Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter,harsh?

[talloulou]

Of course we can hold them accountable. The question is whether acting recklessly in a moment of panic is as severe as acting recklessly when one DOES have the time to think it through. I maintain that it is not.

I think manslaughter is right on target. A reckless act or behavior that leads directly to the death of another person sounds like manslaughter to me.

 

[Kandahar]

I think manslaughter is right on target. A reckless act or behavior that leads directly to the death of another person sounds like manslaughter to me.

Right, manslaughter is the correct crime. But the range of punishments available depends on the circumstances.

For example, consider the following two crimes: (A) A guy gets drunk at a party, decides to drive home anyway, and runs over a pedestrian. (B) A guy is on his way to work and is messing with the radio instead of watching the road. He runs over a pedestrian.

Both of those crimes are reckless acts that lead directly to the death of another person. But Crime (A) is more severe than Crime (B).


In this particular case, the woman should probably get a sentence at the lighter end since it probably wouldn't have turned out this way if she had been thinking it through. 3-5 years in prison.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Read my other posts. The fox article failed to mention that she was in the truck at the time. That post was under the assumption that the husband fired at the man driving off alone.

Also justifiable. Not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Right, manslaughter is the correct crime. But the range of punishments available depends on the circumstances.

For example, consider the following two crimes: (A) A guy gets drunk at a party, decides to drive home anyway, and runs over a pedestrian. (B) A guy is on his way to work and is messing with the radio instead of watching the road. He runs over a pedestrian.

Both of those crimes are reckless acts that lead directly to the death of another person. But Crime (A) is more severe than Crime (B).


In this particular case, the woman should probably get a sentence at the lighter end since it probably wouldn't have turned out this way if she had been thinking it through. 3-5 years in prison.

I like your examples, yet I would akin what the woman did more towards option A. Option B seems to be a situation that has near total accident written all over it. Option A includes some choices that are quite obviously dangerous.

 

[MC.no.spin]

She got five years.

FORT WORTH -- A Tarrant County jury sentenced Tracy Roberson to five years in prison because she made a false claim of rape that got her lover killed. Jurors deliberated two hours before reaching a decision on her sentence.

...


During the sentencing phase, Roberson took the stand in her own defense. She claimed her husband was overbearing and controlling and she was afraid of him.

MyFox Dallas | Jurors Sentence Roberson to 5 Years in Prison

 

[herenow1]

She got five years.



MyFox Dallas | Jurors Sentence Roberson to 5 Years in Prison

I think one of the bigger lessons learned is this. Cheating is not worth it, and could lead to dangerous things.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Five years sounds about right. Well done to the jury.

 

[MSgt]

The fact that she believed that she could simply cry out "rape" (consquences be damned) to get out of a tight spot is what pisses me off.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Five years sounds about right. Well done to the jury.

And one life is taken and 3 lives destroyed, I think she got off light.

 

[RightOfCenter]

And one life is taken and 3 lives destroyed, I think she got off light.

She made a poor decision. It happens. Yes, she should be punished, but to go to harsh on something she clearly did not wish to happen would be over-zealous IMO.

 

[MSgt]

She made a poor decision. It happens. Yes, she should be punished, but to go to harsh on something she clearly did not wish to happen would be over-zealous IMO.

Scream "FIRE" in a theater. If people get trampled because others react to it should you pay for your irresponsibility? Clearly, you would not have wished for people to get killed.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

She made a poor decision. It happens. Yes, she should be punished, but to go to harsh on something she clearly did not wish to happen would be over-zealous IMO.

what do drunk drivers get if they kill someone. 10 years right? They did not mean it either.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Scream "FIRE" in a theater. If people get trampled because others react to it should you pay for your irresponsibility? Clearly, you would not have wished for people to get killed.

I'm not saying she should not be punished, but clearly a split second decision with no intent to harm does not deserve the same punishment as getting drunk and running someone over.

 

[RightOfCenter]

what do drunk drivers get if they kill someone. 10 years right? They did not mean it either.

There is not a person alive who does not know the dangers of drunk driving. When this women shouted rape she did not suspect that her lover would be killed and the sentence was lessened because of this.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

There is not a person alive who does not know the dangers of drunk driving. When this women shouted rape she did not suspect that her lover would be killed and the sentence was lessened because of this.

I don't think any women I was ever with would question what I would do if she shouted rape in a situation like that.

 

[Jerry]

The rule is that the cheating wife would have left her husband for her new honey, taking the kids, the house, the money, and suing him for child support and even alimony. The man typically get's screwed.

Here, however, the husband got to kill his wife’s lover legally, and the cheating bitch is in jail.

I envy him.

Remember kids, Guns don't kill people, husbands who come home early kill people.

 

[MSgt]

I'm not saying she should not be punished, but clearly a split second decision with no intent to harm does not deserve the same punishment as getting drunk and running someone over.

I would agree that getting drunk and getting into a wreck is far more irresponsible because it was completely malicious. But women cannot be allowed to scream "rape" and expect people to care if they simply shout it out whenever they feel that it will help them out of a jam. I'm just sick of the courts giving women their escape clauses simply because they are women. This is no longer the early twentieth century. Men are on the defense.

Look at this crap......

The victim testified in Montgomery County court that she agreed to sex "as long as he stops when I tell him to." As he began, she told him to stop because he was hurting her, but he kept going for five or 10 seconds, she said.

Wilson pleaded guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Baby denied any wrongdoing but was convicted of first-degree rape and other crimes and sentenced to 15 years in prison, with all but five suspended.
Definition of rape widened -- baltimoresun.com

It doesn't matter that she consented. It doesn't matter that he stopped. What mattered was that she cried rape over a matter of "ten seconds" and he went to prison for ten years.

"Rape!" should not be taken lightly and when women try to use it to get favor they should be punished because the accused would have been.

 

[MSgt]

There is not a person alive who does not know the dangers of drunk driving. When this women shouted rape she did not suspect that her lover would be killed and the sentence was lessened because of this.

And what if the husband did not shoot him? What if the BF was arrested and sentenced to a decade in prison instead? "Rape" is a dangerous word and she should have been punished severly. No matter how this was to turn out, she was going to ruin her BF's life all simply because she knew that "Rape!" would have made things easier on her.

 

[RightOfCenter]

I would agree that getting drunk and getting into a wreck is far more irresponsible because it was completely malicious. But women cannot be allowed to scream "rape" and expect people to care if they simply shout it out whenever they feel that it will help them out of a jam. I'm just sick of the courts giving women their escape clauses simply because they are women. This is no longer the early twentieth century. Men are on the defense.

Looks like they didn't give her the escape clause in this case. They gave her what I think is an appropriate sentence.

Look at this crap......



It doesn't matter that she consented. It doesn't matter that he stopped. What mattered was that she cried rape over a matter of "ten seconds" and he went to prison for ten years.

"Rape!" should not be taken lightly and when women try to use it to get favor they should be punished because the accused would have been.

Well, that case is messed up.

 

[RightOfCenter]

And what if the husband did not shoot him? What if the BF was arrested and sentenced to a decade in prison instead? "Rape" is a dangerous word and she should have been punished severly. No matter how this was to turn out, she was going to ruin her BF's life all simply because she knew that "Rape!" would have made things easier on her.

If she was worried about her boyfriend she wouldn't have been cheating in the first place. I think if the boyfriend had been arrested the real facts would have come out and the overall situation would have been a much more positive outcome. I would think if that had taken place her lover would have filed a civil suit.

 

[WI Crippler]

Was nobody ever read the story of the little boy who cried wolf? If women are going to cry rape when it is not the case, its going to disillusion the community to actual instances of rape which really puts those women at a disadvantage.

 

[americanwoman]

I'm not saying she should not be punished, but clearly a split second decision with no intent to harm does not deserve the same punishment as getting drunk and running someone over.

I have to disagree. Any woman would know if she told her husband the guy was raping her, the guy would be in for a hurting. I know for a fact if I was ever to get raped and my husband walked in, or even if some guy was beating up on me, my husband would shoot first and ask questions later.

A woman is going to know her husband and even if she knew her husband was some kind of pacifist who wouldn't do anything physical, she still knows what she is doing calling out rape. And as GySgt pointed out, the intentional false charge of rape on a man is also harmful.

 

[MSgt]

And as GySgt pointed out, the intentional false charge of rape on a man is also harmful.

The way I see it, women have to know that if they are going to cry rape, then there had better be a rape. It's like arresting a school teacher because a child fingered him as the molestor instead of her own father because it was easier. Even if the facts come out in the end, this teacher is ruined.

 

[RightOfCenter]

I have to disagree. Any woman would know if she told her husband the guy was raping her, the guy would be in for a hurting. I know for a fact if I was ever to get raped and my husband walked in, or even if some guy was beating up on me, my husband would shoot first and ask questions later.

I really doubt that she planned on getting the guy killed, justifying the manslaughter charge.

A woman is going to know her husband and even if she knew her husband was some kind of pacifist who wouldn't do anything physical, she still knows what she is doing calling out rape. And as GySgt pointed out, the intentional false charge of rape on a man is also harmful.

I think there's already a thread about false accusations of rape.

 

[americanwoman]

I really doubt that she planned on getting the guy killed, justifying the manslaughter charge.

She had to be aware that her husband carried a gun. She got busted and probably knew if she didn't cry rape, she was going to be shot along with her lover. I think the charge is perfectly justified.