Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Should false rape accusers be sued?

Wrongly accused
Original Article

They should be charged with a crime and prosecuted for it. They could have ruined a persons life forever, and sadly, this happens all the time as you can see by clicking the "WRONGLYACCUSED" label above.

12/17/2013

By Roxanne Jones

Editor's note: Roxanne Jones is a founding editor of ESPN The Magazine and a former vice president at ESPN. She is a national lecturer on sports, entertainment and women's topics and a recipient of the 2010 Woman of the Year award from Women in Sports and Events. She is the co-author of "Say It Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete," (Random House) and CEO of Push Media Strategies.

(CNN) -- Eighty years -- that's about how long it took the state of Alabama to posthumously pardon the last three of nine men who were falsely accused and wrongly convicted of raping two white women on a train. They infamously were called the Scottsboro Boys, because the nine black men were just 12- to 19-years-old when they were arrested in 1931.

It turned out that the women, Ruby Bates and Victoria Price, had lied to police about the rapes. At one of the trials, Bates recanted her testimony, saying she had made it all up. Still, the all-white jury convicted the boys, one after another.

Forty-three years later, a similar story: This time it was Delbert Tibbs, who died recently of cancer. Tibbs spent nearly three years in prison in Florida after he was convicted in 1974 of a rape and murder that he had nothing to do with, according to the Florida Supreme Court.

Ancient history, you say? We've moved past those shameful days of unequal justice, you insist. Think again.

In 2012, according to the FBI, nearly 87,000 "forcible rapes" were reported. That's down 7% from the number of rapes reported in 2008. Law enforcement agencies estimate that the number of false rape accusations ranges from 2% to 8% annually, or between 2,000 and 7,000 cases each year.

Exact numbers are difficult to track because of the lack of in-depth research on false rape cases and because of the varying definitions of what constitutes an "unfounded" rape claim. It can mean the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect or suffer injuries, was not threatened with a weapon or the victim and perpetrator had a previous relationship.

Law enforcement experts agree that rapes are widely underreported, and no one is suggesting that violence against women isn't a serious problem. But experts do not dispute that false rape accusations can and do happen. Many of those innocent men end up in prison or with lives shattered.


8 comments :

Kevin said...

The sex offender part applies to tier II and tier III offenders whose victims were under 18 years of age for the registerable offense. The only exception is if the offender is the parent of the child.
No actual abuse has to be inflicted upon the child by the offender for the parent to be considered a child abuser. Additionally, the offender has no liability in the matter. It is only the parent that is held responsible. Furthermore, the parent does not even have to know the individual supervising their child is a sex offender. If it can be proven that the parent should have known, they are liable for child abuse...

Sex Offender Issues said...

We searched for TIER in the 3 bills and did not find any mention of what you said. So where did you see that?

Kevin said...

The article does not link to the most recent printers number. The most recent is here: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2013&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0726&pn=2778

Sex Offender Issues said...

Thanks, we changed the links to the bills to go to their main pages.

Kevin said...

You're welcome...the section on sex offenders is on page 12 of the bill.

Kevin said...

"Child advocates made some concessions in negotiations this fall, in the interest of maximizing support for the definitions rewrite.

For example, Palm noted driving drunk with child passengers in the car, or dealing illegal drugs with a child present were dropped from the final language as automatic child abuse indicators."

They dropped those from the final law, but kept the sex offender stuff. So they're effectively saying it's safer to drive your child around while completely drunk than to allow a trusted friend of many years (who happens to be a sex offender) to watch your child. WOW!

GlobalCitizen said...

Interesting that a country that is so intent on protecting children (having a person required to register watch your child is child abuse! Don't get me started on felony charges for "bullying"!) has no problem ripping them to shreds in their beds at night by dropping hellfire missiles on them from predator drones.


Collateral Damage.... exactly what is different about THOSE children?

Kevin said...

Well, the bill was signed by the governor today. Say goodbye to any ideas of social reintegration...