The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

TheAtomicBludger - "Not Guilty is not the same as innocent"

So are you saying everyone found not guilty of rape (or any crime actually) is not innocent? Just because it cannot be proved they did something.

I would accuse you of being a foolish moron, the fact I cannot conclusively prove it does not mean you are not one it seems.

If complaints of rape went to civil courts to sue for damages, the decision is on the balance of probability. What proportion of rape cases would find in favour of the plaintiff, do you think?

but that 94.5% isn't due to the courts since only about 6% go to the courts where 58% end up in conviction.

So no one can ever be founf innocent of rape?

MissHodgeInHist, those comments are in reference to the fact that 94.5% of defendents get off, and I don't think you can claim that all those are innocent.

Anyway, it's true. Not Guilty is not the same as innocent. It means that there is not enough evidence to convict beyond resonable doubt. It doesn't mean that are definitely innocent. It means they are not convicted.

Most people do find it incomprehensible that someone would make a false allegation. It is true. And as the best estimate is about 3% are rated as "no crime" (which isn't even the same thing as a false allegation, which could be much lower), it's reasonable to believe that the victim is relling the truth in a vast, vast majority of cases. Hanging onto that little percentage like it's your lifeline and like it somehow nulifies rape as a crime is insane. False accusations are no higher than any other crime, and therefore the arguement that rape cases deserve some sort of special dispensation becasue of it is bullshit.

I think only the quote from PerfectDromedary comes close to saying all accused are guilty.

for HerBex
"Prove it. Back up your lies.

You won't be able to. Nobody says women never lie about rape or that men should be considered guilty before charged. YOu won't find one post that says that on this section, unless it's by some loon alleging that that's what regulars on this forum say."

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 there wasn't enough evidence to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt

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

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

Its a long thread and I have work to do but it shows that some people think being accused is the same as being guilty.

HerBeX, changing society's views is one thing, but how would you specifically change the legal system? I already said I'd be in favour of disallowing from being a juror people who think sexual history is a reason to blame the victim (etc), what do you suggest?

In the case of a violent crime, is provocation taken into account in the trial?

Also, Herb, what are the conviction rates for male>male rape? Are they higher, lower or similar? I know the reporting rates are far lower. (I know they say 90-95% of all reported are male>female, not denying that.) Seems all violent crimes are not as bad.

I'm sure I heard that conviction rates for murders are about 90%. I guess in those cases, they don't stop until they catch someone. Shows it's possible.

But HerBeX, don't the conviction rates quoted above show that nobody of either sex can expect much right to 'bodily integrity?' ie to be stabbed or seriously injured and then get the perp convicted?

"I don't see another way without changing the entire legal system."

Me neither.

That's why we have to change the entire legal system and the society in which it functions, to one where a woman's right to bodily integrity is taken as for granted as that of a man's is currently.

I don't know about blaming the police, but it is clear that the police are underfunded. They need more people, not 25% budget cuts. It may be sad to say this, but they probably just don't have the time for a proper investigation and so, they just don't try.

Cases just aren't ready in time so they are thrown out of court? Either it's down to lack of funding, lack of effort or the trial being to soon.

The slightly hard to follow conclusion from the same piece -

"However, The Observer's investigation reveals that fewer than a third of the 20,000 people acquitted of serious offences in the Crown Court last year owed their freedom to 'not guilty' verdicts by judges, not juries. Cases were often discharged by judges, usually when the prosecution decided not to proceed - because cases were not ready, because victims or other witnesses withdrew or had been intimidated, or because Crown Prosecution Service lawyers decided that the evidence was 'unreliable'.

The answer, said judges, was not to make sweeping changes in the law to reduce suspects' protections, and hence risk wrongful convictions, but to find ways of getting the CPS and the police to work more closely together when investigating crimes so that the evidence is more watertight."

So maybe we can blame the police and the CPS - and while public opinion about rape myths may play some part in decisions that a case is unwinnable, it seems that there are wider problems. According to judges anyway.

On conviction rates.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/28/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy

"An analysis of Home Office figures reveals that only 9.7 per cent of all 'serious woundings', including stabbings, that are reported to the police result in a conviction. For robberies the figure falls to 8.9 per cent and for rape, it is 5.5 per cent."

I'd say the police and courts don't treat any violent crime seriously enough. The rape conviction figure is very low, but it's not that far from the very low conviction rate for serious woundings, which I would guess are more likely to involve witnesses, almost guaranteed to have evidence of injury, and much less likely to involve the issue of consent!

Ah ok, xposts.

"Was that addressed to me, MarySue?"

No, to HanddivedScallopsrgreat, who said I missed the point.

Was that addressed to me, MarySue?

I quoted MissHodge.

Sockfail

I'm missing the point I stated?

' I accept rape happens a lot, and I accept a lot of it goes unreported.

I do not accept a woman who cries rape is a myth. It is a rarity. It does happen'

Um, yes. We're all on the same page. What's your point?

"Hopefully they are aware that it is the accused who is most likely to be lying"
MarySue - we aren't even in a court of law here and you (and others) are missing that point already.

Yes it's amazing anyone would think that. I can only guess it's perhaps very old, very conservative, or very religious, or out of touch people. What are the ways you can get disallowed from being on a jury? Is it like America if you say you are racist, etc? Then perhaps on a rape trial, I would be fine with people who agree with that statement to be considered unfit to be on a jury.