Boards
Women who make a rape accusation
If a woman accuses a man of rape they are currently entitled to the right to anonymity. This still applies if the accusation proves to be a false one. I guess a topical example of this in practice is when a woman accuses a footballer of rape with there being no shred of truth in it, only for his name to be dragged through the mud and she can slip quietly back into obscurity with her nice payment from the News of the World
The government have plans to scrap this right to anonymity where the accusation proves to be false. I'm not sure what I make of this. My initial reaction was to back this idea, as I see knowingly falsely accusing somebody of rape pretty much as bad as actually raping somebody. But such a change in law could see women more reluctant to report a rape attack, which would obviously be dreadful
If anybody has any opinions on this matter that'd be swell, because it's bugging me far more than it should do
On a lighter note, my friend just sent me the wikipedia entry for Cheryl Tweedy. Enjoy the first paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheryl_Cole&oldid=100232012
I think they should be named and shamed
Even if the accuasations prove to be false the rumors can follow a person for years.
i love wikipedia
i know what you mean though. i think anonymity should be introduced for te defendant until proven either way.
there are different degrees of not being convicted of rape, ranging from no chance to not proving beyond reasonable doubt. that'd need to be factored in with women's anonymity.
hahahhahahaha!
??
That wikipedia entry tells the truth!
!
Hmmm
"Ashley Cole (born 20 December 1980, Whitechapel, London, England) is an English footballer of half white and half Barbarian descent. "
From his entry.
The problem is that you're looking at what we'd hope to be the uncommon example
As I understand it rape is a very hard crime to prove, which would make sense since it's so likely to come down to one person's (drunken?) word against another's.
The idea that a woman sets out to deliberately profit from falsely yelling 'rape' is a pretty horrible one and I hope a very rare circumstance.
What SHOULD happen is that the anonymity should remain and also the man should get anonymity, surely? The only reason you should reveal either side's identity is if they are determined to be known or if he is found guilty...or I guess if she could be found beyond a shadow of doubt to have purposefully made a false accusation.
haha, Wikipedia
this law worries me. If the accusation is definitely proved to be deliberately false and malicious, naming the accuser would be reasonable. But what happens if there's just not enough evidence to convict the rapist? A woman who has been raped will therefore additionally be branded a liar. Hmm.
how about anonymity
for both parties, until a ruling is made?
Up until a few years ago, the accused was allowed to interview the accusee.
This meant, in one high profile case, that the attacker interviewed his victim for over 10 days, wearing the same clothes he had on when he attacked her.
:D
wikipedia owns.
ummm i think they should maintain their anonimity. mostly for the reason you've highlighted: that it would make women perhaps less likely to report incidents.
agreed
I think I need to hear some more discussion about this
bollocks
i'd expect a rape victim to be entitled to anonymity. it is her choice.
maybe it's inconsistent with other crimes but rape is different.
why
does the victim feel guilty? i don't understand that.
the only way to improve conviction rates is to be content to risk sending lots of innocent people to jail. juries won't do that unless you change sentencing guidelines. but would you be happy about someone going to jail for 3 years for rape?
shorter sentencing guidelines
but
it's so difficult to convincingly prove rape. no jury will convict someone on the basis of flimsy evidence if it means sending somebody to prison for a decade. they would convict more if the sentences were 3 years or so...
i know they don't
but they will be aware of what sentencing guidelines say because the judge will tell them. if the sentence is longer, they will be less likely to convict.
in practice, if rape trials were conducted on the basis of evidence alone, the conviction rate would be much lower.
i think the victim should always have anonymity
as long as they havent been proven to be lying.
but so should the accused. at least until proven guilty that is. the only argument against this would be to protect other would-be victims whilst the case is still being processed. but this has no respect for the life of the possibly innocent accused. its 'guilty even if proven innocent'
why
are rape victims entitled to anonymity? what is the case for it?
It's psycologicaly damaging
and having attention drawn to it can't help their state
that can't be the
reason why we have it, surely?
I would imagine most rape victims
wouldn't want the world knowing about it. 'Ooh look, there's Betty, the one what got raped the other week! Doesn't she look ill?'.
i know
but why doesn't it apply to all crimes? i just can't imagine that the case for victim's anonymity is that it wouldn't be nice that everyone knew...
Don't know why it doesn't apply to all crimes
It should. But I don't know why it doesn't.
aren't all victims of crimes entitled to anoymity?
I don't know much about criminal law. I would want to be though for most crimes, I reckon.
no, not at all
but i'm sure what the rules are concretely...
oh
it really should.
probably
yes
perjury
fuck's sake...
and no she can't
she could be charged with wasting police time ... perjury would involve the fabrication of evidence and what-not
lying
under oath. telling the police someone raped you wouldn't be perjury...
it's American
and i THINK that refers to people who interfere with and deliberately mislead police investigations.
a bit similar to 'perverting the course of justice'
i'm not 100% sure
but i think it refers to existing police investigations.
only if she goes
to court and lies under oath. it is not perjury to lie to the police....
and, of course,
can you imagine a newspaper bothering to try to sensationalise a case of 'wasting police time'?
anonymity for the accused too, surely?
jacobjones you usually have something worth reading to say, surely the accused man's identity should be secret until a verdict is reached?
i would have thought so.
surely the damage caused by public knowledge of an accusation rape is greater than the damage caused by public knowledge of victimhood? (i've excluded the actual crime itself from the equation)
that's what i thought!
nice to have it legitimised by someone who knows about stuff though! :)
there've been quite a few teachers' careers ruined by this kind of thing, albeit with accusations from children.
that's a toughie though, because while they're under investigation they clearly can't continue to work with children, in case they're guilty.
people being people, the reason for their "extended leave of absence" while the investigation is ongoing is almost always going to be a hot topic of conversation at the school gates.
unfortunately "man cleared of rape" doesn't make a great headline, it would appear.
understatement
of the year. the wrongness that is.
i thought that
but i think dove_from_above would probably reconsider it in retrospect
Why so?
I was referring to the most extreme example of a false claim, such as the one I referred to. I know it's extremely rare to get such black and white cases, but the idea of a woman accusing a man (in these cases a known celebrity) of rape so that she can profit from it is absolutely disgusting. How is it not? You are knowingly accusing somebody of one of the worst crimes possible, knowing full well that it isn't true
As I say, I'm referring to these (rare) extreme cases. I'm fully aware that the lines are blurred in 99% of false claims
I'm talking morally
Everybody knows why rape is wrong. Forcing yourself upon somebody in that manner is universally seen as deplorable. Everybody in their right mind regards rapists as some of the most sub-human species of a person
Accusing somebody of such a thing and knowing it isn't true, and knowing their name will be published in connection with such a vile crime is, to me, pretty much just as disgraceful as the actual act itself
Accusing somebody of rape
and knowing what the possible implications for that person are is, to me, absolutely disgraceful. As I said and as you seem to be overlooking, I'm talking in extremes. I'm very much aware of the possible complications in proving a rape claim to be false
If a drunk woman wrongly accuses a man of rape, there is some level of understanding there. But couldn't you then argue that if a woman accuses a drunk man of rape, that there should be some level of understanding there too? I'm not saying there should, just that this is a difficult argument to untangle
Also, your argument about a child accusing somebody of molesting them is, for you, ridiculous
...
"Accusing somebody of rape and knowing what the possible implications for that person are is, to me, absolutely disgraceful"
of course it is. but you said it was comparable with rape. which it isn't.
.
I'm wary of coming across as some kind of rapist sympathist here, which I fear is what is happening
Maybe I should be quiet
no you're not
cos you're not sympathising with rapists.
you guys are arguing over a completely bullshit point.
it is absolute bollocks. stop it.
comparing the two is pointless.
erm
We stopped about nine hours ago
I hope that footballer point
isn't a dig at me. I'm quite happy to concede that my original comment equating a deliberately false accusation to the act itself was insensitive. I do think you took my words too literally and applied them to all cases, which isn't what I was saying at all
But I'm really happy with this thread. It's opened up a discussion that I really wanted to learn more about. DiS is good for that : )
ho_fo
I'm not talking about the *main* argument.
I'm talking about the completely bullshit sub-argument over the moral relativity of rape.
RAPE IS BAD.
we know that.
thanks for telling us.
now fuck off.
sorry, it's an emotive issue.
i know a rape victim, and i'm sure you do too.
why?
"dove_from_above killed my dad"
is that as bad as murder?
I think murder is different
because the crime is all about the immediate physical effect on the victim. He/she's dead.
Rape (for all kinds of social reasons that don't necessarily bare close scrutiny) is about much more than the violence of the act. The victim's suffering might not be primarily physical but psychological. (This is acknowledged and is why the anonymity rules and so on exist)
Being falsely accused of rape, maliciously, might have a somewhat similar effect on someone's psychological well-being as being raped.
That's what I think the argument is anyway. The more I read it the less I agree, though I suspect at the very least it's not inconceivable that there could be cases where someone was more negatively effected by a false accusation than someone else was by an attack.
If it's even possible to determine the relative impact of negative events on different individuals objectively. Which it pretty much isn't.
PS
that wikipedia entry is amazing.
...
"If it's even possible to determine the relative impact of negative events on different individuals objectively"
it probably isn't possible in any detail but it seems apparent to me that it is conjecture that rape has a greater psychological impact than a false accusation.
to be fair
if he was falsely accused of rape and got into jail he could very well get both.
u bummer!
i was gonna do this thread!
this is a really difficult issue and i for one, really can't make my mind up about it. the statistics for rape are pretty damn scary and rape conviction rates are ridiculously low.
however a women who would make up such a claim falsely, in my opinion, deserves to be named and shamed. but would this stop the tiny number of woment who do speak out against their rapist? thinking about it, i can imagine it would be just another fear for such a women.
to conclude, i have no idea and that was just a mumbo jumble of thoughts. (i only just woke up!)
ps. i don't agree with doves comment that falsely accusing someone of rape is as bad as raping someone. it's a horrific thing to do but rape is worse.
mumbo jumble
what a brilliant phrase!
apparently it's called an "eggcorn" when you do one of these, and they're better than the original phrase.
sorry, anyway, rape, do carry on as you were.
In 2003 I was at a friends party
her chavned ignoramus hound of a sister made a drunken pass at me and I smiled and politely knocked her back without saying anything. She went on to accuse me of following her into the toilet and screwing her when she was too drunk to say no. It never went to the police but her family refused my request for a face to face meeting to have it out and she never denied it. I was in a longterm relationship at the time and my partner was mid burnout through working as a counsellor for abused children. I didn't have the nerve to tell her what had happened as I felt she could go either way with it and ended up feeling really fucking guilty about something I hadn't done. The year before my friend had taken me to a park to knock fuck out of someone for, you guessed it, apparently raping her sister. When I look back on that I am so glad he wasn't there as he could have easily been some other poor chump in the same position as me. This accusation against me was spread round the college where I was at the time as my friend was a member of staff and I was drawn daggers by the other female staff, not nice.
Despite this the rational and calm side of me probably wouldn't change the law
wow
Somebody (kinda) agrees with me. Good work
very good point
still not AS bad tho as taking someone by force. sorry, but no.
v. interesting
way of looking at it that hadn't occurred to me.
no psychological implications?!
aren't you completely overlooking something here?
murder is not a one victim crime, think of the familys and friends of someone who has been murdered and their trauma.
i wasn't talking about rape there
ofcourse it applies to rape too!
i was merely disagreeing wth your ridiculous statement about murder having no psychological implications.
There are plenty things that could screw you up worse than rape
Obviously not
but that wasn't what he was saying.
I was talking about ho_fo
as that was who my initial response was to.
He wasn't talking about the worst crime overall but as a stand-alone case, or at least that's what it seemed like.
i cant think of anything worse than being raped
except being murdered.
if someone stole my life away from me i'd kill them!
Really?
Use your imagination. I don't want to type out the things that could be seen as worse in case I seem glib/ridiculous.
truth
^^
agreed
I don't think accusers should lose their anonymity
...since it would just lead to even less rapes being reported.
I do think the police should deal with malicious false claims more firmly and make more prosecutions - though they may well try to do this for all I know and it's the procurator fiscal/crown prosecution service that is refusing to take cases further due to insufficient evidence.
I can see the case for giving the accused anonymity... but also see a fairly major down side. Many rapists are repeat offenders but very few rapes are reported. Many women only come forward when they hear that the perpetrator has been arrested for another rape.
that is awful
i didnt know that was how the legal system worked in rape cases. im disgusted.
if you had been raped,
do you knwo if you would be strong enough to face your attacker?
i dont think i would ever want to see their face again
yes, if i was innocent
if i was guilty then tough shit to be fair.
i agree that a video link should be used really.
'under oath' how much does that actually mean to anyone though?
i mean if you're going to accuse someone of rape/rape someone
you aren't really going to have any qualms about lying under oath are you?!
...
"if you had been raped, do you knwo if you would be strong enough to face your attacker?"
doesn't that question make massive assumptions about the nature of the rape?
yes.
i just get the impression that sophia thinks all rapists are seedy men who leap on women in parks at night. i might be wrong...
i knew a guy
who had unknowingly raped. the girl didn't complain to the police, but he still violated the law ... i've no idea what to think..
why?
that's ridiculous...
have you
never had sex and not truly wanted to?
...
"At least things have changed in ONE good way, in that before, the prosecution had to prove there was NO consent. Now at least the defense has to prove there was."
i think it's debatable whether or not this is a good thing...
all of the times
i have ever had sex, i have never obtained consent ... that is what the law demands. how often do you explicity acquire consent before having sex?
...
""Come with me" (to bedroom) CONSENT!"
well, that's bollocks ... surely?
how about 'come home with me' ?
...
"some absolute fuckwit cuntfaced dickshit arsehole of a lawyer will get payed a lot of money to get the guy off because the invitation "authorized" consent."
but isn't that what you just said?
i just am concerned
that there is so little evidence in most of these cases and the legislation is so vague, i don't know what to think....
you surely
wouldn't alter fairly fundamental principles of the justice system simply for the crime of rape?
...
i think there are 2 problems
1) rape is poorly defined
2) the crime of rape rarely has any real forensic evidence
where did you get your statistic from?
so are they
global statistics?
and that is defining rape as?
in which
case, a statistic like that is highly dubious, isn't it? why have you chosen to belive it?
oh, for fuck's sake
if we have difficulty in establishing a useful definition of rape, then clearly making statements like '1 in 4 women are raped at least once' is pretty pointless ...
so you
don't accept that there is an issue regarding the definition of rape?
but you have
no idea how frequent it is cos you can't ponder the possibility of a definition problem...
then grow up
why on earth does it discuss you that rape needs pondering?
I want this to be jokey, it may come across as horrifically harsh but I've writen it now...
Maybe you have no choice but to kill yourself? If the best things can currently be, and the best they're likely to be in the foreseeable future is literally intolerable for you I don't see how you have any choice.
Alternatively you may have to tolerate how it is.
Perhaps whilst seeking to change attitudes to sexual conduct, or to bring people round to the idea of incredibly intimate surveillance or whatever, but still.
And posting spurious suggestions isn't going to help anything.
...
"I'm just surprised you guys all need a definition before you know whether your against it or not."
against what?
nobody here ISN'T against rape. it's just that there are shades and nuances, aren't there?
if hofo gets
domestic law, can i have international?
so what do you suggest?
i accept there is a problem. i just don't see that there is a solution...
if you're being
serious, then you're a twat
...
"remove reasonable doubt from rape cases"
so any woman can accuse any man who they have been in relatively intimate contact with of rape and they go to prison?
you're either
trying to wind me up or you're the most moronic person i've ever encountered...
i'm generally
not up for sending innocent people to prison...
ah! so you've accepted
that there is a trade off?
but might you not be
misrepresenting rape again?
well, you'll have to clarify the
mathematics ... is 5 innocent people enough if you get one rapist? what about 50?
which post?
i'm not sure about your numbers. i'd have to be a bit more convinced about the data before suggesting we change the regulations on this...
I'm not going to get into the details of the education
but can we at least agree that chopping people's balls of for £20k will not inject a sense of moral responsibility into the heart of anyone's sexual consciousness so much as create some strange eunuch inhabited dystopia?
Or was that bit actually a joke?
Or is this bit where your suggestions seem sensible the joke?
I think we near enough agree
and to celebrate I'm going to bed.
OK, so maybe you ought to have started here
a world with no rape would be better. More respect for women, generally and especially in this regard, would be better.
I don't know about empathy on the national curriculum (is there evidence that it can be taught? in hour long lessons once a week? or within other subjects? I'm genuinely intrigued as to whether it could be done)
but I really don't think you don't get nearer to a world with no rape by introducing the kind of legal measures you suggested earlier.
I can imagine there might be.
But I don't know what you are, and don't think you've posted any tonight. But then I'm not sure to what extent you were trying to.
I need to sleep.
what they are*
I don't know what you are either. But on the balance of probabilities you're probably a 21yr old guy with longish hair in Aberystwyth.
Which isn't relevant.
So you want
rape cases decided on balance of probabilities? He says she was up for it, she says he forced himself on her, no-one else was around, they'd both been drinking heavily, she admits she invited him in... they slept in the same bed, she says she was too scared to get him out, he says it was awkward in the morning before he left but it was a drunken one night stand so that's not surprising...
What do you do? toss a coin? Does the defence have the job of attempting to find motivation for her to claim it? Psychiatric tests to see if she could be seeking attention? Does the prosecution go looking for people willing to testify that when the defendant's drunk he can be a prick, or sometimes he's stubborn?
I don't see how it'll work.
he thinks
that you should ask a woman 'do you think this man's bollocks should be cut off?' and if she says yes, then it should be done.
so,
women never pursue vendettas? i wish i'd known the women that you've known ..
Hang on now
so if I piss off an ex, she goes to the police, says one word every 2 months for a year and gets a couple of credit cards she can take my bollocks?
I'm having trouble taking this seriously.
I don't ACTUALLY have any psycho ex's though. Obviously.
I hope.
was that in response to me?
What I mean is
if YOU yes YOU are the judge right, or the jury, or those two and the executioner, and that's what you hear in the courtroom, who do you find in favour of?
She gets up and tells of how they got drunk together, then she invited him back, then he had sex with her when she didn't want him to,
Then he gets up, repeats the story except she seemed rather keen.
Are you gonna cut his bollocks off just in case?
yes
cos women are never wrong. that's his position.
woah
you typed the word bush in capitals there. i'm not sure what you meant.
by the way, i'm not jewish...
consider yourself
free to state your position..
you're funny
funnier than me, anyway
My housemate
recently told me that my other housemate keyed some guy at a club and woke up sunday morning in a police station, but that he wasn't sure he was supposed to tell me, so I shouldn't mention it. Given the first housemate's form I'm suspicious it's a wind-up, but I can't prove it's not without risking really pissing him and the second housemate off.
That's kinda how I feel here. It may be a joke but I don't quite see how it's funny.
can't prove it's not true*
ffs.
sorry yeah
I thought forced himself on her was enough. I'm no rape terminologist.
It's a rape trial. She's gone to the fuzz and said the word.
but you can't
convict somebody on the basis of psychological tests, surely?
and
since the evidence in rape trials is usually unconvincing they usually won't convict. so you still have a problem with low conviction rates ... what do you do about it?
so you would lower the burden of proof?
i think this is ridiculous. and probably illegal.
i still maintain the most appropriate thing to do is reduce sentencing guidelines for rape. then juries will be happier to take risks.
i don't see that
but as far as i'm concerned, it's only way to reform the system effectively whilst sticking to international obligations
what does
'reasonable doubt' mean anyway then?
Can we leave it here.
The current system isn't perfect. Agreed. It's unfortunate, horrible even, but it's not a reason to change if the only alternatives we can come up with would be worse.
I don't think that post is a joke
so we're getting somewhere. However, imprisoning these men (including however many innocent ones) is not going to give back the sexual health of the women (I guess it may or may not have a big impact on the psychological health) whereas imprisoning an innocent man robs him of all his liberty. It's not equal.
Unless you're gonna use the deterrent argument, which I just don't buy.
Also, there's perhaps a principle at stake; that the state shouldn't imprison innocent people, that once it's ok for the state to do so, in whatever circumstances, liberty and democracy are basically fucked.
Yes,
Cluedo has the answers.
As long as property law is redefined with reference to monopoly I'm on board. <-- gettit? board? board game? oh well.
Or if she claims she wouldn't have consented
because she doesn't find him attractive could we have
do ya think he's sexy?
...
'The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain). Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."'
so it seems. are you not a reasonable person?
Ok cool
slow burning, but if I was coming to this fresh rather than as someone debating or whatever this is, I'd probably find it more amusing.
6/10?
it's not a joke?
I was starting to like it as a joke. Oh Christ.
medical tests and expert witnesses of course have a place. But if the jury is picking on the balance of probabilities, and their only evidence is two similar (but crucially different) stories, and a bunch of theories as to who might be crazier, they'll have to go with the theories, it's all they have, hence psychiatrists determine guilt.
And if (as you might well do) you have psychiatrists working for the defence, and different ones working for the prosecution then my god. you're back tossing a coin.
"Today we intend to show, on the balance of probabilities, that miss x's childhood, in which her parents were somewhat distant, has caused her to seek attention wherever she can find it, even in the horrible case you see before you"
it is a joke right?
it's an inevitable
problem because you seldom have real convincing evidence in rape trials. convictions are usually based on conjecture. fact of life.
on a bit of a tangent here
alot has been said here about how deplorable rape is and anyone in their right mind would consider it an evil/horrific crime etc.
but a huge amount of men commit this crime.
statistically speaking, quite a few members of this board have/will commit rape. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING.
i really haven't articulated what i want to say here very well at all, but i hope people can make some sense of what im saying?
Lots of men commit rape?
Lots of men are deplorable.
yeah but
we seem to think the majority of people think like us, ie. rape is evil! but thinking about it, it's terrifying how many people are actually cunts.
what are some peoples views on women?
...
"statistically speaking, quite a few members of this board have/will commit rape. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING."
what do you mean?
I don't know in the UK
but in France false bombing alarms can be prosecuted.
Obviously false rape accusations should be prosecuted too.
in some case
false accusation can be proven easily.
On the other hand, more rapists should be found and convicted. Police often doesn't seem to be too concerned by rape case...
yeah
god, imagine being raped, accused of false accusation and sent to jail.
im so glad i was born in this country
we're so fucking lucky
Rape is so hard to prove.
I don't know if anything can be done to really resolve this situation. :(
To me the problem isn't that women who make accusations have anonymity
so much as that men who are accused don't.
With rape (and other sexually-motivated crimes) I feel that men should be granted anonymity until they are found guilty, such is the damage that a false accusation can do.
absolutely.
and I really can't see why people are arguing over how 'bad' rape is as opposed to how 'bad' making a false accusation of rape is.
it doesn't answer this question at all. it's just an excuse for some members of this board who rather like the sound of their own voices to get another one in there.
the solution to this is obvious.
Make both parties anonymous.
End of thread.
Does anyone know
about the differences in legislation/procedure/culture in comparable nations around the world that have higher conviction rates?
As they might move the argument forward. Which is currently not exactly happening.
I'd like to point out that
hollywood's views did (I think) eventually shrink back from backing any specific changes to the legal system.
But then I might be being a jewish bush, and I might've convinced myself the argument's done when it's not.
I havnt read all the posts above, but that doesnt matter
surely it is simple.
1) victim (woman or man) is granted anomynity
2) if there is no successful prosecution then the court must consider.
a) If the prosecution was merely unsuccessful because it could not be 'proved' that the crime had occured, then obviously anominity should continue (ideally for both parties)
b) If it is suspected that the woman was maliciously bringing the charge, but there is not enough evidence to charge her with purjory, then she should still maintain her anominity (Of course past records might be considered to consider if this was done regularly)
c) If there is enough evidence to charge the accuser of purgory, then they should be charged with purgory and as such the accuser would loose the right to anomynity.
(of course the victim/accuser can be a man as well as a woman)
he major problem in all these cases is the amount of proof that would be required. This is what pould provide the contention in my recomndations (but that is a problem always)
The other contention would be the refering to past cases, I know this isnt meant to happen, but a very few people do have a habit/pattern of behaviour that should be stopped (or taken into account, sensibly)
Oh if the case was b)
that it was suspected that it was malicious but not provable, then the released accused should also have the additional pronouncement from the judge that it was a supected malicious prosecution, but not provable
FUCKING HELL
TV production companies. Fucking hell. There's something about the way they think that makes me despair.
yeah same here
it'll be a bit of insight.