U.K. Judge: Prison 'Inevitable' in False Rape Cases
November 5th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.There are a good many judges and prosecutors in this country who would so well to read this article (Telegraph, 10/30/09). Nominally, it reports on the fact that an appellate court in the United Kingdom has upheld the two-year prison sentence of Jennifer Day for making a false rape claim against Andrew Saxby, her boyfriend at the time. What the judges say in their opinion is nothing more than the most basic common sense. But however obvious and sensible the concepts, they still escape many people, among them many district attorneys in this country.
It's true that most of what the judges are worried about are the multiple impacts of false claims on the judicial system including police time spent investigating non-existent rapes. They point out that, for example in the Day/Saxby case, some 270 hours of police time were spent investigating her malicious claim that Day had made solely because she was angry with Saxby.
More important to them is the fact that false allegations make real ones more difficult to prove. As the article says,
Dismissing her appeal against sentence, Mr Justice Henriques, sitting in London with Mrs Justice Rafferty, said: "False complaints of rape necessarily impact upon the minds of jurors trying rape cases.
"Every time a defendant stands trial for rape, defence counsel necessarily point out to the jury that false allegations are made.
But the judges also pointed out the effects of false rape allegations on the victims. They called being named as a rapist "terrifying" and described Saxby's 10-hour ordeal at the hands of the police as "degrading and upsetting."
Intriguingly enough, Justice Henriques wrote in the Day/Saxby case that,
"An immediate custodial sentence is inevitable when a false allegation of rape is made."
Now, we all know that's simply not true. I've reported on false rape allegations in the U.K. that were met with no punishment whatsover and which even concealed the identity of the perpetrator into the bargain. So what's the justice talking about?
Maybe he's encouraging other judges to mete out custodial sentences in false rape cases. Maybe he's saying that jail time should be the inevitable outcome of maliciously-made claims of rape. If so, I say "amen."
Whatever the case, maybe someone should send this article to the DA who refused to charge Hofstra student Danmell Ndonye for her false claims against five young men in September.
Thanks to Mikey for the heads-up.
"));
19 queries. 0.332 seconds.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Two years for 10 hours, that is real progress. I've never seen such an upside-down sentence before.
Simply amazing. Expect this judge to be removed from the bench. We can't have judges who don't adhere strictly to the female sentencing discount and the notion that prosecuting (knowingly) false rape allegations stop true victims coming forward (sarcasm).
Seriously, expect some sizable backlash shortly against this judge.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:54 am
She should have to register as a sex offender for life as well.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Beat you to it: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/10/judges-prison-inevitable-for-false-rape.html
November 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
The 10 hours you can look at like this.
Remember the guy that did not withdraw for 5 seconds that got convicted of rape
Or how about OJ Simpson that said "nobody leave this room" and some guys could not leave the room for five minutes...he is serving what like 15 years?
You can bet your life if a guy kidnapped a girl for 10 hours and forced her to do degrading things like was done to this guy he would be doing 20 to life.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
"Two years for 10 hours, that is real progress. I've never seen such an upside-down sentence before."
Actually it's not nearly as good as it looks. In the UK criminals generally only serve half their sentence (unless a minimum term is specified by the judge). She'll easily be out within a year as you've got to take off any time already served too.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Jim,
I would not have her register as a sex offender, but rather, I would create a separate registry devoted entirely to people who abuse the legal system. False rape claims, paternity fraud, gratuitous abuse of restraining orders, false claims of domestic violence.
There are enough non sex offenders on the sex offender registry (like when two 17 year olds have sex and due to some arcane combination of age-of-consent laws, the boy is a sex offender for life) that I'd prefer it stay intact for its intended purpose.
But by all means. Have this registry be as public and as accessible as the "sex offender registry". I think the risk of being on a registry as "attempted to commit paternity fraud" would be a far, FAR bigger deterrent to the specific kind of women we are railing against than any jail time could be, where she'd go in as the perp and come out as the victim through society's standard machinations.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Jail time for false accusers could cause them to not "come clean" and tell the truth. Perhaps the "Legal System Abuse Registry" is the way to go.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I think sex offender is the correct term. It sends out a strong message that this is a very serious offence, and more importantly that those committing them are dangerous people who the public need to be wary of well after their release.
I read someone desrbie such cases as "reverse rapes" - that soums them up perfectly in terms of the type of person carrying them out and the consequences for the victims.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I don't care for the name "reverse rape" because it suggests that rape is the default, the center of the axis, and that the focus in describing related crimes should remain on rape -- the "main" or the "real" crime. In fact, false rape accusations (or FRA, as some commentators at my site, False Rape Society, have started to call them), are crimes in and of themselves, often more destructive to the victim's life than an actual rape would have been to the false accuser's. Yet FRAs remain overshadowed by rape. People often suggest that the "real" damage from an FRA is not to the actual victims, but to hypothetical women who might not report a rape because of it. For others, the very mention of an FRA elicits eye rolls and the knee jerk utterance "it's an insignificant problem compared to rape." So in my opinion, it's time we stop talking about FRA by referring to a totally different crime, rape.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Robert, I think this line at the end of the column is troubling:
However Lisa Longstaff, of Women Against Rape, said the sentence was "outrageous" and warned the judges comments risked putting women off reporting rapes.
Let's see here, is there any official document you can file with the courts which doesn't clearly state that if you lie you face jail time. And the woman admitted lying. So I'd probably do a FTFY for Ms. Longstaff and insert a false before the rapes. Something I don't think anybody has a problem with.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Reverse rape? Are you kidding? As Pierce says that is a very distasteful word and frankly sounds like a loaded term meant to shift focus away from the person who was falsely accused and make the conversation all about actual rapes. When a person make a FRA they have committed a crime and need to be punished instead of people trying to hide behind another real crime as an excuse to dismiss it.
I'm reminded of genital mutilation. Merely stating that MGM can get one accused of trying to compare MGM to FGM and from there go off on how much worse FGM is and suddenly no is talking about MGM anymore.
But:
So in my opinion, it's time we stop talking about FRA by referring to a totally different crime, rape.
Pierce this separation is going to be very difficult since as we have seen time and time again media, law enforcement, and other activists go out of their way to drown out talk about FRAs by claiming that the "real" victims of them are the victims of that other crime rape.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Typo!!!!!
Merely stating that MGM can get one accused...
should have been
Merely stating that MGM can be bad like FGM (as in simply saying it is bad, not trying to imply which is worse) get one accused...
November 5th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Don't despair, Danny. We are having an impact. Slowly, but surely.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Enabling false rape accusers to lie to law enforcement whenever the feel like it, is a societal deviance. Get gender feminism out of our law enforcement communities before their is a civil rights action to get them out!!
November 5th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
But the judges also pointed out the effects of false rape allegations on the victims. They called being named as a rapist "terrifying" and described Saxby's 10-hour ordeal at the hands of the police as "degrading and upsetting."
OMG!!! I have never seen this in print before OMG!
Actually the true victim the man is FINALLY given some attention in a false rape allegation.
This is almost NEVER brought up.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
You know what I think? I think it's time we tell people who are victims of crimes that if they choose not to report them, that's their fault and that's their responsibility. It's time to stop blaming some outside force for their failure to stand up for themselves.
My attitude doesn't minimize the severe trauma associated with rape. However, using the empty contention that seriously punishing false-accusers will stop actual rapes victims from coming forward unequivocally minimizes the severe trauma of being falsely accused of rape. It's another form of "victim-blaming" which I suppose is okay (to some) when it's men who are the victims.
November 7th, 2009 at 3:20 am
This troubles me too, for a number of reasons:
"However Lisa Longstaff, of Women Against Rape, said the sentence was "outrageous" and warned the judges comments risked putting women off reporting rapes."
Firstly, Ms Longstaff seems to think it's OK for the real victim in this case to go through a humiliating period of strip searches, intimate examinations, and having a rapist label attached, I can imagine how the police treated the guy. This mans life has been marred, no matter what the outcome of the case, it will leave some people thinking he did rape the girl, mud does stick!
Another aspect is the wasted police time, does Ms Longstaff think it OK that police were diverted from investigating real cases, that their time could have been spent catching real rapists! False rape allegations are every bit as bad as falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre.
A false allegation, is a false allegation, and it should be treated the same as it would if it were in any other context. To let a woman off a false rape claim sends out the message that it's OK to ruin a mans life on a whim.