>Comment of the Day: Child support is worse than rape

>This raises all kids of practical issues, of course. For one thing, anyone who files a police report would have to be given some form of Miranda warnings, to advise her that anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of law and that she is entitled to have an attorney present.It's already a crime to file a false police report, how would actually enforcing that law and raising the penalty to something appropriate suddenly necessitate a procedure that wasn't required before?Also, if the defendant in rape case claims, in his defense, that the sex was consensual, isn't he accusing the victim of a false rape claim?Perhaps, but in that case she, by claiming that the sex was non-consensual, is accusing him of falsely accusing her of falsely accusing him of rape. He, in turn, is then accusing her of falsely accusing him of falsely accusing her of falsely accusing him of rape. To avoid an infinite regression and to preserve sanity, it would be best not to define a false accusation of a false accusation as a crime.You are free to use birth control or to get a vasectomy without fear that the pharmacist will sabotage you, or that your doctor will get shot, or that some conservative wingnuts will push through a law making your birth control illegal.Not true; many urologists are unwilling to perform vasectomies on men that they consider to be at a high risk to later regret said vasectomy and sue. Frivolous trial lawyers are to blame for this.

>Incorrect Cold-"Using weighted totals, we estimated that among the 2,671,863 patients discharged from New York hospitals in 1984 there were 98,609 adverse events and 27,179 adverse events involving negligence." Source But only about 4% of injured patients or their families sue, according to a Harvard study. And only 1 in 5 lawsuits awards the patient. SourceFear of those lawyers might be the cause but since it is rare that people do in fact sue, and they are rarely the prevailing party, it is an unfounded fear and not the lawyers fault.

>Elizabeth, your reading comprehension is atrocious as always. Anyone with decent reading comprehension would have notice the key phrase, "as far as death penalty rationale is concerned" but apparently that's above your level of reading skill.

>Ok, your eyeballs physically scanned each letter and your brain managed to recognize each word, but you still failed to actually grasp the fact that I said it was appropriate according to a specific rationale without saying anything to specify how I personally feel about that rationale. This is what is generally termed "poor reading comprehension"; you have no problem reading the individual words but you have great difficulty comprehending what they mean in a complete sentence.

>It's already a crime to file a false police report, how would actually enforcing that law and raising the penalty to something appropriate suddenly necessitate a procedure that wasn't required before?Because MRA's advocate such a broad definition for the term "false report" when it comes to rape, that it would encompass most truthful reports as well, seeing that you want any rape acquittal to automatically result in the prosecution of the complainant. Also, because rape complainants, unlike those who report other crimes, are particularly likely to be subjected to threats and pressure to recant a good-faith and truthful accusation. Miranda rules are intended as an antidote to police misconduct in situations where police misconduct is particularly likely. Historically, certain police departments have liberally used threats and inadmissible techniques (such as the polygraph) to get rape victims not to press charges. If a rape complainant is automatically to be brought up on charges as soon as the alleged rapist is acquitted, then clearly, statements extracted by such underhanded means should be inadmissible against her. They are inadmissible against a defendant in any other criminal prosecution. Why should there be an exception for false rape claim prosecutions?To avoid an infinite regression and to preserve sanity, it would be best not to define a false accusation of a false accusation as a crime.How very convenient for rapists and rape apologists.Not true; many urologists are unwilling to perform vasectomies on men that they consider to be at a high risk to later regret said vasectomy and sue.Not the same. I've yet to hear of a case of a urologist deliberately sabotaging a vasectomy, religious groups picketing or bombing urologists' offices or legislatures passing laws making vasectomy illegal. In fact, sabotaging an elective vasectomy is medical malpractice. However, both statutory and case law in most states exclude sabotaging a woman's elective birth control or abortion from the category of acts that fall within the definition of medical malpractice. Frivolous trial lawyers are to blame for this.Really? I thought frivolous plaintiffs are to blame for this. After all, they are the ones who go to a dozen lawyers until they find one that will file the papers. They make the decision to sue. No one puts a gun to their heads. These plaintiffs are the kind of people who can't fathom taking responsibility for their own stupid decisions, so they seek out other people to blame. They blame doctors. They blame women. They blame their mothers. They blame the government. They blame their bosses. They blame the Chinese economy. They blame liberals. They blame lawyers. Anybody and anything but themselves. They never EVER see themselves as responsible for ANYTHING that's wrong with their lives. Whatever blame they would accept is invariably confined to being too nice of a person for the bad, bad world which is, basically, just another way of refusing to see themselves as causing or at least contributing to their own misfortune. None of this, of course, stops them from lecturing others on the virtues of taking responsibility.

>seeing that you want any rape acquittal to automatically result in the prosecution of the complainant.I never said that, in fact I stated very clearly that they should only be prosecuted if there is a compelling case that they lied. I'm done with responding to your strawman arguments. If you can't address my actual position then there is no point in responding to you except when you say something especially amusing.

>I never said that, in fact I stated very clearly that they should only be prosecuted if there is a compelling case that they lied. I'm done with responding to your strawman arguments. If you can't address my actual position then there is no point in responding to you except when you say something especially amusing. Actually, what you said was that you support the idea of the prosecutor having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant lied as opposed to making a mistake. Which would exclude the most likely scenario of the defendant's innocence: that she was indeed raped, but the defendant was acquitted for reasons that are beyond her control.Amused brought that up in an effort to try and trivialize the financial servitude of men, so I called her on it.That's a lie. Your buddy e-string brought it up in an effort to try and trivialize rape, so I called him on it. Then you rushed to his aid with your half-assed "argument" that, because you'd rather be sodomized than support your child (as if you would ever face a choice in the real world that would require you to put your mouth where your anus is), the plight of men who don't want to support their children is worse than rape.I've never heard of anyone being branded as a false accuser in the media except in cases where there was actual evidence that she deliberately made a false accusation, or she admitted herself that it was a lie.And I have. It's quite standard, especially for MRA's, to accuse virtually all rape victims of lying about their rape. They even did it to Lara Logan, despite the fact that there were numerous witnesses to the incident.Whatever effect those people have on the credibility on a random rape accuser is a drop in the ocean compared to the harm done by real false accusers.Wrong. Rape apologism is a significant factor in promoting the myth that rape victims exaggerate or lie about their rapes.Some men do rape, and because of them all men have to deal with a certain amount of suspicion. I do, however, object to the feminist efforts to exaggerate the amount of rape and man-on-woman violence that takes place and to create much. much more fear of men than would otherwise exist.Actually, it's MRA's who routinely exaggerate fears of rape, because they see the threat of rape as a way to keep women in their place. If victims or rape weren't routinely crucified for wearing eye-liner, being "ambitious", acting "grown-up", wearing sexy clothing, etc., if this vilification of rape victims didn't serve to make women paranoid about what they wear, how they walk, how late they are out at night, there would be a lot less fear and suspicion of men. Also, if MRA's didn't claim so much that men have no control over their own sexual behavior, promoting the myth that a man aroused is akin to an unstoppable natural disaster, there too would be a lot less fear and suspicion of men. MRAs' admonition of women when it comes to rape basically boils down to the necessity to assume every man is a potential rapist; but of course, if a woman does come to feel that every man is a potential rapist, MRA's get insulted and blame feminism.

>He would release the texts for public viewing if he was legally able to do so. From how he has described them, the texts constitute very strong circumstantial evidence that they lied. There are also the deleted(but cached) social networking posts at the beginning of this whole fiasco whose content and timestamps contradict the rape claims. Even you seem to realize how flimsy the case is, as evidenced by the fact that you have avoided taking any actual position on it.

>Cold-In order to have your belief that a person who files a false rape report is the equivalent to a rapist even though it is not, you also support viewing a false murder report filer as a murderer up to and including executing said filer.A person who files a false report for any crime is attempting to subject their victim to the sentence for that crime. A fair deterrent to this heinous act is for the false accuser to also face the very sentence that he/she tried to inflict on his/her victim if he/she can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have intentionally lied. To make the punishment any less is to stack the deck in favor of false accusers by allowing them to take a shot at inflicting great harm on another human being while knowing that should it backfire, they will be suffering much less harm themselves than the harm they were trying to inflict.I have not touched the question of whether the death penalty should be on the table as a sentence for any crime; I have only said that the sentencing guidelines for a false accusation of a crime should be the same as a crime itself. In an area that practices the death penalty, falsely accusing someone of a capital crime is tantamount to attempted murder. If such a false accuser is executed, it wouldn't be "for a lie" as you so disingenuously understated; it would be for a lie that was told with the intention of getting another person killed.And you completely ignore the logical fallacy that arises from sentencing someone to a sentence that never happened (as the criminal act did not occur) for a crime with completely different elements then the original criminal act alleged.There is no logical fallacy here; a false accuser would be getting the same sentence that he/she tried to inflict on his/her victim, and in some cases that sentence may very well have already been served if the evidence that the accusation was false doesn't arise until years later. That, however, should be immaterial; the intention behind a false accusation is to inflict a sentence and it is that horrific intent that should be punished.

>@ Cold:What is worse: rape; or a child knowing that their father hates them so much that he'd rather be forcibly sodomized than help take care of them?

>You assume that is in fact the intended result of the person filing the false report Cold. Despite your assumption that the only possible reason a person could file a false allegation is to send the other person to prison or to have them land on death row (in the extreme case there of the murder charge), most of the time it is due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the possible sentence that the person falsely accusing never even considered when making the accusation.

>I find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.I find it quite telling of your thought process that you make a blanket statement regarding "the thought process of feminists".Specifically, it tells me that you're full of shit.

>Despite your assumption that the only possible reason a person could file a false allegation is to send the other person to prison or to have them land on death row (in the extreme case there of the murder charge), most of the time it is due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the possible sentence that the person falsely accusing never even considered when making the accusation.I never said that was the ONLY reason people falsely accuse, but the fact is that the false accuser KNOWS that he/she is setting up his/her victim to be given the sentence for the falsely accused crime, whatever that sentence may be, even if that is merely incidental to the primary purpose of the false accusation. Perhaps the accuser is an ignoramus and has no idea how harsh the sentence for that crime is, but in that case he/she still tried to inflict that unknown quantity of harm and deserves to receive the same quantity. Ignorance is no excuse here.