And while we are on the topic of offensively lenient sentences to horrible and dangerous criminals:
“The Flaying of Marsyas” by Titian
In Michigan, St. Clair County Judge Daniel Kelly sentenced Sara Ylen to at least five years in prison Friday for falsely accusing two men of rape. She’s a vicious serial liar: a few days earlier, she pleaded no contest to a cancer scam in a separate case.
Thirty-eight-year-old Ylen had accused a construction company owner and a mental health worker of invading her home and raping her after she drove her children to school in 2012. To help frame them, she went to the extreme of using makeup to create what looked like bruises and carving an epithet in her arm. They would have been charged, too, except that both men had airtight alibis. While working to ruin the lives of the innocent pair (they went to the same church as her ex-husband), Ylen also accepted thousands of dollars from supporters while claiming to have end-stage cervical cancer that had spread throughout her body.
At trial her attorney, David Heyboer, argued (zealously, as is his duty) that she was obviously disturbed, and that a single year in the local jail was sufficient punishment, even though this was her second set of false rape accusations. He made this argument without laughing, too. That’s a professional.
In the first instance of Ylen spinning a fake rape accusation, her victim wasn’t so lucky as to have an alibi. In 2001, she claimed that she was the victim of a daylight sexual assault in the parking lot of California retail store. Her falsely accused attacker, James Grissom, was sentenced to at least 15 years in prison. Grissom was released from prison in 2012 when a judge threw out his conviction after police in Bakersfield, California proved that Ylen made up the rape story during a 2001 trip there. If she had been jailed for that false accusation, maybe she wouldn’t have accused her most recent victims.
Judge Kelly, however, sentenced Ylen to a minimum of two years in prison on the latest false rape report and a minimum of three years in prison for evidence tampering—the fake bruises and the self-administered wounds. The sentences will run consecutively. Previous victim Grissom, sitting in the first row directly behind Ylen when the sentence was read, called it a “slap on the wrist.”
Ya think?
Yet the prosecutor seemed to approve, calling it “justice in its best form.” Prosecutors don’t like punishing fake rape victims, because it intimidates real rape victims and makes them hesitant to testify. Well, that’s too bad, and a concern, but it is a terrible justification for letting women like Ylen and others destroy lives and retain their freedom. She, in particular, deserves to be locked away for good in the best interests of civilization: I’d sooner see the Manson girls get parole than have Sarah Ylen ever see the light of day again.
Five years? In this case, “it’s better than nothing” barely applies. The sentence is an insult to the victims, the law, and everyone who respects it. Willful false accusations of rape should bring 20 years to life, and in the case of Ylen, it is a shame that flaying is prohibited by the 8th amendment.
_________________________
Pointer: ABA Journal
Facts: Myrtle Beach Online
Ethics Alarms 
As a country we should be doing every reasonable thing to make sure that victims of rape come forward and press charges against those who assault them.
Failing to go after, try, and convict false accsors because of some supposed chilling effect it might have on victims of rape is not reasonable.
Failing to give long sentences to those who maliciously try and claim that someone raped them when they absolutely did not is also not reasonable.
We can absolutely punish those false accusors while making sure rapists go to jail by protecting victims.
“In 2001, she claimed that she was the victim of a daylight sexual assault in the parking lot of California retail store. Her falsely accused attacker, James Grissom, was sentenced to at least 15 years in prison.”
Jack,
What baffles me most about these types of cases:
Barring any physical evidence that can be directly linked to the accused, such as semen on or in the self-claimed victim or a video tape or eyewitnesses, don’t these cases boil down to He Said / She Said?
In which case, it seems like allowing the accusation to be the same as proof of guilt. I just don’t see how a situation like that, all things being equal, could have led to a conviction at all, certainly not in a system weighted heavily on the side of keeping the innocent safe from false conviction.
IKR?! My thoughts exactly.
Convincing eye-witness testimony, which juries have always given too much weight.
They don’t even really look at eye-witness testimony anymore. Her word in a lot of cases is all it takes. Perhaps you are including her word into the eye-witness category ?
Well, yeah. A rape victim is the ultimate eye witness to her own rape, and she is given top credibility.
Too much weight is given on “her word” as they use that as the primary assault on the defendant.
What should happen is this —
If a woman accuses a man of rape — Forced rape kit. If she refuses… no charges laid.
Then… if kit is done…. THEN the accused can have their DNA compared via a secure third party using a quick-kit with their lawyer present.
If the kit fails (aka… comes back less than 60% match) …. then an investigation is opened into her past. If less than 50% match… then she is charged, and can escape the charge if she is accurate.
In addition, there must be signs of forced penetration — not just an accusation. This would prevent from the woman accusing a guy of rape just cuz she didn’t want to admit to cheating — or regrets it after consenting.
And lastly, get rid of all the silly “rape laws” such as tapping someone on the shoulder can be construed legally as a “sexual assault”.
This would eliminate 99% of false allegations from ever reaching the court room, while ensuring that the most serious REAL cases would be brought forward. I know several women who actually were raped, and not one of them would object to this. The ones who do object are the ones who were not actually raped, or plan on using this as an attack/defense at some point in the future.
Any evidence of this?
Good freaking luck with that. Forcing a rape kit on a victim is totally revictimizing her, you guys, it’s making her UNCOMFORTABLE. Why can’t you just BELIEVE her? Why do you hate women so much and think they’re all liars? And no mansplaining about false accusations, now, check your privelige.
Off-topic: Just noticed that you all factored men out of this equation. Everyone is talking about the “victim”, “her” and “women”. There are many male victims as well. After reading the comments, it kinda stared me in the face hence my need to point it out. Perpetuating an attitude which ties rape to only female victims is making it even harder for male victims to come forward.
You all? The vast majority of my responses here that were gender neutral and that was on purpose. Slut walks, well, those are geared towards the idea that typically only women are told. Male victims of rape hardly ever hear “why did you wear that”.
My first response to this thread was gender neutral and that was on purpose.
Then consider yourself exempt.
It would be great if we lived in a society that enabled women to come forward without being scoffed at, criticized or doubted. I know one case where a woman said she was raped and the officer asked if at any time she enjoyed it. Seriously? It is that kind of behavior by the system that keeps rape victims silent because they don’t want to have to deal with a moronic system that will continue to victimize her (or him) during the process.
Also, it is irresponsible to suggest that a victim of a violent crime should act perfectly in the perfect way after being assaulted. Most victims don’t come forward after being raped, and it is likely because of how they will be treated by a system that treats no other accuser that way. And your proposed solution would continue to keep victims away from seeking justice.
And seriously? You believe that people who would object to your horrible suggestion on what needs to be done when rape is alleged are people who would lie about being raped?
Well, I was once accused falsely of sexual assault, I applaud locking up false accusors because of the harm done to victims of rape, and I think your solution is horrible.
The problem is not coming forward timely can jeopardize the chance of successful prosecution of the offender(s). Memories fade. Physical evidence (unless preserved) goes bad. Trails get cold. It is no different for rape than burglary or grand theft auto. The sooner the crime is reported, the better the chances of successful prosecution,.
Obviously. That is the case for all crimes. Though, people who are victims of burglary and grand theft audo are typically not subjected to the humiliating treatment that many rape victims are put through when they come forward. And many stop midway through because they are tired of dealing with the humiliation they are suffering at the hands of our system of justice after being violated.
We do need more rape counselors to encourage victims to continue forward with cooperating with the police during a rape investigation, as well as guidelines for counselors to help them avoid the appearance of coaching testimony, which could surely jeopardize a successful prosecution as rape victims not coming forward quickly enough,.
It is difficult to understand why rape causes such huge psychological and emotional trauma; I would not be surprised if victims had trouble coming to terms with their trauma.
Say it goes unreported for a long time thought, would a forces rape kit still work to prove whether she is lying or telling the truth?
Welcome to the world of today’s sex offender mania.
Willful false accusations of X, and falsifiying evidence to produce a conviction for X, should have a minimum penalty equal to the maximum punishment for X, except for execution. However, an additional charge of attempted murder with a deadly weapon (government) should be tacked on in that case. I think a lower minimum if the false accuser comes forward voluntarily to recant would be appropriate, but not lower than any punishment actually received by the falsely accused.
You are correct in this regard. I have stated similar however, I would go so far as to include execution. If one is so bold as to accuse someone wrongly of something that would warrant execution, then it should be considered in the light of what that person would have received if the lie was not discovered (aka, in the case where the man got a 15 year sentence, if the lie was discovered during that trial, the woman should have gotten the 15 year sentence)
Basically, a sentence deflection. So a trial would be done without the evidence of her lie to see what the sentence outcome would be, then it would be used on the accuser.
I would however add one minor exception to this — in the case of a liar receiving the sentence — there would be no parole, early release, etc. 15 years would be 15 years — period.
My statements on this topic may seem a bit harsh because I am biased to the fact of having done time for a crime I did not commit, while the liar still roams free with no recourse.
I don’t think that any change in regard to this with the system will ever occur simply because it is too profitable, and in a lot of places the driving force for increased funding. This type of case is very profitable for all parties involved aside from the accused.
What does “minimum of” five years imply in practice? The online court records don’t shed any light on the details of the sentence. If the parole board later finds she’s still dangerous (she does not sound like a good candidate for rehabilitation!), how long can she stay isolated from the rest of us?
The press accounts I could find are maddeningly silent on the subject. Though they do mention that Judge Kelly exceeded the sentencing guidelines. Jack, of course, never blamed the judge for the outcome, and the fact that the sentencing guidelines were even more lenient just reinforces his argument.
Words alone can not express how I feel with regards to disgusting people like this. In a lot of ways, being falsely accused of something — and subsequently convicted, is pain and suffering that simply can not be put on a scale.
What this woman does (and many more like her) is the following :
1. Makes real rape out to be a joke by pretending it happened for whatever psychological kicks.
2. Pisses people off who are subjects of her lies — possibly even inciting people to “take it into their own hands” to obtain some form of justice (I most certainly would if given a 15 year sentence… then after 11 told … oh hey…. we just found out she was lying… — for real ?… now what ?? )
3. Destroys peoples lives, and is cause of deep and long lasting psychological pain.
4. Enables the system to “label” people under one of the worst categories ever. I don’t even think murderers have a public searchable database.
I find this has been a growing trend which makes males easy targets.
Examples I have seen :
Woman doesn’t want the father to have access to visit the child after a crappy break-up — rape claim.
Woman doesn’t want to admit to cheating after being caught — rape claim.
Woman wants extra money to subsidize her life and found out that “victims of crime” GET PAID — rape claim.
At least in the USA, if a woman has been found to be lying about a rape charge and it happens a couple more times, it causes heads to be turned and she can be looked into further. In Canada, you are not allowed to bring this up as it is part of her “past” and as such, deemed “not relevant”, and she is protected — which is complete garbage, and in my opinion, doesn’t allow for full due process.
I feel that her ridiculously light sentence is mainly due to the justice system still identifying women as victims — no matter the crime. A good public example was the Bernardo case …. even though the woman was found to have been the one luring, promoting, and participating (and in several incidents — forcing), she was out of jail with a new identity long before the man in the case was.
If men and women are to be “equal” (which will never happen simply because it is our differences that make us symbiotic), then how about equal sentences — and stop enabling one sex to have total dominance over the other. Currently our system is (and has been for many years) too sympathetic with women — the prettier the woman…. the lighter the sentence.
Perhaps this too.. is reason for the scales to be imbalanced on the statue of Lady Justice (at least in Canada).
5. Makes life even harder for actual rape victims.
“and many more like her”? “a growing trend”? “too sympathetic with women”?
Your examples are not unknown, Mr. Rage; neither are your generalizations.
“Words alone cannot express how I feel.”? Mine can. As far as I know, exceptions still do not prove the rule.
This must be an example of the rape culture that I keep hearing about.
No, that would be more like this:
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/12/4549775/nightmare-in-maryville-teens-sexual.html
And pray — that you never experience it !
Here in CO, “Felony sexual assaults” come with a “two to life” sentence. IF the system (not a judge) decided to let a man out (it hasn’t happened yet, and the sentence was adopted in 98), it would be to a lifetime of probation, the sex offenders registry, and mandatory sex therapy. Refusal (or inability) to pay for the therapy, as well as insisting that one is innocent both get one banned from the therapy, and thus automatically violate parole, dooming one to serve the rest of the life sentence. On what is frequently, as is stated here, on a he said/she said case.
A+, Jack.
Stupid moral relativism… I can’t get as upset about this as I normally would because you just wrote about a child killer getting the same amount of time, and that’s worse, so this doesn’t seem as much of a travesty in comparison… I guess.
But seriously. The standard line from many feminists/women’s rights advocates to protest being told not to walk alone at night, have a buddy at a party, etc is “Don’t teach women how not to get raped, try teaching men not to rape.” And yet all that accountability for your own actions goes out the window when they want to protect false accusers, because seeing a liar get caught might intimidate a true victim… well how about instead of teaching victims (and “victims”) that they will be believed no matter what the problems with the story, we teach liars not to falsely accuse people?
Actually, if you do a search online, you’ll find that avoidance of rape (and assault) and self-protection by women — being responsible for themselves and their own safety — is still the standard line. And will continue to be. Please tell me where you have seen anything that suggests anything else. The add-on, which has always been there, is to call for some better ways to get randy guys to back off and jack off. I’m taking a chance by putting this link in, because you may not understand why Hannity should be listening, but I hope you hear what she’s saying.
http://www.upworthy.com/feminist-confuses-fox-news-host-by-suggesting-that-we-teach-men-to-not-attack-wo
Ylen is the kind of monster who not only commits a heinous crime (plural), but who fosters strawman arguments like this which just polarize to no purpose and sets back useful methods of reducing rape — not just male-female but gay relationships as well — by more than half a century.
While we’re on it, there’s a PC idea that actually had merit: the first time someone tried to tell me (sometime in the mid70s) that I should use the word ‘woman’ instead of ‘girl’, I resisted with anger and resentment. How dare they tell me how to speak or worse, what I was “really” saying or thinking. It took a long time to come down from that very high horse. Now, I see that it works pretty well. Even in Ethics Alarms.
Excuse me for running off without answering any other arguments here, but I have a night out with the girls . . . .
I haven’t watched it, but that’s just because I can’t stream video at work. I’ll try to give it a look later. Perhaps my view is skewed by my proximity to a major university and the young idealism that involves, but “teach men not to rape” is a fairly standard trope. Take Back the Night uses it, as do the “Slut Walks” you see in some cities. (If you’re not familiar, take back the night is basically a protest march and Slut Walks are protest marches dressed “slutty” to illustrate that the problem isn’t the woman’s scanty dress, it’s the man who rapes her).
My point in using it, anyway, is that from one point of view (admittedly one getting toward the extreme end of the spectrum, but not all that rare) it’s all about absolute personal responsibility (teach men not to rape) in some cases, but all about oversensitive domino theory on the other (we can’t demand too much proof before punishing a rapist, or victims might be intimidated. We can’t punish false accusers too severely, for the same reason).
Explain to me the problem you have with slut walks and the statement that what a woman wears shouldn’t be used as an excuse for her rape. I am not seeing it.
I agree with you that we can punish false accusers while supporting victims of rape. But too often many of the “advice” given to women come across as blaming them for their rape. And that is wrong.
And that is wrong.
Sorry for not making it clear enough. I DO think that it shouldn’t matter if women wear scanty clothes, walk alone, or whatever, but I also know that isn’t necessarily true. I don’t think that telling someone how increase their odds of avoiding being victimized is placing blame on them. When I visit my friends in Detroit I put a club on my steering wheel. If I forget and my car gets stolen it isn’t my “fault,” it’s the guy who stole the car’s fault. But I do it anyway, because I want to not get my car stolen.
“You brought it on yourself” after the fact is heartless and cruel. “Be sure that you’ve got a safe ride home so you don’t have to walk alone” ahead of time is just good advice.
I thought I gave up at the “oversensitive” in your previous post (what gall!), but I realize you have spent too much time on that campus and watching sensational media (or the demos that provide the meat for the sensationalizers) and too little time, if any, actually finding out what rape means. To fall into your own vocabulary of oversimplification, rape changes ones view of oneself and the world. Permanently.
Please understand this if nothing more: There is no protective steering-wheel club for human beings (you can’t wear a chastity belt all the time, now, can you?) and a stolen car — shocking, shaming, expensive, as it may be — is a temporary and replaceable loss. {if you’re one of those people whose identity is wrapped up in their automobiles, I’m wasting my time}
To learn to protect oneself as far as possible* at all ages and in all situations, to feel less afraid (more empowered – if that is not a turn-off word for you) when marching in a group chanting and carrying signs, to slog through the years of muck and obstacles that is the hallmark of creating social change (which in turn, promotes legal and sometimes even ethical change) . . . these are not either/or choices. One does not preclude the others, including reaching out to the wannabe agressor to deflect an otherwise eventual rape.
* “learning” and being able to “do” at all ages and in all situations (including those not yet encountered) are not equivalents; there are too many variables. That’s what complicates the legal situation: trying to cut-and-dry this sodden tangle of emotions into what constitutes the eventual judgement: vagaries of the jury, evidence, responsibility, punishment, law.
Judge Kelly and the prosecutor seem to have reduced the tangle to a solid sphere, the result being that a criminal was mistaken for her invented self as victim. You yanked on a couple of strands, arbitrarily decided to go with one of them, and discard the other, The result is the same (theoretically, which is all we do here): the presence of the tangle — the elephant in the courtroom or on the slut walk — was ignored and the result was … unfortunate. And … oh what was that word, unetherized? unethereal? unearthical? damn. lost it again.
Yes. I think that failing to prosecute and punish lawbreakers is wrong. I think that quibbling that punishing liars and false accusers might intimidate honest people is wrong, misguided and oversensitive. If that’s gall, so be it.
Yes, you are correct that analogies aren’t the same as the real thing. I was using it to illustrate a point. There are, in fact, those who believe that it’s somehow misogynistic to think that women should do what they can to protect themselves from criminals. Criminals do crimes, full stop. I don’t want my sister, mother, or (hypothetical future) daughters to be victims, and it’s a crying shame that they can’t act as they please in all circumstances without increasing their risk of assault. In what universe, though, is “someone may want to do a shitty thing to you. If you take this preventative course, that’s less likely to happen” in ANY WAY equivalent to “Getting raped is your own fault”?
Can you name any examples of a feminist/women’s rights advocate who “want to protect false accusers”?
The idea of requiring evidence, as suggested above, is anathema to many (certainly not all). People argue against harsh sentences for those caught. So no, nobody is saying “protect false accusers,” but they don’t want to do the things that would ferret them out, or see them punished as severely as their crime deserves, because of the hypothetical chilling effect on real victims.
Any quotes from specific individuals?
https://ethicsalarms.com/2013/11/18/unethical-quote-of-the-week-attorney-lee-j-danforth/
Oh look!
I hope such a sentiment is no more common than Holocaust denial.
Michael, I have read blogs from extremist women’s groups–or at least an extremist woman–who stopped one heartbeat short of saying there are no such thing as false rape claims. And I read another who made the extremist groups look totally mainstream who insists that women are not really made for vaginal penetration and that all such activity is coerced whether women recognize it or not and is therefore rape.
Yes. There are Radfems who claim that all “PIV” sex is rape.
I could show you a link to a person who went insane at me bringing up false accusations in a conversation about false accusations who was completely irrational.
In my blog post here: http://liberaldan.com/?p=13 , the last link in that post goes to the “Yes Means Yes” blog. I have a conversation over there with a user named “Ginmar” who is a horrible person whose actions in attacking people who want to discuss false accusations wind up protecting false accusors. She is a false rape accusor apologist. (I am Daniel Z over there).
Oooh! Send her over here! Let AMS at her!
That would be like crossing the streams.
“That would be bad, right?”
Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light
That’s bad.
Wasn’t that what happened in Ghostbusters?
I added this comment:
If even only one person died in the Holocaust, it would still be one too many.
If even only one person in all of history was raped, it would still be one rape too many.
If even only one person in all of human history was ever falsely accused of a crime, it would still be one false accusation too many.
Just so everyone will be aware of it, rape is NOT a sex crime. It is a crime of power, control, humiliation and in some cases, sadism. So, frankly, teaching men “not to rape”, while it may be a nice sentiment, is wholly ridiculous. What you are actually saying is “teach men to be normal”. If that had worked, I would never have been a psychologist long enough to retire.
My sentiments exactly. I’d amend myself- the campaigns targeted at men, especially college age men, to raise awareness about things like “being drunk isn’t consent” have some merit, but that’s a different beast than a man who sets out to commit rape. Besides, that raises the whole other weird realm where if two drunks have sex after a party the man is the rapist…
Since most rapes are done by people who are known, i do think there is a lot of merit in educating people on what is rape. Of course, if a person cannot be bothered to figure out for himself what consenting to sex means and has to be told how to respect the autonomy of another person then that person is just a huge peice of garbage to begin with. But if, even out of a case of self preservation, they can be shown that an act that they thought was “a ok” is really rape then perhaps more people can be saved the pain that comes with being a rape victim.
Stranger danger rape is far less common.
And yes, I have an issue with 2 drunks having sex = the penatrator is a rapist. But if the intent of one of the individuals was to get the other drunk and have drunken sex and that was not the intent of the other person then that is absolutely rape.
Are you saying that teaching men not to rape is harder than getting them to stop crashing their brains to mush on the football field? Nah. Not unless rape is made a spectator sport. Or did I just define a subgenre of porn?
I see sexual assault and rape cases almost on a weekly basis. The vast majority I see are drunken sex/coercion cases. It is phenomenal—the idiotic, ineffective and useless system that is in place and growing.
There are plenty of crimes that occur that may cause the victims serious long term or permanent issues. The cases still must be investigated and victim questioned. Uncomfortable questions have to be asked; how that is done is getting better, but if a full investigation cannot be done then the prosecution of the perpetrator has to go away and focus on helping the victim continue. Victim advocates are great, but are increasingly crossing/blurring lines and becoming individual expert witnesses for what the victim “means” for prosecution. This stacks the deck against the accused. Those advocates and support structures should be there for victims, any victim, but needs to stop short of the legal case. As an extreme example but representative of what is going on, I just saw a case where the victim advocate was testifying on behalf of the victim, the wrong victim, and the perp was going down. The defense caught it, and it was heard by several there that this was not the first time a victim advocate was wrong about the victim or got caught embellishing details.
As for the prosecution of false accusers, there is a huge fear to prosecute them. Part of it is because of lack of evidence (funny how some based on the same evidence would result in rape convictions) and a good portion due to blowback from feminist and advocates (bad press, worse if they are wrong). I understand when the evidence is lacking— it can’t be risked, but the political side should not be happening.
As for the one of the comments above where Michael Ejercito decided to miss the point about taking positive action to reduce individual chances of becoming a victim—there was a voluntary training program where I am that taught potential victims how to protect themselves from being raped. The VOLUNTARY program was just killed because it “might make victims uncomfortable.” This program was successful, it was designed for rape victims and the victim outcome was excellent. If you are not aware a large number of victims of rape will be rape again sometime during their lives. This VOLUNTARY program offered them tools to reduce their chances of becoming a victim again. This program that cost nothing because volunteers and donations supported it got shut down because it was thought it was too much like victim-blaming. Taking action to protect yourself or identifying traits that may make you a target of a criminal is not victim-blaming; it is common sense and should be encouraged.
Terrific perspective, Steven.
I notice that banks leave depositors’ funds in expensive vaults than on the lobby floor. Would it not be cheaper for banks to leave the money on the floor of the lobby? After all, should they not trust people not to steal the money?
“There are plenty of crimes that occur that may cause the victims serious long term or permanent issues. The cases still must be investigated and victim questioned. Uncomfortable questions have to be asked; how that is done is getting better, but if a full investigation cannot be done then the prosecution of the perpetrator has to go away and focus on helping the victim continue. ”
This. You said it better than I was able to.
One thing I think that needs to be discussed, because it seems like some people are dancing around it and are pushing what the definition of what a “false accusation” is, especially a malicious kind of false accusation that is worthy of jail time.
An accusation is not false because the victim doesn’t come forward at all, or late, or on any specific schedule that some expect the victim to come forward.
An accusation is not false because the victim recants. Many recantation take place because they do not want to deal with the pressure that the system puts on them.
An accusaiton is not false just because the victim refuses to testify, or fails to get a rape kit done.
An accusation is only a false one that is worthy of jail time if the accusor is maliciously and purposefully saying that person X committed an act of rape when that person did not rape and the accusor knows this fact and is making the accusation anyway.
Off topic, but related to trials:
Dallas cowboy drunk driver Josh Brent, just had the jury rule that his car was considered a deadly weapon for the trial.
That seems wrong. I can understand ruling a car a deadly weapon if the intent was present to use it as such. But I don’t think Josh Brent could be said to have intended to use the vehicle as a weapon.
It doesn’t seem right.
If there’s one thing I despise, it’s the excuse offered by prosecutors (to include State Attorneys General) -and in concert with paid media consultants- that if morally despicable actions are NOT allowed, it will suppress the inclination of real victims to come forward. This is, of itself, as morally despicable as the crime it claims to oppose… fraudulently, in many cases.
“It’ll raise awareness of the issue”- was the phrase I was trying to remember. That was the mantra they used to uphold the legitimacy of the child porn film “Hounddog” at Sundance 2007. They even imported Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff (a Republican!) to add his official support. Today, the catch phrase for all of this would likely be “Empowering Women”!