Conference quark::mennotes

    re .0
    
    >Please pray for my brother-in-law and his wife (my sister).
    
    Done.
    
    fred();

    You can count on my prayers for your friend, and I hope, somehow, this
    works out.
    
    The rape charge is the worst one that can be made and right now it
    becomes a matter of guilty until proven innocent.
    

Actually, it can be "guilty even if proven innocent".  There's a student who
was expelled from a college due to a rape allegation, later said by the police
to be unfounded.  But the college won't let him back in - they want to
"review the evidence".

					Steve

    .3 Steve! Was that at Brown Univ? I read something to that tune
    reciently.
    

    I don't remember the details, but did read it just in the past week.
    
    				Steve

Rivier College, in Nashua, NH.  Reported earlier this week
in the Nashua Telegraph.  Case was dismissed against him,
she was arrested for filing a false report I believe, do
not know the dispositon of her case.  The college wants to
look at the internal police records before allowing him to return,
police department won't let do it just like they wouldn't
let you or I look at them.  I'll look back thru the papers
and see if I can fine the article.

Bob...

    I am so tired of the politically correct crime of the time.  Whatever
    happened to innocent until proven guilty.  this college should be sued
    out of existence for this behavior.
    
    this man was not taken to trial, his accuser has been charged with a
    crime and he is not being allowed to return to school.
    
    It is just these types of actions by the insane politically correct
    crowd that makes me hav elittle if any support for the aims, even
    though I believe some of their goals are valid.  I just cannot bring
    myself to lend my voice to their efforts until these situations are
    condemn as loudly as the opposite.
    

  "Politically Correct"?

  Excuse me, but Rivier is a conservative, CATHOLIC college run
  by a bunch of nuns. They would laugh at you calling them
  politically correct, as I laugh at you.

                                   Atlant

Most of this business doesn't really seem like a laughing matter to me...

//atp

    .8
    
    It really doesn't matter what the nature of the organization is.  I
    know plentty of nuns who are the most fervent liberals I have ever met. 
    Being a Catholic college is no guarantee that they do not endorse
    polical correctness.  If such was not the case, then please explain why
    they would be taking the actions they are?  The police dropped the
    charged, the person making the charges was arrested and charged, and
    yet the student is still on the outside looking in.
    
    If they truly had a conservative approach, they would have waited until
    this person went to trial, at least.  Ideally they would have waited
    until he was found guilty before taking action.  The fact that they did
    not, is rather blatant evidence of something other than a conservative
    value.
    

    For a bunch of conservative Chatolics... there is quite a showing of
    N.O.W. about the premise. I see the NOW gang every now and then. And I
    would not consider N.O.W. a conservative bunch of folk. Don't see many
    republican reps hanging with the NOW group either....
    
    

  Oh come now, my dear .10 writer!

  It is clear from reading my note that my laughter is not directed
  at the base noter but rather at the author of .7, who chose to trot
  out one of the old-standby whipping boys and give it a whack. "PC!
  Whack!" I merely pointed out that he was woefully ignorant of the
  situation at Rivier.

  And then, of course, Mr. .11 decided to trot another popular
  whipping girl and give NOW a whack. "NOW! Whack!"

  Really, you folks are TOO, TOO predictable.

                                   Atlant

    .12
    
    Oh come now.
    
    You introduced the old whipping boy that the college is a Catholic
    college and is therefore conservative so how could they be cought up in
    Political Correctness.
    
    I merely identified the fact that just because it is a Catholic college
    by no means is it conservative.  You chose to trot out the catholic
    conservative whipping boy and give it a whack.
    
    The position taken by this organization is deplorable and reflects an
    attitude that is decidedly not conservative.  I merely pointed out that
    you are woefully ignorant of true conservatism and Catholicism.
    

  Your parody isn't very creative.

  You also chose to ignore the fact that I'm actually familiar
  with the college in question, living about 3 miles from it and
  having met its administration on several occasions.

                                   Atlant

  You also chose to ignore the fact that I'm actually familiar
  with the college in question, living about 3 miles from it and
  having met its administration on several occasions.

In that case, can you give any insight into the mind-set of these people who
are persecuting an apparently innocent man?

regards,
//alan

    .14
    
    I'm not sure what yor point is here.  Just because you met the
    administration, and they may make statements that in your mind makes
    them conservative, does not make it a conservative organization.
    
    As I stated previously, the actions of this organization, in light of
    the information presented, clearly identifies their actions as typical
    PC behavior.  They are not governed by the facts, but the issue.  If
    they truly were conservative their actions would be about 180 degrees
    different than what they did.
    
    If there is more to this than what has been presented I would be
    interested in hearing about it.  Otherwise this is just like the
    school in North Carolina that suspended a 6 year old for sexual
    harrassment because he kissed a 6 year old girl.
    

    I attend the school in question. And am planning to attend another
    instead.

    .17
    
    Now stop that.  He has his mind made up and you're not going to change
    it just because you expect that an individual should receive fair
    treatment regardless of the issue.
    

    ;))) 
    
    Rivier is a liberal arts college with a minor in computer sumthins. For
    the college, the computer labs are closed on Sunday. For me, a
    propeller head, that is a sacrildge! You never close the labs!! Some of
    us have no other time to get into the place. 
    
    

Al:

  You're right. Writing from Illinois, having never been to the place,
  having never met anyone at the college, I'm sure you're better in-
  formed than I am. After all, I've only met the administration as
  one educator to another, hired their graduates, had my son attend
  a summer program that was hosted at the collgee, and visited the
  college as a "parent" when my niece was considering attending
  their nursing program. What do I know? :-)

  You're right.

                                   Atlant

    .20
    
    Thank you very much for acknowledging the tremendous insight and
    knowledge I possess.
    
    As additional information for you to consider, I have met and talked
    with many people who can rattle off all sorts of statements that would
    lead one to form a particular opinion of their views.  thier actions,
    however, tell a completely different story.
    
    In the particular case in point, you have provided no information that
    would indicate that this organization, in what it does, not what it
    says, is not following the politiacally correct line.
    
    Additional information may change that, but so far, none has been
    provided.
    

    
    	What I wanna know is why Atlant was posing as a "parent" for his
    	niece? Sounds kinda liberal to me!  ;)
    
    	-john                                  

From the Nashua Telegraph, Friday, Feb.  21, 1997
By Andrew Wolfe, Telegraph Staff

EXONERATED STUDENT SUES POLICE FOR RECORDS

(Kicked out of Rivier after being accused of rape, student now seeks police
reports that prove his innocence, but police say no.)

A former student kicked out of Rivier College after being accused  of  rape
says city police have refused to release reports that prove his innocence.

Brian Wright, 20, of Oak Bluffs, Mass., filed a "Right  to  Know"  petition
against  the  city Wednesday in Hillsborough County Superior Court, seeking
access to the records and attorney's fees.  A  hearing  has  been  set  for
March 4th.

Wright was ordered to leave the college Dec.   20,  1996,  two  days  after
another  student,  Jennifer Mitchell, reported to college officials that he
had raped her dorm room on Dec.   13,  according  to  police  and  Wright's
lawyer,  Steven  Bolton of Nashua.  Wright was expelled from the college 10
days later on Dec.  30.

Mitchell reported the alleged rape to city police on Jan.   2.   But  after
investigating, police concluded her account was not true.  Mitchell, 20, of
Haverhill, Mass., was arrested Jan.  21 on  a  charge  of  making  a  false
report  to  police,  a  misdemeanor.   Her  case  remains pending in Nashua
District Court.

Now Wright wants to go back to school, but college officials want  to  seem
more  evidence  before  considering  his readmission, Bolton said Thursday.
Police refuse to release the evidence, he said.

Detectives took tape recorded statements from Mitchell  and  her  roommate,
Bolton  said.   Police  told  Bolton that Mitchell's admission "essentially
exonerates (Wright) and admits that the previous statements to  the  police
and college were untrue," the petition states.

Wright's expulsion from Rivier would make it difficult, if not  impossible,
for  him  to  gain  admission to another college, Bolton said.  But college
officials want to review the evidence before considering whether he  should
be readmitted, he said.

"They say they want the proof.  They want  a  copy  of  her  statement  (to
police),"  Bolton  said.  "They're not going to take any action until I can
produce a copy of the statement, but they say at that point they're willing
to look at it.

"I don't think it's unreasonable for the school to want to see this."

College officials also are waiting to see how Mitchell's case is  resolved,
Lynn Jansky, Rivier's vice president for student development said Thursday.
Jansky declined to comment on details  of  the  case  or  whether  Mitchell
remains at the school, citing privacy concerns.

"The college did conduct a full investigation into the  situation,"  Jansky
said.   "We  are  certainly  interested  in the outcome of that (Mitchell's
case) and will respond accordingly."

Bolton asked police for a copy of Mitchell's statement, but  they  refused,
he said.

Under state law, police reports are considered public records, but they can
be kept confidential for various, specific reasons outlined in that federal
court case,  Lodge  v.   Knowlton.   Police  didn't  cite  any  reason  for
withholding the reports, Bolton said.

"They don't want to, that's all they're saying," he said.  "I kept  saying,
'Why  don't you want to help this guy?' They said it's their policy, and if
we did it for you, we'd have to do it for everyone.'"

The city's lawyer, corporation counsel James McNamee, declined  to  comment
on  the  matter  Thursday,  saying  it involved a pending criminal case and
pending litigation.

Bolton said police concluded  that  Wright  and  Mitchell  had  engaged  in
consensual sexual relations, but his client denies that, too, Bolton said.

"The stories still differ.  My client contends there was  no  such  contact
between the two of them," he said.

According to Wright, he and Mitchell were nothing more than  acquaintances,
Bolton said.

"There was  never  any  romantic  connection,  boyfriend-girlfriend  dating
relationship, there was nothing of that nature," he said.

So  far  as  he  knows,  the  college  never  conducted   an   independent
investigation into Mitchell's accusation against Wright, Bolton said.

A junior, Wright hopes to resume his  college  education  by  this  summer,
Bolton said.  He has not considered taking any legal action against Rivier,
he said.

"We would hope it isn't necessary," Bolton said.

    
    GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?

    If it were me, about this time I'd file a lawsuit against, the college,
    the city, and the female in question that would ensure that I owned
    the college and a good portion of the city when I was done.

    fred();

There are outstanding criminal charges against two students.   Is the lassie
being allowed to continue her studies, or is it only the chap?

Atlant, you claim to know a lot about the college.  I asked in .15 if you might
be able to shed some light on _why_ this college is acting in such a
vicious manner - can you?

Seems to me that this guy's basic human rights are being trampled on - he
is being punished for a crime of which he has not been found guilty.  In my
country, he could not legally be treated like this.  

The USA claims to be the land of the free, ad nauseam.  Seems to me that 
there's something pretty broken...

regards,
//alan

Alan:

> Atlant, you claim to know a lot about the college.  I asked in .15 if you might
> be able to shed some light on _why_ this college is acting in such a
> vicious manner - can you?

  Not for you. Nor any of the other "regulars" in this file.

                                   Atlant

    
    
    re .26
    
    >  Not for you. Nor any of the other "regulars" in this file.
    
    Speaks volumes.
    
    fred();

>  Not for you. Nor any of the other "regulars" in this file.

Atlant, that doesn't come across as very courteous.

Perhaps you might at least tell us to whom you would be willing to explain why
this chap is being denied his education even though he has not been found
guilty of any crime?

regards,
//alan

    .26
    
    Wow, this is an incredible response.  All along this college has been
    presented by the writer as a conservative Catholic college and when
    pressed, no supporting information is provided.
    
    this seems vaguely similar to the abortion Doc that testified about
    partial birth abortions being rare and then admits he lied through his
    teeth because he didn't want to affect his agneda.  Appears as if the
    same is going on here.
    

    Let's see...
    
    The girl cried rape, accused the guy.
    The guy arrested with a FELONY charge.
    The guy got thrown out of college.
    The girl admitted she lied, got arrested on a MISDEMEANOR charge.
    The guy is still out of college, can't get his police reports.
    The college won't *consider* readmitting him till after they see them.
    The girl *may* still be in college; the college won't say."Privacy"
    
    And the guy is still considering going back to a place like that?
    
    Fred, (.24), didn't you mean GUILTY *AFTER* PROVEN INNOCENT?	
    
    And some of you are expecting the 'irregulars' to touch this with a ten
    foot pole? Won't happen..that might alienate them in -wn-  ;>)
    
    -john 

    that's  =wn=

    
    Right...I forgot the symbolism. I stand corrected. ;)

    more like =mn=. Only differnce is that the m is flipped to a w.;)
    
              =wn=
    
    Like IBM and HAL, and WNT and VMS....
    
    

That would make it =mu= (or =wu=), wouldn't it?  

				Steve

From the Nashua Telegraph, Mar 8, 1997

JUDGE STILL UNDECIDED ON ISSUE OF RELEASING REPORTS

A judge wants to hear more on the issue of whether  police  should  release
reports  which  a  Massachusetts  man  argues  would  clear up a false rape
accusation against him and allow him to resume his college studies.

The city argues that the  reports  aren't  public  records,  and  can't  be
released  to  anyone,  ever.   Judge  Arthur Brennan heard arguments on the
matter Tuesday in Hillsborough County Superior Court, and ordered a  second
hearing, which has been scheduled for March 18.

Brian Wright, 20, of Oak Bluffs, Mass., was expelled from Rivier College on
Dec.   30,  10  days  after  another  student,  Jennifer  Mitchell,  20, of
Haverhill, Mass., reported that Wright had raped her in her dormitory  room
a week earlier.

Police investigated and concluded Mitchell had lied.  She was charged  with
making  a  false  report;  the  case  remains  pending.  Rivier College has
declined to consider readmitting Wright, however, saying it  wants  to  see
evidence in the case.

Wright wants police to produce statements by  Mitchell  and  her  roommate;
both women allegedly admitted that the rape report was false.

In his order Wednesday, Brennan stated that he wants to give  Mitchell  and
her  roommate  a chance to be heard on the issue.  Brennan also ordered the
college to send a representative to the hearing.

========== End of article, commentary follows.  ==========

There are a couple of things that intrigue me with  this  case.   First  it
would  seem  to  me  to  be a relatively trivial matter to determine if the
reports were allowed to be given out or not, I am sure there are  laws  and
rules  covering  the dissemination of such things.  And why do the opinions
of Mitchell and her roommate have any bearing on whether the documents  get
released?

The second issue is the suspension of Wright by the college.  I would  have
expected  this  case  to be more an issue of why is the college upholding a
suspension in spite of strong evidence that the complainant lied?  I  would
have expected the college to at least suspend the suspension until the case
was resolved, after all his guilt at this point seems to be in question and
it  doesn't  seem  right  to keep the suspension when he hasn't really been
proven guilty yet.

I also would have expected Wright to be suing the college  to  rescind  the
suspension  on  the  grounds  that there is good evidence that the original
complaint was false.  And it  really  surprises  me  that  the  college  is
sticking  to  its  guns,  makes me wonder what isn't being said.  It really
puzzles me that they are going after the police and not the college.

On the plus side it appears that the judge has the  same  questions  (about
why  the  college  is  standing  by  their  decision)  since he has ordered
Mitchell, her roommate, and a  college  representative  to  appear  at  the
hearing along with Wright and the police department.

    Sue the crud out of the witch!! Sue the crud out of her for intentional
    effliction of emotional distress!! Sue the crap out of her for
    everything he can!!! The past has been a slap on her hand and a whack
    in the head for him! 

    This is the sort of crud many divorcing men face when trying to get to
    see custody. False acusations! And the worse part is that they seldom
    recover from it.

    If you want to blame some group for every action taken by individuals,
    then prepare to be held responsible yourselves for every single battering,
    rape and murder of women by men in this country.

    The unbridled hostility towards women which is all too common in human
    civilizations goes a long way to causing the very real problems of 
    violence against women on this planet.

    Well, I'm very sorry for what happened to the man in the basenote.

    It sounds like his MALE FRIEND (Uncle, probably a conservative :>) 
    decided to screw him royally to get his share of the house, and it 
    worked.

    It doesn't make the crime of rape any less real, of course.  Nor does
    it change the fact that the vast, vast, VAST majority of rapists get
    away with it (because 'her word against his' simply isn't enough.)

    In the case of the guy who ran away to Europe to escape prosecution,
    the defense attorney has succeeded in having the two rape charges
    (for two young women who had remarkably similar stories about his
    M.O. without knowing each other) tried separately.

    So now they can say at each trial, "Gee, it's just her word against
    his that this was rape.  If he were a rapist, why didn't anyone else
    come forward to accuse him of this?  As for her beating, she did it
    to herself so that she could falsely accuse him."

    The juries won't get to see that TWO women (total strangers) came
    forward FOUR DAYS APART with the same details of what he'd done to
    them (without the details being revealed in the newspapers.)

    This guy will go free (if he hasn't already.)  He'll probably rape
    again, too, and claim each time that the charges are false.

    In a show I saw on cable several months back, a man accused of rape
    had videotaped his crime (as a souvenir.)

    The jury watched the video of his actual rape of this woman for two
    hours.  Jury members said it was the worst two hours of their lives
    to be forced to watch this horror.

    They sentenced him to life in prison.

    Most people don't realize the depths of trauma which occur with rape.
    These jurors saw it for themselves, and they were completely sickened
    by it.

    Other jurors simply get the standard 'put the victim on trial' stuff
    during rape cases (the ones that even make it to court, which are
    few indeed.)  So they have no idea of the level of violence or the
    horror which occurred to these women.

    
    re .37
    
    Heck, I thought white males were already held responsible for every evil
    known to the human race....so what else is new?
    
    fred();

    
    Now YOU blame women (and liberals) for every evil known to the human
    race on the basis that this was done to men.
    
    Are you ready to call it even and quit?
    

    
    re .41
    
    Can you give any justification, documentation, evidence for your latest
    personal attack?
    
    fred();

    
    It's only an attack when a woman says that a group is being blamed
    for every evil known to the human race, eh?
    
    I used your own words, but suddenly, they're a personal attack which
    needs to be documented.  Your idea of equality, eh?
    
    Ok.
    

    When you start directing your comments directly at a single person,
    they become a personal attack.  I just made a general observation.
    
    fred();
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Fred, you directed your comments at me, personally.  You made a
    reference to my note with your statement directed at me.
    
    You can't have it both ways.
    

    
    >    You can't have it both ways.
    
    Gee, why not?  Seems to work plenty good for you.
    
    fred();

    
    Gee, Fred - "Seems to work plenty good for you" qualifies as a
    personal attack, by your own definition.
    
    You really do want it both ways. :>
    

    
    Nope.  I said "seems to" which makes it a personal
    observation/opinion. 
    
    fred()
    

    
    How convenient that you SEEM to believe you get to make all the rules.
    Your birthright, or what?
    

    
    >    Your birthright, or what?
    
    My charming, loveable personality.
    fred();

    
    Ok.  :>
    

    Conlon,
    
    Another broad brush attempt to correct the paper and the replys here?
    The kid who was FALSELY accused will carry this in his records for
    life. The men who are falsely accused for doing evils to their children
    in a divorce case carry this for life too. I KNOW MEN WHO HAVE TO HAVE
    A SUPPERVISED VISITATION EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN VINDICATED FROM THE
    FALSE EVILS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED FOR! I KNOW MEN WHO HAVE HAD TO
    GIVE UP SEEING THEIR KIDS BECAUSE OF THIS SORT OF CRAP. 
    
    Re women of the Army: What will happen to them? IF you give false
    testimony, and you have a penis, you are still held accountable. These
    women are already blaming someone they call 'THEY'. Not we, not me,
    someone called 'THEY'. Who the hell is 'THEY'?  
    
    

    Your broad brush against rape victims is sickening, in my opinion.

    Women who have been raped carry the horror with them for the rest
    of their lives, even though 90% of the rapists are never even
    CHARGED for this crime.  If the women have any sexual history at
    all, they're treated (in court) as damaged goods, as if it's ok
    to rape someone who isn't a virgin ('what the hell, she was doing
    it anyway, so this other guy was nothing new.  let him have his fun.')

    As for the women in the army, please remember that they are the ones
    who came forward to CLEAR other people's names.

    If you want to blast them for it now (put them in jail or whatever),
    don't expect the next pressured women in the army to admit to it
    when they get pressured to accuse someone.

  It seems to me the crime here is false accusation of rape, not rape.  It
  seems peculiar to have a passionate discussion of the crime of rape, when
  no rape occurred, and when, therefore, rape has nothing to do with it.

  The crime is accusing someone else of a crime.  Many times people's lives
  can be destroyed by a false accusation.  That crime should be punished
  severely.

  I am firmly against rape, theft, murder, etc., and the REAL victims
  of those crimes deserve great sympathy.  I do not feel sympathetic for
  those who falsely accuse others for money, revenge, or whatever the
  twisted motive is, and the fact that there are REAL rapes, thefts, and
  murders if anything makes the false accusation WORSE.

  I also think those reading this discussion will be too smart to let an
  emotional tirade about a crime that didn't occur distract them from what
  is really going on.

    What's really going on is that some are using an instance of A false
    accusation as an indictment against such accusations in general
    (with stuff about how rape is the 'politically correct crime' or
    whatever.)

    We have a big enough body count to know that the crime is very, very
    real (and goes unpunished in the vast, vast majority of the cases.)

    Pushing to view raped women as false accusers (unless proven otherwise)
    is moving in the wrong direction for this crime.

    

>    Pushing to view raped women as false accusers (unless proven otherwise)
 >   is moving in the wrong direction for this crime.


    In our system it is the _accused_ who gets the benefit of doubt.
    Otherwise the _accused_ must be considered guilty until proven
    innocent.  The opposite is to judge men guilty simply because
    they've been accused.  We have already moved too far in _that_
    direction.

    fred();

    OOOPs!!  

	I have noticed increasingly the following:

	XXX is a nasty problem, where, for example, XXX is rape, drugs, etc.

	XXX is causing a lot of damage and our laws/programs/attitudes are not
	(for some reason) being very effective.

	Let's REALY go after XXX, new laws, Zero Tolerance attitude (which
	is a catchy term that acts to make mindless viciousness a virtue),
	"aggressive enforcement", "it's a war", get the military involved
	(SWAT if possible), etc.

	...

	[Some Time Later]

	...

	A person is accused of XXX.

	Nail-em, Zero Tolerance, it's a war!

	[But he/she is innocent]

	TO GET 80% OF THE GUILTY WE MAY NEED TO SCREW 20% OF THE INNOCENT!

	[Does this sound like a principle the Founding Fathers would have
	 agreed with?]

	[Does this sound like Democracy?]

	[If we didn't screw the 20% who are innocent, would we really lose
	 the other 80%?]

	[Is this a case of simple myopia, or are some groups benefiting from
	 this agenda in some hidden ways?]

	[I submit that if society is going to screw the innocent 20% then
	 more damage will be done to our culture than if the 80% guilty had
	 gotten off.]

Re: having it both ways

Probably illegal in most states. ;-)

...and that's MISTER Liberal White Male, thank you. ;-)

Seriously, though, it's a terrible thing to be falsely accused of a heinous
crime, especially when the crime is so emotionally charged as rape, child
molestation or incest.  The victims are perceived as particularly vulnerable,
and rightfully so - such an introversion often has life-long, profound impact on
them, far exceeding the physical violence they endure.  There's good reason for
feeling more protective of them.

Similarly, though, there's good reason to hold false accusers in a special class
of revulsion.  The falsely accused often suffers life-long, profound damages
simply due to the manipulation of the accuser for their own personal gain,
whether that is financial or otherwise, such as the man in Hartford or the more
general, and all too common case of divorce and custody disputes.  I wonder what
rationale the woman at Rivier College used to justify such a vile act.

False accusation of a felony is a serious crime, especially in these
circumstances.  That doesn't discount the culpability of the truly guilty, nor
the vulnerability of the truly victimized.  It just creates a special kind of
criminal, the false accuser, who deserves everything the system can throw at
them.

Personally, if I were Mr. Wright (? ;-) in Nashua, I'd sue the sh!t outta the
b!tch!

tim

    
    Another reason that I have pointed out several times but some people
    just can't seem to grasp, that false-accusers should be punished is
    that, in our system, the biggest victim of the false-accuser, in
    the long run, is the person who really does need the help.
    People who try to excuse/justify false accusation only add to the
    suspicion of those who really have a problem and really do need
    to be herd.

    fred();

    RE: .62  Fred

    > Another reason that I have pointed out several times but some people
    > just can't seem to grasp, that false-accusers should be punished is
    > that, in our system, the biggest victim of the false-accuser, in
    > the long run, is the person who really does need the help.
    > People who try to excuse/justify false accusation only add to the
    > suspicion of those who really have a problem and really do need
    > to be herd.

    It makes no sense at all to punish real victims as a way to 'get back'
    at false accusers, though (or as a way to convince others to punish
    the false accusers.)

    Using false accusers as an excuse to cast suspicion on the real victims
    is exactly what some of us are fighting against.

    If you threaten raped women with prosecution if the state cannot
    prove their accusation (and let's face it, many of the 'false
    accusations' are designated as such when cases are dropped for 
    the lack of proof and NOT because women said 'I lied') - it becomes 
    a license to rape women at will.

    As bad as it is to have to come forward at all after being raped,
    most women would stop coming forward altogether if they risked
    jail for not being able to provide enough evidence to prove it.
    

    
    If you condone false accusations, you raise suspicion on the ones
    who really need help.  Not saying it's right.  Just a fact of life
    in a system where the accused are "innocent until proven guilty".
    Part of that prosecution is the credibility of the accuser.

    The opposite, one more time, is to make the accused guilty until they
    can prove their innocents.  Seems a group called that Nazis had a
    system like that.

    fred();

    No one is CONDONING false accusations.

    We're simply trying to refrain from punishing those who make very,
    very TRUE accusations.

    If you set out to cast suspicion on all those who make accusations,
    you're making raped women guilty until proven innocent.

    Definitely something Nazis would do, alright.

    
    
    >    No one is CONDONING false accusations.
    
    Then there must be a serious disconnect in what some people
    have written here and your responses to them.
    
>    We're simply trying to refrain from punishing those who make very,
>    very TRUE accusations.

    Where has _anybody_ said we should punish people who make false
    accusations?????????
    
>    If you set out to cast suspicion on all those who make accusations,
>    you're making raped women guilty until proven innocent.
    
    It is those who make the false accusations, and those who condone them,
    who generate the suspicion.  It's called credibility.   Oh Yea,
    credibility isn't supposed to matter any more, is it?
    
    fred();

    RE: .67  Fred

    >> No one is CONDONING false accusations.
        
    > Then there must be a serious disconnect in what some people
    > have written here and your responses to them.

    If you have proof that anyone here has openly condoned false
    accusations, put up or...

    >> We're simply trying to refrain from punishing those who make very,
    >> very TRUE accusations.

    > Where has _anybody_ said we should punish people who make false
    > accusations?????????

    So you're NOT looking to prosecute people for false accusations???

    >> If you set out to cast suspicion on all those who make accusations,
    >> you're making raped women guilty until proven innocent.
        
    > It is those who make the false accusations, and those who condone
    > them, who generate the suspicion.  

    NO ONE is condoning false accusations, of course.

    When you set out to cast suspicion on rape victims as a way to 'get
    back' at any out there who may be making false accusations, YOU DO
    THIS YOURSELF.  YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR IT.

    > It's called credibility.  

    It's called personal responsibility.  If you set out to punish real
    victims to get back at the very, very few who accuse falsely, it's
    on your head.

    > Oh Yea, credibility isn't supposed to matter any more, is it?

    So much for personal responsibility.  The feminists made you do it,
    right?

    re .67
    
>    >    No one is CONDONING false accusations.
>    
>    Then there must be a serious disconnect in what some people
>    have written here and your responses to them.
    
    I don't know what notes you've been reading, but I've seen
    absolutely zip that even suggests condoning of false accusations. 
    
    The question you haven't addressed (or I missed it) is: how do you
    distinguish between a false accusation and an unproven accusation?
    
    There are three (or four) cases here, and I think the discourse will
    be more productive (hah!) if everybody addresses all three.
    
    (1) valid accusation, perp is proven guilty
    (2) unproven accusation, no indication of false accusation
    	2a: valid accusation but insufficient proof for conviction
    	2b: false accusation, no proof of falsehood
    (3) false accusation, accuser proven to be lying
    

>    >> No one is CONDONING false accusations.
>        
>    > Then there must be a serious disconnect in what some people
>    > have written here and your responses to them.
>
>    If you have proof that anyone here has openly condoned false
>    accusations, put up or...

    When every time someone mentions false accusations, you start with
    your stuck-needle tyread about punishing men for rape, then IMNSHO
    you are either condoning false accusation or there is a disconnet
    in the disucssion and your replies---which is is?
    
>    >> We're simply trying to refrain from punishing those who make very,
>    >> very TRUE accusations.
>
>    > Where has _anybody_ said we should punish people who make false
>    > accusations?????????
    
    OOps should have said:
    Where has _anybody_ said we should punish people who make _true_
    accusations?????????
    
>
>    It's called personal responsibility.  If you set out to punish real
>    victims to get back at the very, very few who accuse falsely, it's
>    on your head.
    
    It is you who seem to be condoning the punishment of the falsely
    accused.   It _is_ called credibility, and your's is wearing mighty
    thin.
    
    fred();

    
    >    (3) false accusation, accuser proven to be lying
    
    It in these cases that, even after proven, and even after the victim
    has spent years in jail and had his life runed that usually absolutely ZIP
    happens to the perpetratory.
    
    fred();

    RE: .70  Fred
    
    > When every time someone mentions false accusations, you start with
    > your stuck-needle tyread about punishing men for rape, then IMNSHO
    > you are either condoning false accusation or there is a disconnet
    > in the disucssion and your replies---which is is?
    
    Ah, the disconnect is yours. No way has anyone condoned false accusations
    (as Paul Beck agreed), but you presume someone is doing this when they
    have a perspective different from yours.
    
    What I see happening is that some here want to cast doubt on rape
    accusers in general (citing that some accusations are false), while
    my concern is that fewer real victims will agreed to come forward
    if they are considered guilty until proven innocent.
    
    > It is you who seem to be condoning the punishment of the falsely
    > accused.   It _is_ called credibility, and your's is wearing mighty
    > thin.
    
    You are trying to punish real rape victims by suggesting that we
    cast suspicion on them as a way to 'get back' at false accusations.
    
    We don't need to do that.
    
    Raped women should not be considered guilty until proven innocent.
    If someone makes a false accusation, we should deal with it, but
    not by punishing real rape victims.

    
>    What I see happening is that some here want to cast doubt on rape
>    accusers in general (citing that some accusations are false), while
>    my concern is that fewer real victims will agreed to come forward
>    if they are considered guilty until proven innocent.

    And where have _I_ said anything about condoning rape or puninshing
    rape victims.  We have a system of justice in our country.   I
    don't say I agree with it.  _I_ have been saying that one way to
    increase the credibility of the victims, and thus make it easier
    to punish the real scum is to _also_ punish those who make false 
    accusations.  Yet every time I make that point I am met with 
    _yet another_ firestorm about how everyone is condoning rape.

    fred();
    fred();

    If you threaten to punish those who come forward to report rape,
    it's a license to rape in this country.

    Raped women become guilty until proven innocent.

    We don't cast doubt on robbery victims and threaten to punish them
    for false reports even though some people do make false accusations
    about being robbed.

    We recognize that a great many people are actually robbed, and we
    deal with those who accuse falsely.

    We have no need to do anything different with rape.

	Could it be they care less about law, justice, guilt, and innocence
	then about psychologizing and social policy/advocacy.

	The logic seems to be that making real female rape victims "feel better"
	(by not "casting suspicion" on them -- in other words, by not requiring
	realistic evidence of rape) outweights screwing the innocent men
	who would be falsely accused and convicted if only lip service is
	paid to the realistic evidence requirement .  (I say female victims,
	because I don't hear a word about the men getting raped in prison by
	other men).

	Is the goal of the criminal justice system to be to "get someone,
	anyone" (and tromp on others rights if need be) in order to guarantee
	that a victim gets to "feel better".  Sounds like the lynching parties
	that were supposedly popular (if history can be believed, which it
	can't) in the West in the 1800's.

    Again, try the crime of robbery as an example.

    When we hear of someone who falsely accused another of robbery,
    do we begin to cast doubt on the real robbery victims?

    Do defense attorneys go to court to suggest that people WANTED
    to give their possessions to another person at gunpoint (or
    that they enjoyed it)?

    In rape trials, even those men who broke into a sleeping stranger's
    house and raped at knifepoint try to argue that the women wanted
    to have sex with the man.  'Stranger in the bushes' rapes try to
    defend by suggesting the woman had an orgasm when the man ripped
    her clothes off and penetrated her on the ground.

    We don't try to ridicule robbery victims by suggesting that laws
    are being changed to make them "feel better" at the expense of
    those who could be falsely accused.

    Why single out rape as a crime where the victims should be suspect?

    
    I know you don't like may saying it, but as long as you insist on
    doing it:  THANKS AGAIN FOR PROVING MY POINT AND DOING _EXACTLY_
    WHAT MY PREVIOUS NOTE SAID WOULD HAPPEN.
    
    Have you ever seen or heard what happens to men in prison.  Especially
    those who are accused of sex-crimes.  Are you saying that we should
    condone the rape of innocent men without punishment to those who
    caused them to be placed in that situation?
    
    As far as our system of justice goes,
    well, Susanne, you might want to take that up with the Supreme
    Court and the ACLU.  I think they have a lot more to do with
    our current system of justice than any of us slimey men out here.
    If it were up to me there would be a lot more criminals of _all_
    stripes behind bars.  Hoever, I don't think the SCOTUS and ACLU
    have much to do with the complete lack of punishment of certain
    criminals even when _proven_ guilty.
    
    fred();

    Fred, you're just using your favorite slogans without any argument
    behind them at all.
    
    What you say is meaningless when you do this.
    

    
    Well,  when I say something is going to happen and you turn right
    around do it, I don't know how much more proof of my argument 
    that is needed.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .79  Fred
    
    > Are you saying that we should condone the rape of innocent men 
    > without punishment to those who caused them to be placed in that 
    > situation?
        
    You know I'm not saying this at all.
    
    Your tirade against me makes no sense at all unless you can make
    false accusations about this against me.
    
    How's that for irony in a discussion of false accusations?  :>
    

    RE: .81  Fred
    
    > Well,  when I say something is going to happen and you turn right
    > around do it, I don't know how much more proof of my argument 
    > that is needed.
    
    You use the slogan without any sort of argument (before or after)
    about what point is being proven or how it's actually been proven.
    
    You just SAY IT without giving any meaning to the phrase at all,
    other than hostility.
    
    It's as meaningless as telling someone to go to hell, basically.
    In fact, I suspect that this is what you're really saying when
    you make this claim.
    

    
    Now that you've been caught making false accusations against me,
    what should your punishment be (by the way)?  :>
    

    Fred,

    You make great sense.

    I think the agenda here is to turn the discussion into a shouting match.

    I guess if you can't win with logic, you can at least anger the other
    side?

    Dave

    
    > I guess if you can't win with logic, you can at least anger the other
    > side?
    
    Fred's trying very hard to do this, but it isn't working.  :>
    

	Yes, I had no doubt that you were not angry

    
    Yes, I had no doubt that you were not angry, too.
    
    

.74

> If you threaten to punish those who come forward to report rape,
>   it's a license to rape in this country.

>    Raped women become guilty until proven innocent.



The threat is against those who falsely accuse... Isn't it? 
Just like the threat is against those who rape.
Just like the threat is against criminals.
Aren't false accusers and rapists criminals?
Aren't our laws a threat against criminals?

If they are both (false accuser & rapist) proven to be criminal shouldn't
they both be punished?

The trick is how you go about proven someone guilty Note... innocent
until proven guilty.

There will always be an accused and a accuser. On a one person's word against
another, case, they are ...accusing each other....  Both innocent until
proven guilty. If neither can be proven guilty they remain innocent.
That's how the system works. Isn't it?

Yes, that will prevent some real rape victims from coming forward
and pressing charges if they felt that some how the law/truth  can be
twisted to prove them guilty.    [I think everyone agrees here.]
				
Yes, that will prevent some falsely accused from coming forward
and pressing charges if they felt that some how the law/truth  can be
twisted to prove them guilty.   [I think everyone agrees here.]

The threats against criminal will by far prevent/reduce more people
from committing crimes then it would prevent victim from coming
forward.

		No way do we have a perfect system.
		No way are we going to get a perfect system.
		Unfortunately a percentage of criminals
		will always get away.
		

However, if proven guilty or admits to a crime shouldn't they be punished?
Remember that a real admission of a crime would be ideal/perfect and in some
of these cases people have admitted and gotten away with the crime.
Shouldn't they be punished?

    If someone makes a false report of a crime (such as robbery),
    what crime are they committing and what is the typical punishment
    for this crime?

    Let's start with robbery and see what fits, because let's face it,
    robbery convicts get raped in prison every bit as much as every
    other prison inmate.  So the result to the accused person is the
    same, either way.

    Start with robbery and let's see what is fair.  Then we apply it to
    rape cases.

    What could be fairer than this?  It gives us a good baseline to start
    trying to decide how to deal with false accusers.

>If someone makes a false report of a crime (such as robbery),
>    what crime are they committing and what is the typical punishment
>    for this crime?

Well, I'm no where near being a lawyer but here goes.......

If someone falsely accuses another of robbery.  The accused can if they
wish sue for slander and defamation of character.  If the false accuser
was found guilty that would make him a criminal. Right?
I haven't any idea what the punishment is for that type of crime, but
I think everyone would agree the criminal should be punished. No?


> Let's start with robbery and see what fits, because let's face it,
>    robbery convicts get raped in prison every bit as much as every
>    other prison inmate.  So the result to the accused person is the
>    same, either way.

Again, I'm not a lawyer but, I don't think criminals being raped in prison
is a part of the punishment the jury, judge and our laws intended. Although,
I'm sure most victims and their supports wouldn't think a criminal getting
a taste of his own medicine would be bad. For myself, I think the punishment,
should be worse than the crime, but tend to stay away from the extremes
because there are many prisoner that have been falsely or mistakenly accused.

>   Start with robbery and let's see what is fair.  Then we apply it to
>   rape cases.
		
That is a Loooooooooog stretch for me.  Robbery and rape that is.  I believe
that if a person falsely accuses another of a crime knowing exactly what the
legal penalties are and the accuser was found/admit lying he/she should get the
exact penalty.  Examples...... If it is punishable, by one year in prison for
robbery the criminal should serve one year.  The false accuser should service
one year.  I'm sure the false accuser knew what he/she was illegally going
to put the victim through.  If the penalty for rape is 20 years the rapist
should serve 20 years.  The false accuser knowing exactly what the penalty
he/she should serve 20 years.  If the penalty for murder is the electric chair
the criminal should get the electric chair whether the criminal is the
murderer or the false accuser.  BTW, I'm against the death penalty.


>    Let's start with robbery and see what fits, because let's face it,
>    robbery convicts get raped in prison every bit as much as every
>    other prison inmate.  So the result to the accused person is the
>    same, either way.


Again, the intent of putting someone in jail is not to have others criminal
do as they please with him/her.  I don't know...... Isn't rape in prison a
crime just like rape in the out side world whether the victim is male or
female.  Thieves that are raped in jail are victims.  Isn't he/she?  And
isn't there a (crime) criminal to go with that.

What fits the crime?  If we only knew what penalties fit each crime for
every criminal there would never be a repeat crime by the some person.
To me, finding a penalty to fit the criminal for every crime is the 
equivalent of doing to, or putting the criminal through a process that would
prevent him/her from ever committing the crime again, AND (important part)
having the victim completely satisfied with the result.  Killing every 
criminal is not the answer....... so we tend to guess as to what penalty
fits the crime. A strange averaging of peoples opinions.......

	Of course we will find what fits exactly because,
	we are all human and we always agree. :-)


>  What could be fairer than this?  It gives us a good baseline to start
>    trying to decide how to deal with false accusers.


Gee.... that is a great starting statement to a product start of a
	reasonable discussion to a problem that everyone would like
	solved.

	My vote, is to penalize the false accuser, whomever he/she is with
	the same punishment the innocent person would have gone through.
	What's yours?

    Well, perjury is the crime that is committed when someone lies
    under oath (such as falsely accusing someone of a crime in a trial.)

    Perjury has its own penalties, and I do believe that some jail time
    is involved.

    I would never agree with the idea of punishing a lie with the 
    penalty that would be given to the person (if convicted) who 
    has been accused of some other crime.

    The reason:  Imagine if you faced a possible death penalty for
    testifying as a witness to a murder.  The guy has a good lawyer
    and decides to go fight the charge by saying that you're lying
    (which is usually what defense attorneys do.)  Would you risk
    being put to death just to testify (even if you knew it to be
    the truth?)

    Most people wouldn't do it.  I wouldn't, that's for sure.

    So we wouldn't have much of a legal system left, and we'd all be
    in a lot more danger (since so few would be willing to cooperate
    with the police or the courts to help with convictions.)

    If perjury carries a two year sentence (for example), then individuals
    who perjure themselves in any kind of case should be considered for
    prosecution.  The person is innocent until proven guilty (and the
    evidence has to be beyond a reasonable doubt in this case, too.)

    We follow through with this when it's appropriate, but we do not
    insinuate that crime victims in general should not be believed
    (which would make them guilty until proven innocent.)

    By the way, slander (etc) is a matter of a civil law not criminal
    law.  When courts find for the plaintiff in such actions, the
    penalty is money, not jail time.

    Thanks for steering all this into an avenue that can be discussed.

    Let's start with robbery and see what fits, because let's face it,
    robbery convicts get raped in prison every bit as much as every
    other prison inmate.  So the result to the accused person is the
    same, either way.

Okay, let's start with robbery.  Imagine I want to maliciously damage some
other person's life.  I make up a story about that person having performed a
robbery, and I fabricate enough evidence to make the charge stick.  Maybe that
person works in some position of trust - say a bank or a doctor.  By forcing
that charge to stick, I may well have that person placed in gaol, and unable
ever to get a job again on release.

I believe that that is a pretty good "assault".  It certainly is an evil deed
that I have done, and I would be deserving of very serious punishment.

Suzanne, do you agree?

So if a woman wants to maliciously damage some man.  One potential way is by
accusing the man of rape (actually, a false accusation of child abuse is
probably an even better way to ruin someone's life - impossible for the
accused person to defend against).  This is a very serious assault on the man.

From what I read of your notes, Suzanne, you believe that this very serious
assault should not be punishable by a serious penalty.  Please tell me that
I'm wrong.

For the record, there is a very big difference between "X is not proven to be
true" and "X is proven to be untrue".

regards,
//alan

    RE: .93  Alan

    > I believe that that is a pretty good "assault".  It certainly is an 
    > evil deed that I have done, and I would be deserving of very serious 
    > punishment.

    What precise crime would you be prosecuted for committing?  Perjury?

    You would do jail time for perjury, but other than that, I would
    suspect that you're looking at a civil suit for damages to the 
    other person's life (which does not involve jail time.)

    Perjury would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.
    If it could not be proven, then you would get no jail time at all
    (but you could still be found responsible in a civil suit.)

    It would be much like stabbing two people to death with a knife
    and hiring good enough lawyers to set you free, but then being
    nailed for over $30 million in a civil suit.

    > From what I read of your notes, Suzanne, you believe that this very 
    > serious assault should not be punishable by a serious penalty.  Please 
    > tell me that I'm wrong.

    I consider it very serious when someone makes a false claim of robbery
    or any other crime.  However, we have to look at what is punishable
    under the law for false claims of robbery (first), so we can see what
    might fit for another crime.  Either way, a life could be ruined and
    a person could be raped in prison.

    It is possible to charge someone with making a false report to the
    police, but people aren't executed or given life terms for this.

    If you want to single out one particular crime for EXTRA serious
    punishment, I'd have to question the motives very seriously.
    Something else would be in play.
    
    What exactly are you suggesting we do to people who make false
    accusations about robbery?  10 years?  20 years?  Execution?

    Do you want to change our legal system such that if someone robs
    you and you report it, they could send you to prison for a long
    time by getting a good enough lawyer to convince a jury that you
    were not actually robbed?

    Think about it.  Would you report being robbed if you knew that
    the person who robbed you had hired a really, really good lawyer?
    Would you risk a long prison sentence just to get justice for
    what had been done to you illegally?

    Remember, if the whole issue here is that it's easy to get a
    conviction on someone by (mostly) just accusing them, then
    the one who robbed you could get YOU convicted just as easily
    for making a false accusation (even if it wasn't false.)

    So, any testimony you could make about someone who robbed
    you would be a grave risk to your freedom and well-being.

    Is this really what you want?

    Do you want to change our legal system such that if someone robs
    you and you report it, they could send you to prison for a long
    time by getting a good enough lawyer to convince a jury that you
    were not actually robbed?

No.  But see the last section of my note.  That's _exactly_ the point you are
missing.

If A is accused of robbing B but proves that B was not robbed, that is one
thing.  Proving that A went out to set B up for the charge is COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT.

As for your note about perjury, I believe that it should be treated in exactly
the same way as any other crime - the punishment should be proportional to the
amount of harm that the criminal was trying to cause to the victim.

regards,
//alan

    RE: .97  Alan

    > If A is accused of robbing B but proves that B was not robbed, that 
    > is one thing.  Proving that A went out to set B up for the charge 
    > is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

    How do you prove this?  People often ASSUME and ACCUSE people of being
    out to screw others with accusations, but it's something that must be
    proven beyond a reasonable doubt (like everything else.)

    It should involve more than lawyer trickery for a person accused of
    robbery or murder to be able to get witnesses sent up to prison for
    years (or executed) in retaliation for their testimony.

    > As for your note about perjury, I believe that it should be treated 
    > in exactly the same way as any other crime - the punishment should 
    > be proportional to the amount of harm that the criminal was trying 
    > to cause to the victim.

    Murder witnesses would be facing the death penalty themselves if an
    accused person could hire the best possible lawyers to beat a murder
    rap.  Our justice system would fall to pieces of witnesses had to put
    themselves (possibly their lives) in danger by testifying.

    You've ignored this part of my stand - I know it's much more fun to
    think of me as wanting to 'condone' false accusations, but please
    answer what would happen to our legal system if murder witnesses
    could face the death penalty for testifying.  Remember, the basic
    premise in this discussion is that it's too easy to convict people 
    on the words of others, so valid, truthful witnesses could be 
    convicted of lying just as easily as any other person who has been 
    falsely accused.  (The key is that a person can be falsely accused
    of making false accusations.  Please keep this in mind.)

    It's easy to say "NO, only the false accusers would be in danger",
    but this implies that the individuals who would be charged with
    perjury are guilty until proven innocent.  ("Hey, they wouldn't
    have been charged with perjury unless they'd done it..")

    Think about it.

    If you were robbed and the person had a great lawyer who was ready
    to accuse you of trying to set up the robber (to ruin his life)
    and you knew that you could do 20 years in prison if the lawyer
    succeeded - would you report the crime?  I wouldn't, even knowing
    I was truly robbed and only seeking justice.

    Keep in mind that lawyer trickery can get guilty people acquitted
    of crimes they really did commit.

    The same trickery can be used to convict innocent people of making
    false accusations.  If the stakes were raised (so that witnesses
    could be executed for their supposedly 'false' testimony), defense
    lawyers could use this approach to keep people from being willing
    to testify.

    I know that this part cannot be comprehended nor discussed here, 
    and it's too bad.  It's the point, though.

    Keep in mind that lawyer trickery can get guilty people acquitted
    of crimes they really did commit.

    The same trickery can be used to convict innocent people of making
    false accusations.  If the stakes were raised (so that witnesses
    could be executed for their supposedly 'false' testimony in murder
    cases if the lawyer makes the case that the witness was out to ruin
    the accused murderer), defense attorneys could use this approach 
    to keep people from being willing to testify.

    I know that this part cannot be comprehended nor discussed here, 
    and it's too bad.  It's the point, though.

    I know that we're going to see a whole lot of 'huh?? Executing
    witnesses for accusing someone of murder???' - so it'll be a
    big tangled mess long before anyone gets around to answering
    this.  However, someone here did suggest that perjurers get
    the punishment that would have gone to the person they accused
    of the crime - so testifying against someone in a murder trial
    would involve putting the accused in danger of being executed.

    If the witness is threatened with the penalty that would have
    been given to the accused murderer, they could be facing the
    risk of execution for their testimony (even though it's true.)

    The same trickery can be used to convict innocent people of making
    false accusations.  If the stakes were raised (so that witnesses
    could be executed for their supposedly 'false' testimony in murder
    cases if the lawyer makes the case that the witness was out to ruin
    the accused murderer), defense attorneys could use this approach 
    to keep people from being willing to testify.

And this doesn't happen today?  But remember, we've still got "beyond
reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof required.  However, any attempt
to lessen the standard of proof required would make it easier for innocent
people to be convicted.  And I don't know about the US, but in the UK it
seems that quite a few women's groups are trying to lessent the standard
of proof required to make a rape charge stick.  As if rape is a less serious
crime than one that needs really good proof. 

    I know that we're going to see a whole lot of 'huh?? Executing
    witnesses for accusing someone of murder???' - so it'll be a
    big tangled mess long before anyone gets around to answering
    this.

Nah, international time zones are a wonderful thing :-)

    However, someone here did suggest that perjurers get
    the punishment that would have gone to the person they accused
    of the crime - so testifying against someone in a murder trial
    would involve putting the accused in danger of being executed.

Only in those  countries that still have a death penalty.

However, following your argument to its logical conclusion, you appear to be
saying that the courts should never punish anyone for fear of making an error
and punishing an innocent party.  That way lies anarchy, and so the idea of
"beyond reasonable doubt" came along.

Let me turn the question around to you.  If it can be shown, beyond reasonable
doubt, that a man foully and maliciously tried to destroy another man's life
by making false accusations about that man, do you believe that the punishment
should be equivalent to (a) the theft of a candy bar from a store, (b) a
serious physical assault from which the victim would recover, or (c) a serious
physical assault from which the victim would never recover.

Now, the same question on a false accusation of rape made by a woman against a
man.

My suggestion would be (b) tending towards (c) in both cases.

regards,
//alan

    RE: .101  Alan

    > And I don't know about the US, but in the UK it seems that quite a 
    > few women's groups are trying to lessent the standard of proof 
    > required to make a rape charge stick.  As if rape is a less
    > serious crime than one that needs really good proof. 

    As we have it now, even 'stranger in the bushes rapes' and 'stranger 
    broke into a woman's house and raped the woman at knifepoint' cases
    are being defended as "SHE WANTED IT" (when there is no doubt at all
    that penetration was achieved by the man on the woman.)  

    A friend of mine was attacked at college by a stranger who jumped out
    of the bushes, and the defense attorney asked her in court if she'd
    had an orgasm during the experience.  (His defense was that she was
    turned on and wanted it - from some guy who jumped out of the bushes
    and beat her up.)  A man in Texas broke into a woman's house and tried
    to claim she consented to sex because she begged him to use a condom
    so she wouldn't risk AIDS in the rape.

    Rape is one of the most difficult crimes to prove, and it shouldn't be.
    If someone breaks into a house or jumps out of the bushes to penetrate
    another human being, and the evidence shows that the penetration occurred
    - it should be a slam dunk that it was rape.  Instead, rapists claim
    that the women wanted it.

    An accused robber wouldn't even DREAM of claiming that their victims
    wanted to give them their money.  It's something that happens in rape
    cases, though.

    > However, following your argument to its logical conclusion, you appear
    > to be saying that the courts should never punish anyone for fear of 
    > making an error and punishing an innocent party.  That way lies anarchy,
    > and so the idea of "beyond reasonable doubt" came along.

    You're making illogical assumptions here.  Never have I suggested that
    the courts NEVER punish people for false testimony or false police
    reports.  

    It isn't a binary situation (where I have to agree with you completely
    or be falsely accused of taking the opposite stand.)

    > Let me turn the question around to you.  If it can be shown, beyond
    > reasonable doubt, that a man foully and maliciously tried to destroy 
    > another man's life by making false accusations about that man, do 
    > you believe that the punishment should be equivalent to (a) the theft 
    > of a candy bar from a store, (b) a serious physical assault from which 
    > the victim would recover, or (c) a serious physical assault from which 
    > the victim would never recover.

    Keep in mind that it's a matter of civil suits when one person succeeds
    in damaging another.  

    We have laws against lying in court - but lying in a court room does
    not make someone criminally responsible for what other convicts do to 
    this person in prison.  It could be a matter for a civil court, but
    not a criminal court.  (In other words, if someone commits perjury in
    a court, they won't be charged with the rapes committed by inmates on
    the accused person in prison.  Nor should they be.)

    > Now, the same question on a false accusation of rape made by a woman
    > against a man.

    > My suggestion would be (b) tending towards (c) in both cases.

    If perjury is committed in a robbery, murder or rape case, the full
    penalties for perjury apply.

    Punishing someone for the rape that the accused person got in prison
    would not be feasible.  The criminal justice system has to deal with
    the rapist in that case (although rape is such a difficult crime to
    prove that the accused in prison is as unlikely as any woman in this
    country to see it go to trial at all, much less get a conviction.)

    O.K. Guys. We have gone down the rodent hole. Back to this student from
    Rivier and his falsely accusing girlfriend. The question I will pose to
    all. What do you feel is justifiable for someone who makes false
    acusations? Slap on the hand? Or perhaps a legal suit against for
    'defermation(sp) of charater'? Or both kiss and make up and cut the
    crap and don't do it again?
    
    To me, equality starts right here. Sue the crap out of the woman for
    making false acusations and thats it! There are two sides to a soward
    and the second side should cut equally as the first. 
    
    

    

    re .102

>    Punishing someone for the rape that the accused person got in prison
>    would not be feasible.  The criminal justice system has to deal with
>    the rapist in that case (although rape is such a difficult crime to
>    prove that the accused in prison is as unlikely as any woman in this
>    country to see it go to trial at all, much less get a conviction.)

    If you intentionally, and falsely, put someone in a position where
    you know what will happen to them, then you are a party to the crime
    as much as the person who committed it.  

    If you don't like our current legal system, then you may want to 
    go talk to the ACLU and the liberal judges that have put us in the
    position and have created the rules under which evidence can
    be submitted.  Don't blame "men" for the state of the legal system.
    Violating men's rights too is not the answer.  Making it easier
    to send innocent men to jail is not the answer.  

    If you really want to do something that will help send rapists to
    jail, then help educate women to the system and what evidence
    and how to gather it will be needed to successfully prosecute the case.
    What the system to does to a woman who accuses men of rape is in no way
    persoanl to the woman.  It's just the way the system has to work under 
    the current rules (see first parageraph--ACLU).  If you want to increase 
    the credibility of women who really have been raped, then support the 
    prosecution of women who _falsely_ accuse men of crimes.   

    fred();

    re .103
    
    At the very least the woman should be evicted from the college.
    fred();

    RE: .104  Fred

    > If you intentionally, and falsely, put someone in a position where
    > you know what will happen to them, then you are a party to the
    > crime as much as the person who committed it.  

    Our legal system doesn't work that way.  People who commit perjury
    are not charged with any rapes that the accused person experiences
    while in prison.

    > If you want to increase the credibility of women who really have 
    > been raped, then support the prosecution of women who _falsely_ 
    > accuse men of crimes.   

    Those who use false accusations as an excuse to cast suspicion on 
    real rape victims bear the responsibility of their actions themselves.

    We should fight back against those who want to punish real rape
    victims by casting suspicion on them as a way to 'get back' at
    those who make false accusations.

    
    One thing proven to cut down on all forms of crime is legal concealed
    carry-permits.  Even if there are really only a very few actually
    packing.  If a rapist doesn't know which woman is going to pull up and 
    blow him to kingdom-come, then they get more cautious about what they 
    do.

    fred();

    re .106

>    Those who use false accusations as an excuse to cast suspicion on 
>    real rape victims bear the responsibility of their actions themselves.

    This is not just rape, this is in _all_ crime.  That is the way our
    system, our country, our society, is set up.  If you don't like it
    then you might want to start with, once again, the ACLU.  However,
    failure to punish those women who are _proven_ to falsely accuse
    men is just proof of my argument.  

    fred();

    
    
    re .106
    
>    We should fight back against those who want to punish real rape
>    victims by casting suspicion on them as a way to 'get back' at
>    those who make false accusations.
    
    I double dog dare you to show where _anybody_ in this file has
    advocated doing that.  This is personal attack of the vilest order.
    
    What I have said is that under our system this is what happens. I
    havent' said in any way, shape or form that I agree with it.  What
    I have trie to suggest is one way to help overcome the system to
    _protect_ the real victims.
    
    fred();

    RE: .108  Fred

    >> Those who use false accusations as an excuse to cast suspicion on 
    >> real rape victims bear the responsibility of their actions themselves.

    > This is not just rape, this is in _all_ crime.  That is the way our
    > system, our country, our society, is set up.  

    When someone is discovered to have made a false accusation about being
    robbed, people don't tend to cast suspicion on robbery victims in general.

    It's an unusual story, so it makes the news.  No one starts to suggest
    that we need to fight back against false robbery accusations, even
    though robbers get raped in prison, too.

    > If you don't like it then you might want to start with, once again, 
    > the ACLU.  

    You're making false claims about our legal system, so they're not
    involved.

    > However, failure to punish those women who are _proven_ to falsely 
    > accuse men is just proof of my argument.

    Proof of what argument?

    How are these women *PROVEN* (beyond a reasonable doubt) to have
    falsely accused men if they haven't gone through the legal system?
    It isn't possible.

    .106
    >Our legal system doesn't work that way.
    
    YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Someone who is a male can be held to the highest
    level of the law! And if you look sideways at a women in college, you
    can burn in hell for it too. 
    
    These are adults, no longe minors. They are a-man-ci-pated(sp) adults
    who can be held accountable. Suzanne, your making excuses for this
    woman from the get to the go. And this is wrong!! Very wrong!! 

    RE: .109  Fred

    >> We should fight back against those who want to punish real rape
    >> victims by casting suspicion on them as a way to 'get back' at
    >> those who make false accusations.
               
    > What I have said is that under our system this is what happens. 

    So what is the problem about fighting back against it when you admit
    it is happening?

    > I havent' said in any way, shape or form that I agree with it. What
    > I have trie to suggest is one way to help overcome the system to
    > _protect_ the real victims.
        
    You can help protect the real victims by saying that false accusations
    in NO WAY imply anything about rape accusations in general.

    > I double dog dare you to show where _anybody_ in this file has
    > advocated doing that.  This is personal attack of the vilest
    > order.

    The very, very "vilest"?  How does it point to anyone in particular
    when a person suggests fighting back against "THOSE" who perform a
    certain action?

    RE: .111  Rauh

    >> Our legal system doesn't work that way.
        
    > YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Someone who is a male can be held to the
    > highest level of the law! 

    So can women.  I saw a 19 year old woman sent to our State Prison for 
    2 years for TRYING (unsuccessfully) to cash a stolen check for $200.  
    The same judge gave an admitted child molester (a man) 90 days in the 
    county jail for pleading guilty to molesting two children (6 and 10 years 
    old.)

    > And if you look sideways at a women in college, you
    > can burn in hell for it too. 
      
    Our legal system doesn't cover life after death.
      
    > These are adults, no longe minors. They are a-man-ci-pated(sp)
    > adults who can be held accountable. 

    We have laws about perjury.  Prosecute these cases as such.

    > Suzanne, your making excuses for this woman from the get to the go. 
    > And this is wrong!! Very wrong!! 

    I haven't said ONE SINGLE WORD about that case.

    Unless I agree with you completely, do you feel you can make any
    FALSE CLAIMS you care to make about my position?

    How ironic.

    You can help protect the real victims by saying that false accusations
    in NO WAY imply anything about rape accusations in general.

Suzanne,

I haven't seen anyone in this notesfile imply this.  I think that it would be
a -- what's today's word? -- vile thing to do.  Can you point to any notes 
where this was implied?

regards,
//alan

    RE: .114  Alan

    >> You can help protect the real victims by saying that false
    >> accusations in NO WAY imply anything about rape accusations 
    >> in general.

    > I haven't seen anyone in this notesfile imply this.  I think that it
    > would b a -- what's today's word? -- vile thing to do.  Can you point 
    > to any notes where this was implied?

    Yup.  Here's some direct quotes:

        "I am so tired of the politically correct crime of the time."
        
    		[Pls note that this is a statement about rape cases 
    		in general, not the specific instance where an individual 
    		made what appears to be a false claim.  I say "appears"
    		to have been a false accusation because we do not have a
    		disposition on the charges against her.  She is 'innocent
    		until proven guilty by a court of law', too.]
        
        "It is just these types of actions by the insane politically correct
        crowd that makes me have little if any support for the aims, even
        though I believe some of their goals are valid."

    		[Again, an individual's actions are now discussed as being 
    		part of the struggle - in general - against the crime of rape.
    		As if everyone is responsible in some way for what this one
    		individual chose to do.]

Re: .113

Sounds terribly unfair.

Did the young woman get nothing for being in possession of stolen property?
A two year sentance would say to me that there is a story in how she came
into possession of the check in the first place.
I would need to know more of the story here.

90 days does seem rather short unless it was one of those "he kissed me
when I didn't want him to" situations.  Again I would need to know more
of the story.

Re: Other comments:

Perjury is lying in court while under oath.

I have seen a couple of cases in the newspaper where people have filed
false robbery reports and have been arrested for filing those reports.
You do not get charged for filing false reports if there is any likelyhood
that there is reason to believe that the report is true, you get charged for
knowingly filing a report that is not true.  The key word here is "knowingly".

The young lady at Rivier has not been found guilty of having a filed a false
report and should not be judged as if she has.

The young man has not been found guilty of having raped someone and should
not be treated as if he has.

The young lady has not been accused of a crime that threatens the safety of 
others and as such there is probably little harm in letting her remain in
school.

The young man has been accused of a crime that threatens the safety of 
others and as such there is probably good reason to remove him from the
environment until he has been proven to not pose a threat to others, hence
it makes sense to suspend him and keep him suspended.  A form of the "better
safe than sorry" approach to things.

This case has the possibility of she being guilty and he being innocent.  If
that is the case then it would be appropriate to ask "how do we make it up to
the young man that he has been delayed in his education through no fault of his
own, that he has incurred a financial burden (legal expenses), and his personal
reputation and integrity have been damaged and what do we do to punish her?".

This case also has the possibility of she being innocent and he being guilty.  If
that is the case then it would be appropriate to ask "how do we make it up to the
young woman that she has incurred a financial burden (legal expense) and her
personal reputation and integrity have been damaged and what do we do to punish
him?"

So until the facts are known and the case is resolved, there isn't much that we
can discuss about it here is there?

    
    re Season

    Given your own "standards" then I would say that you have repeatedly
    attempted to justify and defend false accusations againts innocent
    men in order to make it easier to convict actual criminals.

    This will never be supported in our society except by people like
    you and those who have a similar agenda.

    fred();

    RE:  .116

    > Did the young woman get nothing for being in possession of stolen
    > property?  A two year sentance would say to me that there is a story 
    > in how she came into possession of the check in the first place.

    She stole some checks (while in the owner's house as an acquaintance)
    then tried to cash one for $200.  It didn't work.  She was sent to
    prison for 2 years for trying to steal $200 with this check.

    > 90 days does seem rather short unless it was one of those "he kissed me
    > when I didn't want him to" situations.  Again I would need to know more
    > of the story.

    The children were 6 years old and 10 years old.  He had several counts
    against him for each child, but he plead guilty to fondling their
    genitals with his hands and making them fondle his genitals.  He was
    also charged with oral sex on these children, but these charges were
    dropped as part of the plea bargain (to spare the children from having
    to testify in court.)

    Far more than a kiss.  Especially for young children.

    > So until the facts are known [about the Rivier case] and the case is 
    > resolved, there isn't much that we can discuss about it here is there?

    Bingo!  Thank you very much.

    RE: .117  Fred

    > Given your own "standards" then I would say that you have
    > repeatedly attempted to justify and defend false accusations 
    > againts innocent men in order to make it easier to convict 
    > actual criminals.

    This is a false accusation against me, of course. Isn't it ironic
    in a discussion about the evils of false accusations?

    My response has been against the notion of casting suspicion on 
    REAL rape victims as a way to 'get back' at false accusers. 

    > This will never be supported in our society except by people like
    > you and those who have a similar agenda.

    Your false accusations against me will never be supported in our
    society except by people like you.

    
    The Social Services Department of Pueblo, Co. just purchased a
    new building in which to have "supervised visitation" of children
    that they have in "protective custody" and their parents (read
    mothers).  The old building has become too crowded.  Over 80 "families"
    per week had been using the old building.  I do not think men are
    the only offenders in our society.  Just published more.

    fred();

    
    
    Why is it that I sometimes get the feeling that I'm playing football
    against the Raiders.  Where the rules apply to me but not to them?
    
    fred();

    Gee, I thought all the men accused of being 'offenders' (for child
    abuse, etc.) in our society were victims of false accusations...
    
    Perhaps many of these mothers were falsely accused, as well.
    

    RE: .121  Fred
    
    > Why is it that I sometimes get the feeling that I'm playing football
    > against the Raiders.  Where the rules apply to me but not to them?
    
    This is just an excuse for not playing very well.  :>
    

    

    >    Perhaps many of these mothers were falsely accused, as well.

    Knowing Pueblo County Social Services in particular and "child abuse"
    charges in general, I'm sure some of them are,  but if I operate
    by your rules (assuming I can figure out which set)--So What?

    fred();
    

    RE: .124  Fred

    >> Perhaps many of these mothers were falsely accused, as well.

    > Knowing Pueblo County Social Services in particular and "child
    > abuse" charges in general, I'm sure some of them are,  but if 
    > I operate by your rules (assuming I can figure out which set)
    > --So What?

    That's not my rule.

    We could operate by YOUR rule, though, and assume that the ones
    who accuse others of child abuse are 'guilty until proven innocent'
    and have them shot.  :>

    
    
    re Suzanne.
    
    When you decide to try to debate issues on reason and logic rather
    on hysteria let me know.  Until then I'm quite certrtain yor
    agenda is perfectly clear.   The really scary part is that there
    are so many others out there like you.
    
    fred();

    Fred, didn't catch my smiley face after the last remark in my
    note, eh?  So sad.

    When you decide to debate issues using reason and logic rather
    than the false accusations you've been spewing at me, let me
    know.

    It's very telling that your tirades against me don't work at
    all without the false accusations, though.  Such things don't 
    go unnoticed in our society...

    
    Re Suzanne,

    How many years now is that it seems nearly every conversation we
    try to have in here you have to rathole with your same old same
    old tirade.  This is beginning to border on harassment.  I know
    there have been guys banned from certain notes files for such
    actions.  Enough is enough.  There are places where you can go to 
    spew your hate to your harts content.  I would suggest you take
    it there.

    fred();

    Thanks again to the person who pointed out earlier that we have nothing
    to discuss about the Rivier case without knowing what happened with the
    charge against the woman for a false police report.

    As mentioned, she is also innocent until proven guilty, so we don't
    have the 'proof' yet that the accusation was false.

    I do think that they ought to make a swift investigation of this
    matter so that the man may be returned to college with the
    acknowledgment of his innocence (if the charge was false.)

    
    Suzanne,
    
    You have had almost nothing new to say for many years,   It is
    not just me who has complained of your repeated harassment and
    rat-holing of discussions.  It isn't my fault that the moderators
    have not had the kahoonas to deal with you, but it's time this
    harassment stop.  I am tired of having to repeatedly defend
    against your hate-mongering.
    
    
    fred();

    RE: .128  Fred

    > How many years now is that it seems nearly every conversation we
    > try to have in here you have to rathole with your same old same
    > old tirade.  This is beginning to border on harassment.  

    It's been such a calm day in here today. Interesting that you
    thrash around with this, all of a sudden.

    > I know there have been guys banned from certain notes files for such
    > actions.  

    Baloney. The only bannings I've seen occurred when people reposted
    notes (repeatedly!!) that had been deleted by moderators in those
    files.  I've only seen two such bannings, and the second one was
    overturned.

    Another false accusation from you.

    > Enough is enough.  There are places where you can go to spew your hate 
    > to your harts content.  I would suggest you take it there.

    You are free to spew your hatred, as always.  You will get called
    on it from time to time, though.
    
    If you want to end the conversation, fine.  No more false accusations
    against me, and we're all set.

    RE: .130  Fred

    > You have had almost nothing new to say for many years,   It is
    > not just me who has complained of your repeated harassment and
    > rat-holing of discussions.  It isn't my fault that the moderators
    > have not had the kahoonas to deal with you, but it's time this
    > harassment stop.  I am tired of having to repeatedly defend
    > against your hate-mongering.

    Fred, your hostility is pegging the meter, pal.  And it's so
    unnecessary.

    The conversation today was really calm.  Chill, dude.

    
    
>    If you want to end the conversation, fine.  No more false accusations
>    against me, and we're all set.
    
    False accusations.  As judge by whom? You?  I'm not surprised.
    It's time for the harassment to stop, Suzanne.
    
    fred();

    Ok - no peace is possible in any way.
    
    So what else is new?  :>
    

re .130

	I am on the way towards agreeing with Fred.

	Whatever her intentions and/or agenda (which only she can know for
	sure), the observable effect of the great number of replies she has
	entered has been to overly constrain the dialog (probably keeping
	others with different viewpoints from becomming more involved), and
	to foster the perception that she speaks for women and that the
	"right things to be done" on this topic are hotly contested.

	Questions:

	(1) Suzanne, would you agree to voluntarily reduce your input (but not
	    end it, since, agenda or not, you do represent a significant point
	    of view.

	(2) Are there any other women who want to speak to this issue?


	Suzanne, I doubt you would want to be seen as "monkey wrenching" the
	MEN's notesconference.  Otherwise, I would have to say I agree with
	Fred completely that the group moderator(s) should step in (I don't
	know who they are).

	Dave

	

	

    Dave, when I entered this topic, the 'dialog' was pretty much
    over.  Nothing much was happening about this subject at all.
    It came back to life when I responded to some of the attitudes
    expressed here about the crime of rape.

    Now, you have to ask yourself - if a woman enters into a dialog
    with a number of men, does she have an obligation to restrain
    herself from participating as an equal in this dialog?

    Should we live in a world where men control women simply by
    yelling vile things at them (on a day when the discussion has
    been almost totally calm?)

    If we were having this discussion in person, would it be
    physically dangerous for a woman to stand up for what she
    believes about a topic like this?  Is it dangerous for women 
    to do this in our society in general?  Do we pay a price
    for making men angry?

    If so, then it's dangerous to accuse someone of rape (and
    we have to wonder how many of the so-called 'false accusations'
    are REAL rape victims who have been bullied into recanting
    their accusations.)

    If you truly have much more to say about this topic (and
    it was dormant earlier for some other reason), then fine.
    I wouldn't want to get in the way.  Just let me know.
    Don't expect me to walk away if a bunch of people launch
    dozens of notes at me, though.  :>

    In case you're wondering, I do not see women as victims.
    I see women as survivors in a species where might too
    often makes right, and women must work around it one way
    or another.

    Peace.

    

    On the other hand, Suzanne, maybe we should keep you around.  Because
    you really _do_ make such a fine example that there really _are_
    people out there who really _do_ __believe__ the way you do.

    fred();

    Most of what you CLAIM I believe is nothing more than your false
    accusations against me, though, and this is more than obvious.
    
    It shows an example of the dishonesty necessary to fight against
    progress.
    

        re .130

    As judged by whom?   You?  I have no doubt that you would think that
    any disagreement with your position is a false, vicious, attack.
    And as I said, I have no doubt that you really _believe_ in your 
    position and what you say.  However, just because Suzanne Conlon
    believes it and says it doesn't necessarily make it true.

    The good thing about that is that I do believe that there are more 
    and more people waking up to what is going on.  Even women.  Just 
    someone like you ranting about how vicious and unfair anyone who 
    disagrees with you use to be enough to get anyone to cave and shut 
    up.  Like in Monty Python's "In search of the Holy grail".  "The 
    Knights Who Say Gnee" were supposed to only have to say "Gnee" and any
    person who crossed into their "territory" was to fall down writhing
    in pain.  No more.

    fred();

    As Fred demonstrates so very well, all it takes for women to completely
    enrage some men in our society is to disagree with them in public.
    Even if a woman is only expressing concern for real rape victims (and
    does not condone false accusations in any way), it's still a total
    abomination to speak up.

    Something about 'kahoonas', as Fred said earlier.

    If it only takes a disagreement on social and political issues to
    enrage some men, imagine what happens when a real rape victim comes
    forward.  The rage in response to rape accusations is a thousand
    fold over what we've seen here.

    Is it any wonder why so few women come forward at all?  Imagine
    bringing that world of hurt down on yourself after you've already
    been raped.

    We live in a world where rape is so well known as a dynamic of
    violence that most men fear being locked in a building filled with
    angry men because of their near certainty that they will be raped.

    Yet, people want to cast doubt on rape accusations (as if it's so
    easy to accuse someone to 'get at' them.)  Rape victims are given
    a virtual raping by the legal system when they try to get justice
    for it. Assuming that a woman would put herself through this virtual
    rape out of spite is like assuming someone would cut off her arm
    so she could get someone else in trouble for it.

    When false accusations for ANY CRIME happen, it's appropriate to
    make charges for false police reports and/or perjury (depending
    on how far the case went.)  We have laws against this and they
    should be brought in to punish anyone who violates them.

    However, 'false accusations' must be proven beyond a reasonable
    doubt.  Such individuals are innocent until proven guilty.

    A simple recanting of an accusation (because the rage from men is
    too much to bear) is not enough to call it a 'false accusation'.
    It simply isn't.

    We have no proof at all of anyone being found guilty (beyond a
    reasonable doubt) of making a false accusation of rape in the
    cases being discussed in this topic.  Until we do, we have
    no one to describe as having been 'PROVEN' to have done this.
    
    Let's leave rape victims (in general) alone.  We should respond
    legally to false accusations for any crime, but in no way should
    we cast any doubts on the stories of rape victims (or the victims
    of any crime) in general.

    Consider this once more:

        We live in a world where rape is so well known as a dynamic of
        violence that most men fear being locked in a building filled with
        angry men because of their near certainty that they will be raped.

    The dynamic in prison is that the stronger men rape the less strong men 
    (or the men in control rape the men who don't have as much control.)

    We live in an extremely violent species where one half the species (in
    general) is physically stronger and has most of the control.

    Now, imagine yourself as a woman who has been raped and try to put
    yourself into a situation where you're willing to complain about it.

    It's a nightmare.  The stuff hell is made of...

    My concern is for real rape victims (past, present and future...)

    re last couple: Yet another demonstration of what I was talking about
    about anyone who dares disagree with Suzanne Conlon.
    
    If you really were concerned about women who were raped,  I would
    think that you would be more interested in _any_ and _all_ methods
    that would help alleviate that situation.  Yet you have continually 
    phoo-phooed any other point of view that does not agree with your
    agenda.  This tells me that your agenda is not _for_ women but
    _against_ men.

    fred();

    Once again, you show your rule about how I must suffer the consequences
    if I refuse to agree with you.

    If I don't agree with you, then you have license to make completely false
    accusations about what I do believe.

    Real rape victims experience rage (at their reports of rape) which are
    1000 times worse than yours in this topic.

    Yet, you want to threaten them with worse if a defense attorney (or
    anyone else) can find some way to make it sound like they were lying
    (which is the defense attorney's job in any trial.)

    My concern is for the real rape victims.  All the rage in the world
    won't change this.

    We already have laws against lying in police reports and in court.
    
    Anyone who lies can and should be prosecuted.  The burden of proof
    must be the same (beyond a reasonable doubt) as for any other crime.
    
    Simple enough, eh?
    

Suzanne,

Fred has a good point.

This is not about gender-bias, and your caricature of the
oppressed lone woman's voice.  It's about your persistent
harassment of other noters - almost always men.

Over the years you have consistently attributed motives
to others, often malicious in nature, such as this:

   "Yet, you want to threaten them with worse..."

presuming to know what others want, despite repeated
insistence that you desist.  That's harassment.

You don't really know what others want, feel, think,
or do - in fact, you often mis-read some of the most
innocent and obviously rational arguments that do nothing
more than simply disagree with your point of view, and
then you refuse to listen to reason, and degenerate
into personal attacks.  It's time this stopped.

Yes, you have the right to speak, as do all of us, but
spare us the heroic posturing -- it doesn't ring true,
and frankly I think it's really very silly, if not
delusional.

Fred's not the only one who's sick of it.

tim

    
    re .144

>    We already have laws against lying in police reports and in court.

    Which seem to be rarely, if ever, enforced, and when they are, 
    the prosecutors and judges are met with howls of outrage from
    the "feminists".
    
>    Anyone who lies can and should be prosecuted.  The burden of proof
>    must be the same (beyond a reasonable doubt) as for any other crime.

    This statement seems to be in direct dichotomy with your previous
    statements.  Will the real Suzanne Conlon please stand up?

    fred();

re: .142
	I haven't had time to read everything in this note and carefully
digest it.   Maybe I missed something, but I really don't get this.   There
are many problems in society.    It appears to me that Suzanne prefers to
focus on those where women are victims of violence, etc.  And it appears to
me that Fred doesn't like to hear anyone talking about anything except
problems men have.

	Since .142 referenced "last couple" which I took to be .140 and
.141, I reread those a couple of times.   Most of Suzanne's words are about
violence perpetrated upon women.   BUT she does acknowledge false
accusations are reprehensible.   Why isn't this OK ???  Does everyone
have to have as their first priority protection of men who are falsely
accused ?   The statistics on rape and domestic violence truly are
appalling.  Something like 1 in 3 or 4.   Are 1 in 2 men dragged through
the courts for false claims of rape ?   If so, then maybe that is a bigger
problem.   But I doubt it.

	How do you get that her "agenda is not _for_ women but _against_ men."

    RE: .145  Tim
    
    > You don't really know what others want, feel, think,
    > or do - 
    
    Notice how often others tell me what I think, though.  :>
    
    > Yes, you have the right to speak, as do all of us, but
    > spare us the heroic posturing -- it doesn't ring true,
    > and frankly I think it's really very silly, if not
    > delusional.
    
    Then why are you addressing this at all?  I've made statements
    about the topic in question today ('false accusations'), yet 
    you have not addressed these in any way shape or form.
    
    The only subject you guys want to talk about is me.  And you
    say that I'm harassing you?  How funny.
    
    > Fred's not the only one who's sick of it.
    
    Respond to me on topic.  Can you do that?

    Everyone who is a victim of a crime should be encouraged
    to come forward and report it.  Men, women and children
    should ALL be encouraged, no one group more than another,
    and ALL should be treated equally and respectfully when
    they report their crimes, no one group more than another.
    NO ONE should be belittled for reporting crime.
    
    We used to have this policy in American called "innocent
    until proven guilty".  This appears to have fallen by
    the wayside somewhere and been replaced by, "innocent
    until the media gets hold of you" and "innocent unless
    you have been accused of a high profile crime."  This is
    wrong.  A woman in need of a restraining order should be
    able to get one.  So should a man.  Neither should get
    preferential treatment under the law.  A woman who uses
    a restraining order to parlay a better position in divorce
    court is, IMO (and I an entitled to one) the worst kind
    of societal worm who makes it twice as difficult for women
    who really need a restraining order to get one.  To say
    that she should be punished is an understatement.  The
    same goes for rape.  You commit a crime, you pay.  Rape
    is a crime.  So is lying.  Violent rape is a horrible
    crime.  Changing your mind the next morning is not.
    And let's not starting quibbling about whether or not
    that happens.  It does.  And when it goes unpunished
    it makes the next real rape that much more difficult
    to prosecute, and makes the credibility of all women
    suspect. I don't want a job because of my gender -
    I want a job because I am qualified to do the work. I
    don't want a conviction because I'm a woman.  I want
    a conviction because the person I'm accusing committed
    a crime against me.  Pandering to me because of my gender
    disgusts me.  I'm human.  Treat me that way.  
    
    Women don't need to be coddled and cajoled into reporting
    crime.  IMO that's as bad as ignoring us completely.  What
    needs to happen is that everyone needs to realized they
    have a duty to society to report CRIME.  They have a duty
    not to LIE.  If they LIE they will be prosecuted.  Period.
    It's really very simple.  We aren't men and women, we are
    citizens.  Justice is blind.  Let's make it work that way.
    
    Mary-Michael

    RE: .147  Fred
    
    >> Anyone who lies can and should be prosecuted.  The burden of proof
    >> must be the same (beyond a reasonable doubt) as for any other crime.
    
    > This statement seems to be in direct dichotomy with your previous
    > statements.  Will the real Suzanne Conlon please stand up?
    
    Actually, this has been my position all along.
    
    It only goes against your false accusations of me.

    RE: .148
    
    Thanks!!!!!
    

    
    >	How do you get that her "agenda is not _for_ women but _against_ men."

    Because justice means just for _all_ not just removing the problems
    of a particular group.  Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.  I pledged
    allegiance to a nation of "liberty and justice for all" not of 
    "liberty and justice for women".

    I have made several suggestions about things that could be done to
    help convict rapists and criminals.  Yet when I ask for a smidgen
    of justice for men who are violated, i am met with a firestorm
    of hate.

    fred();

    Many, many times here, I've stated that people who lie in police
    reports or in court should be punished with the existing laws
    (which are in place and should be used when appropriate.)

    Also, I've noted that civil courts are suitable for complaints
    about false accusations, as well.  These are more than just a 
    mere smidgen of justice, and I've agreed to these all along.

    We're not talking about a binary situation here (where I go for
    Fred's views or else I am necessarily accused of condoning and 
    encouraging false reports against men.)  That is simply ludicrous, 
    and downright dirty dealing.

    As for hate, Fred says one vile thing about me after another, yet 
    he believes he's the object of hatred here.  Some double-standard
    there.

    
>    We're not talking about a binary situation here (where I go for
>    Fred's views or else I am necessarily accused of condoning and 
>    encouraging false reports against men.)  That is simply ludicrous, 
>    and downright dirty dealing.

    When every time anyone mentions holding the false-accuser accountable
    for their actions and you follow it with a tirade about making it harder
    on women who are raped, I don't see how anyone can assume otherwise.
    Now you claim that this is _not_ what you are doing?  Were you then
    arguing a completely  different argument than the discussion being
    conducted?  My opinion is that this is just more of the "doublethink"
    I mentioned earlier.  It also seems to be (another) common tactic of yours
    over the years to do this type of thing--When you are cornered, deny
    that that is what you are trying to do and claim you are a victim of
    the "vile" men noters.

    fred();

    Fred, I've never objected to the existing laws against false police
    reports and perjury.  If people breaks these laws, they can and
    should be prosecuted.  I've never once objected to this at all.

    If you want stiffer penalties, though, such as giving a person the
    sentence for murder if they make a false report or perjure themselves
    about a murder, you're talking about possibly executing someone for
    telling a lie.  Let's get real.  This will never happen.  I don't
    agree with it, either.  Our criminal justice system would collapse.

    Again, unless I agree with you completely, you continue to make vile
    statements about me (while describing YOURSELF and the other men here
    as my victims.)

    Why don't you simply stop and think about what I've written above
    about the issue of false accusations and 1.) reply to it specifically, 
    or 2.) not reply to it at all.

    Stop the personal comments about me.  Simple enough, eh?

    This isn't rocket science, folks.

    The existing laws against false police reports and perjury already
    have certain penalties associated with them.  If these laws are
    not being enforced, then we should enforce them (and enact these
    punishments onto people who break these laws.)

    Our legal system will never make the penalties for lying fit the
    crime that was described in the lies (for the simple reason that
    our legal system will not execute murder case witnesses for telling
    a lie, as an example.)   Even *threatening* murder witnesses with
    the death penalty for lying in a murder trial would be enough to
    destroy a great many murder prosecutions.

    We can get tangled up for years about whether or not I'm really
    saying the above - it's easy enough to read this and say, "You
    did not write this" (or "You wrote something different earlier")
    - it's a handy way to dodge the issue.  :>

    This is what I'm saying, though.  It goes against popular opinion
    here, that's all.  (That's all it ever is.)

    So, it seems then that you are making a totally differnt argument 
    than the one under discussion?  Glad we cleared that up ;^}.
    
    
>    If you want stiffer penalties, though, such as giving a person the
>    sentence for murder if they make a false report or perjure themselves
>    about a murder, you're talking about possibly executing someone for
>    telling a lie.  Let's get real.  This will never happen.  I don't
>    agree with it, either.  Our criminal justice system would collapse
    
    I someone would makd a false claim of murder that would cause a 
    person to be put to death, then what should be done to the person
    making the false claim? Try them for purgery?  Likewise what
    should be done to the person who would make a false claim of 
    rape that would cause another person to be imprisioned and raped?
    
    fred();

    RE: .158  Fred

    > So, it seems then that you are making a totally differnt argument 
    > than the one under discussion?  Glad we cleared that up ;^}.

    In other words, I disagree with you and some others here.
    Hey, it happens sometimes in the land of the free.  :>

    > I someone would makd a false claim of murder that would cause a 
    > person to be put to death, then what should be done to the person
    > making the false claim? Try them for purgery?  Likewise what
    > should be done to the person who would make a false claim of 
    > rape that would cause another person to be imprisioned and raped?

    Yes, they should be tried for perjury (and/or for making a false
    police report.)  They should be considered 'innocent until proven
    guilty' and the burden of proof should be 'beyond a reasonable
    doubt'.  If they are found guilty, they go to prison for the years
    stipulated by the penal code for perjury or false police report.

    You don't put them to death or send them to prison for 40 years 
    for a lie.

    The person lied about (or the person's family) is free to sue the
    person who told the lies for everything they've got.

    This is how our system works.  We don't always get justice, of course.
    Sometimes, a person can stab two people to death with a knife and the
    only recourse is to sue for money that they'll probably never see.

    Our system will not execute people for lying, though.  It simply
    isn't going to happen, nor should it.

    
>    Our legal system will never make the penalties for lying fit the
>    crime that was described in the lies (for the simple reason that
>    our legal system will not execute murder case witnesses for telling
>    a lie, as an example.)   Even *threatening* murder witnesses with
>    the death penalty for lying in a murder trial would be enough to
>    destroy a great many murder prosecutions.

    Now you seem to be defending the legal system.  When it seemed
    that before had serious problems with the legal system.  
    
    IMNSHO someone who would cause another person to die by lying
    about them on the withness stand is guilty of murder, not purgery.
    
    fred();

    
    
    Right now I'd just settle for the existing laws of purgery to be
    enforced, which they are not.  (Unless you happen to be a 
    Republican who has testified in Congress (which is another subject)).
    
    fred();

    RE: .160  Fred

    >> Our legal system will never make the penalties for lying fit the
    >> crime that was described in the lies (for the simple reason that
    >> our legal system will not execute murder case witnesses for telling
    >> a lie, as an example.)   Even *threatening* murder witnesses with
    >> the death penalty for lying in a murder trial would be enough to
    >> destroy a great many murder prosecutions.

    > Now you seem to be defending the legal system.  When it seemed
    > that before had serious problems with the legal system.  
      
    It isn't defending nor attacking the legal system to point out that
    our system will never change in a particular way.
      
    > IMNSHO someone who would cause another person to die by lying
    > about them on the withness stand is guilty of murder, not purgery.

    You're free to have whatever opinion you like, of course, but this
    is not how our system works (nor is this notion likely to be adopted
    by our system anytime soon.)

    RE: .161  Fred
    
    > Right now I'd just settle for the existing laws of purgery to be
    > enforced, which they are not. 
    
    Oh my God - we've reached an agreement.
    
    (All of a sudden, I get all these images - "Dogs and cats, living
    together - mass hysteria!!")  :>:>
    

    
    
>    It isn't defending nor attacking the legal system to point out that
>    our system will never change in a particular way.
    
    Then we've just wasted an awful lot of disk space.
    
    fred();

    Hey, we came to an agreement, though, which is a miracle.
    
    It's certainly never happened before (and it may never happen
    again), but at least we lived to see it once.  :>
    
    Thanks, Fred.
    

re .150

Hey this was a note that was on-topic and (IMHO) 100% right.  Thanks,
Mary-Michael, for a breath of fresh air and common sense in this discussion.

SUZANNE:  Just a small point here.  You advocate use of the _civil_ courts to
bring retribution against someone who commits perjury in order to hurt an
individual.  I don't know about the civil courts in the US, but in the UK the
civil courts judge based on "the balance of probability" - a much lower
standard of proof required than "beyond reasonable doubt".  Let's consider
what that means.

If you were to accuse me of rape and I were found not guilty in the criminal
court, I might choose to get my own back on you.  If I were to force a
criminal prosecution somehow, that would mean that I would have to prove
"beyond reasonable doubt" that you deliberately set out to screw me (pun
intended).

If I were to go to the civil court, I would just need to prove that it was
more likely than not that you were out to screw me.  And a damages settlement
could well ruin your life just as much as a criminal conviction would.

I have very severe qualms about the use of the civil courts to deal with
criminal matters...

regards,
//alan

    re .166
    
    O.J Simpson found the same thing in the U.S. Courts.
    fred();

    RE: .166  Alan

    > Just a small point here.  You advocate use of the _civil_ courts to
    > bring retribution against someone who commits perjury in order to hurt
    > an individual.  

    Keep in mind that I advocated criminal prosecution for perjury and/or
    filing false police reports first.

    > I don't know about the civil courts in the US, but in the UK the
    > civil courts judge based on "the balance of probability" - a much lower
    > standard of proof required than "beyond reasonable doubt".  

    True in the U.S. as well.

    > Let's consider what that means.  If you were to accuse me of rape and 
    > I were found not guilty in the criminal court, I might choose to get 
    > my own back on you.  If I were to force a criminal prosecution somehow, 
    > that would mean that I would have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" 
    > that you deliberately set out to screw me (pun intended).

    Alan, let's keep personal pronouns out of this.  Let's say that a person
    accused another person of rape and the accused person was found not
    guilty (so this person decided to sue the accuser.)

    > If I were to go to the civil court, I would just need to prove that 
    > it was more likely than not that you were out to screw me.  And a 
    > damages settlement could well ruin your life just as much as a criminal 
    > conviction would.

    This can already happen, as far as I know (even if the accused person was
    guilty as hell and got an acquittal thanks to a crafty lawyer team.)

    > I have very severe qualms about the use of the civil courts to deal
    > with criminal matters...

    Well, sometimes it's all people have when someone has killed their
    loved one and gotten away with it (as in the O.J. case.)

    Other times, people get screwed very badly by civil courts when they
    don't deserve it.  

    Justice can be very elusive sometimes.

    
  >>  Then we've just wasted an awful lot of disk space.
  >>
  >>  fred();

I think both you and Suzanne have been doing a pretty good job of that for
quite some time now. Please continue...oh, and by the way... IMHO, even though
you both have some valid points, the presentation of your views lead a lot to 
be desired. Therefore, whatever "cause" you hope to promote is lost on your 
extremism.

Bob

    Bob, so this forum ends up in the middle somewhere (rather than
    being on either "extreme"...)
    
    Sounds good.            
    

So, what you're saying is that your views and Fred's views *ARE* extreme?

...inquiring minds need to know...    

Bob

    Well, I used quotes around the word "extreme" to reference the word
    you'd used (so you'd catch my meaning.)

    It's all relative.  I don't think it's "extreme" to advocate the use
    of existing laws against perjury and false police reports, but your
    mileage might vary.

    Also, I believe you were describing the 'delivery' of the views and
    not the views themselves.  Weren't you?  :>

    If the discourse serves primarily to generate flames, the more
    passive readers aren't necessarily going to find the "middle". More
    likely, they'll wander around blindly in the smoke and bang into
    trees.

Well, delivery yes. That's true. But also the views. Where you (and Fred) may
make a lot of sense in one or two replies, it all goes into the gutter further
on. I can't tell you how many times in just reading your replies to one
another, I've "taken" one side, then another. Maybe it's not the views
themselves that I say are extreme. But they tend to take on an extremist edge
when personal remarks start being made. IMO, this does nothing to further your 
cause, or the point you're (both of you) trying to make.

Bob

    Agreed, Bob.

    If this were the only place where all these matters could be settled
    on a permanent basis for our country, our civilization and our species
    on this planet, then I'm sure we'd all approach things with a great deal
    more caution.

    As it happens, electronic communications frequently involve the process
    of 'letting off steam' as political and social issues come up.

    It seems to be natural to both our species and the communications medium
    we're using.  If we were having this conversation on the internet, the
    level of hostility would have been magnified a thousand fold, probably. :>

    We're all co-workers here, though, so it's comparatively gentle.  :>

The hearing of Wright vs Nashua was  held  Tuesday,  3/18/97  in  Hillsboro
Superior  Court.   At the suggestion of counsel, this hearing was adjourned
and an evidentiary hearing is to  be  scheduled  at  a  later  date.   That
hearing  will  be for the purpose of gathering evidence where witnesses can
be called and cross examined.

The petitioner, Brian Wright, was not there, his attorney was.  The student
filing the original complaint, Jennifer Mitchell, was not there nor was her
attorney.

Rivier College was there with counsel.  The City of Nashua  was  there  and
the roommate of Jennifer Mitchell was there.

The judge invited  the  Rivier  College  attorney  to  come  forward  as  a
participant,  the  attorney  expressed his reluctance to do so since Rivier
College was not a party in the case but the judge insisted indicating  that
although  they  were  not  a  party  to the the case they were certainly an
integral part of the proceedings.

The judge then started by making the observation  that  the  original  rape
charge  had  been  recanted by both Ms.  Mitchell and her roommate and that
they had been recorded either on video or as a written document, he  didn't
know  which.   He  then  inquired  of  the  roommate if she objected to the
release of those statements.  She did not object in principal but  did  not
want  them  generally  available,  in  particular  to the news media.  They
settled on the wording that she had no objection to their  release  to  the
involved parties.

At that point the judge then stated that it was his understanding that  the
college   had  originally  suspended  Brian  Wright  because  of  the  rape
accusation and that they had made contact with him and his attorney and had
issued  them  a  letter  stating that they would readmit him only after the
college was shown the actual recantment documentation.  He then  asked  the
attorney for the college if that was correct.  The attorney did not respond
to the question but instead asked for counsel to approach the  bench  which
they  all  did.   They  had  a  10-15 minute bench meeting with the college
attorney doing most of the  talking.   At  one  point,  while  the  college
attorney  was talking, the judge was heard to say "I didn't know that, that
changes things".

At the conclusion of the bench meeting, the judge stated that this  was  an
unusual  and  difficult case because of the rights of so many parties being
involved, namely, the petitioner's (Brian  Wright),  the  plaintiff's  (the
City  of Nashua), Rivier College's, Jennifer Mitchell's, and the witnesses'
(presumably the roommate and any others that may become involved).  He then
stated  that  at  the  suggestion  of  counsel  he was going to schedule an
evidentiary hearing.

He then stated that at the evidentiary hearing he expected to hear from the
City  of  Nashua  as  to  how the release of the documents would affect the
investigation in progress and the prosecution of Jennifer Wright.

The judge also indicated that he wanted to hear from Rivier  College  about
why  they  were  so  adamant  about  seeing  proof  of  the recantment, the
implication being that there were either other or extenuating circumstances
involved.

He then stated that there would be an evidentiary hearing scheduled and the
parties would be notified.  The hearing was then adjourned.

Thanks for posting that information!

RE: <<< Note 258.176 by TUXEDO::BAKER >>>

>City  of  Nashua  as  to  how the release of the documents would affect the
>investigation in progress and the prosecution of Jennifer Wright.
                                                           ^^^^^^ !!!!
Is this a mistake ??? Did she marry the guy ??

Sorry, that should be Jennifer Mitchell.

Her trial is set for April 9th.

The hearing is set for April 15th.

    I have had a lot of catching up to do with this note, but the last few
    have been very interesting.  As with the original notes, this guy is
    being screwed by a college for no apparent reason.  My original
    contention was, and still is, that because of the nature of the charge,
    not the facts he is being screwed.
    
    If this was a drug charge or a gambling charge, or just about anything
    else he would still be in clooege.  Because this is a "rape" charge all
    the rules go out the window.
    
    This is what's wrong with rape charges and other "women's" issues
    today.  The system gets stood on it's head and when someone questions
    it they get hit with sexism, etc charges.  This guy is being screwed
    and the college and the girl should both have to pay as well as face
    criminal charges.
    

Re .180

Drug and gambling charges are not crimes of violence,
rape is, makes a big difference on whether or not
to keep someone around.  I would like to think that
the college would take the same position if the charge
had been assult and battery on a male classmate, then
again the college hasn't given the public a clue as why 
they are taking the position that they are taking, hence
the hearing on April 15th, even the judge wants to know.

And of course she IS facing criminal charges and he is not.

    .181
    
    It really doesn't make any difference what the charge is, the fact is
    the student was not charged nor held.  I am a strong believer in the
    concept of innocent until proven guilty.  Even if this guy is the one
    facing a trial, he is still innocent.  If the DA thought he was a
    threat to the community they should ask for a restrictive bail and keep
    him in jail.  such was not the case and yet the college apparently
    thinks they know better than the justice system.  It's hogwash.
    
    In this case he is facing no charges, the plaintiff recanted the charge
    and he is still out of college.  They have tried and convicted him
    before he went to trial, on a charge he isn't even facing any longer,
    yet the girl is still in school with no action being taken.
    
    It goes back to my original point, this is a PC response and has
    nothing to do with any threat to the student population.
    

The prosecute wanted 30 years, but the Judge was merciful and gave Hoa 17 years
jail sentence with possible parole in 6 years.  For good behavior, he could get
out in 4.5 years.  Thank-you everyone for praying.

  

Re. 182

Can't really argue with you.  The legal stuff is quite clear
and seems to be going merrily along its way.  The unknown
part is why the college is taking the position they are
taking.  We can speculate until we are blue in the face but
until they make a statement one way or the other, in court or 
in public, no real arguments can be made one way or the other.

The college of course has its own rules and regulations which
have to be in line with the legal system but can certainly be
more restrictive if they desire.  The college may know of a
history of this student harassing other students and perhaps
they may realize that this may not be a full blown case of
rape it may still involve some physical harassment and this was
the final straw.  The college can deal with past history, the
law cannot (except during sentancing).  All speculation.

Quite frankly I find it interesting that the student is not
suing the college, that's what I would expect, they are ones
impeding his education, not the police department.

    .184
    
    I would be willing to go along with you on the idea that this student
    may have had a history of such activity as you state.  the fact is that
    the college has made no such assertion and, according to the
    information provided, based its action on the current case.  They were
    the ones that stated as soon as they received the report from the
    police they would reinstate the student.
    
    If the college had additional information to support their actions I am
    sure they would have indicated such and not tied their decision to this
    case.  I am sure they would have indicated that this was the last straw
    and they would no longer allow this student to be part of the campus
    regardless of the outcome of this action.
    
    There are probably other pieces of information lacking, but so far this
    stinks to high heaven of PC behavior by the college.
    

Re .185

>>> I would be willing to go along with you on the idea that  this  student
>>> may have had a history of such activity as you state.

And I base this idea on nothing other than my own thinking about a possible
legitimate reason for their actions.

>>> The fact is that the college has made no such assertion and,  according
>>> to the information provided, based its action on the current case.

Absolutely true.  Take note that  the  college  has  never  made  a  public
statement  on  this  case,  all  information  has been provided by the male
student and the Police Department.

>>> They were the ones that stated as soon as they received the report from
>>> the police they would reinstate the student.

Actually no, the male student has said that the college told him that  they
would  reinstate  him  if  he  produced the police reports.  When the judge
asked the school representative if that  were  true  the  college  did  not
answer,  instead they  got into a bench discussion which has led to another
hearing.  The college has never  admitted  to  saying  that,  they  haven't
denied it either.  In fact they seem to have gone out of their way to avoid
making any statement on that question.

>>> If the college had additional information to support their actions I am
>>> sure they would have indicated such and not tied their decision to this
>>> case.  I am sure they would have indicated that this was the last straw
>>> and  they  would  no longer allow this student to be part of the campus
>>> regardless of the outcome of this action.

I personally think they do have additional information and I base  that  on
the  fact  that  they  have not said why he is still suspended and the fact
that they managed to get an evidenciary  hearing  scheduled.   Strictly  my
personal  conclusion.   The  college  at  this point has made absolutely no
public comment on this issue.

>>> There are probably other pieces of information lacking, but so far this
>>> stinks to high heaven of PC behavior by the college.

In lieu of other information I can certainly agree that this appears to  be
a  dubious  decision on the part of the college however I am sure there are
pieces missing and hopefully they will eventually come  out.

Bob...

    .186
    
    Once agian, I have to state that if there were additional information
    to support the college's action, they would have expelled the student
    and told him to go away and not come back.  such is not the case, nor
    has there been so much as a hint that such might be the case.
    
    I will be interested in the final rsult, but I will not be surprised if
    this guy is getting screwed and gets little, if any, justice.
    

Re. .179

Jennifer Mitchell's trial has been continued until May 8th.

    Whelp.. Brian, who is accused in this case, cannot get the documents
    from the Nashua Police department. The case has gone to one that he is
    found inocent, the women have lied. And now cannot get justice and lost
    time and money spent to go to Rivier.