part of the problem is cops are not usually penalized for being tactful. They can get a kick out disrupting a man's life since they are just "following up leads".

Funny the names ofnken make it into newspapers before conviction, maybe even before charges get pressed, in these situations.

[–]L3SSTH4NTHR33 147 points148 points149 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Good point. It's hard to fix the system to prevent this kind of abuse, and this wouldn't fix everything, but I think that in these cases, it might be better if the name of the defendent shouldn't be released unless they are found guilty.

[–]Downvotesohoy 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Or even better, don't arrest someone at all unless you have more evidence than an anonymous report.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This is what needs to be changed. The stigma that certain charges have behind them. Innocent until proven guilty should mean just that across the entire board. Just like in the campus rape laws where a student can be accused and expelled from an institution before a judicial trial has even began. A person even slightly associated with pedophilia or molestation will be seen guilty by society regardless of what the justice system eventually decides. And the penalties for false accusations should carry the same weight as the crimes being accused.

[–]vakeraj 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's only one solution for this, you know:

we must systematically accuse everyone of pedophilia.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anonymously though, because a man accusing a woman if pedophilia will be the first to be targeted as being one while endowing that woman with immunity from accusation the ret of her life.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Greater weight. To account in the unaccountable penalties a accused suffer which accusers never will.

10 years of

"what are you in for?"

"They said I raped my daughter. I an innocent"

Is not in any way the same as 10 years of:

"What are you in for?"

"I said my husband raped not daughter and they said I lied. I am innocent"

Which decade is more dangerous to live? Which will make it harder to get jobs or socialize or live without rearm when you are free?

In recognition of these intangibles the penalty should be at least double the maximum sentence of the crime you lied about.

[–]Plasmabat 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS

THIS If police get a tip about a crime, they need to investigate further. An anonymous tip is not grounds for arresting someone. Also, I think that when the media reports on rapes or pedophilia before the accused is charged with a crime, and the accused goes free, the media should be forced to pay for any lost wages because businesses didn't want to be associated with someone that the general public thinks is a rapist or pedophile, and this goes on indefinitely. Also, if the accused is found not guilty, the person accusing him of rape or child rape should go to prison for just as long as he would have had he been convicted. This is the whole reason swatting is so prevalent, because you can anonymously call in a bomb threat or a hostage situation.

If you want to report a bomb threat you need to give your full name and address, otherwise you can't be prosecuted and fined for being a lying cunt.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not just as long..LONGER.

[+]FowD9 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (23 children) | Copy Link

if the name of the defendent shouldn't be released unless they are found guilty.

sorry but that straight up goes against our constitution, you have the right to face your accuser for a reason

[–]osborn135 154 points155 points156 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

He said the defendant shouldn't be named, not the accuser. Also, he probably meant released to the media.

[–]itsthewedding 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I remember reading in the past that there is a reason this is done so people can't just be arrested and disappear, there is a paper trail of what has happened to them.

[–]AdvocateForTulkas 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In most situations that people are upset about the way things are legally there's kind of a rabbit hole that's fairly obvious.

"This isn't right!"

"Okay well if we change that to what you'd like here are 4 other ways the law is now horrifically not right."

At the end of the day there's no perfect system as long as someone's being an asshole.

Not that we shouldn't try, but some folks seem to thing certain laws are outright moronic in their intention.

[+]mainman879 points 9 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

So keep that paper trail private and only in the police databases?

[–]Kayakingtheredriver 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not how it works. The way our laws and Constitution are set up, if you release the information you have to release it where everyone can get the information. Your family, the media, the retired lawyer down the street has to be able to get that information through public record to be able to protect you from being disappeared. If it's private like you suggest, that's what allows the government tyranny to make you disappear. What there needs to be, is a similar agreement amongst the media not to report on people accused. Just like they don't report on the victims. But the idea that the government be the gatekeeper on who gets information is exactly how government tyranny takes root

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We should legally mandate that if press report one they must report th other or face criminal penalties.

If press want to shown discretion with victims fine, they must show it with accused too.

[–]itsthewedding 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean I agree someone's life can be destroyed over an accusation just that you are relying on the police being 100% reputable all the time which doesn't always occur. The reason the information is released to the media is so they can hold everyone else accountable. It is also how we find out about people who are in prison indefinitely just because they never had a court appearance and were just forgotten. It is more on the media to hopefully one day realize that accusations can be made with no proof or legitimacy. Kinda like how bad the Duke Lacrosse team situation blew out of proportion.

[–]zuluhotel 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So... Secret police?

[–]Ergheis 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can I just say, I respect /r/mensrights for having this discussion straight up. It's complicated as all hell even without everyone accusing others of the craziest shit. Trying to balance between the tyranny of a misinformed mob and the tyranny of a corrupt government is where most of our real problems lay.

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

sorry but that straight up goes against our constitution

The story is from the UK...

[–]Swayze_Train -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Where people have no moral backbone or expectation of decency?

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, where "our constitution" doesn't have any relevance.

[–]Swayze_Train -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

And you don't have to judge your policies based on...moral backbone and expectation of decency?

"That's just how we do things round here" is the sole basis of your system?

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What are you rambling on about? He mentioned the constitution, I pointed out that this story is from a country that doesn't use one.

[–]pottomus 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No it's not. The defendant doesn't accuse anything. The defendant is the person answering to the charges set forth by the prosecutor based on the claims of the accuser.

[–]Buttermynuts 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The UK constitution?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whoosh

[–]ladayen 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In the case of children, the mentally infirm and a small handful of other situations the accuser is the government itself. So you'd face a government representative.

In most cases you're right you cant report anonymously because the victim(accuser) has to testify.

[–]zuluhotel 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's how you get secret police. It's a tricky issue, with no perfect solution. At least none I can think of.

[–]triplehelix_ 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it would need to be limited to specific accusations and have ironclad guidelines. requiring the identity of the accused to be known is a specific protection put in place to make sure the government can't just "disappear" people.

[–]Sciencetor2 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd say your identity should be stored, but not accessible unless it is found that accusations were both false AND malicious

[–]Delphizer 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Anon tip without any evidence wouldn't be grounds for arrest.

[–]bufedad 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anon tip without any evidence wouldn't shouldn't be grounds for arrest.

FTFY

[–]SkeptiCynical 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's enough for the police to stop, detain and search you or your vehicle and home. Falsely placing someone in that defensive position should be a felony.

[–]scyth3s 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Falsely and knowingly placing someone in that defensive position should be a felony.

Fixed. This fear shouldn't stop you from, say, reporting a bomb threat if you think you saw a bomb, just because it turns out you were wrong.

[–]SkeptiCynical 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Correct, "intent" vs negligence or ignorance. I'm sure someone in this thread will point out where exactly a misdeed becomes criminal.

[–]Qapiojg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What you're talking about is mens rhea, which in criminal cases can be substituted with negligence.

[–]blfire 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

dragging you through an arrest, jailtime, all before a costly trial?

Thats the problem not the anonymously accusation.

[–]Oreo_line 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

None of that happened though. If you read the article, they investigated the claim and arrested her for the false claim. They don't just arrest you on a random tip.

[–]peppaz 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This was in the UK, but arrests from false accusations happen in the US all the time.

Being anonymous doesn't change that fact, just makes it easier for the accuser to hide their identify before a trial.

[–]SirAdrian0000 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My wife is a teacher and some of the horror stories of false accusations ending careers is mind boggling. As a teacher in a small town, one kid pissed off at you for any reason can put you through so much bullshit. Even someone completely innocent can have their name dragged through the mud, lose their job/ career. Imagine if you went to university for 4 or 6 years, owed 80 grand in student loans then lost your job and any hope of getting a job related to your degree ever again.

[–]Qapiojg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a kid from a small town, one teacher pissed off at you for any reason can put you through so much bullshit.

[–]SkeptiCynical 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

When the police decide "reasonable cause" has been presented, you are taken into custody. "Reasonable cause" means anything remotely believable that an individual has committed some sort of crime - and this can simply be a person's verbal accusation. "Taken into custody" means placed in handcuffs, removed from your home / workplace / social event, and driven away in a police car in front of your friends, family and coworkers.

You can even have your house invaded by armed police on an anonymous tip. The male teacher in this story is lucky he seemed to be in better standing with his school than the fake accuser was. Had he been new on the job, his career might already be over.

[–]Oreo_line -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Swatting happens because people call in saying they are an immediate harm to themselves or others. That is completely different than this case. Yes the women is a crazy bitch for doing this but how this was handled by the police seems perfectly okay. They didn't take him into custody or at least it doesn't mention it in the article. They caught her. She has to do a punishment which in like 2 weeks in prison, fines and community service. She also has to pay the guy for damages. I would like to think this is how all of us would like this to be handled if it happened to us.

[–]scyth3s 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Jail time. Anyone who knowingly and willingly submits fraudulent accusations should face whatever penalties the victim of the accusation may have suffered. Jail time is the only powerful deterrent to false accusations, as evidenced by this woman who knew she could get off easy, and many before her.

Note: lack of physical evidence is not evidence of knowingly and willingly committing fraud. The standard of evidence must be met on that end, too.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Double the penalties until we can replicate the social ostracization.

[–]SkeptiCynical 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This call didn't result in armed SWAT at the guy's doorstep but it illustrates a giant problem with anonymous reporting.

Malicious, anonymous reporting allows vindictive, calculating psychopaths (this is an accurate usage of the word) to wield real world threats of police and legal action against innocent people.

This isn't just a "crazy bitch". She intended to ruin this man's life. She did not serve any actual jail time, she was given a suspended sentence. Paying the man's legal costs doesn't mean anything, she incurred these costs by her own illegal actions.

[+]cypherreddit points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

note they only arrested her for the false claim when she admitted to making it.

She could have said nothing and the guy would have been under a microscope for the rest of his life

[–]Oreo_line -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think just came to the police and said I did it. She has prior incidents that were similar. She probably confessed so she could get a light sentence like the one they gave her. Which is 2 weeks of actual jail time, fines and community service.

[–]Yivoe 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Does it explain how they found it was her if her tip was anonymous?

[–]Oreo_line -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No but I'm sure it's pretty simple. The police question him and his peers. They all say good things about him. He helps kids with disabilities so they probably think he's a pretty good guy. No evidence of what he's accused of so they ask him if he knows anyone that would accuse him of the crime. He probably mentions a couple names because every work place has people you trust less. I'm sure crazy lady is on that list because she's crazy and has done this kind of thing before. They investigate her. Ask her if she did it or say they might get her phone records. Probably confesses to get a lighter punishment.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In some many states, the accuser has to come forward during trial and be cross examined. Even if it was reported 'anonymously'. It's the confrontation clause.

[–]firelock_ny 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Which the prosecutor gets around by threatening the accused with reputation-destroying public trial and serious risk of long jail time as a convicted pedophile unless the accused agrees to plead guilty to a lesser offence.

[–]peppaz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that is after the arrest and time spent in jail before a trial

[–]SkeptiCynical 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the right answer - there should be private, protected and accountable systems of reporting sensitive crimes, but not anonymous. There is a huge difference.

[–]dusters 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just because someone makes an anonymous accusation doesn't mean you will be arrested.

[–]peppaz -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never claimed that. I don't have an issue with anonymous reporting of crimes, I have an issue when arrests are made based on anonymous tips without investigation, which has happened in the US. Since this happened in the UK, the teachers name was not made public nor was the record of arrest, if there was one.

[–]MB0810[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Ok. I do hear what you are saying, but Childline is an anonymous listening service for children. It is important resource for children and young people. That she used it in this way is vile, but her crimes shouldn't be held against Childline or the volunteer who passed on the information.

[–]Halafax 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That she used it in this way is vile, but her crimes shouldn't be held against Childline or the volunteer who passed on the information.

She got a very light sentence. And the service she used is intentionally vulnerable to abuse like this, to make it as accessible as possible.

It seems like the penalty for abusing the service should be higher, or the service should be less subject to manipulation. Leaving things like this is an invitation to manipulative people.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why can't Childline record the number the calk came from and pass it on to authorities?

[–]MB0810[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The only record of the call is what the volunteer enters into the system; which is information given by the child. There is no caller id or identifying information recorded. It's to give power of disclosure to the child. They decide when to move to the next step of getting social work/guards involved.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In that case how did they figure out she faked the call? Confusing.

I would say "information given by the caller" since adult role players call this number too.

[–]MB0810[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that's a more accurate description.

[–]trey3rd 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why was there an arrest with no investigating?

[–]KayakBassFisher 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. We are a country of "innocent until proven guilty" unless it is an accusation of pedophilia, then its "guilty for life upon accusation". There shouldn't be an arrest on an accusation. Search warrant for the house and vehicle? Sure. Checking out internet activity? Sure. But once you're arrested for that, there is no innocence, you're just guilty. You'll never get a job again, you'll never borrow money again. Its done.

[–]Duthos 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just had a girl do something similar, completely lie in an attempt to get me charged, was able to prove to the officers (who DID arrest me and bring me to the station to make a statement) she was the aggressor who had actually attacked ME, and was demonstrably lying simply out of vindictiveness.

Good news? No charges were filed o recommended. Bad news? I was hauled out of my home, put through the entire dehumanizing brought to jail so we are gonna take your belt, shirt, and glasses while we 'talk', and had two hours taken from my life on nothing more than the lies of a girl. And after I proved it? She will not face repercussions for her attempt to ruin me.

[–]peppaz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You could and should sue her for damages in civil court, you can find a lawyer that will take it pro bono since she filed false charges against you in which the charges were dropped. If not, shit it a paper bag and staple it to her door.

[–]oldtobes 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean there wasn't a lack of investigation on this one. They did investigate and found that it was a false report.

[–]WreckweeM 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Your comment doesn't make sense: it only supports andysaurus' comment. The issue is not that you can report anonymous. It's that the accused will be arrested and might see jailtime without proper investigation. If that happened to me, I'd be very upset, not because of the anonymous tip, but because of the lack of proper investigation before my life blows up.

[–]peppaz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't have an issue with anonymous reporting of crimes, I have an issue with arrests based on anonymous tips, which is common in the US.

https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/12/20/the-dark-side-of-crime-stoppers-false-information-and-police-tunnel-vision/

[–]WreckweeM -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes. I'm still confused. You said "I agree, but..." as if you were going to follow up with some counter-logic, but then you only bolstered your claim.

Nevermind.

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He's perfectly clear.

He is in favor of anonymous tips. He is not in favor of shotgunning people to jail off of anonymous tips.

They should be able to start an investigation, but should never be a key piece. I don't see what you agent getting.

[–]WreckweeM 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is what the poster above him said. Saying "I agree, but" implies there was some part he didn't agree with.

[–]Shabozz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]natty1212 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, in America, you have the right to face your accuser. And that is how it should be.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

What you are saying is it's OK as long as most of the people using the system are using it for legitimate reasons. How would you feel if your father or son was the innocent person looking down the barrel of a 10-20 year prison sentence only because some douche-bag cunt felt it was funny? Any system that can be taken advantage of that literally ruins peoples lives needs to be removed.

[–]zacbakpak 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Anonymous help lines for child abuse are an incredibly important tool for helping people who have undergone abuse to come forward. I think most people agree that the nuance of investigation could and should be done better to attempt to protect those wrongly accused, but surely you can see how important it is for people to feel they can step forward and talk about potentially traumatic experiences that they have undergone. Abuse is incredibly ingrained and can be almost impossible for people to talk about, any way that makes it easier is a good thing.

[–]jerk40 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's why they investigate the tip first before making any arrests.

[–]seriouslees 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

A public investigation into whether or not you're a child rapist... yeah, everything will be just fine for you after that happens.

[–]Swayze_Train 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"I have called this press conference today to inform the public that Ronald J. Miller of 806 W. Birch st. is not yet proven to be a child diddling pedo and that the public shouldn't start throwing rocks at him until we are finished getting to the bottom of what a sicko he is.

Or isn't, maybe, I dunno."

[–]Testiculese 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't need a press conference, the media does that themselves without being prompted.

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So what's the alternative here, kids have to openly accuse their abusers? Can you not see why that's an issue?

[–]seriouslees 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No? Can you explain the issue please? Are you suggesting that abused children don't already have to make an accusation in order to start an investigation? They go to the authorities, make an accusation, and it's investigated. The only problem with that is that it's public.

Keep the investigation private, so that nobody in the public sphere knows it's underway, and the issue is resolved. There's a reason we have slander and libel laws, they ruin lives. There's no reason not to hold investigators to the same standard and assure all innocent parties not have their reputations tarnished until proven guilty in a court of law. Even people who've actually been arrested shouldn't have the charges published until proven guilty either. There's no benefit to the public to know the charges until they've been proven true. It's enough that the arrests are public so the government can't "disappear" people. Trials can even remain public, so long as there's non-disclosure agreement style gag orders in place until guilt is proven. Again, there's no benefit to the public at large to known charges that are unproven. All it allows is punishment in the court of public opinion.

TLDR We can't allow any and every accusation laid to be fully public, as that is tantamount to slander/libel. Guilt must be proven before publication is allowed.

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Any system that can be taken advantage of that literally ruins peoples lives needs to be removed.

What if she reported that he raped her? Should we remove the ability for women to report rapes as well?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What if? What if? What if?

Law enforcement exists for a reason. They could have just as easily reported to the authorities. But instead she abused a system for the sole purpose of ruining a mans life. She did it because she felt she could get away with it. This is not a what if scenario.

Now you can stop arguing semantics and go back to your pathetic life.

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Law enforcement exists for a reason. They could have just as easily reported to the authorities.

Yes, she abused a system. That doesn't mean we should dismantle an entire system which has a proven track record of helping children.

Now you can stop arguing semantics and go back to your pathetic life.

Lmao how are you this upset?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Upset? ROFL. Far from it. I simply enjoy putting you imbeciles in your place.

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You've not put anybody in their place, it's just you and a bunch of other weird MRAs yelling about how a proven charity which helps children is in the wrong because a woman misused it.

Honestly maybe I am an imbecile for trying to actually have a discussion with rabid MRA incels. My mistake.

[–]StupidHumanSuit 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The accused has the right to know the identity of the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty. It should be illegal to fire someone based on an accusation,but at-will employment kinda ruins that.

[–]kitnbiskit 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are a fucking retard.

How can a rape be reported anonymously?

"Somebody said you raped them...We don't know who. But can you please prove to us that you didnt rape somebody?"

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are speaking as if a rape accusation has to come from the alleged victim.

In a custody dispute one parent can anonymously report they saw the other parent stick their hand down the front of their child's pants in a park.

Or a neighbour could do it because they dislike the smell of barbecue.

[–]Nevermind04 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I 100% disagree. People are simply too shitty for a system like that to work. If you want the accused to be accountable, you must also expect to be accountable for your accusations.

[–]neightdog 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you have a right to face your accuser.

being able to lie anonymously about anyone leads to crime reporting being jeapordized, exactly as we see in this story.

[–]Sartyrh 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are a fool.

One of the most basic tenants of law is the right to face your accuser.

Allowing crimes to be reported and prosecuted anonymously is antithetical to the entire history of legal precedent.

[–]StrawRedditor 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's retarded. Giving your name to the police is not a deterrent. It's about accountability

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

For an abused child, which childline is designed for, it is.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Being able to be anonymously falsely accused is a deterrent for me to go out and collect my mail from a community box if there are children playing by it. Which deterrent wins?

[–]FeierInMeinHose 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I disagree, the name and information should be taken and verified but not released because otherwise you are incentivizing false reporting through shielding them with anonymity. If you report someone for a crime and it's found that not only is there no evidence of it taking place, but there is also evidence showing that it did not take place then you should face some sort of punishment for it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why my girlfriend was held at gunpoint on the freeway because some anonymous driver was pissed that her driver cut them off and called in that they were brandishing weapons. End result - 4 17 year olds held at gunpoint by law enforcement at night while the accuser drives off.

[–]Grasshopper21 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I completely disagree. I have a constitutional right to face my accuser and people have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted with the power to anonymously destroy another person's life. People are petty and vindictive and shouldn't be able to even attempt to influence another's life without coming forward and putting their own face out there.

[–]CRISPR 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reported to police, not reported to the prress

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You say that until it happens to you.

If you were accused of something like this and your life ruined I doubt you would have the same position.

[–]smithsp86 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

[–]by_myself 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure how that holds up, there are lots of strange exceptions that seem to be made for women and children reporting abuse. I can understand protecting children, but if women want equality they cannot shed equal responsibility.

[–]danBiceps 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How would there be a deterrent if only the police know your info?

[–]KyleGG 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why does it matter if the police know who you are?

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It gives them grounds to stomp in your life and plant seeds in peoples minds. Access to your home to plant evidence.

[–]Kalkaline 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Can't the anonymity go both ways? Accuser stays anonymous but so does the accused.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That should be mandatory. That way ChildLine can given advice but not be a crime reporting service.

They can inform kids of how to r3port the crime but they should have to do that directly not using CL as an intermediate.

CL is obviously deceiving children by reporting if acting under the pretense of protecting their privacy.

Now that newspapers are reporting in this it will disincentivize actuK victims from using the service.

This means the majority of reports from CL will be fake ones.

Actual victims will not identify perpetrators the CL, knowing they cannot be trusted, or identify perpetrators to policsndirectly if they are willing to ID them.

CL reports are heretofore going to be primarily fakes or the ill-informed who cannot be trusted to make accurate statements.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand, why should all crimes be able to be reported anonymously?

[–]by_myself 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know about the USA, but one place I lived in Canada had an Crime Stoppers or similar program where you could report a crime anonymously, and if it resulted in a successful arrest or charges being laid you could also get an anonymous cash reward for it.

The way it would work is that when you called in with a tip you were given a reference number. Assuming things went the way of a successful arrest and charges being pressed, you could go into a participating local store with your reference number and get a cash reward.

[–]boredtodeathxx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it should be anonymous towards the person you're reporting, not towards those investigating.

[–]howescj82 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sort of... anonymous tip lines are one thing but unless a person is formally charged with a crime (where they have a right by law to face their accuser) then NO information should be made public.

This sort of thing needs to be watched over closely to prevent it from being used as a way to destroy people's lives via anonymous accusations.

[–]Testiculese 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Completely anonymous to the accused until court time, sure. Not to the authorities, though.

[–]NorthernSpectre 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, the information should be relayed to the police, the police should look into it and if they can't find anything, then leave it.

[–]Supernova141 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know what you define as anonymous but I would definitely want to know that if someone knowingly falsely accused me of a crime they would get punished.

There's a reason you have to testify publicly in court

[–]WTPanda 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Going to have go even deeper and say that anonymous reporting and lack of investigation are not the real issues. The lack of appropriate punishment for lying about crimes, especially rape/pedophilia/domestic abuse, is the true issue.

If liars were punished appropriately, false accusations would become nearly non-existent.

[–]JustWoozy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I have the right to know who is accusing me, I have the right to hear them say it to my face. Liars often have more trouble lying about/to people about them while standing infront of said person.

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right to face the accuser is only in court. This case never went to court, there was just an investigation. The exact right thing happened here.

Are you calling for the end of Childline?

[–]billyvnilly 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fine, whats your address and real name so I can report you as a pedophile anonymously.

[–]wicknest 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

anonymously

lack of investigation

okay, how are you going to investigate something when its only evidence is an anonymous call

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The point of an investigation is to determine what the evidence is

[+]18006666666 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

the real issue is the lack of investigation

The real issue is the lack of accountability if you falsely accuse someone of horrendous crimes

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She was held accountable. Did you not read the article?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This sounds good in practice, so idiot 16 year old redditors will upvote. Bunt in practice, it's too serious.

CREDIBLE accusations should be investigated only.

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The investigation was done so that it can be determined if the report was credible or not. It was found that it was not credible.

[–]gonzobon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But a defendant has the right to face their accuser in court right?

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely. The right to face your accuser in court is a constitutional right. And if this case ever went to court, she's have to testify or else this anonymous report would just be thrown out as hearsay. However, this case never went to court. There was simply an investigation in to the claim made by the caller, as one would expect there to be over a report of child sexual abuse.

The exact right actions happened here. A (false) report was made anonymously, an investigation took place, the truth was found, the false accuser received a penalty.

Whether or not you think she got off easy with a few months jail time, a fine, and community service is another story, but the actions that took place where exactly what should have happened in this scenario.

[+]NoobuchadnezaR points 9 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, there should be a deterrent for people to report a crime, so they don't report a fake one without repercussion.

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Read the article, she was fined, sentenced to community service and a few months in prison.

Also, you follow it up by doing an investigation.

Do you honestly think there shouldn't be a way for people to anonymously report child abuse?

Every system can be abused but there are measures in place to stop it as much as possible. In this instance, no charges were brought because the investigation found no evidence of sexual abuse.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Crimes cannot be effictively investigated if the only witness/victim is anonymous. So...

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No that's simply not true. Nobody can be put in jail based on a single report made by an anonymous witness, but you can definitely start an investigation based on one.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Start one? Yes. Gather sufficient evidence to submit the case to a court and reach a verdict? No.

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No and nobody ever claimed it should be. Even a non-anonymous report wouldn't be enough for that. There needs to be an investigation either way. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Um, im pretty sure we are actually agreeing here??

[–]andysaurus_rex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your first comment sounded like you were against anonymous reporting because an investigation can't be effectively led on an anonymous lead, which isn't true.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It can, but an effective investigation (to me) would result in the conviction of a perpetrator. Provided the person convicted of a crime was the perpetrator of said crime :)

[–]Qapiojg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, this is stupid. Complete anonymity means nothing comes back to the false accuser, they have far less to investigate with, and it wastes police resources.

[–]AFuckYou 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reporting the crime is of no harm. But outside of maybe an investigation. Nothing should come if a mere report.

[–]themaceez 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Just earlier this year, someone had anonymously called my school and told them that I claimed that I had a gun and was planning on shooting the principal, which of course was not true. And because of this one tiny phone call from somebody I don't even know, I was pulled out of class, escorted down the hall by police officers (which was pretty humiliating since several other students could see this happening through the large windows of the classrooms), and told to empty my pockets. Then I was to take them to my car and have them search my vehicle. Surprise, surprise, I had nothing. After that they had me sit in an empty room for about 30 minutes, then finally let me go back to class.

TL;DR: I was made out to be some terroristic fuck because of this stupid "anonymous tip" system we have going on.

[–]FieryCharizard7 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds like someone had some r/pettyrevenge out for you

[–]0_o 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fraud isn't petty, but whatever.

[–]Fallingdamage 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I bet if you told them the caller was probably involved in the planning, they would have every detail about that caller in 30 minutes.

[–]socalnonsage 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It emerged that Boll (the female teacher) had a history over the past decade of making formal complaints to police against employees of organisations and businesses.

Many were later withdrawn after she told officers she had resolved the disputes privately.

and then

Last week Boll, of Woodstock Road, Forest Gate, East London admitted malicious communication and was sentenced to 11 weeks prison suspended for two years.

She was tagged and given an overnight curfew for a month as well as a 12 month supervision order.

Boll was also given 200 hours community service and ordered to pay costs and compensation to her victim.

ok, so the effective sentence was house arrest for a month and then 200 hours of community service.... SMH....

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Do you actually know what Childline is, why it's used and why it's widely seen as a success and a good thing?

Yes, this story is horrible, but this sub deciding fucking Childline is the issue makes it look really dumb.

[–]mrmcdude 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Paragraph 1: accusation of ignorance

Paragraph 2: namecalling

Well chief you made a good case, how do I even dispute it?

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Do you actually know what Childline is, why it's used and why it's widely seen as a success and a good thing?

I'm genuinely asking here. I'd also like for you to point out any name calling I made in that post.

[–]mrmcdude 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Ok, maybe saying you look dumb isn't namecalling, open to interpretation. To answer your question as best as I can, providing anonymous counseling is a tremendously valuable service. Anonymous accusations of individuals however, is a good way to get witch hunts or people settling scores.

[–]_FinestJellyBeansRaw -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Anonymous accusations of individuals however, is a good way to get witch hunts or people settling scores.

Do you not see why an abused child would want anonymity?

[–]mrmcdude 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Of course. But with full anonymity there is no way for the accused to defend himself, and no way to evaluate the credibility of the complaint.

[–]KrazyTom 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Read this whole interaction between you two and it seems You ask questions without answering the ones asked to you and seem to accuse someone of not knowing things without informing them.

Please be more helpful by stating your beliefs or facts. Thanks in advance

[–]KayakBassFisher 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've actually had a woman tell me, in a real conversation, that its better to treat all men as rapists, than one person get raped. So, sacrifice the many, to save the few.

[+]greengrasser11 -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I mean that's fair to mean, and they should be able to investigate those crimes too to determine that the person is innocent.

[–]mrmcdude 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I heard /u/greengrasser11 is a pedo so I'm going to anonymously report you. Enjoy the police showing up at your workplace, interviewing your coworkers, and interviewing your family, And what happens if you happen to have children in your house? You probably won't see them until the investigation is over.

[+]chakula points 9 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Innocent until proven guilty. What fuck head planet are you from?

[–]RobotJiz -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If that was true then they would ban news organisations from reporting on people being charged of a crime instead of waiting until being convicted of a crime. I also like Japan's stance on not showing someone in handcuffs because it implies guilt.

[–]AFKSkinningKids 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I never knew that last part. If it's true at all, that is fantastic and something we need to adopt.

[–]frankenbeam 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Thought Id chime in to say that Japans legal system is fucked. 100% guilty until you buy a lawyer, otherwise cops interrogate confessions out of you during your manditory 20+ day holding.

Then again, people commit less crime here so I guess the system works??

[–]RobotJiz 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is it illegal to photo someone in handcuffs, or am I just an ass that read something on the internet and believed it?

[–]frankenbeam 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I havent seen it, usually arrest photos are of someone in the back of the car.

If I had to guess the handcuff thing may be related to the pretty strict defamation laws here. I'm not sure though.

[–]Drfilthymcnasty 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People like this woman truly scare me. The ones you never see coming.

[–]Mallago 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The feminist argument that jail sentences for false accusers make it more difficult for actual victims of rape is absurd. It makes zero sense to say that giving her jail time somehow makes it more difficult for rape victims to speak to police.

[–]KanyeButtPlay69 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I, like many of the other armchair lawyers in this thread, have seen quite a few episodes of Law and Order: SVU, so if anyone has any questions regarding to the legal side leave them below and I will comb my extensive DVR collection and answer accurately and in a somewhat timely manner

[–]LostTheGameOfThrones 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This was in the UK so your legal knowledge has no power here. I however have seen Law and Order: UK, so I'd be happy to help anyone legally.

[–]DigNitty 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually I've seen every episode of Law and Order: This female teacher pretended to be a 14 year old girl to accuse a male teacher of sexually abusing her. No jail time for this calculated attempt to destroy a man's life.

[–]ThatGuyThatDoneThat 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Remember back when men and women were equal in the face of the law? Those were the good times.

[–]Jor94 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But guys, We live in a society that hates women... Just hates them.

[–]FaZe_Senpai 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wrong

[–]StepOnMeSunflower 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Who says society hates women? Sounds like you might.

[–]Jor94 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://youtu.be/wbfKzXa6pjg 2:10

[–]StepOnMeSunflower 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Touché, but I really hope you don't believe that all people/women/feminists feel this way...or that it's even the majority.

[–]O-shi 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is disgusting, she should get jail time. There's women who get for such accusations because there wasn't sufficient evidence. This one was an open and shut case, and the fucked it up.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I am.willing to forgoe imorisonment if she gets throat surgery to make her voice sound like a man so that she can never fake the voice of a child ever again.

Anyone agree?

[–]O-shi -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed

[–]MemeMagicka 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is where we are right now as a society. Let that sink in

[–]NikoMyshkin 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Cases of false claims like this are rare, but do enormous damage to individuals.

This was a calculated attempt

but let's just let her off with no jail time

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yep, ha.

[–]NikoMyshkin 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

at least you can laugh about it. for me it's more like smh

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nah, I agree. Like, it's hard to explain, but. Like, how you put it, it was just so true, it was funny. "Yep, ha.:\"

[–]NikoMyshkin 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

got it :-)

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ah, thanks for forgiving me! (I think.:o!) You're awesome!

[–]NikoMyshkin 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol mate you should chill

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She was tagged and given an overnight curfew for a month as well as a 12 month supervision order. Boll was also given 200 hours community service and ordered to pay costs and compensation to her victim. 

Its not nothing, still its obvious the courts favour women over men.

[–]a-rods_micropenis 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

/r/pussypass

[–]Indytux 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What a cuntbag

[–]ShiningConcepts 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck this cunt, she should go to jail for attempting to ruin an innocent man's life and it's inexcusable bullshit that she isn't. But good luck getting your modern day feminist or mangina (90+% of the pop. is at least one of those) to realize that.

[–]Verlier 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Who would ever believe she is 14?!?!

[–]nickelmedia 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

someone on a phone.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No idea how people can miss this, 30something women pretending to be teen girls on the phone was the premise for Chrs Hansen To Catch a Predator.

My guess is the women who did this as a hobby moved on to making fake ChildLine calls once men on the web wised up and increasingly demanded can verification of identity and most of them could not create visual illusion to match the auditory.

[–]roybringus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good on itv.com for not publishing the victim's name

[–]MarkFinn42 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Minor infractions, like lying about a misdemeanor offense, usually results in a similar misdemeanor charge. Lying about felony offenses can result in felony level charges. Misdemeanor punishment can result in a sentence ranging from probation to a year or two in county jail. Felony punishment can also result in probation, but a much higher prison sentence, from two to ten years. Even though many people charged with the filing of a false report get probation, they sometimes forget to review the other collateral consequences.

Read more: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar_crimes/false-police-report.htm#ixzz4XTxW7QY1

[–]Reidgss94 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is crazy how women can claim mental illness to avoid punishment. I experienced emotional distress after going through title IX and being falsely accused of domestic violence at my university. I lost twenty pounds and had to drop 3 classes. Once the school heard about my distress, they tried to send me to "counseling" in order to diagnose me with a mental illness that would clear them of any wrongdoing legally. "Mental Illness" just seems like its used as a legal loophole these days. If you're a woman, it helps you. If your a man, it works against you.

[–]BeanBunnyWasFramed 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It says she got 11 weeks in jail and 2 years suspended.

[–]bufedad 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

IT says she was sentenced to 11 weeks in jail, and the sentence was suspended for 2 years.

She won't see a day in jail.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You guys realize that getting your news from that source is kinda like getting your news from Netflix, right? I mean there isn't one citation in the entire article.

[–]ThirdTurnip 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's legit and has been widely reported in the media.

http://news.met.police.uk/news/teacher-convicted-of-malicious-communications-217084

[–]Irish_Samurai 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wasn't there a tv show that did the same thing?

[–]vivek31 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No jail time? Wow, here's to hoping the public will shame and harass her.

[–]cocidlc 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I hope she learns her lesson.

[–]randomusername_815 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The defense of this is that "if there are consequences for a false claim, that will deter genuine victims from coming forward".

Which is bullshit.

[–]billyjones1989 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She is innocent she has a pussy

[–]Jabiluka 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She should have gotten what he would have.

[–]MB0810[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that the penalty should be higher. The anonymity of the service serves a purpose.

[–]zacbakpak 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, you've misunderstood. I agree that false accusations of this kind are a horrendous thing to do. I was merely saying that to give identical sentences to the crime they are accusing would be ridiculous.

[–]Regnes 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, I think she may have been punished sufficiently. She did get jail time, about 2.5 months of it, 200 hours of community service, order to pay compensation, and the best of all, curfew. If the neighbours didn't know she's a crook, they will now. Curfews are enforced by the police, they will show up every single night at her residence to ensure she's where she's supposed to be. People tend to notice when the cops show up next door every single day.

Also, I doubt there's going to be any possibility of her working in the education system again, her career is over I imagine. Her quality of life just took a turn for the worse.

[–]tedesco455[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So what about when the police do the same thing?

[–]wtph 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh noes get the pitchforks out!

[–]KiloLee 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

False rape claims should carry the death penalty.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Riiiight, because no one would see through this cunning plan.

[–]flounder19 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No jail yet but she is on a suspended sentence:

Last week Boll, of Woodstock Road, Forest Gate, East London admitted malicious communication and was sentenced to 11 weeks prison suspended for two years.

She was tagged and given an overnight curfew for a month as well as a 12 month supervision order.

Boll was also given 200 hours community service and ordered to pay costs and compensation to her victim.

I'm not sure if we need to gum up our prison system with people like this when their are alternative forms of punishment

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not being a direct danger I would be okaynbanning her from using all communication devices for a decade and making her an indentured servant who must provide free labour to the government which then pays the salary to the wronged man.

[–]tonitoni919 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why is she so orange?

[–]KeanuNeal 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She got 11 weeks in prison?

[–]Satansyngel 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

suspended

[+]Solid_Snake_021 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Should have been given life, she tried to destroy a man's life, we should destroy her life for good!

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Execution destroys life. Life sentences just restrict it.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

sentenced to 11 weeks prison suspended for two years.

She was tagged and given an overnight curfew for a month as well as a 12 month supervision order.

11 weeks prison is over 2 months. Why does the title say "no jail time"?

Inadequate slap on the wrist sure BT not nothing.

I don't understand suspended for two years though.

Does that mean she doesn't serve the prison sentence for two years or did reporter forget q comma and the suspension is to her teaching career?

Someone who does this should never be allowed.to teach again.

[+]NJMD points 9 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

She has the same name and looks very similar to a girl that has a lot of Youtube videos of her playing traditional drums.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sheena+boll+dhol

[–]artisticMink 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, send a few hundred angry neckbeards to someones bongo channel. What should go wrong?

[–]RagerzRangerz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Stfu don't spark a witch hunt. Dumb fucks like you need to be banned from Reddit. There's probably a load of white women who look like this waste of sperm, being accused of being her isn't fair.

[+]NJMD points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

shut the fuck up you dumb sister fucking fuck.

[–]RagerzRangerz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Typical dumbass. Sit your ass down.

[+]Captainnuzzles -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

The sentence isn't insignificant. Her life will be markedly worse for a long time.

[–]SkeptiCynical 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's the purpose of an effective penal system. But the sentence is effectively 5 weeks (200 hours) of desk work or handing out awareness flyers. Suspended sentence means no jail time. "Supervision" means a phone call a couple of times a week. Paying the other teacher's fees was likely to avoid a malicious prosecution case. She got off scot free.

[–]Captainnuzzles -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I work in the legal field. I actually know what these things mean. She received what's known as a deferred disposition. She will be on fairly lax probation for 2 years. She will have to show up and meet with a court supervisor. She certainly had to pay thousands in legal fees, and on top of that had to the victims damages. The worst part for her, whether she knows it or not, is that her reputation is permanently stained. It will be virtually impossible for her to have any kind of career after this. Like I said, that isn't insignificant.

[–]POO_IN_A_LOO 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

How much of an impact it would have been on his life if he had been deemed guilty?

How much do you think is a fair penalty for a person that would try to harm someone else as much as that guilty verdict would have been for him?

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Which part of the sentence isn't significant? The suspended part? or the community service?

[–]Captainnuzzles 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Community service, legal fees, victims damages, two year supervision, permanently ruined reputation...

[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Community service,

5 weeks of work

legal fees,

public defender

victims damages,

victim's legal fees, not damages. And again... if she pays them.

two year supervision,

talking on the phone once a week.

permanently ruined reputation

Maybe.

So, at most... it's maybe a ruined reputation to deal with... oh... how horrible her life will be now.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her reputation will barely suffer. She will make some off the record sob story about how she saw a kid getting molested by thisnguy and thought there was a better chance if him getting punished if she acted as the girl's voice.

Many will lap this up. She will be a local hero.

[–]Captainnuzzles 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're making a lot of assumptions. The reality is this situation very likely caused her great monetary expense, great stress, great time consumption, and permanently ruined her career. For the last time, that's not insignificant.

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The reality is this situation very likely caused her great monetary expense, great stress, great time consumption,

This is all assumption on your part

and permanently ruined her career.

Why would you assume this? There's nothing about this that ends her career.

For the last time, that's not insignificant.

All of what she's going through is insignificant.

[–]Captainnuzzles 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They are assumptions but they are reasonable assumptions. Legal affairs are costly and expensive. I assume her career is ruined because she won't be able to continue teaching ever again and even when she tries to go get a different job they will ask about her criminal history. She won't be able to ever get a decent job.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Public defenders are not costly. Why do you think she can't teach again?

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Falsely accusing a man of rape would not be judged as making her a danger to children so they would still let her teach.

If anyone has evidence of a woman getting fired from being a teacher for making a false rape accusation feel free to contradict me.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't that be entrapment?

[–]contractor808 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Entrapment is for officers of the law.

[–]ChristianBMartone 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Entrapment is not what most people think it is. And it's hard to prove. An officer of the law has to trick or convince a person into committing a crime they were unlikely to commit.

[–]lenswipe -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The title says "no jail time"...that's not entirely true

[–]brewmastermonk -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hope he told the judge that he fucked her because only an idiot would believe she was 14.

[–]VOZ1 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That title leaves out a bunch of details. She has to pay legal fees and compensation to the teacher she falsely accused, 200 hours community service, probation, and her prison sentence is suspended, meaning if she reoffends within two years she will serve time.

But hey, that all doesn't fit into a neat little narrative.

[–]evilhunter32 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But would a man have gotten the same treatment, that is the question and the answer is no.

[–]VOZ1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hardly the case. Brock whatever his name is for 3 months after being convicted of sexual assault. Not the same charge, but far more serious, and a very, very light sentence. You can make predictions, but it's just conjecture. You don't know what sentence a man would have received, and to suggest you do is disingenuous. You can have an opinion, but it's entirely hypothetical so it really holds no weight whatsoever. Could the sentence have been harsher? Sure. It could also have been lighter. You're not really making a strong argument at all, especially given I can't think of a single case where a man made a false rape accusation, let alone one with the bizarre twists that this one has.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Brock Turner did not assault Emily Doe. She assaulted him. The Stanford Swimmer casenwas a travesty of justice. His light sentence was the judge trying to diminish the impact if utter miscarriage of justice by the jury. Guys occasionally don't puss out and sell out the innocent for convenience, and the judge suffered threats as a result of his high moral character.

It was also far less serious. Even if Emily had been fingered without consent, that is far less upsetting than having people think you molest children.

[–]VOZ1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What on earth are you talking about? There were eyewitnesses. He was convicted. And you're gonna say being sexually assaulted isn't a big deal? Wow. That's absolutely shameful.

[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You say "he was convicted" as if its supposed to be convincing here.

Assault is a big deal. I don't think Brock Turner assaulted Emily Doe. I believe two men assaulted him.

The Swedish cyclists' testimony did not contain anything that convinced me they broke up an assault. It was dark and loud and they could have missed cues of consent.

I believe they jumped the gun and assumed the worst and then covered theirnasses because they would go to jail unless their attack was justified as stopping a crime.

[–]Satansyngel 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So..... no jail time

[–]SpongeBobCockPants -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Got away because of skin colour, happens all the time.

[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The gender sentencing gap is 6 times the racial sentencing gap.

[+]ChrisBabyYea -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OH MY GOD! RAMPANT SEXISM! KILL ALL WOMEN/s

[–]BradPit_B4_GrabClit -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nigga you at least 30

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mens rights? Mens rights? Jesus guys are you serious? Fucking namby pambys

[+]BigBoz points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

This is why I have no sympathy for raped women, guys are just evening out the score. I hope she gets raped, right up the arse.

[–]a-rods_micropenis 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are contributing to the problem. It's justice for all. That includes women who are raped. The point of this is that if a man were in her shoes he would be in jail for a significant amount of time. The solution is not to hope she gets raped. The solution is to put her and anyone breaking the law like her in jail for the appropriate amount of time.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter