TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Alabama bill would criminalize false rape accusations

lostapwbm

May 9, 2019
2872 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.al.com/politics/2019/05/alabama-bill-would-criminalize-false-rape-accusations.html
Archived from /r/MensRights

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

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

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

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

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

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

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Alabama bill would criminalize false rape accusations
Author

lostapwbm

Upvotes 2872
Comments 237
Date May 9, 2019 5:26 AM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bmfrt9/alabama_bill_would_criminalize_false_rape/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/alabama-bill-would-criminalize-false-rape.878126
https://theredarchive.com/post/878126
Red Pill terms in post
false rape accusation
Top posts by lostapwbm

New York: 'Activists' Get Shelter for Homeless Men Axed, Replaced with Women-Only Shelter

2231 upvotes
October 1, 2019
/r/MensRights

Nikki Yovino Sentenced to 1 Year in Prison for False Rape Accusations

1329 upvotes
August 23, 2018
/r/MensRights

Alabama bill would criminalize false rape accusations

1229 upvotes
May 9, 2019
/r/MGTOW

Gender Wage Gap Is Due To Men Working Longer Hours

971 upvotes
December 11, 2018
/r/MensRights

Women In Tech: Meet Equifax's Chief Information Security Officer, Susan Mauldin

736 upvotes
September 8, 2017
/r/MGTOW

Gender Wage Gap Is Due To Men Working Longer Hours (NO SHIT)

646 upvotes
December 11, 2018
/r/MGTOW

Woman who made false rape claims against THREE men is now jailed for four years on appeal

634 upvotes
May 23, 2018
/r/MensRights

College Feminist: Make Feminist Indoctrination Part of General Education Requirements For Graduation

546 upvotes
October 3, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]lostapwbm[S] 509 points510 points511 points 7 years ago (91 children) | Copy Link

A bill making it a crime to falsely accuse someone of a sexual crime was first read in the Alabama House of Representatives last week.

Bout freaking time.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Dickie Drake, R-Leeds, would make falsely reporting a sex crime a Class C felony and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If the accused was proven innocent, the accuser would be responsible for paying the accused person’s legal expenses.

See this?

This is what justice looks like.

Drink it in.

Drake said he decided to create the bill because of a friend whose ex wife falsely accused him and his new wife of sexually abusing their kids.

It kind of chaps my ass that the powerful aren't concerned about doing justice until injustice knocks on their door, but better late than never, I suppose.

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 160 points161 points162 points 7 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

Is it proven innocent or not proven guilty? Because one is fair and the other is insane.

[+]dre7021 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (38 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Rape cases are hard to prove but I think this is necessary as merely being accused as being a rapist could lose you your family/job/wife etc. But I see how this could be dangerous

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 66 points67 points68 points 7 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

But genuine rapes are hard to proof, so if insufficient evidence means that the accuser goes to jail, we'll end up jailing a lot of rape victims. Innocent until guilty should count for everyone, including accusers.

[–]Minoxidil 47 points48 points49 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

if i read correctly the punishment for a false reporting (i assume proved to be a premeditated or intentional choice) is up to 10 years in jail and a whole different trial involving the supposed liar, evidence, prosecution, defense, lawyers, judge, jury, everything. and if at the end of that trial they were found guilty of intentionally falsely accusing someone of rape for their own gain, THEN they'd get the 10yrs

if the trial concludes that the accused simply isnt guilty, the accuser will be asked to pay for the court fees of the other person like a normal trial

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

Okay, that's fair enough then.

[–]50kent 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It just really depends on the wording of the bill that criminalizes false accusations, specifically how strict the wording is on what constitutes a false accusation. Based on just this thread of comments, I am unclear on what the law actually says. It may say “if the accused rapist is not found guilty, the accusing parties made a false accusation” which would be beyond unfair. However it could also say “if the accused rapist is not found guilty, they could choose to press charges against the accused for ‘false accusation’ charges” which would be a lot more fair, considering how in that case the originally accused rapist would need to present evidence and prove that the original accuser did so maliciously or knowingly or whatever the law actually says.

Either way there would need to be a ‘trial’ and due process, because we are in America. However there is still a distinct chance of there being an unjust law even if due process is considered

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

if the trial concludes that the accused simply isnt guilty, the accuser will be asked to pay for the court fees of the other person like a normal trial

Criminal trials are always on the State's dime. And no woman has ever been asked to pay a penny towards the trial costs even after being convicted of perjury.

[–]Minoxidil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s shitty man I was just saying the likely letter of the law

[–]PrettyDecentSort 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There's a "not proven" verdict in some legal systems (but not in the US) which means "we think he probably did it but we're not sure beyond a reasonable doubt". If we had that option then that would give the jury the option to let both the accused and the accuser off the hook.

[–]RainyRat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

some legal systems

Just in Scotland, as far as I know. Unofficially known as "not guilty, and don't do it again."

[–]mack0409 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that is basically what the not-guilty verdict is supposed to be in America.

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe she misinterpreted (in good faith) what constitutes rape, or she identified the wrong person (and someone else did it). I wouldn't slap her with penalties for either (not the first time, anyway). As for the consequences to the accused man, we need to work on the culture-wide "guilty-no-matter-what" mindset.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a "not proven" verdict in some legal systems (but not in the US) which means "we think he probably did it but we're not sure beyond a reasonable doubt". If we had that option then that would give the jury the option to let both the accused and the accuser off the hook.

If that's the case then we also need an 'innocent' verdict. Cause 'not guilty' does not mean innocent, although that's the verdict some innocent people get at the end of the trial.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The article completely mis-stated the legal costs part of the bill, which is:

A person making a false sexual allegation may be liable to the person accused for all costs associated with his or her legal defense.

The original complainant would not normally have to pay anything after the first trial, because falsity is not determined there. They could have to pay the accused's costs in the very rare case that there were a second trial of the complainant which proved the complaint to be malicious etc, to the criminal standard of proof. That is very hard to do, and even then they "may" have to pay, not "shall" pay. So the judge has discretion.

It would be far easier to succeed in claiming back legal expenses in a civil case with the 51% standard of evidence, though that would be at the accused's expense.

If the current charges of filing a false complaint, interference with the course of justice, and perjury are not seldom used I don't see how this proposed law would be any more attractive to prosecutors. I suspect it is grandstanding by the legislator for election purposes, not a proposal that will become law.

[–]Sparky400Hz 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I cant imagine this would ever hold up for something like mistaken identity. This would only work if its proven the claim was knowingly made falsely.

Which means the accuser has to admit that. This could easily be an end to accusers eventually coming forward to confess their lie.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which means innocent men being dragged further through the investigation process and maybe even into arrest, or in extreme cases into a trial. False conviction is not impossible too. Which is why police policy is to leave accusers an open door to withdraw their accusation without penalty in the great majority of suspected false accusation cases.

[–]xelrix 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Then there should be a trial for accused accusers if their accuses are grounded but technically flawed or actually false. If it's the former, accusers should still be protected.

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, that's my point. The false accusation punishment has to have it's own trial with its own standard for evidence, rather than just being the default outcome of a non guilty rape trial.

[–]xx2Hardxx 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think there's a middle ground between "we can't convict the accused because the evidence isn't good enough" and "we have evidence that the accuser is a lying bitch".

Though if someone is raped and they do the things they should to report it, the evidence should be more than enough.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

2% of rape reports to police are provably false, and about another 6% are thought by police to be false but are not individually provable.

if someone is raped and they do the things they should to report it, the evidence should be more than enough.

No, the opposite applies. It is unusual for a rape to produce enough evidence to convict. Even for the 10% - 20% of rapes which are reported to police, in the US only 2% of the reported ones are convicted. (after subtracting 8% for false complaints from the original number of complaints). The UK conviction rate is higher, about 4% I think.

In the US 90% of cases are neither convicted, nor classified as false or unfounded.

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You beat me to it. Maliciously false accusation of rape should require a reasonable standard of proof. Acquittal of the accused shouldn't automatically mean the accuser is guilty.

[–]Luchadorgreen 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here, here.

[–]tenchineuro -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

But genuine rapes are hard to proof,

Bilgewater, a man can go to prison for rape on the unsupported word of a woman, rape does not have to be proven, not a little, not at all.

You can ask Bill Cosby for more details.

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You can ask Bill Cosby for more details.

Aw, ffs

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, up till now I had not paid any attention to the Cosby case, other than to note that the allegations were from decades ago. After looking briefly a little earlier, I think I'll retract.

[+]thetewi -53 points-52 points-51 points 7 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

rape is bad and men should strive to not rape

edit: can’t believe this is getting downvoted so hard. were the feminists right?!

[–]LordHaragnok 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck

[+]aphrohades1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I checked his post history, seems he gets his karma from /r/The_Donald

[–]medi3val6 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So?

[+]thetewi -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

based

[–]mensmod 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People aren't downvoting you because they disagree with your statement, they are downvoting you because they have a low tolerance for trolling and it is obvious the purpose of your post was to troll.

[–]ClefAria 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Weak bait.

[–]thetewi -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

define that

[–]ClefAria 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Bait" is something said explicitly to get a rise out of people and get them to react, rarely reflecting the person's actual feelings.

The more obvious it is something is bait, the weaker the bait is.

[–]thetewi 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

so i’m not a master baiter? :(

[–]ShelSilverstain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice decisive comment comrade! +1 good

[–]CanYouFollowMoi 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is true. Taking the kids for yourself is bad and women should strive to not take the kids

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why a really sensible change in the law would be to keep accusations of rape completely confidential, with any breaches considered a serious criminal offence. This in turn would mean the accused ( depending on circumstances, eg clear violence cases) could carry on with their lives both during and after the process if found not guilty. Might in practice be difficult to implement but it would be a start.

[–]Ashenox 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

People falsely accused don't "possibly" have one of those ruined they literally always have at least one ruined or more. Rape accusations are a Character assassinator. Even when proven not guilty no one is going to report that verdict with anywhere near the same vigor as when they were accused. Anyone accused always loses even when innocent. Hell some men are killing themselves now when they get accused because they know nothing is going to walk back the damage.

False accusations literally end lives.

Edit: one dude even recently got murdered when a Woman lied about rape and people went and revenge killed him.

[–]Kravego 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed.

Reading the bill, the phrase repeated is "He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent..." So it seems like the state would have to prove malicious intent on the part of the accuser, as well as prove that the accuser knew that the accusation was false.

Pretty stiff requirements, but pretty close to the difficulty of securing a rape conviction.

[–]ManMoth2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously proven innocent

[–]ithinkmynameismoose 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly what I came here to say. This is a super important distinction.

[–]Warod0 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Is there a difference? You are innocent until proven otherwise.

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that's different from being proven innocent. It's the difference between not enough evidence, and evidence that you couldn't possibly have committed the crime due to e.g. whereabouts etc.

[–]Warod0 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are innocent until proven guilty. When you are accused you stay innocent until you are proven guilty or the case ends.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The principle is called "the presumption of innocence" not "innocence".
Innocence or guilt happens when the crime happens, if it does.

[–]AthenaRaith 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It kind of chaps my ass that the powerful aren't concerned about doing justice until injustice knocks on their door, but better late than never, I suppose.

That's a bit unfair. Most people are not even aware of things like paternity fraud until they come into contact with it. Most people I talk to think that child support would instantly end if you proved you're not the father. That's how so many people get trapped in these predicaments, they just don't know about them until they're in them.

[–]throwawayapparently9 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the moment enough people start doing paternity test, feminists will ban the test just like France.

so we have to make a mandatory law for it instead of encouraging more people to do it on their own.

it must become MANDATORY first.

[–]GuyWithTheStalker 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck did Jerry Springer ever do to you?!

Out here trying to kill the career of a standup citizen... 😂

[–]lostapwbm[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a bit unfair. Most people are not even aware of things like paternity fraud until they come into contact with it. Most people I talk to think that child support would instantly end if you proved you're not the father. That's how so many people get trapped in these predicaments, they just don't know about them until they're in them.

This is whole paragraph is fair play. I know it's not fair to hold against people what they don't know and don't have any good reason to know.

When you're waist deep in the kulturkampf (culture war), which is what this whole men's rights vs. feminism is, it's easy forget that normal people don't know there's a culture war going on, who is engaged in it, or why it's happening at all.

[–]MadMan018 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

ironic how the guy that is doing this is called "Dickie"

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't mind even if he's called a worse cuss word. Some yellow journals might report "How Dick f*cked the feminist movement"...

[–]kiaeej 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gotta be careful. Now they gonna pick their fights and push it all the way thru, cos if they lose, they gonna die.

[–]Red_Galiray 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Alright, I'm against false rape accusations, but this law needs two important caveat: to only punish if it is proven that the person who made the accusation knew the accused was innocent, and only be punished if the intent was to harm them or damage their reputations. Otherwise it could result in women not accusing and persecuting legitimate rapists because they are afraid this law is going to punish them instead.

[–]Wsing1974 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You didn't read the bill, did you?

Does the phrase, "He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent..." meet your requirements? Because it's in there.

[–]coke501 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I still think the 'malicious intent' part is problematic. Reason is, I remembered examples that could be interpreted as 'without malicious intent'. And I don't think these people should get off.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/12/13-women-who-lied-about-being-raped-and-why-they-did-it/

[–]Red_Galiray 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I didn't. Sorry, and thanks for clearing that up.

[–]Ashenox 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A false accusation alone is a harmful thing. Their guilty of intent to harm by even making the claim falsely.

People lose their entire lives over a false claim and Men are starting to just kill themselves instead of dealing with the lies.

[–]coke501 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

and only be punished if the intent was to harm them or damage their reputations

why?

and... how do you make a false rape accusation without the intent to harm?

Otherwise it could result in women not accusing and persecuting legitimate rapists because they are afraid this law is going to punish them instead

I cannot imagine a scenario where a legitimate rape victim can be prosecuted under this law. Maybe you have an idea.

[–]AustNerevar 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

and... how do you make a false rape accusation without the intent to harm?

Through error.

"It was dark."

"There were a lot of people around. I got confused about who did it."

"I was drugged and couldn't see their face."

[–]coke501 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Sure. But that only works if both of the points he mentioned are ignored.

  • to only punish if it is proven that the person who made the accusation knew the accused was innocent

  • only be punished if the intent was to harm them or damage their reputations

If the first point stands, your example can't come to fruition.

[–]AustNerevar 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I was just giving you an example. You claimed there was no way that a false accusation could made without intending harm. I wasn't arguing that it was a valid defense.

[–]Wsing1974 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

A FALSE accusation is different than an ERRONEOUS accusation.

FALSE = deliberate lie

ERRONEOUS = honest mistake

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

A FALSE accusation is different than an ERRONEOUS accusation.

FALSE = deliberate lie

ERRONEOUS = honest mistake

Is it? Tell that to the man on trial.

And having created that exception, everything will be an 'honest mistake'. Roe of Roe vs Wade fame proved that making rape an exception for abortion just gives women incentive to claim rape, and it also proved that women can get anything by lying about being raped.

[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Every crime, with few exceptions, requires mens rea for the crime to exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Every crime, with few exceptions, requires mens rea for the crime to exist.

Really? Tell me how they proved Mens Rea in Bill Cosby's trial for crimes which supposedly happened many decades ago.

[–]Wsing19741 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Drugging someone to have sex with them is malicious by definition.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Drugging someone to have sex with them is malicious by definition.

Was that claim backed by a toxicology report? Or just the complainant's word?

EDIT: And thanks for stating that men's rea need not be proven, it can be assumed, just like it can be assumed that a crime was committed in the first place.

[–]Wsing19741 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I remember correctly it was backed by confession.

And yes, it can be assumed, if the act can reasonably be shown to be deliberate violation of the law. I could back out of my driveway and accidently run over a toddler. In that case, there is no mens rea, because I did not intentionally kill the toddler. I might be guilty of negligence, but not murder.

But you can't accidently drug someone and accidently have sex with them when they're unconscious.

There ARE a few crimes where mens rea is not assumed by the nature of the crime, but is assumed by law. Statutory rape for example. You may not know she is underage, but the law assumes the men rea, even if you believe in good faith that you are not committing a crime.

[–]tenchineuro0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You may not know she is underage, but the law assumes the men rea, even if you believe in good faith that you are not committing a crime.

You do not understand men's rea, the guilty mind. It means that you do something wrong fully knowing that it was wrong. And statutory rape is strict liability, not mens rea.

[–]Wsing19741 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you're thinking it's possible to drug and rape people without men rea, it seems like you're the one who doesn't understand it.

[–]MaMagooni2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Don’t waste your time with this guy. He argues just for the sake of arguing without truly understanding what he’s saying.

[–]Wsing19741 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, I was starting to pick up on that. I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore.

[–]MaMagooni2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You should see the discussion I was having him earlier, trying to convince me I assumed a guy was a rapist when all I said was “do we know they didn’t have prior interactions? It’s possible he had sexually assaulted the girl at a prior date. We don’t know based off this article.” Dude is delusional

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you're thinking it's possible to drug and rape people without men rea, it seems like you're the one who doesn't understand it.

I fail to see how explaining to you a legal term of art says anything about rape.

[–]MaMagooni1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He is absolutely right. Men’s rea is the intent or knowledge of a crime. If you mistake a girls age (EG girl had a fake and got into a bar even though she was 17), and you have sex with her, then you did not have mens rea of the crime.

So while you are correct in the statement that doing something wrong knowing it was wrong is mens rea, you are wrong in your attempt to discredit his example.

Again, you are arguing just because you want to argue.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He is absolutely right. Men’s rea is the intent or knowledge of a crime.

He is absolutely wrong in applying mens rea to a strict liability crime. Had he applied it to almost anything but statutory rape, he would probably have been right. Instead he chose the one crime that shows he does not understand the difference between mens rea and strict liability. His state of mind is irrelevant for any and every strict liability crime, all that needs to be proven is that he did the deed.

[–]MaMagooni1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It still applies kiddo. It does not matter the degree of the crime in relation to men’s rea

[–]tenchineuro0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It still applies kiddo.

No, it does not. Mens rea is not a factor in strict liability crimes.

It does not matter the degree of the crime in relation to men’s rea

You don't understand and this is going nowhere.

I'm done here.

You can have the last word.

[–]MaMagooni1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Considering there are multiple states where intent does matter in statutory rape cases, yes mens rea applies. So ya still wrong kiddo

[–]coke501 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Got it.

I could have worded my question better.

How do you knowingly make a false accusation without the intent to harm?

[–]str828 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So if you don't know who did it then why are you pointing a finger?

[–]Dimblydug 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My eyes skipped down to “Drake said he decided to create the bill because...” and I was really confused for a sec.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

FAIL: This still does not recognize a man falsely accused as the victim of the crime. The State is still the victim here and this does nothing to help the man falsely accused. At the very least it could purge the trial records and give the man a clean legal bill of health.

[–]flapper_jack 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's 2019 and we just getting to this now? Pathetic.

[–]dixieStates 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If the accused was proven innocent,

I think that our legal system is supposed to operate a little differently than this. But what do I know? IANAL.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are right. Courts do not prove people innocent, though that sometimes becomes informally evident during the trial.

A separate trial would be needed for the separate offence of false accusation, and the failure of the first trial would not in itself count for anything. The accuser would be found guilty or not guilty.

[–]Pioustarcraft 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If the accused was proven innocent, the accuser would be responsible for paying the accused person’s legal expenses.

wow isn't it the case already ?

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

wow isn't it the case already ?

No. This sometimes happens in Civil cases, but a rape trial is always a Criminal trial.

[–]peepeeandpoopooman 140 points141 points142 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

you mean it isn't already illegal to intentionally falsely someone of a very serious crime and ruin their life by doing so?

[–]factsd0ntlie 74 points75 points76 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I mean the repercussions aren't that serious right now , they are sometimes charged with just misdirecting or wasting police resources.

[–]JoeSchmoe777 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are they? ahem Jussie Smollet ahem

Not a sexual assault case obviously but definitely shows how false accusations may be handled, particularly if you are ‘oppressed.’ We need a law to handle all false charges. It should be an offence in itself to weaponize the criminal legal system.

[–]themoonisacheese 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah yes but you see if we were doing that corporations would be able to be held accountable and we can't have that can we?

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Smollet did not accuse anyone. That is very different from a malicious false accusation with a named person. I've seen an estimate that half of false accusations accused an identified person. Another estimate was higher, maybe 2/3.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I mean the repercussions aren't that serious right now , they are sometimes charged with just misdirecting or wasting police resources.

Wasting Police Time is an offense only in the UK. There is no similar crime in any of the US states that I am aware of.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Making a false complaint is the US crime I believe. There will be something.
Perjury is the most serious offense, it has a serious sentence available. But it requires proving intent to mislead the court, which is like fraud, hard to prove. Except fraud usually has much more evidence, so FA is more like rape in its difficulty of proof.

My guess is the bill is intended to make the proposer attractive at election time, and is not a serious attempt at actual legislation that will be passed.

It has always been perfectly possible to prosecute false accusers under at least three charges in most jurisdictions.
There are a lot of jurisdictions, and some do prosecute. But not often, because police judge it to be far more important to leave the door open for retraction of false accusations, at least in the earlier stages.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

But not often, because police judge it to be far more important to leave the door open for retraction of false accusations, at least in the earlier stages.

The damage is done by the accusation and it is not undone by the extremely rare retraction.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

True, conviction of the accuser is necessary to fully undo the accusation. I don't see how this law would achieve that any differently from the existing perjury law. Recovery of legal costs is the only benefit I see.

Retractions are not extremely rare, and they are very strongly front-loaded.

Most detected false accusations are detected without even interviewing an accused. This is worth remembering, in terms of the numbers of men traumatised by the process. Only 40% of rape complaints to police result in an accused being interviewed.

The great majority of the rest are detcted after interviewing the accused, without an arrest being made. A few more are detected before prosecution, and just a few are detected after the case is sent to prosecutors.

There must be undetected false accusations too. Most of those would fall out early also I'd guess, as the complainants get cold feet or they just can't supply adequate evidence to prosecute on.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Retractions are not extremely rare

What is your source for this?

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's a UK study finding 7% of cases were retracted or refused to assist. (p.9) That doesn't mean they were false allegations though, there are several other reasons for retracting.

Attrition in rape cases - Lea 2003
http://oro.open.ac.uk/15302/2/44F845E5.pdf

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are some interesting typos in this...

That aside, this paper references data from 20 to 30 years old...

All cases of rape or attempted rape of a f male or male over the age of 16 from 1996 to 2000 were identified.

Yes, it does say "f male", and the 'f' seems to be a different font. And there are others.

Nonetheless, the British Rape laws were updated in, 2005 as I recall and I think once again at some later date. And we also have things like the CPS under Alison Saunders eager to put even men they knew were innocent in prison. So the circumstances under which this study were done are history, no longer in force, null and void. This says nothing about the system today.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I lost my collection of links so that is just one I found with a search. From memory it is comparable to other studies I've seen.
I would expect the retraction rate to vary markedly in response to local policies at the time for handling of retractions.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The severe charge of perjury is available in all jurisdictions.

Police all around the world have always been very wary of charging false accusations without very solid evidence, because they are all incompetent clowns with zero experience and less brain cells than a cat.

Or maybe they have a huge amount of experience and are not stupid, and know how to do the job they typically spend decades in after training. Their policy of being very conservative about charging false accusations was established long before feminism was a factor.

[–]crnext 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It think you a word there.

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

in most countries it isn't... this is a very phylosophical questions in the sense that false accusations are rare in comparaison to real ones ( 8% max according to the FBI ). They don't want the real victims to fear to come forward if they don't have any good and strong evidences and risk rapists to walk free...
On the other hand, MeToo helped raise some sort of awareness about woman abusing the system and having no repercution from it...

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

in most countries it isn't... this is a very phylosophical questions in the sense that false accusations are rare in comparaison to real ones

We don't really know that, making a false rape accusation is not even illegal as such, women can and do make false rape accusations free from repercussions as DAs won't prosecute women for making false rape accusations, and there is no one counting them.

One researcher decades ago did such a study and found that 41% of the accusations in an unnamed small midwestern town were false. It seems to have been enough to derail his career, I could only find one other paper by him (Kanin).

[–]Pioustarcraft 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In my country in Europe, when you press charges at the police station, you are not under oath. This means that you can tell anything you want even if it is the most outlandish lie. This is not perjury, it is not illegal. It will just damage your credibility during the trial

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In my country in Europe, when you press charges at the police station, you are not under oath. This means that you can tell anything you want even if it is the most outlandish lie. This is not perjury, it is not illegal. It will just damage your credibility during the trial

Which country is this?

[–]Pioustarcraft 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

belgium

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd wondered about Kanin's career too. It turns out he co-authored this paper where the research would have been started in 1955 or early '56 maybe. If he was 21 he was been born 1934 or earlier, and was 59 when his 1994 paper was published.

This is an interesting bit of history. It fits with mating behavior back then being much more based on men pushing and women resisting, with the inevitable unfortunate results being common.
The incidence of severely abusive behavior sounds much higher then than nowadays, which fits with the strong inhibitions on women reporting back then.

55.7 per cent reported themselves offended at least once during the academic year at some level of erotic intimacy.

The experiences of being offended were not altogether associated with trivial situations as shown by the fact that 20.9 per cent were offended by forceful attempts at intercourse and
6.2 per cent by "aggressively forceful attempts at sex inter- course in the course of which menacing threats or coercive infliction of physical pain were employed."

There is no reason to think that offended girls had merely a single un- pleasant experience with one partner. The 162 offended girls reported 1022 offensive episodes.
While for some girls offensive experience was no doubt trivial, considerable mention was made of fear and guilt reactions.

Male Sex Aggression on a University Campus Clifford Kirkpatrick and Eugene Kanin American Sociological Review, Feb 1957
http://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2088765

[–]MaMagooni 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well the activity would be “filing false police report” which is too broad

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well the activity would be “filing false police report” which is too broad

Technically, that's already illegal as perjury. But few DAs have ever prosecuted women for it.

[–]GuyWithTheStalker 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Paging my stalker...

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

False accusation has always been illegal and prosecutable, in all jurisdictions.
The penalty for perjury has always been severe, in all jurisdictions.

[–]DisloX3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

well it’s nice to see something nice about my state for once.

row tie.

[–]US_A2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anyway WE can support this bill?

[+]jackblack23231 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

People will probably say this will make rape victims scared to report rape

But those idiots don't realize that you'd only be in trouble if you were proven guilty of being not raped which is very hard. It should not affect rape victims at all and should only scare false rape accusers. And will legitimize real rape victims by making people less sceptical when not everyone and their mothers accusing others of rape when they haven't been.

[–]TheJoestarDescendant 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If anything the ones giving more detriment to real rape victims are false accusers, as when there are lots of false rape accusations, the society will become desensitized and distrustful of the real ones.

Those are just excuses - ppl like them are just after the power of false rape accusations

[–]staytrue1985 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That said education is important here. I support mens rights and also don't want women to be afraid to report real rape crimes.

For the record I had a random obese cleaning lady woman falsely accuse me of assaulting her (security footage proved she was lying and nothing happened to her after she literally fucking dumped garbage on me for no reason). This world is insane.

[–]IronJohnMRA 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People will probably say this will make rape victims scared to report rape

You're right. When they do, show them this:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/32/Appeal-to-Fear

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People will probably say this will make rape victims scared to report rape

Exactly as much as making rape illegal makes rapists afraid to commit rape.

[–]GuyWithTheStalker -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If this new law isn't implemented properly, I actually think they'd be rightfully concerned.

Imagine some chick who was actually raped having the cops initially not believe her and refusing to conduct a proper investigation because the man got to the police first and got the police to instead investigate the woman and not "waste police resources on her wild goose chase."

Cops are very human, and most of them are extremely confident, only have a highschool education and average IQ amd EQ, and deal with even more uneducated folks all day. 😕

I think a law like this should exist though, for sure.

[–]Wisemanner 73 points74 points75 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's amazing. I hope somebody will have the balls to do the same in the UK.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Leeds, UK should take a hint from Leeds, USA.

[–]ExoticInspection 102 points103 points104 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

For once, we should be following in alabama's footsteps and following their example

[–]factsd0ntlie 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see what you did there

[–]Ansodyte 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sweet home Alabama!

[–]GuyWithTheStalker 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't you touch those kids!

[–]UltraD00d 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. California needs some good laws.

[–]fengpi 42 points43 points44 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh no, this will have a chilling effect on deflecting one's unexplained pregnancy.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sweet home Alabama!

[–]chambertlo 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fucking about mother fucking time.

[–]EtherealBipolar 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Need this shit in the UK, it’s getting out of hand now

[–]CatGuardian012 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Care to elaborate?Not from UK and wanted to know what you mean

[–]EtherealBipolar 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Basically lawmakers and judges have no interest in prosecuting false accusers and will often just side with them because it’s politically correct to not question it.

[–]CatGuardian012 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Politically correct?wtf does that even mean,that's just awful

[–]EtherealBipolar 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Politically correct means progressively acceptable and/or appropriate but not objectively correct.

The Uk is going down this very worrying path at the moment.

For example, we have no legal protections for freedom of speech so certain types of speech are being slowly banned and labelled legally as hate speech in quite vague laws.

[–]CatGuardian012 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dammm things looking to be real rough,stay safe my dudes

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Neither lawmakers nor judges prosecute anybody. Lawmakers in all jurisdictions have made at least three laws under which false accusations can be and are prosecuted.

Police have discretion in what they prosecute, they consider several things other than whether a law has been broken. The public interest is a big one, and resourcing is another.

[–]Massaha 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Finally logic has hit the market.

[–]anon5200 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this but i think falsely reporting a crime, and specifically a felony, is already a crime. I support this but making it so people just cant start vicious rumours would be better.

[–]AEHIILRS24 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The perpetrators are sometimes (rarely) charged under things like "making a false official statement" or "misdirecting police resources", but these are a poor fit for the actual and potential harms caused by the offense.

[–]GuyWithTheStalker 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Depending on your state, the variety of rumors, and how exactly they're spread, that very well may already be considered stalking.

[–]crnext 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Please Alabama. Come through for once.

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

Sweet home Alabama

In all seriousness, this is needed everywhere.

[–]Wolosocu 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I am all for these laws as long as they strike a decent balance.

It would be a shame if legitimate victims of rape were concerned about reporting the crime because "if the person who raped me is found not guilty, can I go to jail?"

If the accuser files a false charge out of maliciousness then they should absolutely go to jail. I just worry that actual victims may be subject to charges if their accusations cannot be proven, which may be no fault of their own.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Dickie Drake, R-Leeds, would make falsely reporting a sex crime a Class C felony and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If the accused was proven innocent, the accuser would be responsible for paying the accused person’s legal expenses.

This is an odd wording since trials do not prove someone is innocent, they conclude that someone is "not guilty" which is different. Also, I do not agree that the accuser should be automatically responsible (as this quote suggests) for the accused's legal fees. There are already procedures in place for the falsely-accused to seek reimbursement through civil court.

[–]Historybuffman 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Legislators write laws, judges interpret them. That is part of the separation of powers.

The way they say the accused must be "proven innocent" is probably going to be understood by judges as more than "not guilty". In this case, the false accuser will probably have to be charged with this crime separately, after it was proven that the charges were malicious/not in good faith.

My guess is that instead of generic charges of filing a false police report or perjury, this will (rightfully) be a specific crime for false accusers.

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

I get what you're saying, but at the same time, we have feminists who say that it's better to ruin the lives of 100 innocent men to make sure 1 guilty one pays. You can't win against people who think like that by playing fair. And that's really a shame.

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Source? I see crazy stuff, but not that crazy.

I have seen ridiculous extremists but they do not have any sway in the legal community. E.g. since the 70s there have always been nutters saying the standard of evidence for criminal trials for everything except rape can be left as is, but an exception should be made for rape. I have never seen anyone in the legal community even bother responding to that.

You are proposing playing unfairly with an opponent who is not even on the field.

[–]danieljbarragan 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No harm in making it easier to get justice right?

I sincerely doubt this bill would harm innocent victims.

[–]Trusty_Pigeon[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This was my initial thought, honestly.

I was hoping to read a clear cut:

'If they are proven not guilty, does the evidence show a false accusation? If so, a case should be raised to punish the false claim.'

It reads like:

'Not guilty, she pays his legal fees'

And that doesn't seem right.

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Correct if the article was correct, but it was wrong. A separate trial would be needed to prosecute the complainant for a false accusation, though that was not explicitly stated in the bill.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2019RS/PrintFiles/HB544-int.pdf

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

READ THE ACTUAL BILL

[–]Wsing1974 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

READ THE BILL

[–]ashensorcerer 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know where I'm moving to.

[–]Metalboxman 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Victory royale

[–]14b755fe39 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I read the bill, I am skepticalof the claim that "it would deter actual victims" ... the accused has to prove the claims are false...so good as this law will deter false accusers, hopefully.

[–]Needlecrash 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In my opinion false accusers have something seriously wrong with them. Does not give a shit about ruining someones life as long as she gets attention. About time we get some justice!

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes they do have something wrong with them. They are typically very young and seldom have control of their lives. They are often mentally ill, sometimes severely so.

[–]DestroyerOfDoom29 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Finally Alabama does something good

[–]Florient 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good. False accusations *do happen, much more commonly than feminists say. They can send someone to prison, and rapists are often targeted for violence in prison. A false accusation is a very serious crime that can cause great harm. It's not to say rape accusations should be taken less seriously, feminists have made it a nonsensical zero-sum game.

[–]RaptorsCdwoods 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The words “willingly, knowingly and with malicious intent are thrown around a lot. So it shouldn’t stop people from coming forward if they actually got raped.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty standard for any crime. Just in case someone could accidentally or unwittingly do the physical part of the crime. Even rape has some aspect of that namely that if you don't intend to have sex, or accidentally have sex then it can't be rape. The consent part of rape though has no equivalent mens rea.

[–]they_be_cray_z 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't even include malicious intent as a factor. So long as they knew it. People cry rape for all sorts of things, including attention-seeking and alibi.

[–]Tatrer 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This will be interesting to see in action. IANAL, but the bill states that in order to be found guilty someone will have to "Willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, make a false report..." I think those stipulations are adequate protections for those who make rape accusations that get thrown out for not enough evidence.

People who are raped need to report them much quicker. This is the true problem with so many rape cases being thrown out. I understand that victims may not wish to immediately relive their experiences, but if my bike is stolen, and I wait a week before reporting it missing, chances are slim that my bike will be found and the perpetrator will be brought to justice. Perhaps my report will stop them from stealing someone else's bike.

[–]sumfacilispuella 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

people aren't reporting soon enough or at all because there is little to be gained from doing so. you might get a bike back but you cant get unraped. also the conviction rate is shit and lately it seems that even if there is a conviction, theres no jailtime. so why go thru all that shit and have everyone know what happened to you, the defense call you a whore, etc. not worth it for many people.

[–]Tatrer 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If stopping someone from doing whatever they did again isn't worth it, then maybe it wasn't so bad.

That statement is hyperbolic, and I believe that rape is a terrible thing to do to someone. But people who are raped cannot expect the law to help them if they don't have any evidence to work with. The conviction rate is shit because of people making claims with no evidence.

I also believe that people who are raped owe it to society to report the crime. We have laws, reporting procedures, and due process for a reason. Perhaps the first case won't end in jail time, or force someone onto a registry. But there will be a record, and the law takes second offenses very seriously.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alabama lawmakers are so fucking lazy they usually just copy another state's laws word for word. But there's no state to copy from here. Nobody else doing it.

[–]tgbsv 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

isn't it already perjury?

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shush, we're having fun pretending the top minds of Alabama have invented a wonderful new thing that nobody else in the world had thought of.

[–]mrBatata 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Apparently lawmakers were tired of their sisters accusing them of rape

(its a jooooooke fcol)

[–]ReasonableFlamingo 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My guess is that the "republican" who introduced the bill is up for reelection and if he wins he will not revisit the bill and make some excuse up about it until he needs to be reelected again.

Now watch as the "feminists" all come out in full force claiming to be oppressed by the men.

[–]Mrawesomeguy88 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck yes

[–]CrackingYs 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I doubt it will pass. Our society seems content with allowing women to go around and point a finger at any man they choose, say the right words, and like a magic wand that man disappears into a jail cell, loses his job, friends, and family.

Until this magic power is outlawed, then I presume our society supports and encorages it.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In the US a smidgin over 2% of rape accusations to police end up with a felony conviction. That is not exactly a magic wand available to all women.

US Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers, presented by RAINN:
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

[–]braden1118 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

SWEET HOME ALABAMA

[–]felizcheese 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Time to go after yearbook lady

[–]assassincreed0007 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only good thing in ALABAMA

[–]Overson_YT 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's hope the rest of the US follows this. Hell, let the rest of the WORLD follow this.

[–]Pipezilla 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This should’ve been a law a long time ago!!

[–]Aegidius25 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

thank goodness

[–]Pensive_wolf 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's fucked up that this isn't already a thing.

[–]tim99uk 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

About bloody time!

[–]ViableHunter 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Brb guys I'm moving to Alabama...

[–]Yeah_Nopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So I've gone to 6 different threads on this, and I have to say I'm beyond frustrated. I thought at least here, at r/MensRights, it wont be like all the other threads. I thought to myself that there's no way everyone here will be arguing about what the bill says, without having you know, actually read the bill. There's no way they will just be copy pasting from the article, when the bill itself is linked in the second paragraph of the article.

Well color me disappointed. Sweet Grandmother's Spatula people, read the damn bill, it's only three fucking pages. Shockingly, by reading the bill, you don't have to guess what's in the bill, because you've fucking read it!

[–]Mexay 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Just to play devil's advocate here:

Would this not prevent women from coming forward and admitting they lied?

Obviously it sucks when they do this, but right now if they do falsely accuse someone, their is at list the tiniest bit of hope they'll come out and admit they lied later. This would absolutely kill that.

If you've gotten away with murder, any confess?

[–]Wsing1974 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

So we should stop prosecuting for murder because it will deter confessions?

[–]Mexay 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I mean a confession isn't going to un-murder someone.

A confession of false rape claim will at least help clear someone's name. Sure it won't fix things but it sure as shit would help, particularly if it's early on.

[–]Wsing1974 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Okay, burglary then. You want your stuff back? We can't prosecute burglars, because it might deter confessions.

[–]HolyShitHoldMyFries 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I think you are missing the point. Both murder and burglary. If someone claims they have seen a murder but didn’t, or said they were robbed but was never; they would be less likely to state that they lied later on, because if they did they would go to jail or be in trouble.

Look at people who have been wrongfully convicted of rape, some spend 10+ year in prison only in social media did their accusers say that it never happen. Thus setting them free. By having a law stating they will be punished for lying doesn’t deter them from lying, since our system is still heavily favor to the accuser, it might deter them from ever stating they lied.

A way to think of it is, by Alabama having this law they will only significantly lower their rate in wrongfully convicted, and maybe lower some of their false accusations but the system favors the accuser. By lowering the wrongfully convicted Alabama will look better statistically for properly handling cases. Also, this might lower case loads for the courts because people are scared to report, thus heightening the Feminist Movement. Think about it, I can picture 4th Wave crazed Feminist using this to push more radical policies and politicians through because women are scared to come forward. We will start hearing the 1 of 5 statistic again.

To be honest, for men’s rights our sole focus should be on the proper trail of cases and not allowing the accused to be named until convicted. For the safety of the men. Not the punishment of others.

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I think a law like this might have the effect you're talking about for a very small number of cases, but a larger effect for more of them. For every 1 case where it prevents a false accuser from coming forth, there will be 5 more cases where the false accusation never happened in the first place.

[–]HolyShitHoldMyFries 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get that and that is a certain possibility, I don’t it will have that type of effect. The wording would make it hard to prove that intent on false accusations are there, and the system favors the accuser already. We have a hard enough time proving it’s false when there is no evidence. Both things allows for they said, them said stand still in the courts. During that time, the accused reputation is ripped apart in the media and is labeled as a rapist. What we need is our focus to go towards is a more proper trial and handling of cases, and not allowing accused persons be named in the media or by other persons. I think it is more of an amid to quite current false accusers, so the reversal rate stops increasing. Wrongful convictions that already happen will stop, and their are plenty out there. Liars will always be there and will find a away especially in a system that has a view of “we need to believe the accuser”.

I believe if this gets passed we will see a major swing and provide more backing for other things on the 4th Wave crazed Feminist agenda. It will certainly give a push for the like of Kamal Harris or other radical feminist, and the wrong agenda for true equality and rights to all.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If you read a bunch of false accusation summaries, they are not master criminals who balance benefits consequences and risk.

They are brainless scared kids who did not have the maturity to face admitting infidelity or simply breaking rules e.g. having consensual sex, drinking, drugging, going to a party or somewhere else they shouldn't. Or failing a year at school or university, or knowing they will fail exams. Or needing attention, or to cover embarrassment of having screwed a low-status kid, or of being dumped.

So they panicked and claimed rape, to their parent or just to their best friend or to the school rumour network. But it escalated, they chose to double down at each step, and eventually their parent makes a formal complaint to police and they are a witness.

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe the law would apply to most of the cases you're talking about, because those kids usually don't have a specific person they accused. The kid just says "I was raped, here's a description, I don't know his name". The proposed law specifies that the accusation is made maliciously, so it wouldn't apply if there's no victim.

The law would apply in cases where a specific person was accused of rape falsely, knowingly, and maliciously. In other words, they did it purposefully to hurt someone. When that happens, there is a victim, and those victims need justice too.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Sadly half or more of FAs do accuse someone, and many are the type of cases I described. Crazy shit like a girl accusing her BF of rape when a parent barges in on them, because she is too immature to admit having consensual sex to her parent. To formally diagnose a sociopath the person must be over 18, because sociopathic behavior is not all that uncommon in younger kids.

There certainly are cases where it would be nice to have the complainant convicted but I don't see how this law is any easier to get a conviction under than the perjury [Edit: and perverting the course of justice] laws.

Recovery of lawyer expenses without the cost of a civil case is a nice feature but it is enormously harder to prove the case at the criminal standard of proof, and I wonder if failure to achieve it would prevent a civil claim later because of double jeopardy.

[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Perjury requires proof of lying in court, under oath. The damage has been done long before it gets to that point.

Also, perjury is almost never prosecuted.

[–]antilopes1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are two other common charges that can apply before the trial: filing a false complaint, and the very serious charge of perverting the course of justice e.g. setting up fake evidence, witness tampering. Conspiracy makes that charge much more serious if it exists.

I don't see how the proposed law makes it any easier to prosecute or to convict, or why police would choose to use it instead of existing laws. I suspect it is merely grandstanding by a legislator. The lack of detail in the bill makes me question how serious the proponent is.

[–]Wsing19742 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2019RS/PrintFiles/HB544-int.pdf

[–]FLOPPY_DONKEY_DICK 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or they rule in court it was a false claim.

[–]kobarci 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Although it's true that it'll deter confessions but it'll also deter women from lying about rape because they will know there will be consequences if people find out that they lied about rape. I think deterring women from falsely accusing men will benefit society to a greater extent than it harms by deterring confessions

[+]ScotWithOne_t -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

This post needs to be higher. Everyone here is so adamant about "getting revenge" on false accusers, that they are not seeing the bigger picture. This will not only remove any incentive for a false accuser to fess-up, but it will also deter MANY legitimate victims. There is a lot of fear involved with rape; it's an extremely dominating crime. It's like a kid being bullied that is threatened with more violence if he tells a teach or whatever. Now adding a layer of legal repercussions on top of that is just not a good idea. The problem of social destruction from false accusation needs to be approached from the opposite direction, which is reinforcing "innocent until proven guilty." Start holding employers and schools accountable for preemptively punishing an accused person before a conviction. The social aspect is much more difficult to control If a girl says "he raped me," and the guy says, "no I didn't, you're just trying to get me in trouble." Whom do you believe?

[–]Wsing1974 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

"We no longer prosecute people for burglary because we don't want to deter confessions. If we deter confessions you might never get your stuff back".

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You don't need your stuff back, it is just stuff.

Most studies suggest about 8% of rape complaints are false, and half or more of those acccuse an individual. About 2% of complaints are provably false.

The % of complaints to police which meet the UK CPS guidelines for prosecution was found to be 1.5% in 2010.

Heenan 2008 in Victoria found 2.1% to be false with enough certainty to either prosecute, or threaten with prosecution if they did not retract.

Another study found 1.3% provably false, from memory.

So most of the FAs are unprovable, which is why police prioritise leaving accusers an easy exit, over attacking false accusers.

[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If we don't care about getting justice for these victims, why do we care about getting justice for anyone?

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There are two obvious unavoidable compromises.

One is that victims don't usually report rapes to police, often because they could not face a trial even as complainant, never mind as possible defendant.

The other is that complainants often get into a FA by doubling down on a lie they never intended to reach police. If they are not given an easy exit they will drag innocent people into investigations and even arrest, and maybe court. Any attempt to punish false accusers must be weighed against the innocent men who will not have their accusation retracted, and will have to live under a cloud regardless of whether it goes to court or gets a conviction.

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

  1. The standard of proof for prosecuting a malicious false allegation would be the same standard of proof for prosecuting a rape. That is, beyond a reasonable doubt. So to those who say, "If you don't commit rape, then you don't have to worry about it", I say, "back atcha". Do we trust the criminal justice system or do we not? Do we say the standard of proof is good enough for men, but not good enough for women? If it's difficult for a woman to face trial as a victim, how hard do you think it is for a man to face trial as a defendant?

  2. Police often promise lighter sentences in exchange for confessions. The current dynamic has no penalty for lying, regardless if you recant early, later, or never at all. This would change the dynamic to being a plea bargain for confessing, or a harsh penalty if it goes to trial.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Perjury has always been a serious offence. So has perverting the course of justice (e.g. witness tampering), and far more so if there is conspiracy.

Then there is the nice simple "wasting police time" which is easy to prosecute as a misdemeanor, and gets the incident recorded permanently as a warning flag.

This law won't make it easier to get a conviction and it will not change the police decision on whether a prosecution is in the public interest, so it has little point that I can see. Getting the defendant's legal costs back would be nice if he gets accused by a woman with assets or a decent income, but the reality of FAs is they are typically mentally unstable or ill young women with no assets and little earning ability.

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Perjury is lying under oath, in court. It doesn't apply to those who lie outside of court. Also, perjury is almost never prosecuted.

Maliciously attempting to destroy someone's life deserves more than a misdemeanor. My ex-wife tried to do something similar to me. Not with rape, but with arson. She set fire to her own house, and attempted to frame me for it. Luckily, I was over 150 miles away at the time, but while the investigation went on she told everyone, including my children, that I set fire to her house. The county declined to prosecute her for the arson, so she got zero punishment for what she did.

A false rape accusation is almost the same thing, except much, much worse. The accusation requires no hard evidence, only an accusation. The media pays more attention. The social stigma is worse and never goes away. Proving innocence is much harder. Police are quicker to arrest and the record never goes away.

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is always a serious offence for actions outside court, called perverting the course of justice or similar.

FA is an awful thing and maybe it should be a criminal offense.
It would very seldom be provable, like rape. But worth it for the times it is provable. False accusations sometimes have an evidence trail or an alibi.

You can do a civil suit for damages at the 51% evidence standard, which will I guess will be at least ten times as likely to succeed. But only if you and they have money. And I don't know if you can subpoena witnesses and comms provider evidence as easily as police can.

That is awful what your wife did. People ask me why MRAs are so angry. I see so many terrible stories on here.

[–]corey-- 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Huh? To be prosecuted of a false rape charge it has to be proven that you willfully made it up. How is that ever going to happen to a rape victim?

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The process of trying to establish truth in a rape trial where the accuser is not on trial is often so traumatic that it is a common reason for not reporting rapes. The prosecution very commonly accuses the complainant of willfully making it up.

The % of rapes reported is estimated to be 8% - 25% by various surveys and countries.

Accusers often feel as if they are on trial themselves, and they are in a sense. It is necessary to do this but that does not make it easier.

[–]KnightofNarg 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It has to be proven to be a falsehood before the accuser is charged, and they will have every right at trial to defend themselves.

But it does say proven in the bill. It is entirely possible for the individual to take back their accusations before trial, if the DA agrees to back off. If the accused takes a plea deal or is unfairly found guilty, the false accuser is still off the hook if they later come out with the truth.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There would need to be two trials, and the second one would only happen if police thought it was a good idea to prosecute. About 2% of complaints are provably false, but not all of those would be prosecuted. Police don't prosecute FA unless they are pretty certain of winning, or at least of the public realising it really was a FA.

[–]iCorrosiveArrow 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Am I reading this right? Alabama doing something positive as a state? What?

[–]abatoire 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not read the bill but I think this is a very important piece of law. Which, if done right will role out in other parts as well.

The only concern for this bill that, in my eyes, the accusation needs to be above average false. So a rape victim for example shouldn't be persecuted due to a lack of evidence.

If it is proven to be malicious and baseless lie then all for it. Tbh, in such case I'm amazed they aren't prosecuted for wasting police time.

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

READ THE BILL

[–]Nicobellisawsome 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was not expecting this type of justice in Alabama, but I am so happy that this is getting passed.

[–]DarthCallidous 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

FINALLY. It will never come to California though :/

[–]BlackBoxInquiry 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good. They need to. Felony with the same punishment as rape.

No free rides. Besides, if the accusation was already marked, legal has been begun and the life of the accused forever fucked.

Hang one of these lying sacks of shit out to dry and make an example of her...

There’s no fear for someone with a true accusation, but for one making up shit however because they’re an immature asshole on the other...

Isn’t there an existing law about filing false police reports? Use that and then stack this on top...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How is that not already a crime?

[–]DarkerScorp 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well done Alabama! It's about time.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kathleen Connolly, director of the Alabama Coalition Against Rape, said this bill would deter people from reporting sex crimes, which are already one of the most under-reported crimes.

If a law criminalizing false reporting of sex crimes is deterring you from reporting a crime, then you apparently have serious concerns that the crime wasn't real in the first place.

[–]4realzbruh 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why is this not already a thing?

[–]bradtwo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

... as it should have been since day 1.

also it should still be (like every other law) the burden of proof is on the accuser. meaning, no evidence / no proof = no crime. taking someones word for anything is foolish.

[–]MobileWangWhacker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kinda crazy that people would actually oppose this thing though like wtf

[–]Leinadro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Turns out the bill has passed and frankly I don't like it. Shit like this is just going to get used as an excuse to continue denying rights to men and keep the conversation focused on women.

This bill is horrible for a lot of reasons and I don't support it.

[–]RaptorsCdwoods 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit! I’ve loved in Alabama for 20 years and this is the first time I’ve woken up and Alabama not disappoint me. I’m liking this change of pace. I mean, I totally expect them to somehow fuck this up by going back when feminists apply some heat but at least they’re starting the conversation.

This is the beginning of the end for people who think they can knowingly try to ruin someone else’s life with false rape accusations.

[–]Minoxidil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i fear this will hamper male rape reporting exclusively on the grounds that there's little likelihood that a male rape case that isn't tabloid worthy (ex, male marital rape)would be taken seriously even if the problem is serious the victim may feel like not only now is their social repercussions for not being believed AND legal

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alabama and Georgia are going to see an exodus of young women.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So many many conversations I've had here trying to explain to people that maliciously and falsely accusing someone of rape is not a crime.

It ought to be but it isn't right now.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It is the crime of filing a false report in the US, given other names in other jurisdictions e.g. wasting police time, and maybe obstruction.

If there is an attempt to recruit others it is an attempt to pervert the course of justice, a serious charge. Conspiracy is possible too, which is extremely serious.

If it gets to court it is perjury, another very serious charge.

All jurisdictions have crimes corresponding to these.

About 2% of complaints are provably false, and police use their discretion for which cases to prosecute. If you read a few dozen false complaint summaries you may understand why police often choose not to prosecute.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No filing a false report is a separate thing. You don't have to file any report to accuse someone of rape. All you are saying is that maybe the person who falsely accuses you of rape has also committed other crimes and maybe the police will arrest them for those other crimes.

So what?

None of that makes falsely accusing someone of rape a crime.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right. It is slander, so you can make a civil claim for damages at the 51% evidence standard.

Here we have a special disputes tribunal for claims under $5k, or $10k by agreement. It costs fifty bucks, no lawyers are allowed and you get some kind of justice promptly from a trained arbitrator.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah what could go wrong apart from being murdered by some white knights?

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