Response to "When Women Cry Wolf"

While I generally support what Kyle-Anne Shiver writes in When Women Cry Wolf About Rape, I would like to offer some comments that go just a bit further. The author writes;

Now that the Duke "rape" case has been brought to its conclusion and the falsely-accused young men have been thoroughly exonerated, it is time for us - especially us women -- to come down hard on the woman who cried "Wolf" and those who enabled her.

Since this is a case of false accusation, conclusion is not reached until the accuser, in this case a woman, is brought to justice. It appears to me that at a minimum, this woman has violated North Carolina General Statutes 14-209, Punishment for Perjury, a class F felony, and 14-225, False Reports to Law Enforcement, a class 2 misdemeanor.

Apparently, the young men have been exonerated by the evidence, or lack thereof. This very same evidence provides basis for prosecuting false reporting, and perjury. I gather from the article that some claim this woman has a "troubled" history, and so regard her as "incapacitated enough to escape punishment for a vicious and harmful lie". This is nonsense. As I understand things, she works for a living, has children, and attends college. Also, a "troubled" history never stopped prosecution of a man for rape.

Shiver rightly advocates "solace and restitution" for the victims, in this case three young men. Additionally, I advocate restitution for the citizenry, those who own the statutes. The statutes are in place to protect the public from false accusations and perjury. Failure to prosecute denies Article I, Section 2 of the North Carolina Constitution;

All political power is vested in and derived from the people: all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

The same reasoning applies to disciplinary action for prosecutorial misconduct, the applicable rules of which are sure to be found in the North Carolina court rules.

I have two final points. I object to Shiver's clear implication that "all men everywhere" are "barely-in-control" whenever alcohol and scantily-clad women mix. Since this generalization far exceeds what the evidence supports, it is a sweeping generalization logical fallacy. Finally, Shiver advises men to "ask the woman you're with, just to make sure". Why not advise men to simply abstain, thereby denying her the option to change her mind later? After all, she could turn out to be "troubled".