Thread: Hi

Dude, stories such as this one...

We also acknowledge the belief that this was a simple oversight and not done maliciously.

Simple oversight????????????????????????????? Simple oversight!!!!!!!! A man wasted 30 months of his life, labelled as scum of the earth, and you call it "simple oversight"?

That's why

Mr Gabbana, 23, originally from Tuebrook, says his time in jail has left him emotionally scarred, and he is considering legal action against the police.

Dude, don't just consider it! Do it, please! Untill men start to sue them back to stoneage for things such as this, they will continue to do these "simple oversights" and nobody will give a shite. Afterall, it is only mere men who pay the price. And girls such as that one (who will be 18 anytime now, BTW) will continue to destroy men's lives. Why? Because she can, and she knows it, obviously.

Hi everyone
Just found this site ,I intent to be an active member .
It looks superb , well done to all behind it !

Welcome Sealion to our den, your participation is welcomed and your supported is appreciated.

I look forward to reading your posts

Isn't it about time that any woman making false rape accusations was sentenced to double what the "offender" would get ?
Rape is ,without doubt an evil crime , every false accusation makes it more difficult for a genuine offender to get justice .
Such a law , would protect women as well as men !

Quote from sealion

Isn't it about time that any woman making false rape accusations was sentenced to double what the "offender" would get ?
Rape is ,without doubt an evil crime , every false accusation makes it more difficult for a genuine offender to get justice .
Such a law , would protect women as well as men !

I have no legal expertise so interested in feedback - here are some ideas which might help redress the inequities in the process for both sides.

1) Those accused of rape should be anonymous until found guilty (though has a downside that other victims would recognise their assailant and come forward)
2) A womans sexual history should not be relevant or used as evidence against her (this is not to be confused with the case above - previous accusations are not sexual behaviour).
3) If a woman is found guilty of false accusation she should be punished and named. (This scenario is not to be confused with the case where the accused is found innocent - since rape is diffcult to prove. It would deter victims from coming forward).

Views please?

Quote from BalancedHuman

....here are some ideas which might help redress the inequities in the process for both sides.

Just my opinion, but women currently get incredible help available to them in the form of free legal help, free counselling, freedom from the press (anon) etc. etc. - the accused has his life torn up into shreds, not just in the court but by the press. Family, friends, co-workers, etc.
The affects on the man are enormous.

Quote from BalancedHuman

1) Those accused of rape should be anonymous until found guilty (though has a downside that other victims would recognise their assailant and come forward)

Agreed - but it also leaves it open to anyone with a grievance against an accused man to put in one more false claim, just to help seal the coffin so to speak.

Quote from BalancedHuman

2) A womans sexual history should not be relevant or used as evidence against her (this is not to be confused with the case above - previous accusations are not sexual behaviour).

Agreed. There may be need on rare occasions though, where for example - some women do have 'rape fantasies'. If he thought he was simply co-operating in a fantasy, and they had NOT agreed some 'safe-word', then it would be applicable to use that in his defense. imho, at least.

Quote from BalancedHuman

3) If a woman is found guilty of false accusation she should be punished and named. (This scenario is not to be confused with the case where the accused is found innocent - since rape is diffcult to prove. It would deter victims from coming forward).

Agreed. Another element that may help is to have the man be able to cross examine her. If he can prove that his acts are either fabricated for revenge etc, i can't see why he shouldn't be allowed to discuss it...after all, this is quite possibly his life on the line.

Well, I disagree!

http://www.angryharry.com/esShouldDe...dAnonymity.htm

http://www.angryharry.com/esIsSexual...saultCases.htm

With regard to cross-examination, do not kid yourselves that lawyers are all like Perry Mason. They have often only read brief details about their cases on the way to work. It is almost impossible for them to cross-examine accusers properly compared to the defendants because they were not there!

And, further, an important principle of any decent system of justice is that accusers are made to face those whom they have accused so that they can be interrogated by them in front of some judicial body.

Quote from Anonymous

I'm not meaning to be pedantic here.
I think the point Karl was making was about the accused cross-examining the accuser.
I think your point is about the accuser cross-examining the accused?
Do you mean that if the accuser is able to cross-examine the accused it should be allowed in reverse?
I can see how a victim should be able to cross-examine a perpetrator, though I think in many cases they would not be up to it.
I can see how if someone is innocent then they would want the right to cross-examine themselves and perhaps that is fair.
But I still come down on the side that it shouldn't be allowed in these cases.
Don't individuals have the right to defend themselves in any case rather than rely on legal counsel? In that case it would be possible anyway?

I think, and i can't see why they don't do this (assuming they don't?), that if the accuseR wants to be sheilded then they can put the accuseR in a secure room, black him/her out, disguise his/her voice and all the CIA type super stuff they do on TV. Then, they are not face to face, will have support from someone in the room with them etc. And can look away from the screen-feed from the main court room if need be.

This allows the accuseD to speak with no means of intimidating anyone.

And yes, it should work both ways. This way everyone is safe, everyone can say their peice and everyone can get their defense heard!

Ok I dont know about the UK but in the US you have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to confront your accuser in a court of law......Unless your accused of rape.

I dont know about the UK but in the US you have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to confront your accuser in a court of law......Unless your accused of rape.

Exactly. The law has recently been corrupted and well-established principles of justice have been thrown away in order to gain convictions.in certain 'relationship' crimes.

Furthermore, if - as should be the case - the defendant is presumed to be innocent until proved otherwise, then he should be treated as such.

And this means that the accuser should be required to respond to questions put directly from the person who has been accused.

if the accuseR wants to be sheilded then they can put the accuseR in a secure room, black him/her out, disguise his/her voice

.

This is exactly what the Nazis and the communists did.

The accusers were permitted to hide away in the dark.

When an accuser can hide in the dark it is much easier to lie and to exaggerate and it is much more difficult for a jury to assess the truth. For example, if you were going to tell a terrible lie about someone with whom you were having some kind of relationship, then how much easier it would be to do this while being able to hide from them.

The "confrontation" clause of the Amendment VI ensures, generally speaking, that "testimony" will never be admitted as evidence against a criminal defendant unless that testifier is physically present and testifying in the presence of the accused, face to face, and thus subject to be cross-examination.

http://www.record-eagle.com/edits/kn...ts/23sixth.htm