tvaerskaegg@aol.com wrote:
> On 31 Mar, 15:26, unit743 wrote:
>
> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/31/nlang131.xml
>
> With the government thrashing around to find ways of getting more .
> convictions, it does seem that lots of men might not be so lucky in
> the future.
>
Yet the misandrist government shows no interest in protecting those
innocent men who are maliciously accused.
> And the evil slags sentence of one year seems a bit light, I would
> have thought that four or five years would have been more appropriate.
>
I've said before that IMO the sentence for making a malicious false
allegation should be the same as the sentence the falsly accused person
would have received if the allegation had been true. In cases such as
this, not only should she be gaoled for 4-5 years, she should also be
put on the SOR for life - just as her victim would have been. AFAIAC, a
false allegation of a . offence is, itself, a . offence.
Given the judge's comments -
"Every time a woman makes a false allegation of . you let down the
women that make true allegations and cause suspicion that another person
is making it up.
"That is the evil of what you did - it undermines the whole process.
This is a case where a message has to be sent out to everybody that
false allegations of . are insidious to a degree."
it's amazing he let her off with such a ridiculously light sentence.
I would hope the CPS can appeal the sentence and get it increased to
something that reflects the seriousness of her crime.
--
Mike |