(02-07-2016 09:46 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  YES....Women and men should go to jail if they make false rape allegations. Such a case would have the same criminal standard as the original rape case.

Yes, that is my opinion in a nutshell.

(02-07-2016 10:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 12:55 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Brian Banks?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footba...-1.2090727

Yep

That sig needs Von Millers head..

The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

Honest question: do prosecuters have to buy malpractice insurance? If not, civil action is nearly useless.

(02-08-2016 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

Honest question: do prosecuters have to buy malpractice insurance? If not, civil action is nearly useless.

No, the various states self insure usually. It's called malicious prosecution and it is against the state. The reason for this is because the prosecutor represents the state and swears to do justice. When they fly of their rocker and pursue ****** cases there is a cause of action.

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

So someone should *knowingly* be able to send a fellow citizen to jail with a false and malicious allegation and there should be zero civil recourse?

If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, malicious intent then jail time should be an option. That does not mean *if the guy is found not guilty then the accuser goes to jail*

(02-08-2016 12:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

So someone should *knowingly* be able to send a fellow citizen to jail with a false and malicious allegation and there should be zero civil recourse?

If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, malicious intent then jail time should be an option. That does not mean *if the guy is found not guilty then the accuser goes to jail*

It doesn't fall on the accuser. It falls on the state. The prosecutors job is to simply not prosecute ****** allegations.

(02-08-2016 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

Honest question: do prosecuters have to buy malpractice insurance? If not, civil action is nearly useless.

No, the various states self insure usually. It's called malicious prosecution and it is against the state. The reason for this is because the prosecutor represents the state and swears to do justice. When they fly of their rocker and pursue ****** cases there is a cause of action.

So civil penalties against prosecutors don't even really hurt them, instead hurt the tax payers... nice..

(02-08-2016 12:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

Honest question: do prosecuters have to buy malpractice insurance? If not, civil action is nearly useless.

No, the various states self insure usually. It's called malicious prosecution and it is against the state. The reason for this is because the prosecutor represents the state and swears to do justice. When they fly of their rocker and pursue ****** cases there is a cause of action.

So civil penalties against prosecutors don't even really hurt them, instead hurt the tax payers... nice..

It creates an incentive for a prosecutor to do their job.

(02-08-2016 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

Honest question: do prosecuters have to buy malpractice insurance? If not, civil action is nearly useless.

No, the various states self insure usually. It's called malicious prosecution and it is against the state. The reason for this is because the prosecutor represents the state and swears to do justice. When they fly of their rocker and pursue ****** cases there is a cause of action.

Thanks, so they would sue the state, not the prosecuter directly right?

(02-08-2016 01:01 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

Honest question: do prosecuters have to buy malpractice insurance? If not, civil action is nearly useless.

No, the various states self insure usually. It's called malicious prosecution and it is against the state. The reason for this is because the prosecutor represents the state and swears to do justice. When they fly of their rocker and pursue ****** cases there is a cause of action.

Thanks, so they would sue the state, not the prosecuter directly right?

It would depend on the statute in the particular state. Some yea and some no.

Got it, thanks!

In all honesty Max is probably the best person on here to talk to. I would imagine he has actually pursued a case on this if anybody on here has.

(02-08-2016 12:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The idea of punishing people for making accusations sets up a system where you punish those who simply failed to prove a case. Potentially punishing rape victims twice is simply not worth it.

It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I assume. Just because the accused is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the accuser is guilty. Usually there probably isn't enough evidence to convict either. But if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser maliciously faked the allegation, she should abcolutely be prosecuted, no?

I think civil penalties against a prosecutor who runs with that covers this. We already have that. It is the prosecutors job to sort this kind of crap out.

The idea here is that you simply don't want a system that punished people for coming forward, which is what is being discussed here does.

So someone should *knowingly* be able to send a fellow citizen to jail with a false and malicious allegation and there should be zero civil recourse?

If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, malicious intent then jail time should be an option. That does not mean *if the guy is found not guilty then the accuser goes to jail*

It doesn't fall on the accuser. It falls on the state. The prosecutors job is to simply not prosecute ****** allegations.

In fairness, you and I both know this prosecutorial discretion business has flown away...especially in jurisdictions with elections for prosecutor. This business of concerning ourselves more with the accuser has led to a system where very few prosecutors actually challenge the stories, veracity, or background of the accuser for fear of having so-called women's groups come after them. IMO, 95% of sexual assault cases are he said, she said situations and many prosecutors are simply willing to punt to a grand jury and go to trial instead of challenging anything their complainant says.

But seriously, if someone has pursued a sexual assault allegation and it is provable that they falsified it, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is just as much of an injustice to the State and our rule of law when someone sexually assaults one of our citizens as when they falsely accuse a citizen.

Moreover, a civil case against the government for prosecutorial misconduct is a very, very difficult thing to prevail on. It's usually not enough to show that they were wrong or that they may have weighed certain evidence more so than other evidence. You have to prove that they pretty much had indisputable evidence that proved you were innocent or the complainant was lying and they chose to ignore it. Usually what happens is that it comes to light as the trial proceeds that the complaining witness may not have been telling the truth based on the defense's effort to prove their client's innocence. These cases are like a Pandora's box and very rarely can you walk them back. In cases where the complaining witness was clearly lying, IMO, it is necessary to prosecute that person just so the accused can get a part of their life back. No matter what, an innocent person can never be made whole after these baseless allegations.