The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

As for naming the accused, isn't this supposed to be illegal in all crimes because it may prejudice a trial? It seems like the media just do it anyway, these days more than ever, with no comeback. Footballers (or Top Gear presenters) can get super-injunctions but that guy that may have killed Jo Yates is known to the public. Does the public 'need to know' more than the accused have the presumption of innocence and anonymity?

There is the argument that making it known may bring other accusations, but the only time I can remember this happening is with the current DSK case and John Leslie. Neither seemed to get a better case because of it, even with scores of supposed new claims against Leslie nothing came of it.

women who cry rape wrongly is pretty rare in court

TAM you have confused reported rapes with rapes taken to court 95.5% is the percentage that doesn't go to court so there is no judgement made.

An absense of proof is not the same as an absense of guilt.

If someone close comes to me and tells me she's been raped, I'll believe her.
If the man gets off in court, I'll still believe her. I won't tell her to shut up whinging and telling tales and give up wasting peoples' time at counselling. Would you MissHodge?

And yes, Miss, we have said that it does not mean that you definitely did not do it. It means you did not have enough evidence. It is the lack of evidence that is the issue, not the definitions of terms that you are repeatedley re-iterating.

Did they do it is the question.

Who decides this question? The court. And they say if you did it or not.

Always good to have more resources, I am happy to throw all the spare cash we have at it, but not with the aim of improving some rather easy to manipulate statistics, to try and decide guilt.

Its a simple thing we agree on or not, the court is the final say in our system of if one did something or not.

Hodge, argueing the definition of innocence is argueing symantics. What point are you making? Did they do it is the question. What is your answer? What proportion of those 95.5% of those who not proven guilty did not do it? As there was insufficent evidence to prove guilt, does that mean there was sufficient evidence to prove innocence? No. Becaue, by law, you are classified as innocent whether you commit a crime or not, and the job is to prove guilt.

Therefore, arguing the symantics of it is pointless. Do you disagree, then, that in order to ensure that more trials result in a verdict that matches whether or not the accused did it or not, the police should devote more resources to investigation? Or that the claiments clothing should not be taken into account?

Innocent is a neutral stait, in practical terms of law, that you retain regardless of whether you did it or not until it is proved otherwise, simply because you walk in innocent and run the risk of leaving guilty. And they don't hand out 100% innocent stickers, they only hand out guilty stickers.

But the sentiment on here seems to be 'just because you were found not guilty does not mean you are innocent'

Yes it does.

And tobe guilty it has to be proven so.

And I will explain again, courts do not find you innocent, they find you guilty.

You are innocent unless they say you are guilty.

I'll try again.

One can be something, without being proven so. That can be innocent/guilty or anything else.

I think that's very simply put, and you don't need to extrapolate any more odd 'viewpoints' from it.

Unless of course you are saying 'in rape cases you should have to prove you are innocent'?

I agree, you dont have to be proven innocent, you have to be proven not innocent (guilty). Nothing else, you are innocent unless proved guilty.

MIssHodge you are confusing being innocent with proven innocent. Most of the time, thank god, they overlap. But they're not the same.

Usingmainlyspells
Courts are in the business of giving 100% guilty stickers to people, and unless you have one of those you are innocent.

Its a binary state, you go into court innocent, and unless you are found to be not innocent you remain innocent.

All i read from this is 'just because a judge said you are not guilty it doesnt matter, we know you are'

Het your torches and pitchforks out and get rid of that pesky judiciary.

On just one thread...(Is a man accused of rape guilty until proven innocent)

HerBeatitude Thu 10-Jun-10 14:56:43
The verdict "Not Guilty" does not mean Innocent. It just means that th4ere wasn't enough evidence to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt.

That is simply a correct stating of the legal position. It doesn't mean that being accused is the same as being guilty, that's faulty reasoning.

PerfectDromedary Thu 10-Jun-10
The idea that anyone would put themselves through the trauma of a trial to make a false accusation is frankly insane.

Can you provide the context? I suspect what the poster was saying, was that in general someone wouldn't put themselves through it, which seems a reasonable proposition ot me. The prevailing view is that most women who allege rape, are doing that, which is berserk. If s/he doesn't mean in general, if s/he means in every single case, then obviously that would mean that you had found one post in hundreds where it might be taken as the poster believing that accusation = guilt. But I very much doubt that that poster meant that, people who post on this board tend to be reasonable.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 10-Jun-10 17:05:43
I have serious doubts about the innocence of lots of people found Not Guilty, or who have had the case against them dropped

Again, that doesn't mean the poster thinks that every single man who is accused is guilty,. It just means most of them are. Which the figures suggest is true. The figures are police figures, they are not known as bastions of radical feminism so they don't have a vested interest in making this stuff up.

Scraping the barrel a bit, aren't you?

TAB I have not mentioned your statistics?

Are you saying innocence is a state that a court can remove by finding you guilty? If a person is accused of rape they are innocent, unless the court says they did it? That sounds reasonable.

And we have all agreed that the answer is a more thourough investigation is required if an accusation is made. That lowers the chances of innocent people being found guilty and raises the chances of convictions.

Also, I think that the idea of different baristers in different areas being on different money should be stopped. Divorce is the highest paid area of barrister, whilst rape and incest is the lowest paid and so the barristers who are either trying to do what's right or the one's who couldn't get into the higher paid brances go. It just means you less likely to get a good barrister if you are the claiment.

queen... I may have misunderstoon TAB, maybe they meant only in rape cases "Not Guilty is not the same as innocent"?

No, you obviously cannot prove it. Since you have not proven anything you've said at all, just made wild accusations at everyone. Which obviously as there is not enough evidence for a convcition, it was thrown out of the thread.

But no, innocence cannot be attained by a court on any crime. It's job is to prove guilt, not innocence. Perhaps I have very little faith in our law system, but yes I believe that of any crime.

So, you are saying 95.5% of claiments are lying? That is my arguement. It is in the disproportionate amount of convictions. And as above has been said, this is true of all crimes. Do I believe 90% of people who were beaten and/or stabbed are lying? Uh, no. I believe there is not enough evidence.

No, I do not believe everyone on trial is guilty. I just don't trust the justice system as it is to find that out. It is based on what evidence is found and how good your barister is.

I'd rather neither happened but if you had to push me for an answer i'd say the opposite tbh on the basis that it was in this day and age less likely that an innocent person is locked up.

Ishani I would prefer guilty people to go free than innocent people wrongly convicted.

MissHodgeInHay You are deliberately mis-quoting people, just because TAB has said "Not Guilty is not the same as innocent" does not imply that all people found not-guilty were guilty, it just defines the term 'not-guilty'

I bet there are a hell of a lot more guilty rapists walking the streets free than there are innocent men in the dock for crimes they did not commit, that's all.