Good.

Quote from Percy

Good.

Good? Well, better than nothing, but in 2 months or so she will be out again...I would prefer to see a jail sentence of 4 years, and not of 4 months.

Doherty, who has convictions for attacking her father and sister, was said to have a personality disorder. Her solicitor pleaded for her to keep her freedom and said she was on the waiting list for treatment.

The usual story of a psycho-grrl, and to have convictions already sounds like an excuse for the next crime...

The few cases where women are jailed for false allegations of rape, the sentences are laughable and certainly do not act as a deterrent by any means. This case is no different.

Here's her pitiful reason.

She later told police she had been angry with Mr Stanworth after a row and wanted to hurt him but had no reason to accuse Mr Massa.

A womans twisted vindictiveness knows no bounds. It's like a child in an adults body with more destructive options at hand with which to throw a tantrum.

She's got previous.

Doherty, who has convictions for attacking her father and sister, was said to have a personality disorder.

At the time of the offence, Doherty was subject to a conditional discharge, imposed after she tried to "strangle" her sister.

Attempted murder surely?

Even with all this, the judge is still extremely hesitant to commit her to prison.

But Judge Andrew Woolman told Doherty: "If ever there was a case when it would have been possible for a judge to take the view a non-custodial sentence was possible for this kind of offence, this may well have been it.

No, in consideration of the severity of the crime, and accounting for previous convictions, there can be only one option in such circumstances, that of a custodial sentence to be handed down forthwith!

"But I have come to the conclusion, however much sympathy I have for your position, which I do, these cases end up inevitably with the judge passing a custodial sentence."

This judicial reluctance to imprison women no matter how horrendous their crimes - borders on insanity. 'State-mandated' insanity it would seem!

Quote from yohan

Good? Well, better than nothing, but in 2 months or so she will be out again...I would prefer to see a jail sentence of 4 years, and not of 4 months.

Seconded. 4 months is peanuts compared to the huge damage she could have inflicted on the falsely accused victim.

A longer sentence would not only be more appropriate, but also discourage other false rape accusers from doing likewise.

Quote from Tyrael

Seconded. 4 months is peanuts compared to the huge damage she could have inflicted on the falsely accused victim.

A longer sentence would not only be more appropriate, but also discourage other false rape accusers from doing likewise.

One thing to keep in mind most false rape claims are actually revoked by the accuser. If you increase prison time for this they might not revoke the acusation. Just saying...

Quote from Feckless

One thing to keep in mind most false rape claims are actually revoked by the accuser. If you increase prison time for this they might not revoke the acusation. Just saying...

Excellent point, Feckless. I thought of this too, but still think false rape accusers need to be punished severely as they deserve to be and hopefully it will discourage women from telling these lies in the first place.

It is frighteningly curious that the police and others in the system are only able to acquit the victimized man or men if and when the lying woman recants. Why is that? Do the agents of the system truly rely almost entirely on the testimony of women? In this case, which is not atypical, there were two men accused and one woman lying, yet the woman was believed over the men. So, doing the math, the testimony of a man in this case is worth less than half the testimony of the woman. Something is seriously wrong with that.

Bottom line?
It costs more to imprison women than men.

Quote from CaptDMO

Bottom line?
It costs more to imprison women than men.

Could you elaborate on that?

Quote from Feckless

One thing to keep in mind most false rape claims are actually revoked by the accuser. If you increase prison time for this they might not revoke the acusation. Just saying...

Not really true,

most false rape claims are only revoked by the accuser, AFTER police investigators are discovering discrepancy in those statements and are openly mistrusting, checking out what the 'rapist' has to say, asking the victim a lot of 'painful' questions despite rape-shields etc. etc.

It is VERY RARE for a 'rape victim out of fantasy' to revoke the accusation by herself without facing strong evidence that she is a liar.

Most criminals are acting this way, first of all accusing the others, (even police investigators to ignore her rights of privacy etc.) and after facing STRONG evidence that all is not true and all is a lie starting to look for excuses and admitting, telling something about how sorry they feel, and all these medical problems, stress, abuse as a child etc etc. to get away with very lenient sentences... and as we see, it works well this way if you are a woman accusing innocent men for rape.