Leamick,
“Do you really think a girl is going to admit she made it up and risk being prosecuted?”
No, that's why I agreed with RObert's point that a woman is more likely to admit she made the whole thing up if there is NO penalty when she voluntarily retracts the false allegation.
All I want is for the wrong-doer to be punished.

Lack of evidence does not prove a woman is guilty. Perhaps I should have said: Lack of evidence does not AUTOMATICALLY prove that a woman is guilty of false accusation. I can see that leaving this out could cause confusion. Many real rape victims do not have evidence.

The case of your son sounds like hell, it seems so obvious to me that the girl is lying- there is no doubt in my mind that she is fabricating the story. In this case, it’s the “beyond reasonable doubt” criteria RObert Is talking about that should have her charged with false allegations. I wish you, Onlyone and Maxximo much strength and success in your fight against the system.

“…judges and magistrates have no knowledge of the woman’s behaviour”
OK thanks, I wasn’t aware of this. The public is still very harsh in judging women’s looks or occupation and behaviour, though.

RObert,
“Celivia, just to clarify I am very opposed to penalties due to a failure to prove an allegation…”
Yes, RObert, I understood your reason why you are opposed to these penalties. That’s why I agreed with your statement about the “beyond reasonable doubt” criteria.
I just wanted to add that there are two reasons why I would oppose these penalties.

“…he believes that exposure is a contributer to rape...”
Yes and it is unfortunate that he believes that.
For the sake of the conversation, I will stop talking about women’s clothing after this post unless there is something new to add otherwise I just keep repeating myself.

continued

I just want to make clear that the two –rape and clothes- are not linked. Rape happens in Muslim countries where women are completely covered.
Rape happens to babies, girls and women of all ages no matter how they are dressed or how they look. Rape happens to boys and men by heterosexual men, not only by homosexual men- rape is a power trip at the expense of others.

About the example of stealing the wallet, it wouldn’t matter what kind of car the wallet is lying in, or how attractive the wallet looks - thieves are after the money and will look out for any opportunity to get their hands on it without being seen. The looks of the car or wallet is not going to decide whether the wallet is going to be stolen; the decision to steal it is based on how easily a thief figures s/he can snatch it off the seat and get away with it.
Stealing money is probably motivated by greed or need. Rape is motivated by the need for power.

Wallets can be put away in the pocket or bag and not left out in a car.
Women need and want to walk around freely. To say they should cover up or behave in certain ways is like teaming up with the rapists. Rape is always ALL the rapist’s fault, none of it is the woman’s fault. Rapists make the decision to rape someone, they are not ‘made to’ rape.

A quick note about the *mystery* of Ronnie’s sex; I believe that I read somewhere that he said he has a wife and kids. I can’t recall the thread I saw this on.
Because same-sex marriage is not happening in Australia, I assume that Ronnie is a man. I’m not sure if Ronnie’s sex is relevant to me though, it’s his opinion that counts no matter what sex he is.

Rape shield laws have been in effect since the mid 1970's here in America.

The public may look down on a 'loose' woman, but a woman's past or reputation is not admissable in court - the court has no idea. They dress like church matrons, and tearfully proclaim their innocence is stolen. 11 year old girls dress in maryjanes and clutch teddy bears in court, sucking a thumb. It's a circus.

Medical evidence is also 'confidential' if it's the accuser's. My son's accuser had a rare bacterial infection at the time, it was highly contagious. If he had done what she said he did, he would have been exposed. She, in fact, denied the disease, her medical records could not be accessed, and she simply got away with lying in court.

My son's attorney asked him, in fact: How can you PROVE you didn't get the disease?

If you can't PROVE you didn't get a disease two years ago (What? I took him to a doctor under an assumed name?!) you sure as heII can't prove you didn't rape someone two years ago.

Do you really think sweet little girls don't lie? The 17th century Salem Witchhunts here in America were started by 11 year old girls lying. People were tortured and hung, and these little girls STILL stayed with their stories.

The laws have changed from 'innocent until proven guilty' to 'guilty unless proven innocent' when it comes to these claims. Well and good, BUT roadblocks like rapeshield laws and confidentiality laws prohibit even the most obvious lies from being exposed.

Go to court accused sometime. You'll see.

Rape
The criminal allegation that is easy to claim and increasingly difficult for the defendant to
disprove. In 1998 the California legislature passed Evidence Code § 1108 that further crippled a
defendant's ability to remain innocent in the eyes of the jury until proven guilty. The new code
section allows the prosecution to introduce allegations made by other women allegedly assaulted
on previous occasions by the defendant to prove that a rape occurred in the currently charged
offense. However, no corroborative evidence is required to introduce these alleged crimes.
There does not have to be a conviction. Nor does there have to exist a criminal charge or even
a prior police report. The uncorroborated word of a single individual is sufficient.

There is a class of people in America today, numbering two million or more, who have been utterly scapegoated, ostracized, demonized and shunned. There is no longer any defence available for these people. Almost no-one on the left or the right, civil libertarians or ordinary citizens, will defend their rights. They are regularly vilified with the most vicious and hate-filled language - language previously reserved for classes now protected: Jews, Blacks, homosexuals. They are fair game as targets of abuse and vandalism. They are subject to utter public scorn. About 600,000 of them have been rounded up and forced to register - many soon to be monitored for life with electronic bracelets and global positioning devices. Nearly 4000 have been locked up for life, not on criminal charges, but by civil commitment, and those numbers are growing by the day. The remainder are mostly in hiding, desperately afraid of sudden exposure and witch hunts by neighbors, fellow-workers and friends, whom they fear will suddenly see them as monsters beyond redemption. They are a class defined not by specific crimes (though they are accused of many offences) but by their very being, their desires, their constitution, as allegedly broken human beings. Presidents and governors call them ‘despicable’, ’disgusting’, ‘incapable of rehabilitation or reform’, ‘beyond help’. They are loudly reviled as examples to be shunned by fundamentalist and bigoted preachers, but also by left-wing media, progressive community leaders and feminists.

Who are these scum? Arab terrorists? Muslim fanatics? No, those evil-doers appear almost benign when compared to this heinous mob. These are the most awful people in the world: sex offenders. Worse, many are pedophiles. In fact, these two terms become mingled. Jeb Bush recently alluded to all the sex offenders in Florida as child molesters, though fewer than 1/3 of those incarcerated in that state for ‘sex crimes’ involved people under 18. Bush went on, "These are a group of people who are the sickest of the sick. They are truly perverts and it's not curable. Instead of civil detention, we ought to make sure...these pedophiles...are locked up forever."

Celivia: Re: my sex. Sorry for not responding sooner but I got distracted by something bright and shiny. Now Robert I can fold fitted sheets neatly. That should answer you both.

I am not a total bastard. If you think I don't have sympathy and empathy with the falsely accused, then you are too cynical for your own assumption-drawing endevours. Nothing I've said indicates otherwise.

This thread has skewed onto who has the greatest grievance and thus who is most qualified to speak from experience. The limited numbers here are in no way representative of society as whole.

However, this is my position in relation to experience. Neuroscientists (O’Craven Kanwisher 2000) have confirmed what some ancient philosophers believed. They (neuroscientists) showed that imagination can form the brain almost to the same degree as the actual experience. (Note “ almost”).

I think that the actual experience is “the kick in the arse” that opens peoples’ minds to the pain of others and their own vulnerability and perhaps illusions. Thus Robert your experiences has given you some insight into the plight of others. That I guess was the cruel twist that removed your illusions about a system.

I have often argued about the "otherness" of the individual. I cannot ever know how you feel. I can only imagine how others feel.
An extreme example of this is death. We can't know what it is like to dead. But I can grieve for my cousin who died in a car wreck at age seventeen. I can empathise with my Aunty who lost both her children. Nevertheless, we can imagine the pain of our children dying before us because we are humans who do indeed share to a degree certain feelings. Hence the Golden Rule.

It is difficult to engage with others when all they want to do is prove you are this or that. When people start sprouting on about how others pain is not comparable to their pain and how they are the only ones who have any clue and draw foolish and baseless assumptions then you have to question their intent.