~ archived since 2018 ~

Second-time false rape accuser won't go to jail for her latest rape lie -- because she's pregnant

PierceHarlan

August 4, 2010

64 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/08/second-time-false-rape-accuser-wont-go.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

Post Information

Title	Second-time false rape accuser won't go to jail for her latest rape lie -- because she's pregnant
Author	PierceHarlan
Upvotes	64
Comments	42
Date	August 4, 2010 12:51 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cx96b/secondtime_false_rape_accuser_wont_go_to_jail_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/second-time-false-rape-accuser-wont-go-to-jail-for.1048300 https://theredarchive.com/post/1048300

Comments

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 16 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

the headline isn't exactly clear. Her sentence was delayed, not removed. She's still going to go to prison, no? Shit, the real sad part is that the sentence is only 12 months for the repeat offense. I get that it's unfair to the baby, and it's a tough call to make, but still, 12 months is way too short for the potential damage done, and for repeatedly doing it. Some fines, some community service, anything.

Perhaps it's just because the accusation wasn't targeted (I understand it's still damaging, but no not as swift and brutal as a targeted accusation). And perhaps if it was a first time offense I'd understand a more lenient sentence. but the fact that she made a false accusation again right out the gate is itself very, very damning and imo warrants a larger sentence than before, whether or not it's delayed.

[+][deleted] 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stemgang 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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

not saying the baby should be a get out of jail free card, ftr.

Arguing that it's all on the mother that the baby is also being imprisoned doesn't really fly imo. For all intents and purposes, the baby is innocent. Should an innocent person be imprisoned for the actions of others who are guilty? No. That wouldn't fly for any other case. It's not like the baby is an accomplice. But separating them could also be bad for the baby, depending on who he/she stays with, and (maybe? im no expert) because of how young the baby is. What if the baby has nobody to stay with?

It's a sticky situation. You're picking between lesser evils. Should babies absolve you from repeat offenses for serious (but perhaps not serious enough in some people's eyes) crimes? No. But that doesn't mean we should always immediately throw babies in prison with their mothers.

It's not so black and white.

[–]stemgang 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

the baby is innocent

Agreed.

But separating them could also be bad for the baby,

Yes. Babies need their Mothers and Fathers, and separating them WILL hurt the baby.

that doesn't mean we should always immediately throw babies in prison with their mothers.

ummm, that's not what I was saying. If you want to transition to the point of the baby's welfare, let's do so.

The baby would be better off in jail with its Mother than with foster care outside.

If that is not an option, then foster care is available.

But the overlooked option is for the Father to take care of the baby, if he so chooses, while the Mother is in jail...and afterward, too, since she is an unfit Mother.

Back to the original point: society has a justice interest in punishing criminals. It is wrong to use the baby's welfare to escape punishment.

Sadly, in this case, the baby must suffer, and it is the Mother's fault, not society's.

[–]JLContessa 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]stemgang 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JLContessa 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Your opinion sounds more emotional.

You would prefer more logical arguments, dealing with the incentives and economic reasoning behind criminal behavior...very well:

Criminals are often deterred by a credible threat of punishment. Criminals also have short time horizons, and a strong preference for current consumption.

In this case, the criminal found it emotionally satisfying to levy a false rape charge. She did not find the threat of punishment credible enough to discourage her.

Pushing the punishment further into the future only lessens the chance that it will have a deterrent effect. It also sends a signal to other criminals that their punishments will be neither swift nor certain.

As for the baby (pregnancy), there are other options: stay with Dad, stay with relatives, stay with Mother in jail, go into foster care, or get an abortion.

It is sad that the baby must suffer for the crimes of its Mother. But that is her choice and her responsibility.

As for the baby being taken care of in jail, for how long?

Let me reverse that. "As for the mother being out of jail, for how long?" Will her non-punishment extend until her child's 21st birthday?

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]stemgang -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

sorry, i had thought you were arguing that the baby shouldn't play a role at all, saying that it was all on the mother and that the court had no responsibility over the baby.

And I now realize that we have no clue what the parent situation is. Who is the father, and is he around? Is she even in a relationship? If the father is around and they are in a relationship, then she should definitely go to jail a lot sooner. There's little excuse, since the baby can go to the father. Is there any info on this?

for that last bit, you could easily argue that protecting the innocent is more important than jailing the guilty, and I don't think many would disagree with that here. Just saying. Once again, the baby shouldn't absolve you from punishment, but I do think it's an important factor you can't neglect.

[–]stemgang 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You've made your points well. Do you mind if I side-track a bit? Not completely irrelevant, I promise.

protecting the innocent is more important than jailing the guilty

Usually, the argument (protection of innocents vs. guilty) is in terms of distinguishing the accused (innocent until proven guilty) from the convicted (beyond a reasonable doubt).

But in this case, you're talking about protecting the baby (innocent) from punishment for its Mother's (guilty) crimes.

What you're describing is collateral damage, in which case the punished (baby) is unarguably innocent. Our society, as a whole, does a very poor job recognizing and preventing collateral damage.

We see it in warfare, we see it in criminal justice, and we see it in economics, where it is called "externalities."

The criminal creates costs that others are forced to pay. You are right, of course, that there are no easy solutions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]stemgang 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

but it is the same one shared by society.

well, I wouldn't call that justification. I'm not sure I'd even agree with the statement (how do you know society at large shares your viewpoint? The judge certainly didn't). But I guess I simply have my priorities elsewhere. It's hard to get solid footing on this for a couple reasons.

For one, I don't really know what conditions are like in women's prisons, and what accommodations are made to those with babies. From what little I know it seems like it varies. I've read some pretty awful stories but also some pretty good ones, and I know that at least some prisons have very impressive support for mothers, but don't know if the number of nursery programs have increased substantially since I last heard about them (They're probably not cheap). I'd have to do more research in that regard. If the prison does have a proper nursery, then I would certainly agree with you that serving her sentence with the child would be acceptable. Although imo she shouldn't have to give birth in prison. She's already extremely pregnant, and giving birth in prison is not ideal for the safety of the baby and mother. It happens, but I think it should be avoided if possible. If there's no nursery, the matter gets more complicated.

Two, sending a child to prison with his or her mother is not the same as sending an adult or adolescent to prison. I really don't know what the effects would be. It depends largely on reason one.

[–]stemgang 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

(how do you know society at large shares your viewpoint? The judge certainly didn't)

I overstated my case there. Sorry. But I still believe the judge's decision was against the best interests of society.

There are many people who go to jail who have dependents. Those innocent dependents then suffer as a result.

The difference here is one of degree, not of kind. The baby's needs can be met elsewhere, just as the other innocent dependents must find a way to survive when their provider goes to jail.

If we use the dependents' needs as a justification for reducing punishments, then we open the system to all kinds of abuses.

Gemma Scoones was given another 12-month sentence, but this one was suspended for two years.

What if she gets pregnant again during those two years? Will her sentence be delayed for another two years?

What about a man supporting a family of five? If he commits a crime, should he go to jail? What about his innocent children?

I know you want to be compassionate and nuanced, but keeping this woman out of jail is a crime against society. She has not learned her lesson, she is a recidivist, and now that she knows that she can get away with it, she is extremely likely to re-offend.

What about her future victims? Do the baby's needs outweigh their needs?

[–][deleted]2 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just to be clear, I agree that she shouldn't get her sentence waived for the exact reason you mention. and tbh even if it was an outright delay and not a "suspension", 2 years is too long, particularly if she's already very far along in the pregnancy.

I think there's a distinction to be made between a newborn and a child several years old. You can't take a toddler into prison. There are times like that when bringing the children into prison is simply not feasible (like if the defendant has 5 kids). But the age of the child matters. I'm guessing that the judge would not have been so forgiving if the child was a couple years old, and neither would I (although I wouldn't be quite so forgiving, anyways). perhaps discretion needs to be taken case by case, because I can't find a good answer that covers all situations. When I come down to it, it's always a judgment call. And that, in itself, is a problem, since consistency is important. But I'm not in the position of extreme leniency, certainly. I think this case posed a unique situation because she was already pregnant and in a late phase. And even then, I'm torn, particularly because it's a repeat offense.

as far as abuse is concerned, im a little skeptical of how easy or prevalent that would be. getting pregnant is no small matter, after all. Perhaps this could simply be mitigated by limiting the number of times a concession could be made (like, 1), and for what kinds of crimes.

[–]RAGNAR_BLOODFIST -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hardwarily0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chunkycow6 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ishaar 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mcwilshire 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dimmak 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trollytrollerson 13 points14 points15 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trollytrollerson 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]greenymile 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themeec -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link