I heard about this case. As can be expected, the girl has told the media that she won't be seeking the police's help next time, and who can blame her?

And this is supposed to convince her to cooperate how?

She testified today, and is now being quoted as saying she hopes her boyfriend is acquitted so that they can be together. What's so frustrating is that many people, I'm sure, will read the coverage of this story and of the things she's saying and argue that it justifies her being held against her will, when it may simply indicate the extent to which she has been abused by her boyfriend. Too many of the abused women I worked with years ago stayed with their abusers long after the abuse started because of the mental and emotional toll the abuse had taken. What's to say that isn't what we're seeing here?

The court is holding the witness in custody to make her testify against someone accused of "forcible confinement"?

Sorry, ladies, I've got to side with the Crown on this one. Lots of my clients make domestic violence allegations (via children's dependency court). Sadly, they are often just a tool to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The alleged victim's statements indicate this is one of those situations.

I see this a lot more often than I see the converse (women too terrified to come forward). These false allegations waste law enforcement resources and undermine the credibility of genuine victims.

And if she is genuinely scared of the guy, well, at least she'll be safer where she is. There's a baby's welfare to think about too. If this man is abusing her, not only she but the baby are in danger if we just let her drop it because she changed her mind. In America, her behavior would be legal justification for children's services to detain her baby until she's completed some domestic violence counseling and shown she is willing to protect her child.

As far as I can figure, the material witness warrant was issued against her because the cops and the prosecutors thought she was lying. She testified in court today that she did make it up because she was mad at him for watching pornography in the same room as her, and he wouldn't go to bed with her at night.

A friend of mine works in the DV court program in Toronto, and she estimates that at least 1/3 of the charges laid are laid to manipulate divorce and custody proceedings or to try to make the partner "act right" and give up things like pornography, hanging out with undesirable friends or get a job.

I have tonnes of time for women who want to get away from abusive partners. But I hope that every lying sack of crap who lays bogus charges is jailed on material witness warrants.

estimates that at least 1/3 of the charges laid are laid to manipulate divorce and custody proceedings or to try to make the partner "act right" and give up things like pornography, hanging out with undesirable friends or get a job.

What evidence does she have that this is the case? It seems very likely to me that a woman who is abused by her partner may retract her statements once she realizes that her partner may not be convicted even if she tells the truth. She is probably afraid that if she tells the truth and then he is not convicted, that he will become even more abusive.

Holding a potential victim of abuse in jail is unacceptable, in my opinion. She needs support and counseling, not jail.

Even if some women do lie about abuse, maybe we should look at these women with compassion. Clearly, something is not right in that relationship, and the woman is crying out for help. She still needs support and counseling, not jail.

The real issue is whether law enforcement should force alleged domestic violence victims to testify even after they change their minds. When there's a child involved, I say yes without reservation. If it takes jail, then jail it is. These women must be forced to place their children's safety before their romantic relationships. Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around.

California is actually working on legislation that provides victims of domestic violence with the same rights as victims of sexual assault - namely removing the ability of judges to put them in prison to testify or to hold them in contempt of court and have them put into county jail as a result. If you want more info on this bill, it's SB 1356 (Yee).

What evidence does she have that this is the case?

I believe the commenter said his friend was speaking from firsthand observation, as am I.

Even if some women do lie about abuse, maybe we should look at these women with compassion. Clearly, something is not right in that relationship, and the woman is crying out for help. She still needs support and counseling, not jail.

If it were your son or best friend she were lying to the police about in her cry for help -- same feelings?

More to the point, we have no way to force someone into counseling without court intervention. The voluntary approach doesn't work with people in denial.

Remember, sometimes bad things happen to bad people. The fact that these women are mistreated doesn't make them saints. They can be incredibly selfish about putting their own interests and desires before the welfare of their children.

Assholes:

She has recanted the charges. She has also made up the world's most unbelievable lies for each and every mark on her body that her abuser left. These weren't false allegations. I don't know why she is lying now, but I do know that to suggest that her recanting means the abuse didn't happen is either an ignorant or deliberately misleading statement.

And here's an idea: how about we don't force victims of abuse to do anything? How about instead of talking about what "responsibility" victims have, we start talking about the responsibility of the actually violent person. I am so sick of this "women make up abuse" crap, and there are tons of MRA blogs out there who will love to hear from you. Christ.

"Sorry, ladies, I've got to side with the Crown on this one. Lots of my clients make domestic violence allegations (via children's dependency court). "

Thats how I see it. I dont get it. We should feel sorry for her simply because shes pregnant AND being held by the court? She may be to fragile to testify if it was up to her. This ensures she'll testify rather than protecting him, and his fucked up behavior.

She should still be in jail for making the false accusation (or if Cara is right, for perjury).

"I have tonnes of time for women who want to get away from abusive partners. But I hope that every lying sack of crap who lays bogus charges is jailed on material witness warrants."

I see it as a way for the woman to enforce power in her own household. If her BF wont respect her (arising from her gender) then some women will do that to gain respect in their own household. If hes being such a chauvanist then why cant she bend the rules too?

But putting her in jail a week beforehand seems pretty messed up. Why couldn't they wait until she didn't show up and then charge her with contempt of court?

Please refrain from the ad feminem attacks, "Cara." Your personal insults just underscore the weakness of your knee-jerk argument. My dislike of liars, system-milkers, and abusive parents doesn't put me in the MRA camp.

This woman may be putting her soon-to-be-born child at risk by protecting an abusive boyfriend so she can keep a relationship going. Why doesn't this concern you?

I know we were all raised on movies-of-the-week that show domestic violence as something perpetrated upon saintly (usually middle-class) women by twisted, charming psychopaths. In my experience with these allegations, that's rarely the reality. I'm not excusing the perps, but the women play a role in the dynamic, and they are often perpetrators as well. They are part of a population expert at manipulating the system to its advantage (as are the perps, don't get me wrong). And only a small percentage of the allegations involve injuries beyond the very minor (if any). Some of you commenters are confusing "Lifetime" with real life.

And P.S., I apologize for my mispenification of DLF -- the commenter is in fact a woman.

**I see it as a way for the woman to enforce power in her own household...If hes being such a chauvanist then why cant she bend the rules too?**

Wow, GopherII, I'm actually shocked that someone could find a justification for filing false charges against someone just so they can be in control of their relationship. That is f***ed up and really close to what men have been doing to women for years.

I have no use or respect for someone who *lies* in an effort to hurt or control others. Sinking to their level does not make us the same as them, it makes us worse, because we should be better than that.

"This woman may be putting her soon-to-be-born child at risk by protecting an abusive boyfriend so she can keep a relationship going. Why doesn't this concern you?"

So do you believe the charges, and her initial complaint, are true (and she is a victim) or not (she is lying)? You can't have it both ways.

My concern is about the boyfriend. A comment at your linked article had a brilliant suggestion: if the court believes the accusation has merit, how about holding the boyfriend in jail instead of the pregnant woman?

Here's one way to handle the situation of a woman who claims to be unwilling to leave a relationship authorities have *good reason* to believe to be abusive (or she withdraws/refuses to press charges despite arrest of suspected abuser), without jailing potential victims or taking a child from its mother because SHE is "unwilling" to keep the child safe: slap a restraining order on the suspected abuser, so the victim can't return to the relationship, or the abuser is forced from the mutual home.

Sure it's intrusive and has the potential to harm innocent families, but no less so than existing policies requiring officers to make arrests in accusations of domestic violence (as with my brother after his wife filed for divorce - note this strategy to win sole custody failed), or to make arrests if there are suspected wounds visible, even if no complaint is made. Note that such policies very often results in women being taken away as the suspected abuser, if the man (or other suspected victim) displays wounds or appears the passive party, as seen in COPS - call for domestic disturbance finds agitated/disheveled/under the influence woman making claims against man, yet the man is calmly standing or sitting, perhaps with a bleeding cut on his head? Guess who gets taken away? Even if/when the woman later admits attacking the man (eg, in the back of the patrol car), perhaps has a history of doing so, I am disturbed by those scenes.

Spungen, what the fuck makes you think that none of us have a first hand experience with abuse and what the hell gives you the arrogance to presume that we don't have any clue what we're talking about? No, really, I'd like to know. How do you know that my experience comes from Lifetime? I guess my vagina makes me sit down and watch crap tv all day and then turn it into a personal belief system? And that I couldn't have possibly had an experience with a twisted psychopath, an experience you've just completely invalidated? And why the hell is she the one putting her child at risk when she is not the one being violent? For fuck's sake.

I'm going. I'm too fucking angry, and I don't know where all the sane people are, but with a couple of exceptions they're not on this thread. The last time I checked, calling domestic violence victims liars and saying that their injuries are generally only "very minor" -- AS IF THAT SHOULD EVEN MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE -- was not acceptable on a feminist blog and was an MRA argument. And I have better things to do.

But thank you to Samhita for posting on this, because it's outrageous and it's important.

First of all, since the ever-popular spectre of the allegedly rampant false rape allegations has been raised, it's worth noting that the rate of false accusations (not of acquittals, which are a different matter entirely) in rape cases is no higher than that for other offences, someplace around 2% according to the Dept. of Justice statistics I saw a while back.

Recanting, as others have noted, doesn't mean a thing. Many victims recant for the same reason that even more don't come forward in the first place: they have no reason to believe that pursuing the matter will actually help them.

The idea of taking the victim into custody in a case like this is absolutely unconscionable. Leaving aside the fact that jails are rarely particularly safe for anyone, if the Crown wishes to oblige her to testify against this man, obviously, they believe that there are grounds to believe he has in fact committed an offence. If this is the case, then it would justify arresting him, not her. If, on the other hand, they believe that she is falsely accusing him, then the route is not to coerce her into testifying, but to prefer charges for making a false unsworn statement.

Since they have not done this, it seems clear that they credit her initial report, which means that they also have reason to believe that her safety is at risk. Instead of taking the responsible route of ensuring her safety by holding her abuser in custody, they have exposed her to an even greater risk: when they let her out, he will know where to find her.

"Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around."

Indeed. I wonder how many of them allow abusive men around *for* the children (thinking stuff like "I'm a good mom by giving my child a male role model in our home!!!"). It's yet another reason the pressure on parents to stay in bad relationships sucks.

"But putting her in jail a week beforehand seems pretty messed up. Why couldn't they wait until she didn't show up and then charge her with contempt of court?"

Good point.

"Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around."

Indeed. I wonder how many of them allow abusive men around *for* the children (thinking stuff like "I'm a good mom by giving my child a male role model in our home!!!"). It's yet another reason the pressure on parents to stay in bad relationships sucks.

"But putting her in jail a week beforehand seems pretty messed up. Why couldn't they wait until she didn't show up and then charge her with contempt of court?"

Good point.

I am absolutely appalled at the apparent ignorance shown by previous comments that allege false allegations of domestic abuse. As a survivor of DV, I know full well how incredibly daunting it can be to leave, especially when a child is involved. Clearly, those of you who believe that abuse targets would fabricate these allegations are unfamiliar with the 1996 study that found that abusive men are 2-3 times MORE likely to seek custody as a means to control a partner who is leaving, and that the court system is JUST AS LIKELY to award custody to the abuser. Believe me - it happened in my case, and my abuser won by accusing ME of abuse when HE was the attacker, and I merely fought back in self defense with just enough force to get away from him. This happened despite REAMS of police reports I'd filed while married to him. It's no coincidence that MRAs have been very successful in promoting their misogynistic agendas in my state. Make no mistake, getting out of an abusive marriage with kids is no picnic.

I'm appalled that this court would put the victim in jail. Elise, you've hit it on the head in your analysis of the screwed up logic here. The safer, saner way to handle this would have been to make it impossible for the abuser to intimidate the victim.

Taking a domestic violence awareness class right now, here's some literature SOME people on here need to be aware of: 50 Reasons Women Don't Leave Abusive Partners
1. Fear
2. Children
3. Lack of money
4. She loves her partner
5. Her partner "loves" her
6. The children love them both
7. Law enforcement blame her
8. Clergy blame her
9. Relatives blame her
10. She blames herself
11. Therapists blame ber
12. Her batterer blames her
13. She's a drug addict
14. Her partner is a pimp
15. Her father abused her
16. Her mother abused her
17. Her partner is an alcoholic
18. Her partner is a drug addict
19. Her partner says, "I'm sorry"
20. Her partner says, "I love you"
21. Her partner says, "I'll never do it again"
22. Her partner says, "I'll take the children"
23. Her partner says, "I'll kill you if you leave"
24. Her partner says, "I'll kill myself if you leave"
25. Fear of losing custody of her children
26. She's deaf
27. She's blind
28. She's mentally impaired
29. She can't read
30. She's in a wheel chair
31. She can't speak English
32. She doesn't have papers to be in this country
33. The shelters are all full
34. She'll become homeless
35. No one believes she is being abused
36. She doesn't think she is being abused
37. She knows the welfare system will abuse her more
38. She's isolated
39. She's depressed
40. It's not the right time
41. She's never told anyone
42. She's afraid of the unknown
43. She's a public figure
44. Her partner is a public figure
45. Her partner threatens to abuse pets
46. Her partner is her personal care attendant
47. Her partner threatens to expose her as a lesbian
48. She feels that there is no help
49. She's tried to leave before
50. Her partner found her before

A woman could have any one or number of those reasons for not wanting to report her partner to the police, or not wanting to press charges. She's thinking primarily of her safety, and if she thinks pressing charges is going to get herself beaten or killed, she's not going to want to press charges. The police are required to arrest, at least in my area, in the case of domestic violence, and the abused has no say in that. So did she try to press charges and then recant, thinking on her safety possibly, or did the police try to press charges and she didn't want to risk her abuser's anger and violence by testifying?

What the fuck?! I'm horrified that so many commenters here have taken the recanting of earlier testimony at face value as true and indicted this girl as a liar with regard to her claims of abuse. Carpet burns, mosquito bites, and sleeping on hard things sound like a totally believable source of bruises to y'all, but the idea of an argument ending in a 25-year-old beating a 19-year-old who's clearly attached to him is just unbelievable?

Ahhhh, depressing.

"Carpet burns, mosquito bites, and sleeping on hard things sound like a totally believable source of bruises to y'all"

Not to me! Mosquitoes think I'm delicious, and I know damn well the bites don't look like bruises.

Justifying false accusations to gain control in the relationship? Wow. Going on with the 2% fiction? Wow. Cara, have you not had the experience I have in family court of allegations being tossed around like ping pong balls simply to gain advantage? Does recanting automatically mean it didnt happen? Of course not but it could mean that. False allegations need to be taken far more seriously. One thing youre seeing happening here is doing whats in the "best interests of the child", usually the mother is lumped in with the child but in this case she is not, it can suck huh?

"First of all, since the ever-popular spectre of the allegedly rampant false rape allegations has been raised"

References are made to domestic violence, as in what is believed to have caused the marks on the woman in this article, not rape itself.

Also, the commonly cited 2% figure is not from the FBI. They do not track "false" reports. As I have read, the figure is usually from Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, from 1975, and is based on results from New York.

slide on over to http://www.nfvlrc.org/ if you have some time and check your metrics against it. I'll find some more on the 2% number for you as well and no I wont need to go back to the mid-80's and those 50% claims.

Or:

51. The local constabulary are headed up by a perpetrator of DV.

In my city, Cincinnati, the wife of the Chief of Police has filed DV complaints against him. In the police reports, she states that he assured her that going to law enforcement would be pointless because "I am the chief of police".

Unsurprisingly, our police department isn't known for excessive zeal in the investigation of cases of DV.

Also, the commonly cited 2% figure is not from the FBI.

The figure I saw was not in a report by the FBI, but by the Department of Justice, which does collect statistics on all manner of things related to criminal justice.

I am sure people at divorce trials see many things. What I am curious about is how those attorneys are satisfied that a high percentage of accusations of abuse they encounter are false. For example, while sworn to client confidentiality, are your clients telling you that they are lying?

elise,
please link the doj page where you found that.

Heres a link on the subject http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html

good quote: "no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the ‘two percent false rape complaint’ thesis," even universities repeat this statistic, and it shows up in such important venues as the legislative history of VAWA. Pub. L. 102-199, S. Rep. 102-197 n.48 (Oct. 29, 1991).

look, I am with you on most of this and with most of this site, ive even been called a feminist many times as if it were an insult but damn it, I hate false statistics or at least not including a caveat to using weak ones. get the numbers right or as right as can be given our shitty treatment of rape and dv victims or dont use them.

ive heard the fbi says its around 8% being tossed around a bunch too, does that make it true? I could link an article like this trash http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15978.html and its more substantive than a vague memory of a doj report. Either way the method used to dervive these stats is bullshit and it could be higher or lower, you can even make the current number go higher or lower if you change the criteria just a smidge.

DV cases like the one cited here are running rampant, again we should not automatically believe she was not abused but as we see more and more studies on the -real- prevalence of dv and who the perpetrators are, I hope that using the same old way of thinking will go by the wayside, hell stats wise i still run into a lot of people who talk about the 59 cents to a dollar wage gap or cite the newer articles on the gap between hours of housework done but still women doing more yet they either dont read the full article or read more than one to find men still work more hours, in the end hours worked, as if you can even measure such a thing, is the same. Have a good night all.

"First of all, since the ever-popular spectre of the allegedly rampant false rape allegations has been raised, it's worth noting that the rate of false accusations (not of acquittals, which are a different matter entirely) in rape cases is no higher than that for other offences, someplace around 2% according to the Dept. of Justice statistics I saw a while back. "

Exactly. I cant believe some posters are perpetuating the belief that women may play the DV game simply for family political reasons. I argued with another poster on another site who had actually kidnapped his own kids and lived in another state until they were grown after a custody battle with his former wife. He had the audacious belief that he was right (and he wrote a book about it)since he believed the courts screw the fathers. He was one of those idiots that believed women file sexual abuse claims against the father simply in an effort to gain custody of the kids. Stats on that happening are overtly rare, and that women file false claims against the father simply to get custody of the kids.

A male, I don't know how it is in the US, but often now cops in Ontario have to arrest BOTH people involved in a domestic dispute. It's better this way, as it allows officers to ascertain what the hell happened ie: who has the defensive wounds and who has the offensive wounds. Catalogue it and be able to apply appropirate charges. SO in a way that deals with the MRA fears of false allegations. HOWEVER, it still puts victims at risk, since they'll be less likely to call the cops if they know they'll just be carted off to jail with their assailant.

It really is a difficult situation to deal with: My dad (a police officer for nearly 30 years now) always told me that the worst cases to go to were the DD's since you didn't know who the hell was responsible, and it was very likely that the female complaintant would come after you with a baseball bat after you arested her husband/boyfriend.

Anyways, personally I don't agree with what the judge did in this case, a bit of a hairbrained idea, and really at the most superficial level its very bad PR to throw a 19 year old pregnant woman into a jail cell.

I live in Toronto and everybody was talking about this case. The woman was the one who called the police on her abuser. She made the videotaped accusation against him. The crown was going on her words and her bruised body as evidence. She then indicated later that she would not testify. So my question is this???? Exactly what is the legal system supposed to do to get this abuser put away? They were trying to protect her from him and she became the roadblock to that. What is the answer then?? I have a great deal of pity for that child because he/she will be living in an abusive home....

Gopher: I see it as a way for the woman to enforce power in her own household. If her BF wont respect her (arising from her gender) then some women will do that to gain respect in their own household. If hes being such a chauvanist then why cant she bend the rules too?

Later...

Exactly. I cant believe some posters are perpetuating the belief that women may play the DV game simply for family political reasons.

Seriously, Gopher, are you insane?

"A male, I don't know how it is in the US, but often now cops in Ontario have to arrest BOTH people involved in a domestic dispute. It's better this way, as it allows officers to ascertain what the hell happened ie: who has the defensive wounds and who has the offensive wounds. Catalogue it and be able to apply appropirate charges. SO in a way that deals with the MRA fears of false allegations."

Actually, if one goes to Glenn Sacks, this (it does happen in the US) was seen as even more ridiculous, because this *assured* that a victim (not always female) was arrested (along with the offender (or aggressor, in mutual abuse)). If the abuser in a hetero relationship is the male partner, take him. If the abuser is the female partner, take her. If the offender is another family or household member, take them. The entire point of this article is how outrageous it is to arrest or hold an alleged victim of abuse.

"The woman was the one who called the police on her abuser. She made the videotaped accusation against him. The crown was going on her words and her bruised body as evidence. She then indicated later that she would not testify. Exactly what is the legal system supposed to do to get this abuser put away?"

Change the law (or apply existing ones) to allow the case to proceed without her. Her initial statement (videotaped or recorded from the emergency call, even better) and the documentation of the markings on her body should be sufficient. I do not know why they are not. Other crimes (such as murder or abuse of small children) are tried without the input of victims all the time.

Thanks Spungen for recognizing my femaleness.

I'm no fan of Christie Blatchford, but here's her version of events.

I think that the cops realized that after lying to her welfare worker about where she lived, dodging the documents, and telling police that she wouldn't show up they did what they had to.

The boyfriend in this case has been incarcerated since Dec 28. She visited him two or three times in jail.

C'mon ladies, this 19 year old is a victim of her own stupidity, not a man.

"Change the law (or apply existing ones) to allow the case to proceed without her. Her initial statement (videotaped or recorded from the emergency call, even better) and the documentation of the markings on her body should be sufficient. I do not know why they are not. Other crimes (such as murder or abuse of small children) are tried without the input of victims all the time."

While it would be nice to move the case forward without the victim, legally I'm not sure that it could be done. Under U.S. law a defendant has the right to confront their accuser. I would hope Canadian law would allow for the same. A videotape or recorded message wouldn't allow for this. You can't cross exam a video tape or recorded message. Without the videotape or recorded message it's difficult to prove who actually caused the abuse. The documentation therefore would likely be suppressed. Without a witness the case would probably have fallen apart, even though the prosecution probably knows who is guilty. I don't like the tactics involved in this case or the result, but the law is also there to make sure people get a fair trail, even if they're likely guilty.

The question was how to put away abusers when victims who are for whatever reason, uncooperative. Other crimes may be successfully prosecuted without victim testimony, and in the case of murder, sometimes even without a body. I'd love to hear a better idea.

This is not applicable to accusation of DV by one partner against another, but it does apply to what I mentioned, maneuvering during divorce or custody proceedings:

http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/504523.html

Bill would criminalize false abuse charges
By MICHAEL C. LEWIS / Journal Staff Writer
POSTED: March 10, 2008

"In West Virginia, from March 2007 to March 2008, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Child Protective Services received and did paperwork on 37,165 incidents of child abuse. From those, 26,904 cases were further investigated, said John Law, spokesperson for WVDHHR. Only 3,998 cases were found to be substantiated, or less than 20 percent of all investigated incidents."

Lacking a crystal ball and telepathy to interrogate those involved, I am not going to try to put a number on false accusation of crimes. But if more than 80% of accusations of child abuse in one state in a single year are claimed by the investigative body to be "unsubstantiated" (I am sure one plausible explanation for this figure is they were simply not investigated well enough) it is not difficult to imagine how many of those could have been used for "family political" reasons in family court.

Oh. My. Fucking. God. How in heaven, hell, earth, or purgatory did so many misogynists (in the strict definition--women haters) get in here.

Recanting means that she was lying? Give me a break. Ever heard of PTSD?

Women use DV charges to manipulate their partners? I really don't know how much closer to a medieval caricature you could get. I've seen several studies on this from multiple countries, and the highest rate of false allegations is 9%.

God almighty.

But if more than 80% of accusations of child abuse in one state in a single year are claimed by the investigative body to be "unsubstantiated" (I am sure one plausible explanation for this figure is they were simply not investigated well enough) it is not difficult to imagine how many of those could have been used for "family political" reasons in family court.

West Virginia's not a particularly good sample, though. For one thing, it's a very poor state, and virtually everything is underfunded. For another thing, the reach of law enforcement is rather limited there. There are large areas of the state, entire counties according to some current and former WV residents I've spoken with, that the police will not even enter.

For another thing, it's important to remember that there's a big difference between a finding of "unsubstantiated" and a false allegation. I don't know the official definition in WVA, but here in Ohio, cases are either "substantiated" or "unsubstantiated". There is no middle ground. If there is not enough corroborating evidence for an allegation to be considered "substantiated", it is automatically "unsubstantiated".

Of course, corroborating evidence is often unavailable. Many abusers are well versed in how to avoid leaving visible marks, and many victims are too scared or too subjugated to even consider turning in their abusers. And it's almost always possible to come up with a plausible explanation for any bruises, marks, or other evidence of violence. It will be hard to substantiate a case in these circumstances, particularly when the victim either refuses to talk, or is the one who attempts to explain away the evidence of abuse.

And even if the above were not the case, there is still a big difference between the state failing to satisfy an evidentiary standard and a person lying about abuse.

It seems the only way we'd get good numbers on this sort of thing was if law enforcement pursued false allegation charges against claimants whose case turned up to be sufficiently unsubstantiated to make such a thing suspect. Such agencies are overworked as it is though, so I don't see that happening soon, even if we could get the political backing for it.

"Recanting means that she was lying?"

Not to me in general, and in this case, if anything, the stories of her recanting lead me to doubt the recanting. I do not recall ever hearing more creative explanations for markings or reasons one would allegedly falsify a complaint.

"Women use DV charges to manipulate their partners?"

Men and women. It happens, according to those professionally involved, and even a claimed 9% rate of false accusation of DV is reason enough a jury is unlikely to convict accused abusers on uncorroborated complaints given the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the truth behind a claim, filing for divorce, making a complaint of abuse, and demanding sole custody in short succession, does look convenient to an outsider.

"I really don't know how much closer to a medieval caricature you could get."

Then perhaps in addition to increased efforts to prosecute and punish actual offenders, one's priorities could be eliminating, perhaps even punishing accusations discovered to be false, because false accusations are just one more reason that actual victims are doubted, others do not come forward, and offenders escape justice. I do not mean "unsubstantiated" or simply recanted. I mean provably false, as does occur. It's not a DV or rape case, but this week, I have read the most unbelievable (but apparently true) story I have come across in recent memory. Thank God for video cameras and stupid people, because innocent people have been lynched for less.

"it's important to remember that there's a big difference between a finding of "unsubstantiated" and a false allegation."

I know.

BTW, I'd like to know where to find some reliable reports on false allegations of partner or child abuse in the US, because despite the readily available information on DV and DV related research, I haven't seen any. Believe me, I'd prefer not to rely on the word of divorce attorneys.

"Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around."

Spungen, a woman is NEVER guilty of a partner's abuse. A woman does not ALLOW a partner to be abusive. It is the abuser who is committing these acts, and the frequent attempts to blame the victim is just another reason why women GO BACK.

Let's say there are women who use abuse allegations as a manipulative tool. I don't think it is as prevalent as women who are too terrified to come forward.

I have talked to many woman who were in abusive relationships, many as mothers or when pregnant, most when they were teenagers or in their early twenties. Every one stayed for a long time, many for years.

I think the tendency in these conversations to focus on the best way to blame the victim - focus on the liars - is what makes the vast majority of women who tell the truth look bad. Is that really the most important contribution to be made to these conversations: "remember, women who make these accusations can be big liars!"

I think there should have been a shelter for her to be in, one in which she could be watched and receive counseling. I doubt she was a flight risk, and if she changed her mind about testifying and is a pregnant teenager, I think counseling is a good idea no matter what.

"Recanting means that she was lying?" - Jeffrey Collins

Yes. Either she was lying when she said he abused her, or she was lying when she said he didn’t.

And can we please drop the 2% claim until someone can produce the report?

C'mon ladies, this 19 year old is a victim of her own stupidity, not a man.

No, she is not. And all the people calling her stupid will only make it worse since that is probably what her abuser tells her all the time.

The thing that many of you don't seem to get is that abuse like this is probably never just physical. It usually involves a LOT of emotional abuse as well. Abusive relationships usually start off wonderfully (it's not like he's going to introduce himself as an abuser, for god's sake) and go downhill only after several months of happiness. By the time the victim realizes what has happened, they are too confused by the abuser's constant changes between absolutely loving and kind, and outright hateful, and abusers are very, very skilled at recognizing when to be very sweet so that their victims will think, "Oh, s/he still loves me. Things are better now and I love him/her too..." or when to go the threatening route such as "I will find you and your baby when I get out of jail and kill you both if you testify against me." Testifying against this guy is one of the most dangerous things she can do, and it's not "stupid" to avoid that danger. Even though she'll most likely be beaten by him again in the future if she stays with him, that's probably not as bad as what he's threatened to do to her if she leaves him and testifies against him.

If you have never been abused or seen an abuser in action, you need to shut your goddamn mouth and quit talking about false allegations and shit. This thread is disgusting.

Lots of people still calling her a victim. So, we have to believe a women when she accuses someone, but we should not believe her when she recants?

"'Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around.'

"Spungen, a woman is NEVER guilty of a partner's abuse."

I got the impression that in this quote Spungen's not talking about a victim causing her partner to be abusive and is talking about a victims keeping a 3rd party (a child) in the path of abuse she doesn't cause.

Noname, do you know exactly why she recanted? Do you know for a fact that she was lying the first time and telling the truth when she recanted? No, so yes, she is still a victim until proven otherwise without a doubt.

Many, many victims of DV recant. It doesn't make them not a victim.

Mina, that doesn't make it any better. As I said above, leaving and/or testifying against one's abuser is one of the most dangerous things a victim can do. There was a case posted on Feministing recently where an abuser got custody of his and his victim's children and then killed them. So she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Rather than focusing on what she needs to do, we need to focus on getting the goddamn abuse to stop, and the only one who can stop it is the abuser.

"we should not believe her when she recants?"

Not when the explanations for her injuries and markings, or for making her initial complaint are so creative. Bug bites, bumping into the wall, carpet burns, and sleeping on "something hard." Why would you believe all that as opposed to the simplest explanation (lacking other eyewitness testimony, and I've seen nothing of the "boyfriend's"), that he did beat her and kick her out? And her oft repeated claim she will not call the police for help the "next time." Next time of what? The next time the "boyfriend" watches porn or refuses to get her some food?

I don’t know why she recanted. I also don’t know if the recantation was the truth, or if the accusation was the truth. I believe I have been very clear about that. What I don’t understand is how you can just assume she is a victim. I was thinking that it might be appropriate to call her an alleged victim, but at this point it seems no one directly involved in the case is even alleging (officially) that she is a victim at this point. Which brings us back to my initial observation: you think that the accusation must be believed and that the recantation should not. I find that highly problematic.

I was writing to waxghost in my last post.

"The question was how to put away abusers when victims who are for whatever reason, uncooperative. Other crimes may be successfully prosecuted without victim testimony, and in the case of murder, sometimes even without a body. I'd love to hear a better idea."

Some crime may be successfully prosecuted without the victim or the accuser. If you read the text of the sixth amendment the accused is allowed to confront witnesses against them. That also goes for any evidence brought against the accused. To be able to challenge any evidence, physical or testimonial, is a fundamental right of our legal system. If there is strong physical evidence that uniquely identifies the accused in the crime, then the prosecution may feel no need to present witnesses. A lot of murder cases have such strong physical evidence like fingerprints, dna, murder weapon, financial papers that indicate a motive, footprint matches, etc. With strong forensic evidence you don't always need a witness, but the accused is still granted the right to confront/cross examine the evidence. Sometimes you can't make a case without a witness. How many times has organized crime been able to remain untouched because witnesses were "unavailable" to testify? More specific to this case, the question is does the prosecution have enough physical evidence to prove abuse and identify the accused? If they do, then they don't need a witness. As for the question of what to do with uncooperative witnesses, i don't know. Prosecutors regularly try whatever they can to make witnesses testify whenever it's crucial to their case.Sometimes they leverage testimony by dropping charges or pressing charges against a witness or making a deal on a sentence. They issued a subpoena for the witness in this particular case, and where still unable to get her. Subpoenas are usually the best way to compel someone to testify. Is there a way to put the accused behind bars without a witness? Yes, with physical evidence that conclusively points to the accused. Can it be done in all cases, or most cases? No. Sometimes there isn't physical evidence that identifies the accused conclusively.

"she is still a victim until proven otherwise without a doubt."

I believe this woman is a victim, and though you may not believe it, my natural inclination is to believe criminal accusations by complainants, law enforcement, or prosecutors. (Unfortunately, I have been often disappointed later when a case so appealing to the media, and so outrageous to the public, turns out not as originally claimed, or yes, even demonstrably false as in the Athens, Texas racial gang assault/threatened rape and murder case, just one of many documented false claims of racial violence. Thank God for video cameras and stupid people that racists didn't lynch those boys first. I don't like it, but false accusations happen, and it serves to cast doubt on later claims by real victims.)

However, this concept of yours that the woman (or any victim or alleged victim) must be proven NOT to be a victim to believe otherwise, is problematic. That is not how the law operates, and despite being jailed, she is not the one on trial. It is the "boyfriend" who is legally presumed innocent. It doesn't mean I have to like it.

CBC update. CBC's The World at Six, good until this evening.

I don't know where to start with this one. Getting the abuser off the street is definitely a public good. But how to convict him without her testimony? She was unwilling to testify, out of fear or other reasons. The police can't protect somebody from being murdered. If they didn't have a prospect of conviction, wouldn't they have had to release both him and her?

Going forward, how do you prevent the abuser from doing any more harm, without relaxing the judicial processes that prevent repeats of the Morin/Milgaard/Marshall type of cases? How to explain to these (usually male) people to not treat their (usually female) partners hatefully and violently?

What a mess.

"A lot of murder cases have such strong physical evidence like fingerprints, dna, murder weapon, financial papers that indicate a motive, footprint matches, etc."

And in abuse of children not able to speak (or later, to remember), there is likely not such compelling evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, eyewitness testimony or recordings that identify the perpetrator, but people may be convicted and sentenced regardless.

Is there no evidence in this case outside of her testimony?

Having watched a family member go through an abusive relationship, I understand how difficult it can be to get away AND to prove abuse. It takes time, money, strength, and a support system outside the relationship. If this young woman is lacking in any or all of those things she feel she needs to stay with this guy. My relative's husband was constantly drunk, hitting her, etc, he even slashed open a water bed. But she had to tape one of their fights to actually prove what he was like. And she is a smart woman with plenty of life experience who doesn't take crap from anyone otherwise, plus she had my part of the family to stay with when needed. So I can't imagine how hard it would be for a scared young pregnant woman to get out if she doesn't have the help.

It's really easy to judge her actions from the outside, but the reality is, we don't know what her life or her relationship is like. She may not have anywhere else to go or anyone else to turn to. She may not have any money of her own, which I'm sure is especially frightening with her about to have a baby.

As far as putting the baby in danger, yes, that's a terrible thought. But the people who implied she was unfit or somehow a worse person for staying in the relationship, I must say I'm appalled and offended at that insinuation. My relative has two sons that were older children to teens while she was married to the drunk asshole, and yeah, it sucks that they had to live through that (especially since he wasn't their father) but it doesn't mean she is a bad mother or a weak person or that they should have been taken away. It had nothing to do with thinking they needed a male role model, if that was even on anyone's radar they spent enough time with my part of the family that they had my dad as an example. It just took a long time (we're talking years) to be able to get out of the relationship - which was a marriage and thus even trickier to get out of. Not that it's easy to get out of any relationship like that.

I should also add that I was pretty young while this was going on, and my parents kept me away from him as much as possible. But the little bit I saw was awful. And I was a pretty intuitive kid, so what I didn't actually see I was able to piece together by listening to the adults (and waiting for my dad when he had to go break up fights). Though I did accidentally overhear the taped argument, it was fucking scary.

I guess my point after all that is, it's really easy to pass judgment from the outside, but if you're not actually involved, you don't know what this particular young woman is going through.

The drunk asshole is dead, by the way. No one in my family really shed any tears when that happened. At least the divorce settlement made my relative the benefactor of a pretty hearty life insurance policy. And my witnessing this got me out of jury duty on a DV case a few years ago.

A male - That Athens case was awful. I am glad they are going to charge her for the false report. Too often authorities let false accusers walk.

"And in abuse of children not able to speak (or later, to remember), there is likely not such compelling evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, eyewitness testimony or recordings that identify the perpetrator, but people may be convicted and sentenced regardless."

Are you saying that people in child abuse cases can be convicted without evidence or that they can be convicted with circumstantial evidence? If you're saying the former, then that's not true. In order for someone to get arrested, indicted, and convicted the police need physical or testimonial evidence. That's the standard for any kind of case, whether it's child abuse, dv, rape, murder, theft, etc. If someone is convicted without evidence then their rights have been violated. In the case of children unable to speak, there is some evidence pointing to a perpetrator. If you don't have fingerprints, dna, eyewitness testimony, or recordings in these kinds of child abuse cases then there's no probable cause to make an arrest much less a conviction. There has to be some evidence even if it's circumstantial. Would you want to live in a society in which anyone can be convicted without any evidence?

For those who like to categorize her as another lying sack of crap:

From http://www.nationalpost.com/related_links/story.html?id=440228&p=2

"Prosecutors also played a 45-minute tape of Ms. Mowatt's interview with detectives on the day of the alleged assault, during which she details weeks of beatings and abuse, occasionally breaking into tears describing how Mr. Harbin choked her, beat her and verbally abused her."

"The prosecutor also entered into evidence about a dozen photographs of Ms. Mowatt taken at the police station on the night of the incident, showing bruises on her cheek, jaw and neck, marks on her arms and a deep cut on one toe.

She explained the finger-shaped marks on her arms by saying, "I think it's bug bites;" her jaw and neck injuries with "I banged into a wall;" and the livid bruise on her cheek by saying: "I think I slept on something hard Â… a hard object that was on the bed.""

Hmmm, think she may be scared or desperate, or a manipulator? Shame on those who focus on the rare case that women are lying and jumping on this opportunity to focus on that.

"Are you saying that people in child abuse cases can be convicted without evidence or that they can be convicted with circumstantial evidence?"

Circumstantial evidence, yes. And this woman's case has much more going for it than most abuse cases I can recall. A presumed telephone recording, a videotape, original police documents, and photos of her wounds and markings?

"Would you want to live in a society in which anyone can be convicted without any evidence?"

No. I believe too many convictions are lost on legal technicalities, e.g., disallowing evidence or testimony, not actual lack of evidence. Or simple idiocy if a judge or jury is able to ignore the existing evidence in this case without or in spite of her conflicting testimony.

I think it's important to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Circumstantial evidence is evidence not based upon what someone saw. It's evidence independent of a witness. For example dna and fingerprint evidence are circumstantial. Audio and video recordings are more testimonial than circumstantial. It's also important to note, that everyone has the right to confront their accusers. If a witness presents testimony against you, the defense has to be able to question that witness on the stand. If one presents audio and video recordings of the witness, that witness must also be available to testify, otherwise a fundamental right has been violated. That's why without the witness the case would fall apart. The recordings would have to be thrown out, it's testimony that can't be cross examined without the witness on the stand. I don't agree with the actions to get the witness to testify, but the truth is that without the testimony there wouldn't be a case. I agree that convictions are sometimes lost on technicalities. Both of my parents are lawyers. My dad is a part time judge also. I know they've argued on technicalities before to get their clients off. I don't think thats wrong though because the police and prosecution sometimes abuse their power. If they can abuse their power against one person or many, they can do it to me also. The process has to be fair. You have to make sure no one is being handicapped or cheated.

I think it's important to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Circumstantial evidence is evidence not based upon what someone saw. It's evidence independent of a witness

Actually, the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that direct evidence directly makes a relevant fact more or less probable, whereas circumstantial evidence allows for an inference that a relevant fact is more or less probable. Circumstantial evidence can come from anywhere, a witness, physical evidence, etc.

Elise, you're right, my apologies. Am I right though in assuming that without the witness the case would fall apart? My limited understanding of the law to me indicates that presenting recordings of the witness without making the witness available for trail would violate the accused's sixth amendment rights. Is that not the case?

Elise, you're right, my apologies. Am I right though in assuming that without the witness the case would fall apart? My limited understanding of the law to me indicates that presenting recordings of the witness without making the witness available for trail would violate the accused's sixth amendment rights. Is that not the case?

Generally, the videotape couldn't come in as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief, because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay (unsworn, out of court, no cross exam). The same would go for any out of court statements of the victim in which she accuses the defendant (unless they're introduced for a reason other than proving that the content of the statements themselves is true). However, if she testifies and attempts to tell this entire "bug bite" version, the prosecution could impeach her testimony with her prior inconsistent statements. However, they could still only be considered as a factor in determining the credibility of her in-court statements.

"You have to make sure no one is being handicapped or cheated."

You'll pardon me for believing that it is victims, not poor, mistreated criminals abused by our fearful, all powerful legal system, who are handicapped or cheated on a daily basis by such as these technicalities, or since "Law and Order" has come up, plea bargaining. Telling me your parents as attorneys "[got] clients off" is about the worst thing you could tell me (and your dad is now a judge to boot), because it is a clear implication those people actually committed the acts of which they were accused, and your parents aided them.

Telling me your parents as attorneys "[got] clients off" is about the worst thing you could tell me (and your dad is now a judge to boot), because it is a clear implication those people actually committed the acts of which they were accused, and your parents aided them.

The problem is that the US criminal justice system is largely based on unrepresented (or poorly represented) defendants. Because there's rarely anyone to keep prosecutors and police officers honest, they have no incentive to follow the law and build a strong case (why bother if you can intimidate [the polite word is "bargain"] a defendant with a PD into pleading guilty with no evidence at all?). The result of all this is that cases are brought before courts that would never survive even minimal adversarial testing, so that the few defendants who are well represented do have a decent chance of getting acquitted.

As insulting as that was, I can't say that I'm sorry. I've had my own brushes with the law, when I once shoplifted for a thrill at 18, did not notice a red light at 17, and drove a claimed (I did not check) 19 mph over the limit at 24. Each time, I was promptly apprehended, and I immediately confessed to the officers. I had no attorney in court, and pled guilty each time. Why? Naturally, because I did it. If I can't deal with the possible penalties or actual sentencing, perhaps I shouldn't be doing those things (or paying closer attention driving) in the first place. And as paranoid as it may sound, over 20 years later, I take steps while shopping so I don't be accused of theft, like keeping any bags tightly closed, tied shut if necessary, and keep them and my hands in plain sight, away from any unpaid items in the cart. If I do such (as I often do) as reach for my wallet or check a shopping list while still on the sales floor, I make sure those are visible when putting my hand in or out, to show store cameras that I am not slipping merchandise into my clothes. I do not do anything to attract undue attention such as opening unsealed packages to check out items, or loiter in unmonitored areas of stores. Feel violated by the increasing number of security cameras? I love them. They are bearing witness that I am NOT breaking the law. Attorneys are for false charges or actual abuses like falsifying or planting evidence.

"so that the few defendants who are well represented do have a decent chance of getting acquitted."

I would expect a harder view of "defendants" since this is a feminist site and DV and rape have come up on this thread. So only the "few defendants" who are well represented have a "decent chance" of being acquitted, eh? So what does it mean when conviction rates are so low, and sentences so light? I do NOT believe that a "not guilty" verdict, finding for a lesser crime, or dismissal of charges mean "defendants" did not do precisely what they are accused of (and more), but it does serve as a de facto vindication for many, and an implication the accusers were not telling the truth.

Perhaps, then, we should eliminate all the rights that are intended, in whole or in part, to protect the guilty. It would certainly shorten the Constitution.

Who needs a privilege against self-incrimination? If you're guilty, why shouldn't you be required to say so?

Who needs protection from unreasonable searches and seizures? What a wonderful opportunity we'd all have to show how law-abiding we are if the police were allowed to conduct random raids of our homes and offices!

Right to counsel? Obviously, we need to limit this to the innocent. Of course, to implement this, we'll have to set up some kind of procedure. We need to make sure of the person's guilt or innocence before we let them have a lawyer.

I'm sure we'll all feel safer, and there's no way anyone innocent would be harmed.

"protect the guilty"

You see, this is precisely why I have my attitude. In people's use of language, they are not even presuming innocence. Their parents are "[getting] clients off" or we are talking about "the guilty." I am talking about protecting people who have done nothing wrong, for example, the vast majority of victims.

"If you're guilty, why shouldn't you be required to say so?"

Beats me.

"Who needs protection from unreasonable searches and seizures?"

Those who are not hiding what they are accused of. If I had a meth lab in my house, or guns, drugs and explosives in my car, few would understand my indignation if police were to look for them, warrant or no warrant.

"I'm sure we'll all feel safer,"

I am sure victims such as myself and my wife, and many others I can imagine, would feel much safer. This woman might feel safer with no "boyfriend" around as well.

"and there's no way anyone innocent would be harmed."

How could they be, when false accusations are so rare, by some claims, "urban myth" or so exceedingly rare?

A male's distain for due process scares me. People like him got the Patriot Act passed.

"A male's distain for due process scares me."

Why? We are talking about the guilty, not the falsely accused.

A male's distain for due process scares me. People like him got the Patriot Act passed.

One hopes that he is either being facetious or purposely obtuse. A male's disdain for elementary logic is what scares me. Though I am sure he would be happy to know that there are states in which his dreams can come true. North Korea gives you a million chances a day to prove just how law-abiding you are. I'm sure he'd love it!

I would expect a harder view of "defendants" since this is a feminist site and DV and rape have come up on this thread. So only the "few defendants" who are well represented have a "decent chance" of being acquitted, eh? So what does it mean when conviction rates are so low, and sentences so light?

Conviction rates and sentences for what offences?

Just because I consider the generally piss-poor job that most states in the world do of preventing, investigating, and prosecuting violence against women to be appalling and a fundamental denial of equality does not mean that I consider Kafka's Der Prozeß to be an ideal template for a criminal justice system.

It also does not mean that I am unaware of how our criminal justice system functions to deny even fundamental constitutional safeguards to those who cannot afford competent representation.

It is possible to deal with both of these problems without resorting to the Orwellian state A male is salivating over.

Elise, if false accusations are as rare as you and many others claim, exactly what are innocent people supposed to fear?

No, it is people like you who are facetious when bringing up states such as North Korea. I'm talking about the US, where false accusation is allegedly rare enough to be "urban myth" or plain "myth."

"Conviction rates and sentences for what offences?"

Anything. But since we are here, DV and rape in particular. I have a difficult time believing that 96% of rape cases (the acquittal rate) are without merit.

"It is possible to deal with both of these problems without resorting to the Orwellian state A male is salivating over."

One either allows victims to be denied justice, or they do not. I see no peril, considering how rare false allegation is claimed to be. Victims obviously know who the vast majority of the offenders are, being intimate partners, other family members, or friends and acquaintances in up to 80% of cases.

Elise, if false accusations are as rare as you and many others claim, exactly what are innocent people supposed to fear?

No, it is people like you who are facetious when bringing up states such as North Korea. I'm talking about the US, where false accusation is allegedly rare enough to be "urban myth" or plain "myth."

Actually, I was quite serious in bringing up North Korea. It has all the features A male wants in a criminal justice system, and a truly draconian penal system to boot.

A male seems to think that rape and DV are the only things the US criminal justice prosecutes. As it would happen, there are quite a few other offences on the criminal dockets of the courts at the state and federal levels.

It is also completely possible to recognise that false accusations are rare (as they are with most offences), while recognising that it is not impossible for someone who did not commit the crime to end up indicted. People don't always get a good look at their attackers. Eyewitnesses are sometimes too far off to give more than a general description. Add to that the problem of racial profiling, and there are plenty of potential sources for erroneous indictments apart from false accusations. This is why we have a process that is at least ideally supposed to collect evidence and get at the facts of the matter.

And BTW, there is none other but the "Orwellian state" to thank for 21 anonymous Latinos in Athens, Texas being fully exonerated, and for the moment, safe from racists and lynch mobs. If the 13 year old accuser had not been stupid enough to inflict wounds upon herself ON CAMERA, as well as four of her friends "honest" enough to come forward to confess that they had COLLUDED to frame all these Latinos of a racially motivated assault and threats to rape and kill her, who knows what could have happened?

"This is why we have a process that is at least ideally supposed to collect evidence and get at the facts of the matter. "

So in a thread where DV and rape have come up, there are a number of survivors, and mind you, my wife and I are survivors as well, do you claim that the legal system is doing its job or not?

eh, so no one could find the 2% report? Oh well.

Some people, women and men, use the DV system for their personal benefit by making false allegations. It runs rampant through many states though I only have experience with California and Texas. As linked in this thread, there are reports and studies out there on the prevalence of false allegations. Even if you find West Virginia to not be a "good example", there are studies from many other states and regions. I find it amazing that false allegations of DV or rape are taken so lightly on a feminist site as they have devastating effects on -real- victims.

For this specific case, once again it seees many are responding to only a snippet of the facts out there on it and none of us have the whole story. No recanting does not mean it did not happen, though it does mean she lied at one point. Was the lie about the abuse happening at all or was the lie about it not happening? I dont know but anyone who wishes to use that initial report and interview and finds it convincing, you really should look out there, on glenn sacks if you have the stomach for it or any number of other sites that can support video, there are quite a few videos out there of women reporting rape or dv, crying, being utterly convincing and it turning out to be completely untrue. Heck for yet one more example, theres one on glenn sacks site now where the female got 4 friends to confirm her untrue story.
Recognizing the failings in the system, as elise has pointed out, in both victim services and legal defense is something we have to do but also we must recognize that women and men are people and people do a lot of fucked up things. I hate to say it but excusing false allegations or saying that those who make them need help or counseling, while true, also seems to me as not holding people accountable for their actions, which makes them much like children in my eyes. you can get counseling and still be held accountable, especially when your actions and decisions involve a child.

"People don't always get a good look at their attackers. Eyewitnesses are sometimes too far off to give more than a general description. Add to that the problem of racial profiling, and there are plenty of potential sources for erroneous indictments apart from false accusations."

Until the day members of society are properly conditioned not to commit crime, the obvious solution is to provide better means of identification or evidence gathering to help the victims of these crimes. I see you and "noname" are against aiding these victims.

"I find it amazing that false allegations of DV or rape are taken so lightly on a feminist site as they have devastating effects on -real- victims."

Indeed. I am not concerned by the alleged prevalence of false accusation, nor am I eager to punish those accused of doing so. It is not the number that matters. No, it is the demonstrated EASE in which these people, as few as they may be, can do what they do, which IN ADDITION TO all other factors such as the legal burden of proof as well as outright misogyny, cast doubt on real claims. Jury members in the majority of cases are probably heartsick to perform their duties as required when acquitting abusers and rapists in the majority of cases.

Not only do people such as the Athens, Texas girl have a compelling story, she had PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (her numerous wounds), and WITNESSES to back it up. ALL FAKE, and put together in what may have been minutes, with hundreds of people around her at school who should know better. Thank GOD for video cameras in our schools, among other places, because every other safety measure post 9/11, nor the presence of school counselors, nor the support of family and friends and what I assume were a decent upbringing, and even the presence of all the other students and faculty were not enough to stop her, and protect those Latinos.

I probably wish as dearly as any feminist or fellow survivor that a victim's word would be all that is necessary to convict criminals that we KNOW have wronged us. But the fact that accusations CAN be falsified, and easily at that, stand to prevent it.

Let us refrain from feeding the troll.

I grow extremely weary of these inane gender-divisive discussions (actually, there is no public discourse going on -- all we have here is a series of vituperative monologues. replete with foul-mouthed invective being hurled from both sides) and there is little or no balance whatsoever on this thread. Agendas trump facts, and emotions trump reason and fairness. We argue about things NO ONE should be arguing about, all in the name of backing one agenda or the other.

Here's the bottom line: Men need to acknowledge that rape is far too common, and we need to teach our young men to respect women, to understand that consent means REAL consent and that "no" means "no." Period. Men need to be active in teaching young men that sex is NOT male conquest but a wonderful and powerful social interaction that MUST be a two-way street.

By the same token, it is not an urban myth that SOME women lie about rape. In "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case, Stuart Taylor and Prof. K.C. Johnson explain that "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent of rape claims are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book "Against Our Will," is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half of all rape claims are false." People lie about everything under the sun --except, some would have us believe, when it comes to subject of rape. Can we really believe that in that singular instance, mirabile dictu, one gender is incapable of lying while the other is comprised entirely of pathological liars? The question scarely survives its statement.

It is perplexing, and hurtful, that some men want the public discourse to focus on false accusations to the exclusion of real prejudices women have always faced when it comes to rape. They still face prejudices, despite the rape shield laws and other positve legislative steps.

It is also perplexing, and hurtful, that some women who properly want to raise awareness about rape feel a need to denigrate falsely accused men by dismissing their victimization as an "urban myth." I have personal experience with a terrible false accusation that I am not going to discuss. That doesn't mean I think false accusations ought to dominate the public discourse.

I can't imagine anyone on this thread agreeing with what I've written, which -- respectfully -- proably suggests I am on the right track. But this is a debate over which there ought not to be a debate.

Elise and everyone else thanks for your comments and clarification.

Tim - That seems reasonable. Why would you think no one would agree with you?

“Until the day members of society are properly conditioned not to commit crime, the obvious solution is to provide better means of identification or evidence gathering to help the victims of these crimes. I see you and "noname" are against aiding these victims.� – A male

I am all for finding better means of identification and evidence gathering. I, however, would consider those tools to promote justice. I am also all for helping victims as appropriate, although that seems an unrelated to identification and evidence gathering procedures.

I must ask, why do you keep bringing up the Athens, Texas case? It was the willingness to investigate and entertain evidence even though it contradicted what the accuser said that facilitated a just end to that horror. This investigation would seem to be contrary to the “always believe the accuser� idea you are advocating.

By the same token, it is not an urban myth that SOME women lie about rape. In "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case, Stuart Taylor and Prof. K.C. Johnson explain that "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent of rape claims are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book "Against Our Will," is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half of all rape claims are false."

That's a pretty wide range there - between 9 and 50%. On what did they base this?

I am also unable to partake in the collective sigh of relief that came from certain segments of society when the woman in the Duke Lacrosse case recanted. One got the impression, reading some of the louder sighs of relief, that her recantation somehow made every other bit of evidence disappear, and that somehow a recantation is inherently more credible than an accusation.

Can we really believe that in that singular instance, mirabile dictu, one gender is incapable of lying while the other is comprised entirely of pathological liars? The question scarely survives its statement.

Which is why precisely no one has made any such assertion.

"Men need to acknowledge that rape is far too common, and we need to teach our young men to respect women, to understand that consent means REAL consent and that "no" means "no." Period. Men need to be active in teaching young men that sex is NOT male conquest but a wonderful and powerful social interaction that MUST be a two-way street."

I'd like you to point out where any "troll" on this thread has stated otherwise, or claim that this is not in fact what I do with my own children of both genders.

"These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half of all rape claims are false."

Lacking a method or resources to PROVE that the vast majority of claims are in fact false, as opposed to "unsubstantiated" or untriable, I will call bullshit.

"I can't imagine anyone on this thread agreeing with what I've written"

Other that promoting the idea that false accusation is so prevalent (there are no reliable figures of what represents the overall reality, unless you are psychic), I have no problems at all.

"I must ask, why do you keep bringing up the Athens, Texas case?"

Because it is just one MORE case of how the feared Orwellian surveillance has found justice served, in this case, not in successful prosecution of a crime where there were no other witnesses (or none with the memory or visual ability to prove useful), but to prove the INNOCENCE of an entire group of minority youth, when a sympathetic accuser and collaborating witnesses, could have had them railroaded, or subject to racist vigilante justice.

"The availability of video was crucial to uncovering the truth about the incident, allowing them to follow the student's movement during the time she claimed the incident occurred, [Athens Independent School District Superintendent Dr. Fred Hayes] said. District Chief Paul Redic, who investigated the alleged attack, said the camera system in the school had recently been upgraded."

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080410/NEWS01/804100335

Read that again. Video surveillance saved those boys and girls of color, from God knows what in that community, or that legal system. Not a day in court, after who knows how long in custody. No expensive lawyers or other expensive. Video surveillance.

One 13 year old girl's racist agenda, and some willing friends to lie along with her. A scheme probably hatched on the spot, on the spur of the moment, by children. That is ALL it took. Some impulsive statements, by some impulsive kids. Only a few people would seriously consider doing such a thing to another human being, and even fewer actually do it, but that is how simple it CAN be. Thank GOD that people did not simply listen to the pretty white girls about those Latinos, and I feel sorry for any future victim with a similar experience. It is people like this, it is the POSSIBILITY (NOT alleged frequency) people behave like this, that is just ONE MORE reason (it's not always, or not only misogyny, male victims fear coming forward as well) that the feminist ideal (and mine) of conviction on victim testimony alone is problematic at best.

"Can we really believe that in that singular instance, mirabile dictu, one gender is incapable of lying while the other is comprised entirely of pathological liars? The question scarely survives its statement." - Tim

"Which is why precisely no one has made any such assertion." - Elise

You are correct. It is no "assertion." It is dogma:

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

Wendy Kaminer (1993) reported that "it is a primary article of faith among many feminists that women don't lie about rape, ever; they lack the dishonesty gene" (p.67). Eight years earlier, in 1985, John O'Sullivan discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would fabricate a rape charge" (p.22). Feminists themselves admit as much. Law Professor Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect" (Newsweek, 1985, p.61). Some feminists believe that even defending that premise is a sex crime. Alan Dershowitz (1993) reports that he was accused of sexual harassment for discussing in class the possibility of false rape allegations.

Wendy Kaminer (1993) reported that "it is a primary article of faith among many feminists that women don't lie about rape, ever; they lack the dishonesty gene" (p.67). Eight years earlier, in 1985, John O'Sullivan discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would fabricate a rape charge" (p.22). Feminists themselves admit as much. Law Professor Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect" (Newsweek, 1985, p.61). Some feminists believe that even defending that premise is a sex crime. Alan Dershowitz (1993) reports that he was accused of sexual harassment for discussing in class the possibility of false rape allegations.

A. I don't see where this proves that anyone in this discussion has ever claimed that no woman ever says anything but the absolute truth, which was the claim I was responding to. This doesn't even relate to that.

And to support this notion, you show that others have attacked feminists using the same straw man.

Nor does a statement that

the whole effort at reforming rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect"

constitute a claim that women never lie about anything. Instead, Prof. Estrich was simply pointing out that women who report rapes and similar offences have traditionally been presumed to be lying, and that a lot of the work that has been done to combat violence against women has involved exposing that ideology. So it's irrelevant to what you and Tim are claiming.

Alan Dershowitz (1993) reports that he was accused of sexual harassment for discussing in class the possibility of false rape allegations.

And if Alan Dershowitz says it, you can take that to the bank!

To recap, 0 examples of claims that women never lie from this discussion, 2 quotes from people mischaracterising feminism, 1 quote irrelevant to what you're trying to claim, and a statement, devoid of details, from a man who is hardly a paragon of honesty and integrity.

"I don't see where this proves that anyone in this discussion has ever claimed that no woman ever says anything but the absolute truth,"

"Only" 98% of the time, allegedly according to the DOJ, perhaps?

You tell me the real deal then:

Woman accuses man of rape. Man claims it never happened, or was consensual.

What do feminists want me to believe, and what does it immediately imply about the other party? Don't give me the, I'll wait until the trial (it may never get that far, and in any case we do not "really" know unless we closely witnessed it or were involved ourselves, God forbid), or I don't know enough to form an opinion BS people so often give me when talking about crime, what do feminists want me to believe about women making accusations of abuse or sexual assault? What does it immediately mean about every single man who denies it happened?

I will repeat - my natural reaction is to trust an accusation of crime or other wrongdoing, as sexist as it may be (anti-male) in a case of DV/IPV or rape, UNLESS it is patently incredible. The last time I recall actually doubting an accusation of DV/IPV or sexual assault was the 1987 Tawana Brawley case AFTER reading alleged copies of the actual records at The Smoking Gun many years later. I doubted my own brother during his divorce proceedings, until I found out what his wife was trying to do (note my brother did not share his own claims of *nonreciprocal* DV, so he was not using DV claims false or otherwise, to gain sympathy in the court or to gain child custody or support payments). I even believed every single bit about the 1983 McMartin preschool satanic sex abuse case as details came out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcmartin_preschool

UNTIL the accounts of being flown around the country undetected and other sorts of physically impossible madness came out, and people learned about how impressionable young minds can be misled by sincere, caring professionals with an agenda. I believed every single word of the Athens case, UNTIL the 4/11 story came out.

Few people can understand my frustration when accusations are PROVEN false. Not because I doubt women. Because it will be just one MORE reason for the public to doubt real victims.

It is people like this, it is the POSSIBILITY (NOT alleged frequency) people behave like this, that is just ONE MORE reason (it's not always, or not only misogyny, male victims fear coming forward as well) that the feminist ideal (and mine) of conviction on victim testimony alone is problematic at best.

How can that be an ideal, when it is impossible even theoretically, much less practically? If humanity were ideal enough that you could take someone at their word on whether or not they had been raped, rape wouldn't be happening to begin with. As long as a claim of rape is even believable, so to is the idea that the claim could be fabricated.

That became garbled upon revision: In fact, I do not recall the last time I doubted an accusation of IPV/DV or sexual assault upon *initially* hearing it, at all.

"How can that be an ideal, when it is impossible even theoretically, much less practically?"

I'll happily hear what feminist theory has to say about how sexual assault trials should be handled if I am misinformed. I could have sworn I read it explicitly recently online somewhere.

For example, courts have ruled "The testimony of a rape victim alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it establishes all of the elements" in JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas, and "The uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction" in FREEMAN v. STATE of Arkansas. Feminist reforms over the decades had nothing to do with this?

[Wait. Since this is theoretically already the law, how are people acquitted at all?]

I agree with Tim. People, especially men, need to realize rape happens far, far more often than it should or than it is reported and we as a society should take that on as much as we can. My issue is when people of any ideaology use stats or arguments that are either out of date, fiction, or both. We know its a problem, there is amazing work being done to make everyone aware of the problem, why use false statistics to highlight the problem? Whether its rape stats, DV stats, sex slavery trafficking or anything else, is the problem not bad enough as we know it? Is there a reason to claim 50,000 sex slaves are imported annually into the U.S. if its not true? Does it not open up you up to legitimate arguments trashing your numbers and thereby detracting from the overall argument? This is how many things get bogged down. Why do some people, just some, who identify themselves as feminists use stats that are not true or severely out of date? I dont get it, it weakens your argument especially with people still rigidly locked into the patriarchy or gender norms and they will attack your numbers/argument rather than the issue itself.

False allegations of rape, whether 8% or higher, depending on whether you include just simply false and/or unsubstantiated, are a problem. They are just a minor problem compared to all the rapes that do happen but not so minor as to not warrant discussion. DV studies come out rapid fire now showing women as the perpetrators of dv as much as men, this should be welcomed into the debate as DV is an issue of power and violence and should be eradicated in all forms. Gah I'm just tired of antifeminists and feminists who find stats they like and use them until the end of time whether or not they were true in the first place or are now.

“I am also unable to partake in the collective sigh of relief that came from certain segments of society when the woman in the Duke Lacrosse case recanted. One got the impression, reading some of the louder sighs of relief, that her recantation somehow made every other bit of evidence disappear, and that somehow a recantation is inherently more credible than an accusation.� – Elise

I see you know very little about that case. The case did not end when she recanted (hell, she recanted on the first night). When the case ended, she was still asserting that she was raped, although she was unclear as to which of the many stories she told was true. The case didn’t end with a recantation, the case ended when Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges, saying, “We believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges� and that the investigation revealed “no credible evidence that an attack occurred at that house on that night�. People sighed with relief because three innocent men were not going to jail and because their reputations had been cleared in the eyes of all but the most willfully ignorant amongst us. I won’t dwell on this case anymore in this thread, but if you are going to try to discuss it I suggest you learn about it first.

For example, courts have ruled "The testimony of a rape victim alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it establishes all of the elements" in JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas, and "The uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction" in FREEMAN v. STATE of Arkansas. Feminist reforms over the decades had nothing to do with this?

What courts, when? Citations and context please.

Elise, my guess is that this was probably some unusual summary judgment or other high standard. For the nonlawyers here, in practice this probably means "is sufficient IN THEORY to sustain a conviction..." though I would have to read the case to be certain.

In my own experience, i have certainly seen and heard about false accusations of abuse from BOTH men and women: both personally and from my family and friends who are divorce lawyers, psychotherapists, divorce mediators, etc. I've always said the same thing: people are pretty similar, and if people hate each other enough then they will use any weapon they can, including the legal system. It happens all the time.

That said, while people who are already embroiled in legal disputes tend to try backstabbing more often, it is by no means sufficient justification to distrust every single accuser, especially ones like this woman. That "50% false" statistic seems ridiculous.

I have no problems with this. The first time I served on the jury the victim was compelled to testify. If he hadn't shown for his testimony, he would have been thrown in jail. He was a gun assault victim. If male victims of other crimes can be compelled to testify, I see no reason why female victims of domestic or sexual violence can't be.

This goes back to Washington state's old law, since struck down, allowing 911 tapes to be played at domestic violence trials, in lieu of the actual victim testifying. It was a clear violation of a defendant's Constitutional rights. It's time for us to stop finding creative (read: illegal) ways to prosecute abusers when their victims refuse to testify. Either the victim is forced to show up in court or the defendant goes free.

Elise

POSSIBLE TRIGGER ALERT:

Back to regarding how one can determine a defendant's suitability for defense prior to trial/without trial, how about upon a defense attorney's free consultation? If one goes to eg, Glenn Sacks, one can find banner ads for (allegedly) "Falsely Accused of Rape in TX?" (or where ever). A lay person may assume that a thorough attorney in planning or preparing a defense will ask pertinent questions such as, were you together, did you have sex? And then, did you ask her permission to have sex? Did she ever say no or try to stop you, or indicate in any way she wanted you to stop? Or, what led you to believe she wanted to have sex or continue having sex?

If the man gives some answer like, oh, women like acting like they don't want it, or women say no when they really mean yes, or we were really drunk, I would want to distance myself from this case. [Maybe it's just me, but an attorney advertising "FALSELY Accused of Rape?" should only be taking on people falsely accused of rape, not clients he can "get off." In their advertising or on their websites, many attorneys who handle DUI cases make no pretense their clientele are innocent at all - "Have you or someone you know been pulled over with an illegal blood alcohol content level? If so, contact one of our experienced drunk driving lawyers in your area today!"]

If an attorney knows enough about the circumstances of the case to demand that things be disallowed or stricken (like, I don't know, a collection of violent porn (but "mainstream" nowadays as often discussed in NoPornSouthHampton, or a prior record of sexual assaults or other history violence against women), or knows enough to want to plea bargain for a lesser degree of sexual assault (i.e., defendant and attorney can easily agree that defendant IS guilty of something), then they should know that something is damned wrong with that client's case.

One solution? Require defense attorneys to handle violence against women cases to study women's issues to give them more of a conscience, and allow attorneys called up for defense work to decline cases on moral grounds. Someone will still be willing to take on these cases for a few hundred dollars an hour. Being an attorney in private practice who knowingly solicits clients or "gets clients off" in rape or other cases of violence against women should be about as palatable as (since it often comes up on Feministing) being a rude, paternalistic, abstinence only, anti-choice male ob/gyn with large hands, long nails, rough skin, and oversized, a/c cold instruments who holds bc hostage to pelvic exam and likes looking at women's uncovered bodies (though of course, highly educated and competent, who keeps up with the latest research).

I found those cites from Google: rape victim testimony only conviction
It will bring you results from among other sites, FindLaw. For some reason, I am finding results mainly/only from Arkansas, like:

http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1997a/970512/cr961478.txt

I can also see

http://www.slate.com/id/2086422/

Rape Nuts [oh, very funny headline]
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, July 30, 2003

"We have created a system that is bad for everyone. The legal rules for rape have been 'reformed' to the point that defendants have few of the usual presumptions of innocence while victims are still humiliated and exposed at trial."

How can I disagree?

"Understandably then, feminist reformers had a lot of work to do when they set out to make the system more women-friendly in the 1970s. They managed to enact state laws that actually protected—rather than victimized—the women who'd been raped. Rape shield laws saw to it that evidence of past sexual conduct was not admissible. It was no longer necessary to show bruises to prove force. Corroborating witnesses were not necessary for a conviction (which is why the accuser's testimony alone could send Bryant to prison for life)."

Actual Bryant outcome aside, inaccurate description of legal atmosphere?

Also, how odd you bring up North Korea, when I recall you and I are well acquainted with a democracy that despite its sexism and racism, does a pretty damned good job of controlling crime: Japan. Conviction rate exceeding 99.9% with concern over known rights abuses (by western standards), yet even the most vocal of Japanese rights activists don't claim (on the basis of DNA testing as in the US by the FBI) that 25% of men in jail on rape charges (or any other) are the wrong people (with an additional 20% of DNA results "inconclusive"). With a population 3/5ths that of the US, they have a prison population 1/40th that of the US, suggesting they don't abuse their power as much while maintaining a safer society. I consider Japanese naive concerning personal safety but Japanese society is such that millions of people are allowed to be naive, yet never be victimized by serious crime. There is a good possibility I will be returning to Japan with my family in about two months with this partly in mind.

Back to that daughter of defense attorneys: If my parents were defense attorneys in my community, I could convey my pride (or at least be discreet about the nature of their clients) by describing their work as "defending the rights of largely underprivileged clients" even if they were in fact taking on a significant number of clients from shocking cases or those they knew to be guilty. I hope the they "get their clients off" comment was some kind of gallows humor. Their work is their business, and how you describe it yours, but it may not be well received.

"Either the victim is forced to show up in court or the defendant goes free."

This is an honest question, as are all my others: Can you think of a less traumatic way to help VICTIMS pursue charges? How nice that people explicitly described on this thread as "the guilty" or those you describe as "abusers" (again, YOU are not even talking about innocent or falsely accused people, but those who really did it) be kept out of prison, but how about justice for VICTIMS?

A male - If I am not mistaken, all criminal defendants still have the right to a vigorous defense. Also, criminal trials have nothing to do with justice for the alleged victim. Criminal trials attempt to administer justice to the accused. Alleged victims are nothing more than witnesses (if even that) in a criminal trial setting. If you want a system designed to include AVs in the justice equation, you will have to move over to civil court.

I am not a lawyer, so feel free to point out any misconceptions I might have about US law.

"If you want a system designed to include AVs in the justice equation, you will have to move over to civil court."

As if money will resolve anything, when the unquantifiable is involved.

I really was expecting more support for victims or alleged victims, as usually seen on this blog, than these comments dismissive of victims and their concerns. "They are nothing more than . . . " huh? Concern for the "falsely accused" I can understand, but to put "abusers" and "the guilty" ahead of VICTIMS? Really?

And the poster with attorneys for parents appears to be a "dude" not a daughter. My error.