Women's equality for bearing false witness

[minorwork]

The reason for Community notification of sex offenders is the proven recidivism rate among sexual predators. Thus they continue to be a danger to the community after being released from prison.

No such proof has been offered of the continuing danger by those who commit perjury, so the need for Community notification does not exist.

The recidivism is from the psychological pronouncement of sex offenders of having an incurable illness. My statement is about the types of people who, from an equally incurable illness of clinical narcissism, make repeated false accusations of molestation or sexual predation. On those grounds and since the nature of the false accusation of sexual offense is such a bear it stands separate from the perjury of a witness who give a false alibi for example. I would limit, like Paul Lutus does, my requirements to such as was exampled in the Lutus citation that came in early in this thread. There is a bit more than mere perjury involved there. A real illness is evident. I have had the unfortunate "pleasure" of dealing with two such mirror images of Lutus' bane.

The point is that these types are a hazard to the public because they can't help themselves. The public deserves to be warned that their crime is that of coercing legal authorities to work the vendetta against those who will not enable their insanity.

[ironeagle]

Well I don't agree with registries at all but if a perosn makes a false claim they can be charged with filing a false report, perhaps perjury. It doesn't matter if they are female or male. However I doubt that all the so called false claims are even false. Just because a person cannot prove it doesn't mean they weren't attacked.

[SoylentGreen]

The recidivism is from the psychological pronouncement of sex offenders of having an incurable illness. My statement is about the types of people who, from an equally incurable illness of clinical narcissism, make repeated false accusations of molestation or sexual predation. On those grounds and since the nature of the false accusation of sexual offense is such a bear it stands separate from the perjury of a witness who give a false alibi for example. I would limit, like Paul Lutus does, my requirements to such as was exampled in the Lutus citation that came in early in this thread. There is a bit more than mere perjury involved there. A real illness is evident. I have had the unfortunate "pleasure" of dealing with two such mirror images of Lutus' bane.

The point is that these types are a hazard to the public because they can't help themselves. The public deserves to be warned that their crime is that of coercing legal authorities to work the vendetta against those who will not enable their insanity.

Where is your research? show me that perjury is repeatable crime.

It would seem to me perjury is a "one time only" crime as once caught then the persons ability to stand as witness is severely limited.
Especially in any case where it is just the word of the perjurer.

As for your OP both statements are equally stupid, are you sure you can dredge a pearl from that shit?
Women are just as capable of incompetence in office as men, perhaps she would be better off opening her eyes instead of her mouth.
And Lutus is statement is nothing more than spite . it is simply persecution which is not what a registry is for.

[minorwork]

Well I don't agree with registries at all but if a person makes a false claim they can be charged with filing a false report, perhaps perjury. It doesn't matter if they are female or male. However I doubt that all the so called false claims are even false. Just because a person cannot prove it doesn't mean they weren't attacked.

I'm with you. Now to a pretend scenario. You've pissed a woman off in your church, unbeknownst to you, and she is going to teach you a lesson by spreading lies about your treatment of your children. She may even have spoken to your children without your knowledge and planted some ideas in their minds. She files charges with the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) which they are bound by law to investigate. After fending off this persecution you look up and find she has a history of such accusations that force her victims to suffer mental hardship and possibly defend themselves in court with the legal expenses and time lost doing so.

If not by a registry, would you and the rest who have been vilified by this woman be justified in letting others know of her history? It is the reason for the registry mandate for the sex offenders. Sexual predation is a powerful accusatory weapon indeed for enlisting the law to strike at your enemies.

But, I admit, some cases are not so cut and dried when it comes to pseudoscience nonsense. The accusations that arise from transcendent testimony from recovered memories, child hypnosis, and facilitated communication.

(Excerpted from the transcript)
But some families had their doubts about the new miracle technique, like the Gherardi's from Pike, New Hampshire, whose 17-year-old son, Matt, is autistic.


CATHY GHERARDI: It was about two years ago when someone mentioned that Dr. Biklen was giving some seminars on this facilitated communication. The speech and language teacher at Matthew's school was there and she just couldn't wait to get back and start with Matthew.
NARRATOR: Matt, who could then only recognize about 50 words, went to school and his teachers began using F/C in the classroom. Almost overnight, his academic work improved dramatically. Cathy Gherardi became suspicious of his new academic achievements.
Mrs. GHERARDI: He was taking all kinds of Shakespeare literature, Romeo and Juliet, and he was in algebra class, although he didn't fare that well in algebra, but English, diagramming sentences-- the work that he was coming home with was absolutely incredible. Incredible. I mean, getting A's in some of these classes that I know I would have a hard time getting A's in.
NARRATOR: What seemed especially odd was that Matt wouldn't facilitate with his mother.
Mrs. GHERARDI: At that point, I was frantically trying to communicate with him at home. You know, I'm saying, "Gosh, if he's talking to these people, why isn't he talking to his mom? You know, he and I have been best friends, bosom buddies. I mean, I'm his life and he's mine. You know, surely we can be able to communicate," and absolutely got nothing. As a matter of fact, he would take his board and bring it and put it in his bag and put it in his closet and say, "Finished."
NARRATOR: While the Gherardis got on with their life, reconciled that F/C didn't work, at least for them, Matthew's school continued using it enthusiastically.
One day at school, Matthew and his facilitator, special education teacher Susan Rand, had a conversation, but it wasn't about Shakespeare. ["dad herts me .. (what happens) his balls next to mine make me feel very horny"] Later that day, Susan Rand wrote down the conversation and reported it to the authorities. ["(when was the last time this happened) Thursday. Dad give love to my ass and dad give love to my c--k with his mouth. (what happens next) the bastard eats c--k in mouth then kneel over and-- you know. "]
Mrs. GHERARDI: She handed me a piece of paper -- actually, two pieces of paper -- and said, "These are the things that he said." And I just scanned through the paper and I was just in shock at some of the language that was on the paper. And I said, "It's impossible. It's absolutely impossible." And it was at that point she made it very clear to me that this was real. It was real, that they had a warrant for my husband's arrest and they were going to send Matthew to the hospital for an exam. They were telling me that Matthew may have to go to a home and-- a foster home. And I told them, I said, "There's no way he's going to go to a foster home." I said, "He hasn't been anywhere else except our home. There's no way he's going to go to a foster home." And I was told that I may have no choice in the matter, there may be no choice. And it was at that point that I realized I had no control.
NARRATOR: Gerry Gherardi a pharmacist at the veterans' hospital, was working late that day and knew nothing of this until he arrived home.
GERRY GHERARDI: I got home about 9:30. I pulled into my driveway and Cathy came rushing down the driveway and started to talk to me. She immediately told me not to go into the house, that there was a warrant out for my arrest, that allegations were made that I had sexually abused Matthew and I was not allowed near Matthew, nor was I allowed to go into the house.
NARRATOR: Forced out of his home, Gerry Gherardi spent the next six months living at a friend's house, his family life destroyed because of the letters on the board. Despite the fact that there was no other evidence of abuse, the school, the social services and the police all believed that the words had come from Matthew, yet Gerry Gherardi protested complete innocence.
Mr. GHERARDI: I told Cathy, "There's got to be something wrong. It has to be happening someplace else. We have to call up the Autism Society in Washington and find out if they had any literature on facilitated communication and allegations of sexual abuse." When she called them up, they immediately sent us materials and in these materials it showed that it was happening all over the country.
NARRATOR: There were cases in California, in Texas, in Georgia, in Indiana, in Oklahoma, in New York. ["I hate my dad."] The accused included parents, teachers, care workers. ["--fuks me witha dilldo"--]Some, like Gerry Gherardi, had been forced to leave home. Some ended up in jail. Some parents had their children taken away. ["One afternoon the police arrived at my house to inform me that my daughter had [said through F/C] that she had been molested by my husband. They put her in foster care. Of course I couldn't know where because we were now a threat to her. I was frantic with worry. During her stay in foster care, she lost 10 pounds and suffered two black eyes. She had a severe ear infection which finally burst. Does it make sense that she never communicated to anyone [through F/C] that she was in pain ?"]
This is what happened last January to a family in southern Maine. Betsy Wheaton, a 17-year-old autistic girl, began using F/C at school in 1992. One day, using a letter board, Betsy and her facilitator wrote that everybody in her family -- her father, mother, grandparents and brother -- were sexually abusing her. ["He f--ks me and and hhe f--ks me and he makes me hold his penissss."] Betsy and her brother were immediately put in foster care while the case was investigated.
The court appointed a local attorney, Phil Worden, as Betsy's legal guardian. Worden realized that this was more difficult than the usual abuse case. Before considering whether the allegations were true, the court had to decide a more fundamental question: was Betsy the author of the allegations or had they come from her facilitator? ["It looks like ... a ... a slimy and ... white. I'm afraid. I am afraid. My father and my moth ..."]
PHIL WORDEN: I was most worried in my heart about were we going to do justice in this case? If the communications were real and she was being abused, the idea that on a legal technicality we might send the children back would be just absolutely horrible. On the other hand, if these were not real communications, the idea that all this would happen to this family and these children on a bogus idea was also unacceptable. So to my mind, the stakes were extremely high on both sides and it was very important that we reach a quality decision based on the truth. And so I-- you know, what I was looking for was a clean, simple and fairly quick way to just solve that one narrow question: Were these communications coming from the children?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ipts/1202.html
I would consider Susan Rand, who accused by transcendent evidence, the Gherardi's, for such a registry. I can find nowhere what happened to Susan Rand, the communicator that conjured up the damning material after the family expressed their doubts about the legitimacy of facilitated communication. Below the full video in segments.

[minorwork]

Where is your research? show me that perjury is repeatable crime.

False accusations. I've had it happen to me. Investigations showed harassment and further investigation on my accuser showed enough instances of her personality and false accusations against others down to the school board supervisor that though there was no registry, she became such a pariah that she had to leave town.

It would seem to me perjury is a "one time only" crime as once caught then the persons ability to stand as witness is severely limited.
Especially in any case where it is just the word of the perjurer.

Aye, that is true after multiple lives are affected the judge and prosecutors become informed once past practices have been entered into the record. Yet there is no justice for the victims visited on the perpetrators beyond peer pressure that I have seen.

As for your OP both statements are equally stupid, are you sure you can dredge a pearl from that shit?
Women are just as capable of incompetence in office as men, perhaps she would be better off opening her eyes instead of her mouth.

I do believe you've arrived at Reagan's point.

And Lutus is statement is nothing more than spite . it is simply persecution which is not what a registry is for.

You're not a victim without justice from the evil of such a person either. Of course, like the recidivism you say warrants the registry, it takes multiple victims from a type of person to make the case.

Equality is already present then as far as you're concerned? Surrounded by a Nirvana of Equality, you're a lucky man.

[SoylentGreen]

False accusations. I've had it happen to me. Investigations showed harassment and further investigation on my accuser showed enough instances of her personality and false accusations against others down to the school board supervisor that though there was no registry, she became such a pariah that she had to leave town.

I do not need reassurance that people make false accusations, I need to see that they can do so repeatedly. This one you describe, obviously not.

Aye, that is true after multiple lives are affected the judge and prosecutors become informed once past practices have been entered into the record. Yet there is no justice for the victims visited on the perpetrators beyond peer pressure that I have seen.

It has to be after, does it not? We can not prosecute for an act of perjury before the lie is told, can we? Laws do not prevent crime, they merely define it. Justice for one is not justice for all. Just because it is a good idea to be aware of high recidivist risks does not mean we need the same level of name and shame for all criminals or even any other particular type of crime such as perjury.

Equality is already present then as far as you're concerned? Surrounded by a Nirvana of Equality, you're a lucky man.

I do see faults in the system. But misusing the registry by filling it with names that should not be there helps no one.

[minorwork]

I do see faults in the system. But misusing the registry by filling it with names that should not be there helps no one.

Well sure, I'm not advocating for misuse or putting names there that should not be. Where do you think I have spoken for that? It is just that which I complain about. Those who falsely accuse others such that their victim has his name unjustly put on the registry that does exist should share the same sentence if their accusations are maliciously false. That's a bit more than perjury. What to call it? Hmm. Vigilante encroachment of the law? I don't know. There is more to it than what you are calling perjury.

[SoylentGreen]

Well sure, I'm not advocating for misuse or putting names there that should not be. Where do you think I have spoken for that? .

This is where, BTW, I still think it goes against the fifth. .

My only point is to either require all law breakers to inform neighbors or in the specific case of where the criminal is required to register and inform neighbors, that those falsely accusing of such crimes ALSO be required to register and inform neighbors of the type of person they are.

It is just that which I complain about. Those who falsely accuse others such that their victim has his name unjustly put on the registry that does exist should share the same sentence if their accusations are maliciously false. That's a bit more than perjury. What to call it? Hmm. Vigilante encroachment of the law? I don't know. There is more to it than what you are calling perjury

The victim should get themselves a good lawyer. Isn't that how the american system works.

[minorwork]

This is where, BTW, I still think it goes against the fifth.

So then the existing registry is also against the fifth? I can agree with that.

The victim should get themselves a good lawyer. Isn't that how the american system works.

A person gets as much justice as he/she can afford. That's what I see. The system is rigged to witch hunters' pleasures.

[SoylentGreen]

So then the existing registry is also against the fifth? I can agree with that.

Not at all, only your attempt to make people publicly admit guilt as in when you say, "to register and inform neighbors of the type of person they are."

A person gets as much justice as he/she can afford. That's what I see. The system is rigged to witch hunters' pleasures.

I can agree that the system needs work, but not by screwing with the registry.

[yukonmuffin]

"I will feel equality has arrived when women who lie under oath about sex crimes must be listed in online sex predator registries, so their neighbors will know how dangerous they are." ~ Paul Lutus

I heard a judge talking about this on CBC, While they agree it is a serious crime to lie about such things, punishing them would put more fear into real sexually abused woman (they'd fear losing the court case and getting shamed and punished on top of the rape)

It's a touchy thing, I think we're doing the best we can now.

[ironeagle]

I feel that if a person is dangerous they cannot be trusted in society they ought not be let out so there would be no real need for a registry. Filing a false claim is wrong but is not the same as rapping a person. Also a great deal of people on that registry have NOT been tried by a court of law, and not proven to have in fact comitted any sexual crimes, the same with abuse registries, in addition alot of those so called sex crimes are just for peeing outside or some kid walking by and seeing you have sex through a window you didn't realize was open. Also I eblieve it's double jeapardy. It's the continual punishment of a person for the same crime over and over again. I do think it's nice parents can look that stuff up I know we all want our kids to be safe, but it's also unfair to let a person out say you paid for your crime then chastize them forever. Perhaps more thought ought to be put into what crimes constitute sexual abuse crimes, and what are so serious the person maybe needs life in prison or something.