Raj Feridun wrote:

> False claims are a problem of mental illness in the claimants.

Some, like the French woman who claimed an anti-Semitic hate crime, allegedly because she wanted
some attention.

Thank God surveillance and witnesses were able to prove no such attack took place. We need more.

> How DO we fix that??

Surveillance and witnesses would prove such claims were false, as in this case. An unbiased doctor
or panel of doctors could try to prove they were troubled. Otherwise, they are making a false claim
and subject to punishment.

> >The only thing I disagree with are their figures for false accusation, and their agenda. They
> >are not interested in balance, or also improving the system to apprehend the real criminals who
> >give the falsely accused a bad name, they are only interested in defending people against
> >charges of abuse or rape.
>
> How much do you actually know about the group that runs this site?

Only what they write.

> What if they're actually rapists trying to change the laws to make it
> easier to commit their crimes?

I don't like them, but their concerns about false accusation are valid, as I said. I did not say
anyone they try to "help" actually is innocent. In Japan, some man created a support group to help
men falsely accused of train molestation. This founder was recently himself convicted. His motives
are suspect, but the group's concerns remain valid. It is too easy for some girl to say a man
touched her with no witnesses, or worse, to deliberately set men up by conspiring with other
extortionists. We need better ways such as increased surveillance to stop this.

> Sometimes it is impossible to find out what "really happened".

It would be a lot easier with greater surveillance and search, as well as getting the story from
everyone involved. Improvements will also be made as the mind is better understood.

> >> No, I don't get it. Your system seemed to be one step above a police
> >> state. That's not my bag.
>
> >If we had a system to know what really happened, people wouldn't be falsely or mistakenly
> >accused, either. It's that simple.
>
> See above.

Trying with techniques and methods even as available today, are better than not trying.

> >Woman: "He raped me!"
> >Cop: "No, lady, he did not. Here is the conclusive evidence that at the time of the incident
> >you claim, he was sleeping in his own home. We also see that you were also sleeping in your own
> >home at the time of the incident you claim. Were you mistaken in any of the details, or are you
> >telling a lie?"
>
> There's nothing stopping the accused's attorney from making the very
> same statement.

A defense attorney's statements are not evidence. Surveillance and eyewitness reports  are accepted
as evidence.

> I much prefer this to a police state.

You prefer a defense attorney repeating defendant's lies and making up other stories, simply to
cast doubt upon the state and claimant?

> >"I'd like to withdraw my report."
>
> Or, Judge: "case dismissed"

There would be no trial or hearing needed. Trial is for when we don't know.

> >Man: "I don't know what you're talking about!"
> >Cop: "Here, sir, is the evidence that it was indeed you who purchased an unregistered firearm
> >without a license, and used said firearm at the time in question to rob that bank. In addition
> >to bank surveillance cameras, here is evidence of you putting on the hat and sunglasses before
> >entering. Please observe no one else inside or outside was so dressed. And here are the clothes
> >you discarded, found at the place you discarded them, with your DNA on them."
>
> This is another issue entirely

The issue, though these examples of crime are unrelated, is knowing the truth, which is what
investigation and trial attempt to do. Having the truth itself is better than opposing attorneys'
speculations and assertions in court.

As a matter of fact, in the above example, there would have been no armed robbery, because there
would have been no prior sale of unregistered or illegal firearm.

> but I am in favor of stringent gun control.

I am in favor of keeping guns from criminals. But with crime at a minimum, or even at levels as
generally seen in Japan, there is little need for commoners to have firearms. If more people in the
US were law abiding or there were better crime prevention, there would be little need for private
defensive firearms there as well. Firearms could be for purely sporting or collection purposes.

> >"I'd like to call my lawyer and plead guilty."
>
> >Why can't you see that?
>
> The police exist to enforce the law not arbitrate it.

Then this gets back to the issue I brought up of it sometimes being a single officer's judgment
which keeps crimes even as I committed them or have been victimized by them, from being properly
investigated or punished. With the evidence in hand, it would be harder for police to be lazy or
dishonest.

> It wouldn't work.

Boy, you are a pessimist despite believing in all powerful, all knowing and just Allah being active
in this world.

> Some cops are abusive enough as it is with the power they have.

Which is why better cops are needed. Bad law enforcement would be treated as criminals.

> They are law ENFORCEMENT.

They should be "crime prevention" instead. You know, as in "To protect and to serve" as may be
commonly found painted on the sides of patrol cars. There is not enough of that. I've never heard
of a message like "We will search for people after they allegedly victimize you".