Just reading the first paragraph of that article honestly pisses me off. Believe me, I am quite the feminist, but I will never stand by a woman who falsely accuses somebody of rape. Conor Oberst, upon trying to file a lawsuit for a rape claim against him that was admitted by the "victim" to be false, was criticized--"arguing that it could intimidate real victims of rape and that it promoted the idea of men as victims of false accusations."
Excuse me, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. In South Carolina, the penalty for "aggravated coercion" is up to 20 years in prison. While someone who has been falsely accused of rape is spending up to 20 years among fellow inmates, the so-called "victim" roams free and is seen as a hero for speaking up.
Oberst was completely justified in filing a lawsuit, rather than submit to not only the media backlash, but also jail time. Why would anyone simply want to give in to going to prison for something that they have not done?
As far as this notion that "women never lie," I will gladly be the first to say that, as a woman, I lie on a daily basis. Everybody lies, men and women alike. So, to the fellow feminists out there, let's keep that painfully false idea out of our minds.
This article points out that, though the percentage of false reports of all rape reports is only, it's still 2 of every 100 rape reports. This video, which is noted in the article, reminds us that this statistic only applies to rape reports, and does not include rape accusations, such as Joanie Faircloth's written accusation of Oberst.
I recognize that rape is a serious issue, and that any accusations should be treated as such, but this does not mean that we should blindly believe any accusations that we may hear about, particularly those in the media. Many "victims" of celebrity rape may be likely to be simply looking for attention from the media, but as these claims must be taken seriously, a celebrity's reputation could be seriously damaged even though the claim may not be true.
This applies to your average Joes as well. Though false "victims" may not be looking for fame, there's always money involved in a lawsuit. And isn't money what we all want?
So, rapists are being put in prison for their crime (and as long as they truly are rapists, they certainly deserve it), but what about the false accusers? They are taking the money and time away from others to do a rape test, an investigation, a trial, all for what? To find out (maybe) that it's been a ruse the whole time? That simply cannot go unpunished.
It's like the boy who cried wolf. Everyone comes running when a woman yells "rape," but once she created an ordeal by lying, no one will be likely to believe her. And unfortunately, she may keep yelling it until this happens. Why waste the time and money for multiple false reports when she can simply "learn her lesson" the first time around through time in a cell? The cost of keeping her locked up for a period of time could potentially save the money and time that would go into the future trials with not only her, but also other people. Once people see that there is indeed a punishment for this wrongdoing, they will too be less likely to do the same crime. If there is no punishment, there is no legal incentive to do the right thing--tell the truth.
To be wrongly accused of a crime, especially a sex crime, has to be one of the most harrowing experiences around. I wonder though if we need a deterrent in the form of a criminal law though. For those seeking fame and money, the prospect of losing these things through a lawsuit should be formidable. The concern is, as the article notes, always balancing the desire not to intimidate real victims with the thought of a possible criminal violation if their accusations don't stick, against the need to punish people who bring false charges. Certainly in extreme circumstances criminal charges may be warranted, especially if someone goes to jail. But in most circumstances, perhaps the system as it stands strikes the right balance?
ReplyDeleteI do think it's worth pointing out that Conor Oberst was never facing any jail time, as Joanie Faircloth never attempted to press criminal charges (perhaps due to the knowledge that her lack of evidence would be apparent in a courtroom). He, on the other hand, was suing her for libel and chose to drop the case after she confessed and apologized. Maybe he should have continued with the charges even after the recanting, but it was the victim who had the ability to take legal action and chose not to. Take that for what it's worth.
ReplyDelete