12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Two Potsdam women accused of threatening to accuse man of rape if he didn't give them a car

by Chris Worner
9 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Two Potsdam women accused of threatening to accuse man of rape if he didn't give them a car | NorthCountryNow

This makes my blood boil on so many levels, especially the fact that they were allowed to walk out of the court with a slap on the wrist and avoid posting any kind of bail.

Chris
  • Profile picture of the author Audrey Harvey
    They should be locked away for that. Rape is a serious crime, and it's hard enough for women to get justice from the perps. These girls treat it too lightly.
    Signature

    Expert content written by an experienced veterinarian and published magazine and newspaper writer.
    Feel free to contact me for details.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4049204].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    If someone intentionally falsely accuses someone of a crime, IMO they should have the same punishment as if they committed the crime themselves.

    In this case, the two "women" should be facing the same penalties that a rape conviction would give them.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4049331].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      A very curious jurisprudential philosophy, the concept that if someone intentionally, falsely accuses someone of a crime, they should have the same punishment as if they committed that specific crime themselves!

      They didn't do that, though, in this case. Or at least, that particular press report doesn't suggest that they did it. Simply that they threatened to.

      The view that the two women should face the same penalties that a rape conviction would give someone has absolutely zero logic. The theory that as they allegedly threatened him with a rape accusation unless he handed over his car, they should get the same sentence that a man would be given for a rape conviction necessarily implies that if they'd threatened instead to accuse him of shoplifting instead, they should presumably get only the sentence given for shoplifting.

      And if they'd threatened to accuse him of genocide, presumably they should be hauled up before a War Crimes tribunal and sentenced for that, as well?! :p

      Where's the logic, here?! :rolleyes:

      If the allegations are true, their alleged offence is clearly blackmail: they have illegally demanded money (or goods of value) with menaces. In the UK, they would be prosecuted under section 21 of the 1968 Theft Act, for blackmail. The allegation is that they "demanded with illegal menaces". Which particular theoretical-only offence the details of the fictional menaces themselves comprised hardly has any relevance to that situation.

      Let's not forget that at the moment it's a newspaper report, and neither party has yet stood trial for any offence at all.

      Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

      and avoid posting any kind of bail.
      Whether or not people have to post bail (and are granted bail at all) depends on the court's assessment of their skipping trial and disappearing (as well as the public safety, clearly not relevant in itself in this case), Chris - rightly, it has nothing at all to do with the severity of the alleged offense, per se.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4049788].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        A very curious jurisprudential philosophy, the concept that if someone intentionally, falsely accuses someone of a crime, they should have the same punishment as if they committed that specific crime themselves!

        They didn't do that, though, in this case. Or at least, that particular press report doesn't suggest that they did it. Simply that they threatened to.

        The view that the two women should face the same penalties that a rape conviction would give someone has absolutely zero logic. The theory that as they allegedly threatened him with a rape accusation unless he handed over his car, they should get the same sentence that a man would be given for a rape conviction necessarily implies that if they'd threatened instead to accuse him of shoplifting instead, they should presumably get only the sentence given for shoplifting.

        And if they'd threatened to accuse him of genocide, presumably they should be hauled up before a War Crimes tribunal and sentenced for that, as well?! :p

        Where's the logic, here?! :rolleyes:

        If the allegations are true, their alleged offence is clearly blackmail: they have illegally demanded money (or goods of value) with menaces. In the UK, they would be prosecuted under section 21 of the 1968 Theft Act, for blackmail. The allegation is that they "demanded with illegal menaces". Which particular theoretical-only offence the details of the fictional menaces comprised hardly has any relevance to that situation.

        Let's not forget that at the moment it's a newspaper report, and neither party has yet stood trial for any offence at all.
        Are you serious it has "zero" logic?

        Try to follow...The logic is as a detriment to falsely accusing a person of a crime they didn't commit. If people had to face a severe penalty, they may be far less likely to make the accusation.

        Putting someone in prison for a crime they did not commit, especially for a crime like rape, is every bit as bad as rape itself. And in a free society, falsely putting someone in prison is a HORRIBLE crime.

        Not only that, the false accusations hurt people that have really been hurt, as it takes away resources from investigating and prosecuting REAL crimes.

        For the point about this particular case, I agree that they only threatened to fake the accusation and didn't actually do it...Therefore, extortion charges would be more appropriate.

        I wonder if they knew the would face the same punishment as the guy they threatened if they would have make the accusations in the first place...And yes, this is a theoretical discussion based on if they are guilty. If they didn't do anything wrong, then it's N/A.

        It's best to realize my comments are not part of any trial nor am I on a jury, so my opinions have no bearing on their innocence or guilt and are only part of a theoretical discussion.

        And since shoplifting is a minor crime and the punishment is also minor as compared to rape, they yes the faker/liar should face less penalty since their accusations are far less harmful.

        As far as your sensationalized example of INTENTIONALLY accusing someone that can be put to death for war crimes, they should be willing to face the same punishment the accused should face. Falsely putting a person on trial for something they could die for is a very serious crime, IMO.

        There's been people falsely accused of a crime and people only hear the accusations, but not the dismissal, causing the accused problems for the rest of his/her life.

        Plus you made up the "war tribunal" BS. It isn't the method of the trial that's at issue, but rather the possible punishment. Don't accuse another person of a capital offense unless you are willing to die yourself, if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did so intentionally.

        After all, it's their choice to make, or not make, the accusation. If you don't want to face the same penalty, then don't make the intentionally fake accusation. Simple.

        In a free society, falsely trying to take away a person's freedom and liberty for one's own gains is a very serious crime IMO. It's also one where the punishment rarely fits the crime.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4049884].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          Putting someone in prison for a crime they did not commit, especially for a crime like rape, is every bit as bad as rape itself.
          I completely agree with you about that.

          But nowhere has it been suggested that they did that.

          Your contention that because that particular offense (rape) was the one of which they allegedly threatened wrongly to accuse him, that's the offense for which they should be sentenced is just ludicrously illogical.

          If instead they had allegedly threatened wrongly to accuse him of shoplifting, you wouldn't be suggesting that they should be sentenced for shoplifting. You know it and I know it.

          There's simply no logic in what you're saying at all.

          Their alleged offense is blackmail, and that's the offense for which they should be sentenced, if convicted.

          I don't disagree with any of the other points you make, Kurt. I'm "on your side" here, and otherwise share your reactions to the story.

          But your specific suggestion that the sentence given to them should be the one applicable to the specific offense of which, allegedly, they threatened wrongly to accuse the man, has no conceivable logic or justification in the real world. And if that fictional offense happened to be a much lesser offense than rape, then you'd be saying that the penalty wasn't nearly enough. And I'd be agreeing with you!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4050319].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    Isn't making false accusation(s) a crime in itself?
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4049378].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      Isn't making false accusation(s) a crime in itself?
      Apparently not if you are a woman it would seem.

      Chris
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4049544].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
    Bloody scumbags.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4049970].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I agree these women should be punished - for a very noxious offense - but not the SAME offense.

    This guy wouldn't have just gone to jail for that crime - he would have been tracked for life. Sex offenders are labeled so - aren't allowed to live in certain places, have their names put on a roster so everyone will know who they are...etc. etc.

    In other words - wrongful accusation in a sex offense will ruin someone's life and take their freedom forever. In REAL cases that doesn't bother me. Sexual offenders have a very low (almost nil) record of rehabilitation, you let them free and they WILL do it again).

    One of my first jobs was at the Sexual Assault Crisis Center - that was back during a time (70s) that if a woman wasn't wearing a bra and got raped, she would lose the case because she "provoked" it. While I was there we had a couple of women come in and try to get us to back false rape cases. It made us freaking sick. You wouldn't believe the problems and time it took to get courts to take rape seriously. It's one of two crimes that I've ever seen that the victim was seen as being the perpetrator. Somehow it was the woman's fault if a guy was violent or couldn't control himself. (The other is when a home resident harms an intruder, then gets sued for it). Having some dumb twat coming in and accusing her boyfriend of rape because he decides to dump her is insane - and causes the whole system to slide backwards. The purpose of the center was to make sure innocent people were not treated like they were the criminals.

    Now I don't think that these women should have been prosecuted for rape. They should have been prosecuted for blackmail - and the judgement should have been stiff as heck seeings how the offense they were threatening to accuse the guy of carries such life long ramifications and labels him as a threat and danger to society.

    If that can be proven without a doubt that they did this to this guy - -hey we are overpopulated and when society starts feeding on itself, the whole society collapses. So maybe we should just shoot them the way humans have decided it's okay to shoot any other predatory animal. That's all they are.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4050329].message }}

Trending Topics