Week 2 - Stinger vs. Lee

[FromTheSouth]

Thread is open for a week. Tastycles is judging. Stinger is affirming the topic.

Resolved: Those who falsely accuse others of a crime should be required to pay all expenses of the investigation of that crime.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

Good Luck Lee

In this day in age, It seems that crimes are committed extremely often. With that being said, there are a lot of victims of crime who will falsely accuse the other of committing it. Once that happens, the police step in and investigate the crime. To investigate however, they need money for the right resources.

Obviously in today's economy, the state will not help pay for the investigation. So the guilty person would pay for it as well as paying for the crime they committed. However, when you falsely accuse a person, and you know you are, you should be held responsible for the bill.

It's not only the fact that you falsely accused a person and made the police undergo an investigation, and you possibly caused emotional distress to the person you accused. If you watch a court tv show like Judge Judy, you will sometimes see the case go in the way of the defendant. Do you know what happens then? The Accuser pays for the investigation. To be honest, that's quite alright in my book. Can you guess why? Because, sometimes in life, you have to face the consequences.

Thats all for now

 

[Lee]

Now here we have a problem. What do we define as 'falsely accuse?' An accusation is 'an allegation that a person is guilty of some fault, offence, or crime; imputation.' We know that, and false if you really need a definition you will probably struggle with the rest.

Lets have a look at something I wrote in a CL post a few months back:

In 1994 a study was conducted for the Washington Times by “two leading universities” (http://www.misandryreview.com/?p=12657) and written up by Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School which found out that 40% of all men accused of rare were found to be falsely accused. The definition of false as used in the study is, "the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred." Indeed, it includes only cases in which the complainant herself "admitted they are false." That's amazing that in these cases in 1994 40% of the rape charges were announced to be false by those who made the accusation.

Cool beans Lee, cool beans indeed. However I think the definition of falsely accused they use is a bit wrong. Time to get a bit greedy and think about yourself for a second. Have you ever been falsely accused of anything? Chances are you have. Have you ever falsely accused anyone of something? I bet you have as well....wait what? I'm of course using stupid example like it was my brother whole stole the cookie not me.

I digress, but think from your point of view. Your handbag has been stolen down a busy street. Luckily a policeman is nearby, you didn't quite see the guy "erm he has a black coat on but my bag looks like this!" the robber meanwhile is running with bag, taken the belongings and thrust it in the hands of an unsuspecting passer by. The Police man sees the guy with the bag, gives you the bag back and says is this the man "well he has a black coat and my bag so yeah it must be him!" Well done, you've just falsley accused a man of robbery, not your fault though, your adrenaline was pumping and you thought he was the right guy. Should you pay the full court costs for this mistake? No flipping way.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

Now here we have a problem. What do we define as 'falsely accuse?' An accusation is 'an allegation that a person is guilty of some fault, offence, or crime; imputation.' We know that, and false if you really need a definition you will probably struggle with the rest.

Yeah, I know what a false accusation is.

Lets have a look at something I wrote in a CL post a few months back:

In 1994 a study was conducted for the Washington Times by “two leading universities” (http://www.misandryreview.com/?p=12657) and written up by Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School which found out that 40% of all men accused of rare were found to be falsely accused. The definition of false as used in the study is, "the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred." Indeed, it includes only cases in which the complainant herself "admitted they are false." That's amazing that in these cases in 1994 40% of the rape charges were announced to be false by those who made the accusation.

Im sure you mean rape right? You said "rare" so I assume rape.. Anyway, that is an interesting statistic, but what the hell does that have to do with the topic? Did anyone here pay for the investigation of the falsely accused crime?Im not sure..

Cool beans Lee, cool beans indeed. However I think the definition of falsely accused they use is a bit wrong. Time to get a bit greedy and think about yourself for a second.

Well I don't see the definition as wrong, I mean technically when you think about it, it still is a correct definition. It says, "the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred." In my opinion, that seems like a way you could define false accusation.

I digress, but think from your point of view. Your handbag has been stolen down a busy street. Luckily a policeman is nearby, you didn't quite see the guy "erm he has a black coat on but my bag looks like this!" the robber meanwhile is running with bag, taken the belongings and thrust it in the hands of an unsuspecting passer by.

Ok, but I would believe the police officer would see the passer-by have the bag shoved into his arms?

The Police man sees the guy with the bag, gives you the bag back and says is this the man "well he has a black coat and my bag so yeah it must be him!"

I'm sure this innocent citizen would have a chance to explain himself, tell the officer what happened. Maybe allow the officer to search him to see if he really did see anything. In this case, the officer would find nothing.

Well done, you've just falsley accused a man of robbery, not your fault though, your adrenaline was pumping and you thought he was the right guy. Should you pay the full court costs for this mistake? No flipping way.

Well I don't think you would bring this person to court if the officer was able to search him and allow him to explain himself. Besides, we're talking about the investigation here, not the time in court itself.

Let me define the word, "Investigation" for you...

Dictionary.com: A searching inquiry for ascertaining facts; detailed or careful examination.

So as you see, I really don't think it would count the court cost. For a crime of which you are exampling, There would be no real investigation.

 

[Lee]

Yeah, I know what a false accusation is.

Thank goodness

Im sure you mean rape right? You said "rare" so I assume rape.. Anyway, that is an interesting statistic, but what the hell does that have to do with the topic? Did anyone here pay for the investigation of the falsely accused crime?Im not sure..

Ouch attacking typos, getting desperate

Well I don't see the definition as wrong, I mean technically when you think about it, it still is a correct definition. It says, "the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred." In my opinion, that seems like a way you could define false accusation.

It is one way you could define it but not the only way but then it could be easily debated that those who are legitimate in accusations could be put out because someone states that because he's accusing someone would be forced to pay the charges you can't define false accusations easily.

Ok, but I would believe the police officer would see the passer-by have the bag shoved into his arms?

It was a comedy extreme example

I'm sure this innocent citizen would have a chance to explain himself, tell the officer what happened. Maybe allow the officer to search him to see if he really did see anything. In this case, the officer would find nothing.

You mean investigate?

Well I don't think you would bring this person to court if the officer was able to search him and allow him to explain himself. Besides, we're talking about the investigation here, not the time in court itself.

Court is part of the investigation

Let me define the word, "Investigation" for you...

Thanks

So as you see, I really don't think it would count the court cost. For a crime of which you are exampling, There would be no real investigation.

Like I said it was a very extreme example. However lets look at a couple of real examples shall we?

1) Who is the accused? Case in point - Madeline McCann

Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007, while on holiday with her parents and twin siblings in the Algarve region of Portugal. However there were quite a few people accused of the kidnapping:

• Jennifer Murat
• Robert Murat
• Sergey Malinka
• Gerry McCann (her father)
• Kate McCann (her mother)
• Urs Hans Von Aesch
• Raymond Hewlett

Well that's all good and proper when you look at WHO made the accusations...

• Witnesses
• Portuguese Investigators
• Private Investigates hired by the McCanns
• Portuguese media
• British media

How unrealistic is to get those five groups to split the bill? It's an obvious VERY answer.

2) What if the accuser lost a loved one? What if the investigation was wrong? Case in Point OJ Simpson

I don't need to tell you the ins and outs of the OJ Simpson trial, but essentially this: After a nine month trial and a lot of media attention, OJ Simpson was found INNOCENT of the crime. Now 90% of people can look at the evidence and say hey hang on, it's obvious he did it. So you have someone legally found innocent, falsley accused as it were. Then you have a grieving family who has just seen a bullshit decision made and their daughter/son dead and on top of that they'd have to pay for one of the most expensive trials in all of history. Sucks to be them!

3) How do you determine costs? Case in point Any done by Nick Freeman

This is a simple one, Mr Loophole as he is known by the UK press has found loopholes in laws from the 1920's for people to be acquitted of crimes. Essentially the person is guilty but these loopholes means they're innocent. To hire this guy is a heck of a lot more expensive than a run of the mill lawyer. Simply put, how do you determine costs?

lets look at it:

I accuse Thunder Dave of stealing my car, Thunder Dave can only hire a shitty lawyer, he's found guilty and no charges to me! wooo.

I accuse Phoenix of the same crime, luckily Phoenix's Dad has a few people who 'owe him favours' and he gets found innocent. Phoenix though DID do the crime but because he hired a MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE lawyer he got off with it. This in turn is leading me to cough up a lot of expenses here that were ultimately not needed.

Simply put if falsley accused were to have their court costs paid for them by the accuser, then surely there should be a fixed level that this can get to? Then if that's the case some lawyers would refuse to defend under this law (as they'd get a huge pay cut) and in turn make it quite messy as a whole.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

1) Who is the accused?[/B] Case in point - Madeline McCann

[/CENTER]

Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007, while on holiday with her parents and twin siblings in the Algarve region of Portugal. However there were quite a few people accused of the kidnapping:

• Jennifer Murat
• Robert Murat
• Sergey Malinka
• Gerry McCann (her father)
• Kate McCann (her mother)
• Urs Hans Von Aesch
• Raymond Hewlett

Well that's all good and proper when you look at WHO made the accusations...

• Witnesses
• Portuguese Investigators
• Private Investigates hired by the McCanns
• Portuguese media
• British media

How unrealistic is to get those five groups to split the bill? It's an obvious VERY answer.

Ok, Yes there were many accused in this case, and all of them couldn't have done it. However, to this day, there has still been nobody arrested. Therefore, the case is not over, which means that the investigation is over, which means that this case has no DIRECT relation to our topic.

2) What if the accuser lost a loved one? What if the investigation was wrong? Case in Point OJ Simpson

I don't need to tell you the ins and outs of the OJ Simpson trial, but essentially this: After a nine month trial and a lot of media attention, OJ Simpson was found INNOCENT of the crime. Now 90% of people can look at the evidence and say hey hang on, it's obvious he did it. So you have someone legally found innocent, falsley accused as it were. Then you have a grieving family who has just seen a bullshit decision made and their daughter/son dead and on top of that they'd have to pay for one of the most expensive trials in all of history. Sucks to be them!

​

However, he is in jail right now, he WAS found guilty. He was never falsely accused, He just kept getting lucky, good lawyers, and a good jury are the reason for that. Therefore, there was no false accusation in this case. Next Point?

I accuse Thunder Dave of stealing my car, Thunder Dave can only hire a shitty lawyer, he's found guilty and no charges to me! wooo.

I accuse Phoenix of the same crime, luckily Phoenix's Dad has a few people who 'owe him favours' and he gets found innocent.

-Alright, but in today's society, it would eventually be figured out that the lawyers were being biased and you would have won the case. Plus, in what world has that EVER happened?

Phoenix though DID do the crime but because he hired a MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE lawyer he got off with it. This in turn is leading me to cough up a lot of expenses here that were ultimately not needed.

As I said, eventually Private Investigators would have found the lawyers he hired as being biased, and they would end up going to jail. That means you would keep your money.

Simply put if falsley accused were to have their court costs paid for them by the accuser, then surely there should be a fixed level that this can get to? Then if that's the case some lawyers would refuse to defend under this law (as they'd get a huge pay cut) and in turn make it quite messy as a whole.

You wouldn't have to pay until the investigation is definitely finished, meaning no more second thoughts on anyone's part, no more chances of another court date. Just simply put, Finished. By that time, I would think that the accused would be found guilty.​

 

[Tastycles]

Stinger

Persuasiveness: Your initial post seemed a little confused about who pays for certain things, and many of your later arguments were clutching straws. It was ok, but there really wasn't any hard hitting points that really sold your arguments.7 out of 15

Punctuality: You made three posts, all on time, full marks 10 out of 10

Grammar, spelling, punctuation: Mid sentence capitals again, there was a little trouble with flow.8 out of 10

On-topic-ness: Kept on topic throughout, good work. 10 out of 10

Quality of responses: Reasonable. You made good attempts, but you attacked the wrong points of the arguments at time. 3 out of 5

Total score is 38 out of 50

Lee

Persuasiveness: Excellent. You used small scale analogy and actual cases. The thing I would say is that the inclusion of the rape strange, as it didn't really help your argument. Stinger should have capitalised on that aspect more than the spelling mistake. 14 out of 15

Punctuality: You made two posts, one was slightly late 9 out of 10

Grammar, spelling, punctuation: It was good, by and large. You did make a typo with rape, and sometimes your argument seemed in note form, but these are minor transgressions. 9 out of 10

On-topic-ness: As with Stinger, kept focussed throughout. 10 out of 10

Quality of responses: Excellent. The points that needed to be made were made, you both responded and expanded and on the whole, it was a brilliant showing. 5 out of 5

Total score is 47 out of 50

Result

Excellent from Lee, and very good from Stinger. Based on current form, these will be the two that advance, and they showed why here.

Lee wins by 47 points to 38[/QUOTE]