So in the wake of a massive public spotlight on rape, the priority apparently is to protect the reputations of the tiny % of men falsely accused of rape(340 Posts)
FFS FFS FFS
Is it very cynical of me to think that this new demand to enable anonymity for men accused of rape (most of whom are guilty, but get off anyway) is a psychological need to re-establish what is most important to these woman-haters?
Stop talking about the mountain of rape victims who never get justice and FGS start talking about the anthill of men who get falsely accused.
Enough of Steubenville, Delhi, Frances Andrade, Jimmy Savile's victims, the 1 in 4 women who are raped or sexually assaulted.
Let's get back to talking about the really important issues - the miniscule number of men who will be falsely accused of rape or who will be the victim of mistaken identity. Fools, don't you know they're more important than all those rape vicitms? That that's a much bigger issue? So what 25% of women are subjected to rape or sexual assault? So what if 85-90% of rape victims don't report? So what that of those who do, only 6% get a guilty verdict even though only between 2-6% are lying or mistaken? Let's get some perspective on this - men matter more than women, stop imagining they don't.
Fuming but off to bed.
MT - you're unreasonable and mad if you're not flattered by it.
But if the same bloke rapes you later on, people then say "well why didn't she complain when he grabbed her arse earlier on? She didn't seem to be particularly bothered by his attention then".
But if you are bothered by it, you're overreacting.
It does annoy me that otherwise reasonable human beings throw the "but what about all the false accusations????" Thing in to a discussion. They often have no idea of the statistics that OP has stated and they just use it because, when a woman is proved to be lying, it is splashed all over the media, giving it a much higher weighting than it should have if you actually look at the statistics.
Basically, the statistics boil down to this. 100 women in a room. 25 of them have been sexually abused and/or raped. If we use 5% as our 2-6% of false accusations, 1 and a quarter of those women are lying. Less than that if you consider what OP said about half of those not naming or mistaking the identity of their rapist.
But then, as a crime, rape isn't taken seriously. Women are not allowed to feel like they have ownership of their bodies without being called lesbians or frigid. Go to any night club and look around - females are expected to expect and allow any random person coming up and running thir hands over their bodies, grabbing their bums and breasts. Actually, this is a form of sexual assault - but no one says it because its all just a bit of fun.
Too right Fastidia . I actually did give up saying anything after a while because my friends would always complain about it and I thought for a while that maybe it wasn't a big deal.
Gone back to my old ways now, though. Last time I went out with my partner, some knob grabbed my arse. I turned round and shouted at him. He turned to my partner and said something about keeping me under control, my partner just laughed in his face and told him not to be a dick.
What kind of fucking shit thing is that to say? Keep me under control?
blueberry yes I do think people's identity should be protected prior to trial for all crimes
How can anyone possibly have a fair trial when in big cases their names are plastered all over the media?
With specific reference to rape, a small proportion are not reported as the victim is aware she may well be accused of crying rape.
I larger portion, IMO, is because so often rape happens within a relationship -where is the proof that that rape ever took place? There is no way they would prosecute on that basis so why put yourself through it?
I'm certainly not saying that is right but it would certainly account for a large number of unreported cases
Sausage could you please not use the term "crying rape".
This is a term which is incredibly loaded and buys into all the rape myths that women regularly lie about rape.
It's really offensive and triggering to women who have been raped but didn't report because they knew they'd be accused of "crying rape". I realise you may not have meant to offend by using it, so would you just take that on board please?
*With specific reference to rape, a small proportion are not reported as the victim is aware she may well be accused of crying rape.
I larger portion, IMO, is because so often rape happens within a relationship -where is the proof that that rape ever took place? There is no way they would prosecute on that basis so why put yourself through it?*
Isn't that basically the same thing though?
I can't recall the statistics, but I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of women are raped by men they know. What is the difference between nto reporting rape because they have no proof and not reporting rape because they think they will be accused of "crying rape"? They are basically the same thing.
blueberry that term has been used several times on this thread so didn't realise it was an issue -no offence meant
Being accused of making a false allegation and not having enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute is not the same thing, no
Sorry sausage, I read your original post as you saying that of the rapes unreported, some don't report because she is worried about being accused of making it up, while others don't report because she is worried there isn't enough evidence...therefore it looking like she is making it up, IYSWIM.
That's what I thought Twll. It all comes from the same place. A woman is not considered a credible witness and the man is (despite there being way in excess more evidence that they are far more likely to be lying.)
And what gets me is, even if it was a stranger rape, there is physical evidence, be it semen, bite marks, scratches, tears, bruising etc, it is still, in 2013, allowed for the opposing counsel to say "well she was wearing a short skirt, so what could she expect?" "well, she has previously had one night stands, so whos to say she didn't ask for it?" "well she works in a bar, got divorced, had an affair, put red lipstick on..."
And people still accept that.
The older I get, the more I am sickened by the people of this world.
click on graphic for full picture
I wonder if I can repost that link on facebook. It might be a good way to cull a lot of the dickheads...
What gets me is that people are so keen to believe rape myths; women lie, most allegations are false, it's only rape if it's a stranger down a dark alley etc. etc. etc. They just absorb them and repeat them without ever stopping to think. And yet most of those people would be outraged by a sex crime against a child. Do they think there's some magic switch thrown when a girl reaches 16 that means sex crime against her doesn't count any more? Or that turns her into someone who is really keen to make a false complaint, really keen to go through intrusive and distressing investigations and court procedures?
Mind you, I suppose lots of people are keen to believe all kinds of bollocks. Difference is when it's urban myths or stories about how words are derived or the mad idea that thousands of people involved in the moon landings all agreed to engage in a massive conspiracy, it's fairly harmless.
edam I think that if people started facing up to rape myths they'd have to face up to everything else as well. Once you start looking at things through a feminist lens, it is very hard to take it all in. I have always been a feminist, but probably only really saw how bad things were in my late 20s. And I was very very angry and depressed for a long time because of it. Even now, I have to switch my brain off to it or I am just overwhelmed by all the shit.
It is far easier to just block everything out and pretend it doesn't happen.
Like Joyful says, it's far easier to "other" rape victims and then it will never happen to you, because you're too careful/not a slut/not an idiot/not a tease.
You see it in everything. So many women I know call other women "slags" and "sluts" and "whores" because of their sexual choices/clothing. It depresses the hell out of me particularly because if there is any debate about eg Page 3, they just shrug and say it's a woman's choice.
I believe all people should be treated equally before the law.
If the accused is named in public then so should the accuser.
If the accused is anonymous then so should the accuser be.
Can I ask - what is the actual reason given for people being named in some cases and not others? Or is it a blanket thing and I am just a bit dense
Treating people equally before the law does not mean treating them the same. Helena Kennedy is very good on this.
Would there be more or less convictions if anonymity remained for both the victim and the accused?
And if everyone is being treated equally, does that mean that if the accuser has their past dragged up in front of the court, the accused should too?
Does anonymity have an impact on the conviction rate? I'm talking about cases involving Joe Public, not any celebrities/known people.
It's a genuine question, would the conviction rate be higher or lower regardless of who or what station they occupy.
Helena Kennedy writes very eloquently on this subject. There are very good reasons why defendants in rape cases are not granted anonymity.
First, no other defendant is granted anonymity. Leading human rights lawyer Harriet Wistrich says:
"Allowing defendants in rape cases, but not those charged with other offences, to remain anonymous would be discriminatory because it would apply almost exclusively to men."
From THIS article. It goes on to say Alleged terrorists don't get anonymity, so let's not make rape a special case. Defendants already get quite enough compared to their victims.
Secondly, corroboration is very important when it comes to convicting serial sex offenders. Both in getting a conviction against them in a court, and in getting victims to come forward and report crimes against them.
From the same article: Women who had not previously had the confidence to report a rape were often inspired to do so after seeing media reports naming and picturing the same man, experts said, and allowing the accused to remain anonymous would prevent such breakthroughs.
They also expressed concern that the proposal, which is intended to protect men from the damaging impact of "false allegations", gave the impression that women frequently lie about rape and could put them off coming forward, hitting the already low conviction rate.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.