The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

You said "There will be no debating consent in a serious wounding" which is silly, as there has been plenty of debate for example in the Crown against Brown case (90 something, early 90s).

I agree with Baroness Stern and have made that point on these boards before - people confuse attrition with acquittal or other failure to convict I think. Lucky there are people like you campaigning so passionately on behalf of everyone affected by these offences. What do you think should be done about the attrition rate?

Peanut - confused by your bit addressed to me. I agree with what you're saying. Those links show reports that counter the argument that none of this matters and we're barking up the wrong tree.

I xposted with MitchiestInge if that helps

MitchiestInge, sorry I don't know what you mean.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

"Persistent claims that only six per cent of rapes end in conviction was seen as a useful "campaigning tool " by some but was "extremely unhelpful", warned Baroness Stern, the cross-bench peer who carried out a six month review in to tackling rape.

She said it has dominated the debate "without explanation, analysis and context" to the "detriment of public understanding" over the rape issues.

She said the figure, which compares the number of convictions against total reports to the police, is based on calculations not used for any other offence.

Once a rape case reaches the courts, almost 60 per cent of defendants are convicted ? a rate higher than some other violent attacks. "

Is it not the case that misleading people about the low rate of report to conviction may put off many women from reporting? Telling them there is a widespread culture of disbelief will make them think 'what's the point?' Isn't it very important that women are told 'In court you will probably get a conviction. Report, get a good solicitor and do everything you can to make sure the police get all the evidence they might need.'

Somebody saying, as in this thread, 'the majority believe that false allegations are more common than rape itself ' is both a wildy incorrect fantasy and NOT helpful to anyone who has been raped who is wondering if it's even worth going to the police.

Again the mainstream
think it is a problem

Don't be silly. There has been much debate over the extent of injuries to which people can lawfully consent, see R v Brown for example.

Again, the figures (for 2006, from The Observer) are that 5.5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. And only 9% of reported serious woundings, including stabbing, end in a conviction. There will be no debating consent in a serious wounding, I imagine that though some women will be affected, most victims and perpetrators of serious wounding are men. So no sexism, no 'serious wounding myths' that we need to educate the public about... presumably much better evidence of the crime - yet 91% don't end in a conviction. Compared to 94.5% of rape reports not ending in a conviction. It just doesn't seem like the reason that more rapes don't end in a conviction is a widespread 'blame the victim' mentality.

Oh peanut I'm sorry. It totally invalidates your feelings doesn't it. My XP tried to strangle me. Got a caution.

this argument really annoys me, its not about rape it is about a person lying, the two crimes are not connected, but women unless then have received a beating too are so often under suspicion. would you question someone if they told you there were mugged

the daily mail gave more print space to women who cry rape than cases where the men were found guilty, now considering conviction is less than 10% adn the number of reported rapes was 13000 in 2009 that figure is disgustingly low

all rape claims have to be dealt with without suspicion, very very few are false claims. but this shoudl not effect the way we view or rape victims are treated at all.

MarySue - I suppose it depends on how it's phrased (regarding Peanut's post on advice from DV workers).

I know that I needed to learn those lessons. I was woefully ignorant about abuse and if I'd known what I know now when I met my DC's father, I wouldn't have touched him with a barge pole. Learning how to protect yourself is always a good thing.

However, none of that takes away from the fact that it is the abuser's fault that he is abusive. A victim doesn't 'ask' for it or put herself deliberately in harm's way.

I'm all for educating women and empowering them to avoid these sorts of situations. But that does make it victim blaming UNLESS it is also accompanied by severe penalties for committing abuse/rape and a culture where it is expected that these acts will result in prosecution. At the moment, as you rightly say, they are not.

Sorry Don'tCallMePeanut, that sounds more like 'common sense' or getting people to take some responsibility for their choices than victim blaming. Or are domestic violence refuges part of the patriarchal media rape apologist network?

And I agree totally that most rapes don't involve sexy clothes or being drunk - so why was this Amnesty report so concerned with those two situations?

Again, even if people don't say say 'a woman is partially responsible for being raped' (and we don't know if the same people would say a person is 'partially responsible' for being the victim of another crime, avoiding any imperfect comparisons) - the super-important fact, if you really care about rape victims getting justice, is that when these cases come to court there is a 50% conviction rate. The important thing is getting more to trial.

Apparently the line is "only the child's best interests our in our remit".

This just seems so unbelievably stupid to me. If you're talking about the child's best interests you're talking about who is going to care for that child. So who is? Place him in LA care? Woeful outcomes. With an abusive father? Yeah right, that's going to work out well.

But if the mother can kick alcohol and keep the partner away then surely she could make a good parent? There's no question mark about her parenting in any other way. And given that being placed with a sober loving parent is OBVIOUSLY better than being in 'care' or with an abuser, why on earth can't they see that the best outcome for the child in this case is to support the mother. It is SO short-sighted.

I can't work out why I am so angry about this. Apart from the DV connection, there are no parallels here with my own life. I post on DV threads all the time without becoming emotional, but this has really, really got to me.

Victim blaming is rife when it comes to women. I posted on a thread earlier in AIBU about a mum who's just had her children taken off her because of alcoholism. Fair enough, she's in no position to protect her child at the mo. However, they've placed the child with the father - a man who is regularly abusing the mother. Apparently the mother is unfit but the father is a paragon of virtue.

SW response? It's not about the parents, it's about the child. Ok, so how is it benefitting the child to be placed with a man who beat up his mother in front of him?

Apparently, the abuse makes the mother more responsible, because she has failed to protect. Shame we're not applying the same principles to him 'failing to protect' the child from the mother's alcoholism. Massive double standard!

Wouldn't it make more sense to support the mum to kick booze and partner so the child can at least have a chance at growing up with a non-abusive parent rather than in LA care? Instead of allowing an abusive parent to take control of a child?

FFS!

Sorry, slightly off topic, but when it comes to victims why is it than when they're women they are held up to higher standards? Why?

I told a story above and all the quotes are what lovely decent caring people said to me. One who I know for a fact has experienced a rape herself, many moons ago. It's 'just common sense'

DCMP: I think Deborah Orr has a similar op-Ed in the Guardian also. IMHO it just shows how ingrained these myths are in people's minds and how they trip you up even when you don't consciously want to victim blame.

"but are the respondents not saying that realistically we all have to take responsibility for ourselves? "

Oh FFS.

Think of it like this, if someone was beaten up, if you were told that the way they dressed made them partially responsible, would you think that was reasonable? If not, then why would it apply to rape victims?

Does anyone know statistically when most rapes occur? Are most in the early hours of the weekend? I always remember my mum saying to me that if you encounter a rapist you could be just as easily walking your dog fully dressed or staggering home from a night out in a minidress. Obviously this is jut her opinion but it stuck with me that you are sometimes just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it doesn't matter what you're doing cos if they want to rape you they will.

If we're getting on to 'asking for it', I would like to mention that I have been roaming the streets, pissed, in skimpy clothing, alone, for over two decades and I have not been raped. Which demonstrates to me that most men are not, in fact, rapists. And if I had encountered a rapist who had raped me it would still not have been my fault or something I deserved.

Also, on the innocent-till-proven-guilty thing, as a principle I think it's fine. IN everyday life, it's more blurred. There is someone I know who committed a very violent domestic assault on another person. The victim's reputation was trashed in court (drunk, cokehead, liar, etc) and the assailant was acquitted.
I know the person did it. Years later, some people are still claiming the assailant was the victim of malice and gossip and was 'wronged' (though karmic justice was later served by said assailant doing something else wrong and actually spending some time in a cell).