Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers'

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PhillGates, Feb 5, 2011.

  1. #1 PhillGates, Feb 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2011
    Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers'

  2. Fine example of our tax dollars at work right thurr...
  3. Oh yeah the governments definatly good and only good and can never be anything but good.
  4. this guy has clearly never been raped
  5. Well considering around 40% of rape accusations turn out to be completely fabricated I think it's a good idea.
  6. I think this is a nonissue.
  7. #7 mrgoodsmoke, Feb 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2011
    The redefinition is not intended to protect rapists.

    Simply put, "a person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

    Being raped, I can only imagine is a terrible thing.
    Being falsely accused of rape, I also can only imagine, is a terrible thing.

    If you start a trial with the predetermination that the person is guilty, that's not fair to the person, and it's not a fair trial.

    Sometimes, when something in society needs to be addressed by legislation, the need can be so imminent, that a law must be broadly written in order to see to it that no case slips through the cracks.

    For instance, the RICO statute was written in order to take down the mob. Because the mob's actions were so broad, the law had to be written broadly in order to encompass all those actions.

    Later, parts of that law were addressed by The Court in a case where an ambulance company was given exclusive rights to serve a large hospital, and was prosecuted under RICO, and they lost, because their actions fell into that broad range of things that were illegal under that law.

    Now I'm in no way defending rapists here. I'm simply explaining how the law works when it comes to things being broadly written in order to catch all crimes, then that broadness being used to stop people from doing things which were not part of the original intent of the law.

    Think about this case. A person that I know caught a thief in his neighborhood. He happened to catch him walking in front of his own mother's home. He confronted the thief, and the thief threatened him and a fight broke out. In the process of this fight, stolen property was recovered. So it's clear that this guy was fighting an armed man, who had stolen his property.

    Because the fight occurred in his mother's front yard, and because he had a long-standing personal relationship with his mother, and because she lived there, he was actually charged with domestic violence.

    Now if you're like me, you always imagined "domestic violence" to mean, "beating up your wife or girlfriend". This guy simply defended himself from a man who had stolen his things, yet under the broadly written law, he could be charged with that crime. Had he not defeated that charge in court, (by paying a grand or so in legal fees), he would have lost his right to vote, own firearms, etc...and forever he would have to write on his job applications that he was convicted of that charge. Every future employer would see him as a wife beater. That is simply wrong.

    You have to be very careful w/ the way you word things in a legal environment. I understand that it's important to empathize w/ a victim. I also believe that we should have strong anti-rape laws. You cannot however construct a law such that it can be used as a weapon against the innocent.

    Any of you guys in this thread right now need to know, if you're dating a girl and she decides to lose her shit and start throwing things in your house, if your neighbors call the cops, no matter what happened in the house, even if you were being assaulted, there is a 100% chance that you or the girl will go to jail that night, and it's about a 90% chance that it will be you. Yes. Even if she gets drunk and kicks you in the face, and throws things at you and yes, even if you ask her to leave and you're the only one on the lease or mortgage. You will go to jail if a woman accuses you of violence.

    Then you'll have to go to court, where it will be automatically assumed that she is the victim, and that you were the aggressor. Best case scenario, you pay 1000s in legal bills to make it go away, worst case scenario, you actually end up convicted.
  8. Sometimes the "accuser" is not a victim at all, but the accused is actually the victim. It might sound cold hearted, but I've seen perfectly good and honest people get accused of rape by batshit bitches who just want to hurt them for some kind of twisted revenge. This is one possible reason I would support this.

    Until it is determined that there actually was a crime, no one deserves to be called a victim. It gives the accuser an immediate PR advantage they don't necessarily deserve.
  9. I think this is a waste of time, and the only reason this is a national story is because he has an (R) right thur... but there is no victim until there's a trial. They could add the word "alleged" if they want...

    This guy Franklin also wanted to redefine the tax status of the Atlanta Federal Reserve and redefine the acceptable form of tender in Georgia to only gold and silver... he's just one of those pesky sticklers for the Constitution.
  10. not related, but how do they know how many rapes go unreported.
  11. The same way they "know" anything in social sciences. Through radical conjecture based on loose statistical methodologies.

Share This Page