Should Payback Be A Bitch?

Whether Sarah Katherine Campbell committed the crime of which she stands accused has yet to be determined. She is due the process, the fairness, that the law provides anyone accused of a crime, even if those who would have shrieked that she must be believed would have denied that to those she accused.

Deputies said 18-year-old Sarah Katherine Campbell was charged with filing a false police report of a felony.

According to deputies, the charges stemmed from a false report of a sexual assault. Clemson University Police responded to a report of a sexual assault at the Delta Chi Fraternity house on January 27, deputies said.

The sheriff’s office said an investigation into the incident was launched and as evidence was gathered in the case, it was determined that the sexual encounter between Campbell and the male at the fraternity house was consensual.

This never happens, except when it does. This is forgivable because we need to have a conversation. This is probably just the cops hating on a sexually assaulted women and favoring the Patriarchy, because male privilege. Or maybe Campbell just lied about being sexually assaulted, but what’s the big deal if the brothers of Delta Chi get nailed for a sexual assault that didn’t happen? Isn’t the problem huge enough that it’s worth sacrificing some innocent males to the cause?

Ridiculous as these excuses may seem, Clemson appears to have bought into them.


But that’s college life these days, as guilt, innocence, even wholesale fabrication of accusations, merely serves as a prelude to punishments and restrictions, just in case. Nobody wants to have the wrath of social media impair their applications for the coming school year.

So the arrest of Campbell for falsely reporting is a good thing, at least so far as it may be factually accurate? The reactions to this news suggest it’s not good enough for some, as calls came in for Sarah Katherine Campbell to suffer the punishment that would have been imposed on those she falsely accused.

The desire for parity, for retribution, to do as much damage to the false accuser as she would do to the falsely accused, is understandable. There has always been a visceral need for an “eye for an eye.” The reasons for revenge are nothing new, easily grounded in claims to moral imperative.

But it doesn’t work that way. Assuming Campbell committed the offense of falsely reporting a sexual assault, she should be punished for the crime she committed, not the crime of accusation. She should be punished based on the factors that apply to her, her life, her experience, her remorse, her explanation. Just as would be the case for those she accused if her accusations were true.

I get it. You’re angry. You know that we’re up to our eyeballs in malarkey, that nonsensical narratives have overcome facts and reason, and that the promoters of this hate mongering wouldn’t think twice about tossing innocent males in the clink. Or out of college. Or just destroy their lives, somehow. Yes, I get it.

But the answer to anger isn’t more anger, more unreasonableness of your own to counter their unreasonableness. So they don’t care about facts, or lives, or harm done to men? Is that the bar by which you measure your own reasonableness, the worst of the other side? If they’re intellectual midgets, running full-tilt on mindless emotion, don’t you aspire to be better, bigger, more rational?

We’re inundated with appeals to emotion, and feel the need to strike back. Resist the impulse. Resist the anger. Resist being the worst, most unreasonable person you can be. That they would not be as kind to you is irrelevant.

The religion of believing the victim, embracing the narrative of false rape statistics, will guide those who would destroy due process, eliminate fairness, demand the return of Torquemada to campuses and courtrooms to soothe their hurt. False accusations happen. Exaggerated accusations happen. Reframing consensual sex into post-hoc regret rape happens. They shouldn’t, but they do, no matter how much the religious refuses to believe.

And the harms done to the victims of these wrongs is very serious, no matter how they’re trivialized by those who want to turn Blackstone’s ratio on its head. Not only do I get it, but I’ve been pounding away at this for a long time.

And yet, falsely reporting a crime isn’t the same crime as rape or sexual assault. Don’t be them. Don’t be angry. Don’t demand an eye for an eye, even though it strikes you as some sort of cosmic fairness. If Campbell committed the offense with which she’s charged, it’s good that it was discovered and that she will be prosecuted for it.

And if convicted, she will get the sentence her crime, and she, deserve. What that will be has nothing to do with the offense of accusation. As furious as this may make you, as unfair as this may seem, this is the rational way with which we deal with crime. Just as we want it to apply to us, we should want it applied to her. Be better than them.

42 thoughts on “Should Payback Be A Bitch?

  1. Patrick Maupin

    If today is a day of argumentum ad absurdum (cf Bill Otis), can we at least get a lifetime false accuser registry out of this thing?

  2. B. McLeod

    The criminal system is random, and sentencing is a random part of that randomness. She will get whatever a judge decides, possibly taking into account the evil she allegedly tried to work, possibly not. In another recent case (referenced in Tuesday talk) a false accuser who completely fabricated a sexual assault by three imaginary black men is looking at a toss up between deferred judgment or probation. Mental illness of the accuser is sometimes part of the equation.

      1. B. McLeod

        Old information to you, but potentially illuminating for people who go to the criminal system thinking they are going to see that “parity” thing or that “fairness” thing.

        1. SHG Post author

          And it’s now your job to inform the ignorant masses at SJ about how crim law works? I don’t think so.

  3. Dan

    It’s one thing to investigate the reported rape, and find that there’s not enough evidence to bring charges for it. It’s quite another to find the evidence so overwhelming, especially when the question hinges on consent, that you bring charges against the accuser. Perhaps it shouldn’t be, but this is pretty surprising.

    1. SHG Post author

      Prosecutions for falsely reporting should be rare, as the bulk of accusations aren’t so clearly provable one way or the other to give rise to a prosecution against an accuser. Why is everyone in such a rush to prosecute anyone?

      1. Frank

        Because sometimes the only thing that will get a Social Justice Whackadoodle’s attention is a pimp slap.

        1. SHG Post author

          Don’t punch a nazi. Don’t “pimp slap” an SJW. How about we all keep our hands to ourselves.

    2. DaveL

      It’s quite another to find the evidence so overwhelming, especially when the question hinges on consent, that you bring charges against the accuser.

      Until it’s been presented and challenged in court, we don’t really know how whelming the evidence is.

  4. LocoYokel

    While Karma (payback, whatever) need not necessarily be a complete bitch I do believe that the consequences should be severe enough to put this person, and those who act similarly, on notice that this behaviour is unacceptable. Perhaps if they had some significant consequences that did real damage to, without necessarily completely destroying, their future prospects they might think twice about trying to destroy the lives of others on a lark.

    Of course the vengeful side of me says that they should face the same consequences that the person(s) they accused would have faced. But I try to be better than that.

      1. LocoYokel

        Is it, or is it just wanting to have something for them to consider when they’re thinking about how to destroy someone’s life other than “how cool is it that we can get this guy thrown out of collage and forever barred from having a job”?

        I don’t wish for anyone’s life to be ruined, but you do have to make at least a couple of examples for deterrence to work. Even if the level of consequence is just at the level that might keep someone from getting that bar license, or security clearance, or some other area of special trust that society occasionally awards people.

        1. SHG Post author

          Sending a message is always the cry of authoritarians. Is it? You bet it is, even if you try to soft-pedal it with tears for the victims. That you fail to see the parity is a shame.

          1. LocoYokel

            Most people who know me would not consider me much of an authoritarian, guess it just takes the right trigger issue to bring it out?

            At the same time, how would you suggest we convince someone who thinks it’s funny to destroy someone’s life like that just because they can (or to get their victim points) that it’s not such a great idea after all?

            1. SHG Post author

              You beg the question by assuming there’s any way to convince anyone of anything. If there is, an arrest and prosecution should be more than sufficient to do the trick. Punishment has rarely served any deterrent purpose, even though people want to believe otherwise.

            2. LocoYokel

              I guess I can accept that, seeing how it comes from someone with front line experience.

              I have said it before, I am far from the smartest person in this room, but I do like to think I can be convinced to change my opinion when presented with a good argument to do so. Sometimes it might take a pretty big hammer to pound it in, but it can be done.

            3. SHG Post author

              The post deals with the “eye for an eye” retribution. You’re talking about deterrence, an entirely different objective than retribution. Most of us who do this sort of thing realize that deterrence is one of those goofy concepts that sounds great in theory and it worthless in reality, but “common sense” says it ought to be a thing.

              Trying to explain why “what everybody know” is bullshit takes more effort than it’s worth most of the time.

  5. Jay

    This made me laugh out loud. Why, if you’re going to start leading a life of pacifism, would you choose false rape accusers? Guilty conscience? I haven’t seen you make the same cries for dirty cops. What’s the difference?

    1. SHG Post author

      If you haven’t, then you haven’t been paying attention. This reminds me of every dipshit who says, “as far as I know,” when what they know is nothing. Are you back to being the village idiot?

  6. Solaric

    >”The religion of believing the victim…”

    This right here really underlines the problem with the extreme left’s position. The basic issue is that in modern usage it’s circular reasoning: yes we should always support “the victim”, but generally left unstated is that first requires actually knowing who the victim(s) is/are (it’s not binary, someone can be both a victim and perpetrator simultaneously). “Victim blaming” was in fact a real thing and quite common way back, and to some extent survives, but I think it’d be classified as an Affirmative Defense, there was no argument that an act had never happened or that it was non-consensual, but “she was dressing slutty and tempted me” or whatever. That doesn’t fly so much anymore in America (though alive and well in other parts of the world). If an accused just flatly denies it, then it’s a normal defense not affirmative defense right?

    I think that’s the major core logic fail in the whole woke movement, the foundation of sand upon which all the subsequent castles are built. “Supporting the victim” is perfectly reasonable, but it’s a post-determination action, and not the same as “a full and fair investigations into reports”. Modern extremes where the pendulum has swung too far make the mistake of making it a pre-determination, ie a guess. Which then creates awkward situations when they guess wrong.

    Maybe some of the crazies could be “woke” to *reason* a little if it was driven into their heads that an innocent person being accused doesn’t even necessarily mean there wasn’t a crime, it can just mean the actual criminal is going free. Pure self-interest might work on college kids where more adult arguments have not, or at least get them on the path to thinking why we have such rights.

    1. SHG Post author

      Your comment, in combination with others today, makes me think that it’s time to eliminate comments. What the fuck is it with people who think this is their opportunity to spew whatever horseshit pops into their heads, at great length, here? Off to reddit with you.

  7. Corey

    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Such a simple concept, that humanity has refused to accept for over 2000 years.

    Don’t know how you find the will power to keep fighting these battles Scott, but some of us do appreciate the effort.

      1. W. Justin Adams

        Make that four.

        “We’re inundated with appeals to emotion, and feel the need to strike back. Resist the impulse. Resist the anger. Resist being the worst, most unreasonable person you can be. That they would not be as kind to you is irrelevant.”

        That’s a pretty good program for peace and social progress summed up right there.

          1. W. Justin Adams

            I was agreeing with you that people should put reason over emotion and then making the perhaps unjustified leap that doing so would increase peace by reducing irrational hatred and cruelty (which is what I meant by “progress”; I shouldn’t have used that loaded term). Again, great post, great point.

            1. W. Justin Adams

              Though if people actually followed that advice, some of us might have less litigation and fewer clients. Law of unintended consequences, etc.

          2. Nemo

            And a greater number of people advocating for reason over emotion when it comes to decision-making wouldn’t be progress for our society?

            And I shouldn’t, I know, I know, but to comment on something I saw above, if you only change your opinion when your nose is rubbed in the facts by others, it’s not doing you much good, and is certainly no virtue. You have to be willing to seek out those facts for yourself, or at least notice them when you come across them , to be able to improve your opinions meaningfully.

            1. SHG Post author

              It’s unfortunate that some perfectly good words like progress now carry baggage, but that needs to be said when these otherwise excellent words are used to avoid confusion.

            2. B. McLeod

              As I understand it, I must have been born that way. I’m just inherently cishet, and can’t fo anything about it.

  8. Marty

    This missive treds dangerously close to advocating for rule of law and due process. Awake man, awake!

  9. MonitorsMost

    How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sex was consensual and that she knew it was consensual and therefore the police report was false? I can’t think of any sufficient evidence absent a confession, either to the police or a friend. I’m not sure even a video would be enough.

  10. LTMG

    Would an acceptable punishment for any false accuser be the same as the crime one is accusing another of committing? Several years in prison for falsely accusing another of rape seems just.

Comments are closed.