Australian Politician's Career Destroyed by False Rape Claim
August 12th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Here's a case we've covered before. GlennSacks.com reader Hari Narayan Singh Khalsa contributed a piece on the story here. Now the final chapter has been written here (Herald Sun, 7/29/09).
The allegation of rape against Victoria Labor MP Theo Theophanous has been dismissed by the judge. The claim was a pure fabrication by a woman who thought destroying a man's career and reputation would be a good way to make some money. Magistrate Peter Reardon called the complainant an "entirely unreliable witness," and said the case against Theophanous lacked "credibility, reliability and truthfulness."
Depending on when you asked her, the "rape" occurred in either 1998 or 2000. She claimed to have called two girlfriends immediately afterward to tell them what happened, but both said no call took place. It took her four years (or six, depending on the date of the "crime") to decide to contact the police. When she did, she and the officer in charge of her case took 15 months to cobble together her statement. It went through at least 15 drafts before all its inconsistencies were worked out. In 1994, she'd been convicted of lying about a social security claim. She'd also falsely accused a former boss of sexual harrassment.
Now, all of that might send up a red flag or two to a police officer blessed with the slightest native skepticism, but not the one in this case. When asked in court why he swallowed her flagrant lies, Sergeant Doug Smith replied,
“It’s incumbent on us to believe what complainants tell us ... It’s a matter of support. They’re vulnerable.”
Well, that's good to know. The next time I want to ruin someone's life, I'll remember that.
And that's exactly what's happened. Senior minister Theo Theophanous has announced his retirement from politics. His reputation has been destroyed along with any hope he may have had for his career.
But however terrible his ordeal of public villification may have been for Theophanous and his family, there's more to it than the laying to waste of one man. What this woman did was a blow to Australian democracy. Theo Theophanous was elected by Victorian voters, presumably because they wanted him to represent their interests. One woman, who to this day remains anonymous, decided that the will of the people should be set aside. The law gave her veto power over the most recent election, and she exercised it.
Will charges be brought against her? Apparently not. Will she even be named? Apparently not.
So what this adds up to is a free shot. She failed in her effort to extort money from Theophanous, but future women can scarcely fail to get the message - taking down a male politician is easy, and with any skill at all could be profitable. All it takes is a few words, no matter how false, no matter how inherently unbelievable, and presto! he's out of office and ruined.
Like it or not, the facts are clear; any woman any time can do to any male politician what this woman did to Theo Theophanous, and at no risk to herself.
Thanks to David for the heads-up.
"));
19 queries. 0.372 seconds.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:21 am
"Like it or not, the facts are clear; any woman any time can do to any male politician what this woman did to Theo Theophanous, and at no risk to herself."
I believe this is all that needs to be said
August 12th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Thanks for following up on this.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/politicians-rape-charge-dismissed.html
It has come to the point, where false accusers MUST incur some form of custodial sentence. As a society, we can't tolerate the infantilization of women who do this kind of thing any more. It's past time we started to treat false accusers of rape (who are predominately women), as adults, and levy appropriate punishments to them.
All the best,
E. Steven Berkimer
August 12th, 2009 at 10:27 am
???Hey wait, I thought women and girls..NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, lie about rape...EVER!!!!...???????
August 12th, 2009 at 10:31 am
The Duke lacrosse boys could afford a defense...most of us are held in jail, and told were gonna spend 25-life in jail...unless we plead guilty to a lessor charge.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:09 am
"taking down a male politician is easy, and with any skill at all could be profitable."
I can learn to like such women. In fact, I am thinking of starting a charity fund to compensate this woman for her troubles. She has done a great favor to men all over the world (Sorry Glenn, but she has done more than you as well) and I hope more women follow her foot steps. Now only if we can make every single politician suffer the same fate...... maybe, JUST MAYBE, they will be more careful in how they write laws to control the lives of all other men!
August 12th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Pankaj said:
""taking down a male politician is easy, and with any skill at all could be profitable."
I can learn to like such women. In fact, I am thinking of starting a charity fund to compensate this woman for her troubles. She has done a great favor to men all over the world (Sorry Glenn, but she has done more than you as well) and I hope more women follow her foot steps. Now only if we can make every single politician suffer the same fate...... maybe, JUST MAYBE, they will be more careful in how they write laws to control the lives of all other men!"
That is an outstanding post Pankaj!
It will take Judges, MP's, police, CAS/CPS staff, Lawyers, Doctors and other officials to be subject to the ill devices enabling woman by the laws, acts and legislations enacted by MPs to easily damage if not destroy a man. When those who write the laws are they themselves affected by the very flaws within the laws they wrote, then they will see the need to listen to men and make the much needed changes forthwith before further suffering is applied to mostly men, children and even some women as is currently freely allowed!
Attila
August 12th, 2009 at 11:53 am
...In some 3rd world places, women are oppressed. In western countries, men are oppressed. But it is deemed OK to oppress men because men are privileged and have it so good. Is all this clear?...
August 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Outragous but some good points are made above
Maybe if more polititians get their careers destroyed by absolute bogus claims things will change.
Maybe some ladies in Canada or us could try coming forward with crazy claims against the priminister and President.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
"When asked in court why he swallowed her flagrant lies, Sergeant Doug Smith replied,
“It’s incumbent on us to believe what complainants tell us ... It’s a matter of support. They’re vulnerable.”
This police sergeant ghas his head up his ass. he cannot disitinguish between police work and rape advocacy and therapy.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I agree with Pankaj, et al. - this has to happen to many, many politicians before they will do anything to help ordinary men. Unfortunately, by the time it happens it's likely that female politicians will dominate, and if past experience is predictive those women in power will throw us men under the bus in the name of The Sisterhood.
They say feminism is about 'equal rights,' etc., but we all know those are weasel words that don't stand up to scrutiny when examining the facts on the ground.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Maybe Dr. Phil should give Theo Theophanous a call so they can get in touch with their feelings.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I recall that the President of the United States was sued for "Sexual Harassment" (under rules that he himself helped create.) This eventually lead to his impeachment. Nothing has changed since then. They have only gotten worse.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Pankaj makes a good point. The Salem Witch Hysteria did not end until the Governor's wife was accused.
It is a much bigger world now, so something tells me this is not the event that will put an end to these outrageous injustices, but other politicians must be aware of this case, so it may be a step in that direction.
Thanks to Glenn, as always, for getting the word out.
August 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Its not about female politicians - its about ALL politicians. Because whole concept is wrong, you are all fighting the symptoms, not the cause. Its not that politicians are bad, (which implies that all we need are good politicians), but that they do not have to pay for the order they want to impose upon you.
That is like you handing over your car over to a teenage saying "get me groceries" - the consequences are not that hard to figure out. You don't need a better teenager, you just need to stop handing over your car, and buy your damn groceries yourself!
August 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Ok, Pankaj, I get it. You're a libertarian, and you think all (or most) government is useless, bad, or worse.
But that's just a political ideology and has little to do with men's rights or father's rights.
One can be for the for treatment of men and fathers, without having to believe in any particular political ideology.
You just have to believe in basic fairness and basic facts, namely that social science confirms that children thrive when brought up by two parents.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Oops, that should be "One can be for the fair treatment of men and fathers, without having to believe in any particular political ideology." above.
Sorry for the typo.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Weren't politicians the ones who GAVE women voting rights, and other sundry powers to wreck society, in the first place?
I'm sorry I can only shed crocodile tears for any politician being now being attacked by the Frankenstein monsters he created.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
ztp wrote: Weren't politicians the ones who GAVE women voting rights, and other sundry powers to wreck society, in the first place?
Are you a troll, posting such inflammatory rhetoric like that? You can't seriously be arguing that women shouldn't have voting rights, or that society was somehow "wrecked" by voting women, are you? Do you feel the same way about giving black people the right to vote?
Yes, I get that you're angry at policitians. But maybe you don't realize that you're coming across as hating and blaming all women as well.
It is precisely these kind of inflammatory comments that give feminists ammunition to hurl against men's rights activists: that we all want women "barefoot and pregnant", to be kept in kitchen, etc.
If you're posting for real, I'm hoping and assuming you don't really believe any of that kind of hateful garbage, and that's why I hope you will take a moment to reflect on what you wrote, and revise it appropriately.
(And if you're not posting for real, and are just a troll, please go elsewhere.)
August 12th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
"....has little to do with men's rights or father's rights"
Actually it has everything to do with men's rights - in the way of not violating them. But, you are free to not see these problems as a self-imposed. Like I have said before, keep trying Glenn's way. Keep hoping that, all of a sudden, men's rights will be respected. I have given logical case why in a democratic system it is simply not possible - but you keep on hoping.
In case of men, actually MAN, every man is a minority of one, with a couple of women who might decide to help him. You think men can organize a collective thought - won't happen. It doesn't help in a system that counts on the majority to decide how to treat the minority. But keep the faith.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Pankaj wrote: Actually it has everything to do with men's rights - in the way of not violating them.
There is a small overlap, I grant you, but in my view, there no need to save the village by burning it down.
But as I wrote above, you are welcome to believe whatever political ideology you like -- because frankly achieving our agenda doesn't require adherence to any particular political ideology, just common sense, basic facts, and basic fairness.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
"False Rape Allegation Brings Down Victoria MP Theo Theophanous"
This is a good example for all men to learn their new subservient place. If a woman can bring down such a powerful man what about Joe six-pack / average Joe?
August 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
"our agenda doesn't require adherence to any particular political ideology"
Agreed 100%, except that an agenda does not change anything. Knock Knock, I am suggesting a change in approach. All I am saying is let us not try the same thing that feminists did - for the agenda cannot be fulfilled by those methods. Men cannot depend on just "preaching, petitions and protests" - for men protesting for their rights does not invoke the same chivalrous support that women protesting does. Look at F4J - for sometime they were doing great. Now what happened? Are things just fine and dandy in UK for fathers? Look - if you are going to fight a battle like this - know your odds. Eventually, men who are in this movement will have doubts on whether they are really "the whiners", quit the movement. Men just don't have the staying power OR they have a life to attend to, mouths to feed - unlike suburban feminists whose husbands were taking care of their home and the food for them to agitate.
Second, they depended heavily on spreading hatred towards and blaming men - to mimic their steps would mean MRAs will have to depend on hatred of women - Something that is not be productive and has almost no support in the legitimate circles of MRM.
There are even more factors like this - which is why Glenn's approach just will not work. Its only superficial successes. Some gains will be made, only to be reversed some time later. If, you want a never ending fight - this is one, if you folks keep doing what you are right now.
Right now, the MRM is like a dog which does not understand that the tail it is chasing is attached to its own back. I expect human beings to be smarter .. but again - you are free to do whatever it is that you can. And don't take this the wrong way - I sincerely mean do whatever you think is right.
August 13th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Pankaj does have a point in that politicians who support the feminist agenda and pass stupid laws should not expect too much sympathy when they end up falling victim to what they have facilitated.
If Theo Theophanous was a brave soul who had challenged feminist orthodoxy on these matters, then perhaps he would deserve martyr status.
The political class has created a monster in appeasing the militant feminist industry. Should we really feel bad that this monster may end up devouring some of those who have fed it?
August 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Pankaj. What do you think would better add to or what approach/initiative do you think needs to be taken to succeed in the MRM?
In my view it's not a single faceted approach and I believe it is a vastly complex predicament we re in. It is deeeep rooted. Women have been carrying on for decades in their crusade to better their place in society. They had NO intention to seek equality which was a disguise/justifier and continues to be so, as long as we men who are at the short end of the stick allow it.
I am looking to find and adjust the root of the problem. I believe public awareness is a HUGE part of our necessary strategy and is an integral component thereof. If nobody knows that there is a problem, nobody cares to deal with it until it affects them personally or someone close to them. For example three years ago, I had no idea that a CAS/CPS was an entity that even existed! Six months ago I had no Idea that in Ontario, Canada alone this industry draws annually $1.5 billion tax dollars alone and is growing! The York Region Police Board funds women’s shelters with seed capital in the thousands of dollars for their fund raising gala events. Need we wonder why men are being unjustly charged and prosecuted with a coalition like that. What I am discovering is the network of the feminists is so deep rooted in society that it resembles a cancer in it’s final stages of growth with the same mortal eventuality. The cost of appeasing women by society is mammoth and in the tens of billions of dollars every year!!!
Why does it need to cost so much to have women around? Oops I forgot, they don’t want a man to protect them or provide for them they, just want men to cover the astronomical cost by the state as they want it all to themselves. Greed, greed and ever more greed!!! I say we privatize!
Perhaps it would have been a valuable lesson for the MP to have been charged, sentenced and released from jail only after serving say three or four years to get a good taste of what it means to those men who are currently sitting in jail, unjustly based on a woman’s lie and perjury. That is now a missed opportunity that would have served men very well!
Attila
August 13th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
"I am looking to find and adjust the root of the problem"
"The cost of appeasing women by society is mammoth and in the tens of billions of dollars every year!!"
There you go - that's the way to strike at the root.
Stop paying for these man-haters work. Unfortunately, most of these are paid through taxes. What it means to stop paying for harming other men - means you will have to
1. Either go into elaborate accounting and refuse the part that you pay towards these sorts of things.
2. Or refuse to participate in the system and work to build a new voluntary system where everyone has to pay for their own way and can voluntarily pay for things they think are worth it. That way, apart from male feminists, no one will pay to implement anti-male programs.
August 13th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
2. Or refuse to participate in the system and work to build a new voluntary system where everyone has to pay for their own way and can voluntarily pay for things they think are worth it. That way, apart from male feminists, no one will pay to implement anti-male programs.
Pankaj,
Essentially, 'Go Galt'. Can't disagree with this. Refuse to participate seems the best answer. Go to cash paying jobs, or jobs that allow for barter (if your living situation allows it).
Maybe, if men would just get off thier A**es and start voting in numbers, the idiots in government would start to pay attention. I know, I'm still dreaming. But say what you want, women get out and vote in large numbers. The politicians know that, and pander to that demographic. While I hate saying this, men have been thier own worst enemy in that regard.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Pankaj, you do realize that feminists have already tried your idea -- and failed at it?
Back in the 1970s, there were numerous attempts by women, sorry wymen, to create "female only" spaces, i.e. collectives or cooperatives where they essentially withdrew from wider society, were self-sufficient, and had no male presence or contact.
How'd that idea work for them?
In my view, any approach that requires men to "refuse to participate" in the system will indeed attract a small number of men, but not enough to matter. Just as the separatist feminists attempts in the 1970s attracted a small number of women, but not enough to matter.
Look at it historically. The last time there was any kind of widespread "refusal to participate" in American society was during Prohibition, and that was something that affected everyone -- men and women, all races -- equally. The next largest "refusal to participate" probably was resistance to the military draft during the Vietnam era.
Do you really think that we're going to see a mass movement on that large scale by men today? It would take a huge galvanizing force to make that happen, and maybe I've missed it, but I just don't see anything remotely like that happening anytime soon.
Furthermore, by "refusing the participate", all you're doing is withdrawing to your own narrow patch of land, and ceding the wider territory to everyone else in society, including those whose agenda is opposed to ours. That just gives our opponents even more of a free hand to make whatever laws and rules they want, without taking our concerns and views into account.
And there's basic fairness at stake too:
If you "refuse to participate" by not voting, or can't be bothered to vote, do you have any right to complain later when other people vote into office politicians whose views are not the same as yours?
If you "refuse to participate" by going cash only, or refuse to pay taxes, do you have any legitimate basis for complaining later that public money is being spent on causes you don't support?
I think the answers to the above are self-evident.
So if withdrawing and "refusing to participate" isn't the answer, then what is the positive alternative?
The real way to make a difference is to (a) make sure that we are on the side of facts, logic, and common sense, (b) organize in sufficiently large numbers, and (c) engage with the powers that be in society to make sure our voices are heard and our concerns taken into account.
Yes, this is hard work. Yes, this work is only just beginning. Yes, this takes time. But as the feminists proved, it can be done. We can do the same -- we're no less capable than the feminists were in the 1970s and 1980s. And we do have a base of supporters in the wider community, both men and women. It's up to us to build a movement that will attract the vast middle who could be supporters of our cause but haven't really thought about it very much.
As a target date to focus on, VAWA was renewed in 2005 and will expire in 2011, just two years away. I would hope that our voices will be strong enough in 2010 and 2011 to be heard in the debate in Congress as VAWA is renewed again.
Pipe dream? Maybe. Maybe not. If we start organizing and raising funds now, it becomes possible for us have our voices heard.
I would love to have some of our supporters testify on Capitol Hill in 2010 and 2011 about male victims of domestic violence, and tell the heartbreaking stories about fathers forcibly separated from their children. These are powerful narratives, and handled correctly, the press (or least certain elements within the press) will eat it up -- they love a good story, since it's good for ratings.
If we go in the opposite direction and "refuse to participate", then, well, don't be surprised -- and certainly don't bother complaining -- if VAWA 2011 turns out to be more of the same.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
"While I hate saying this, men have been thier own worst enemy in that regard."
Don't. Its not what you are trying to do, but the way you are trying to do it. Voting solves nothing - never has and never will. Even if Glenn and his approach succeed, lets say men form a political voting lobby - and society is more aware of men's issues - become sympathetic towards men - a voting majority of MRM sympathizers vote every single law that MRAs have been demanding - it will create a newer problems when the extreme anti-woman part of the MRM will push the agenda much much further than what you folks want. And politicians will pander to them too - thus making things worse for women, thus providing evidence for every single complaint that feminists have against MRM.
Even if the "awareness" method succeeds in creating political lobby, it would not end up with peace but will just be another milestone in the battle between the sexes that feminists started- all because you are using the wrong method.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:08 am
Knock knock,
You truly deserve an award for misinterpreting language! Hahha! Hang on - and let me show you how
@Female only spaces
I never called for male only spaces - neither have I called for "male only collectives". In fact my central point is the words "men" and "collective" don't go together and because of that, we have to use different ways than feminists. Not to mention that these female only spaces were paid for by taxpayers - not participants. There is a difference between voluntary association and a seperatist/exclusionary system - in that condition for association is not gender/class based, but on matters of principles and values.
@Gender seperatism
I never argued for "gender" seperatism. But for not paying for any organization whose behavior you object to - e.g. "NO males allowed" shelters. Whether you fund these directly or indirectly (through taxation or other "package" deals), does not matter - just cut the funding.
@Refusal to participate
Indeed prohibition (people who continued drinking) and draft (people who refused or weasled their way out of service) did refuse to participate - but they did so only partially. They still paid for the anti-alcohol police force and for the cost of drafting and sending others to war. I am talking about a total denial. Imagine refusing to pay the salaries of anti-alcohol police force.
"Do you really think that we're going to see a mass movement on that large scale by men today?"
Yes and No. Because that depends on the readiness of the people to say "Okay, lets do this". Of course this could have very painful consequences for the individuals involved. But for fathers who have lost their children - I doubt this should matter as much. One major hurdle is that the secular religion (statism) of today has specific prohibitions against this approach. So for me as a libertarian, its a very easy, clear solution - but folks who currently adhere to different philosophies - like yourself, will have to find your own way to this.
@Size of movement
Be the change you want to see in the world - (Gandhi said that). Be the kind of person you want every other person to be. The movement is of size one and will hopefully remain so.
@Patch of land and laws of the land
This is a very long discussion - but I will give you a short version.
1. Without your consent, laws cannot be made to apply to you - in a free society, nor can you be forced to pay for laws that you don't agree with.
2. In tyrannical systems, laws will be imposed on you. But then, someone has to go out of their way to show how evil the system is. This path requires very high degree of sacrifice, but many men already have lost much more than that.
3. The most important problem with the status quo, is that these things are not clear because individual men do not take a stand, because they don't know how to take a stand, or even where to take a stand - many don't even know that they MUST take a stand, if they want anyone to care.
If you "refuse to participate" by not voting, or can't be bothered to vote, do you have any right to complain later when other people vote into office politicians whose views are not the same as yours?
IF you vote, you choose between the options provided. Which means you say "Among these options I pick this X one.
What if the options menu is
1. Get your eyes poked
2. Get your fingernails pulled
3. Get a slapped on your butt
A rational person will say - I don't need that menu, while a person of your inclination will pick #3 (lesser of the 2/many evils). But to an outside observer (kids, foreigners, future generation, etc.) you gave your consent to who ever won the election, i.e. you just participated in propagating a lie that picking from such a menu is a legitimate thing.
"If you "refuse to participate" by going cash only, or refuse to pay taxes, do you have any legitimate basis for complaining later that public money is being spent on causes you don't support?"
Well, at least you did not participate in the damage the system caused to other people! Isn't that better than being an accomplice?
"I think the answers to the above are self-evident."
Not so fast - because you have not given your frame of reference - as in - As compared to what? And when you ask that question - all the answers you assume to be self evident are demolished. Again - there are some choices to make and the above explanations are my choices - i.e. do no evil, even if there is a risk of evil being done to you. Mostly because when you do evil to avoid evil being done to you - you reinforce the idea of necessity of evil, and eventually it will get back to you.
"The real way to make a difference is to (a) make sure that we are on the side of facts, logic, and common sense,"
Agreed.
"(b) organize in sufficiently large numbers"
That would be good
" and (c) engage with the powers that be in society to make sure our voices are heard and our concerns taken into account."
Ah! you just glossed over the details of who is hearing your voices and how you make your voices heard. If you are talking about fellow human beings hearing your voices - I am with you. If you are talking about voting - I am not.
@Feminist approach
Sorry, I reject the feminist approach both from moral as well as practical considerations. If your goal is to attack women, you should use the feminist approach. If your goal is fairness - you got to pick another way. Politics never ends, just look at the "liberal" and "conservatives". On the practical side, you will never get as much support as the feminists did. They had chivalry and misandry working for them - you have both working against you. One allegation of misogyny and your movement crumbles. Heck if tomorrow, god forbid, someone targets a decent leader like Glenn in some scandal, and your efforts are destroyed. F4J already faced that once.
@VAWA
There was only one presidential candidate who promised to revoke funding from VAWA, that too for completely different reasons. Apart from this man of solid principles, not one elected official will say in public/on camera, his intention to discontinue VAWA. Some may vote just out of partisanship, but the bill will pass - GUARANTEED.
@Don't bother complaining
I don't. Besides who is listening?
On the other hand, if I did participate - thru voting, I would endorse the concept of majority vote counts (and hence rules). I do that endorsement, then I got to live with the consequences of whatever that system does. In fact, if you do participate, then you don't have the moral standing to complain about the outcome.
Your way - is like a gambler, who voluntarily decides to gamble, and then complains about loosing money. (what about when you win, someone else looses his money? then he will complain too!)
While if you don't participate, its like a person who is just minding his own businesses. If something bad is done to him by someone else - everyone knows who is at fault.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The tide is turning here in the UK, after several false rape allegations the judges are beginning to look at cases with some skepticism, and women are receiving custodial sentences. The sad part is that, in abusing the system these women are ruining the process for real victims of rape, those women who suffer this brutal crime are less likely to be believed, all because of a liar and a cheat.
I believe that men in the UK are now afforded anonymity in rape cases, at least until the case is proved, but even then the innocent have their home and work life ruined as a result of false claims. A man falsely accused of rape has to go through the same humiliating process as the guilty, intimate medical examinations, police brutality and rough treatment by other inmates whilst held on remand.
One recent case in the UK had the woman named and shamed, then sentenced to a term in prison, all well and good for justice in that case, but it deters the real victims from coming forward. Meanwhile feminist groups see all women as victims, and state that there is
August 18th, 2009 at 1:48 am
""but it deters the real victims from coming forward.""
So what is to be done?
False accusers have existed from the beginning of time - it's one of the oldest stories in the book (Genesis, no less).
They aren't going to stop out of consideration of 'true' victims.
Trampling the rights of innocent people to accommodate those who may be 'deterred' is a price that has to be paid - by the person who chooses to be deterred, not the innocent or falsely accused facing a lifetime of unending hell NOT OF THEIR CHOICE.
As a person who has witnessed an actual victim who was 'deterred' as well as a person who was falsely accused and wrongly convicted, I can say convicting and punishing the innocent person was far and away incomparably WORSE.
I defy anyone to say otherwise.