False Rape

[plekhanov]

What backtracked position, son?

The backtracked position that I just quoted obviously, you know this one:

 

"You're right. It's impossible to conclude that any of them are false with 100% accuracy, so realistically, it is wrong to conclude that any percentage of rape claims are false, whether you say that number is 0%, 50% or 100%. We will never get a true figure, only opinion and guesswork."

[MC Spyda]

How is that a backtracked position, lad

[plekhanov]

How is that a backtracked position, lad

Obviously because you're backtracked from attempting suggest that it's reasonable to claim that 50% of rape accusations are false to claiming that it's impossible to know anything about how many are false.

[MC Spyda]

I asked a question. I didn't suggest anything, kid.

[plekhanov]

I asked a question. I didn't suggest anything, kid.

And your question was in no way loaded was it, boy?

[MC Spyda]

Devil's advocate in the debate possibly, but not loaded at all, bro.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Should the penalty for false accusation of rape, be comparable to the penalty for rape itself?

 

I used to think so, but not now, otherwise you could say the same about any false accusation. Should someone who falsely claimed that they were kidnapped and locked in a cellar for 6 months be given the same punishment for a real kidnapping?

 

Why should the penalties for false accusation be any different to the penalties for the crime itself?

 

If people are going to be convicted of false accusation, then the level of proof should be 'beyond reasonable doubt' - just as it is for a conviction for the crime itself.

 

A 'not guilty' verdict against an accused rapist indicates that the prosecution did not manage to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape. It does not prove that the accuser is guilty of a false accusation.

 

I'm familiar with two cases of false rape. I've no doubt that there are far more, but I've also no doubt that there are very many more cases of 'real' rape.

 

What's the motive for false rape claims? Revenge? Money? Discredit? All 3 and many other reasons, is my guess.

 

"I had one to many last night and now all my mates think I am a slag and boyfriend will kill me ……….. Rape, Rape Rape" ...

 

In one case, two people were having (illicit) intercourse behind a screen in what was (when they started) an empty room. Some people came into the room and they were very quiet until the people left.

 

(If it had been rape, there would've been no shortage of people to assist her.) After the people left, they continued their bout of 'rumpy-pumpy'.

 

Both were married (but to different people.) The next day, the female decided she had been raped and made a complaint to the police. The male was arrested and the case went to court.

 

She eventually admitted that she had changed her mind some hours after the event and the case was thrown out of court. The male lost his job because of the accusation.

 

The female may well have caused considerable domestic problems for herself, but she was not punished by the court. She had been willing to see her sexual partner imprisoned just to protect her own reputation, but nobody felt that she should be punished. Presumably, it was deemed to be 'not in the public interest' to bring criminal charges against her.

 

In the second case, the 'rapist' was convicted. He was in prison - but not ón the numbers'- he was an inmate in the 'regular' part of the prison. I was somewhat surprised but an acquaintance of his told me that he wasn't at any risk, because he hadn't actually committed the rape.

 

He was a member of an ethnic minority community. He had been tasked by the leaders of that community with selling a substance. He did so - but he kept more than his share of the proceeds.

 

The community leaders could hardly complain to the police that one of their drug dealers had ripped them off, but they decided to punish him, so they persuaded a female member of that community to accuse him of rape and told him it would be in his interest to plead guilty. He was charged, pleaded guilty and was jailed for some years.

 

The state (the taxpayer) paid for his imprisonment, he was punished and the community leaders didn't have to admit their involvement in drug dealing.

 

Next, consider this: why anonymity for the victim but not for the accused?

 

Why not anonymity for all accused persons (and their alleged victims) until they have been convicted?

 

Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been accused of rape. The American courts have treated him as 'guilty' right from the start. ('Walk of shame' extensive TV coverage etc.)

 

He's lost his job, his reputation has been severely damaged and yet he has not been convicted of anything.

 

Rape is a very serous offence and one of the reasons (I was told) that it is treated as being rather more serious than other forms of assault is the potential risk of unwanted pregnancy. That doesn't apply to homosexual male rape, nor would it apply where the rapist is sterile, but the convention that rape involves the insertion (by the rapist) of a penis means that - irrespective of what they do - a female cannot, under the law of England and Wales, be accused of rape.

 

So an 18 year-old male who has intercourse with his 15 year-old girlfriend could be accused of statutory rape, but a 25 year old female who has intercourse with a 15 year old male cannot.

 

Remember the case of the adult male who eloped with his under-age girlfriend to Gretna? - He went to jail.

 

The adult female who took a young boy as a sex toy to Florida got a suspended sentence.

 

By all means tighten up the laws on rape. By all means make it less threatening for victims to report rape, but if you're going to do that, I suggest that males and females be treated in an identical manner; both parties be given anonymity until conviction and, in the event of a (suspected) false accusation, the accuser should be brought before a court.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Get everyone involved hooked on prozac before the trial

...

 

Not a very good idea!

 

Prozac has been observed to have an unfortunate side-effect on males.

 

It can cause priapism.

 

If you're an accused rapist and intend to plead 'not guilty' but walk into court with a massive erection, do you think he jury are likely to believe you?:hihi:

[MC Spyda]

Why should the penalties for false accusation be any different to the penalties for the crime itself?

 

I'm not 100% swayed one way or the other, so feel free to point out flaws in what I am going to say.

 

When someone makes a false accusation and gets found out, they have pretty much 'attempted' to get the accused sent down for rape. The same way that someone who is found guilty of attempted murder, will not get the same punishment as someone guilty of actual murder. It is the 'attempted' part which lessens the sentence.

[Eater Sundae]

It is indeed indicative of attitudes towards women if the woman is invariably not believed, which essentially is what it boils down to. Who do you believe, members of the jury? Him? Or her? A woman who liked the occasional drink and was known to go out not wearing knickers. Members of the jury, you may wish to consider the actions of the the witness for the prosecution when reaching your verdict and be mindful of the number of women who make false rape claims' etc.

 

It is all nonsense. If anything, the absolute and complete reverse is true. Virtually every woman I know has at the very least been coerced into sex, a number of them 'acquaintance raped' - not one has ever reported it. So don't anyone dare tell me about the majority of reported cases being bogus.

 

It is noticeable how it is invariably men who make this spurious claim. One wonders if they are guilty themselves of coercion at some point and whether this is their way of justifying it.

 

Though you quoted my post, you totally ignored the point I made. If two people give conflicting evidence, but there is no other evidence for the jury to consider, then it is very unlikely that they would convict a defendant. This is nothing to do with whether the defendant is a man and the other party is a woman, it is simply because the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt will not have been met.