The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

What a kindly worded comment. I had been expecting that someone here had the knowledge at their fingertips, given the strongly worded comments from some.

Anyhow, I have found that it is between 5-8% of accusations are false (variability depends on how tightly definitions are applied).

That is enough to be concerning, and shows the issue is not a myth.

Peanut, don't be worried about getting anything out if you feel you need to. Sometimes typing things down helps to organise our thoughts into something we can understand. Maybe it will help others, maybe they to will only be able to leave when they are ready. What is more important is that it helps you to understand what you think and feel.

I thought the problem with rape cases was with bad processing by police, withdrawal of statements and the difficulty getting enough evidence to take to court? not sure on the percentage but don't most rape cases that go to court end in conviction?

Meditrina, the interwebs has this marvellous thing called Google. Google has this marvellous thing called Google Scholar. Go knock yourself out doing your research.

SGB: the problem is, publicity as well as transparency can be important to justice, especially in the case of rape. The publicity of the John Worboys case was fundamental to establishing that he was a serial rapist, as other victims came forward and testified. What is needed is for newspapers to abide by both the spirit and letter of the contempt laws.

I would do the research, if someone could point me in the right direction.

The thread title was about false allegations - to me, that indicates intent ie deliberately making a false statement. Another poster lined a number of cases from the papers where this has happened. It clearly does exist. And it does have consequences, both for the individuals involved in the specific case, and in opinion forming (ie belief sets about accusers). These are important, but somwhat separate from cases where there is no reason to postulate malice on behalf of the accuser.

Not guilty verdicts may (or may not) be reached for other reasons. But it is not a myth that rape accusations can be made for malicious reasons. What is absent from this thread is any information about how prevalent such malicious claims are.

DontCallMePeanut, I should also have said: I'm terribly sorry to hear of what happened to you. I think you're amazingly brave and strong to post about both the wider topic and about what happened to you.

Don'tCallMePeanut That's a really good question for people to ask themselves.

People are so, so quick to accept this hateful "They do it for attention" theory that they don't think about the kind of "attention" you get.

Would anyone report a rape, endure hours of (probably not very sympathetic) questioning, medical examinations, knowing that hardly anyone would believe you (certainly not if you had friends/family like moonferret anyway!), knowing that it probably wouldn't even get to court, that if it did you would be cross-examined and have your privacy made public, for fun?!?!?!

Didn't think so. And that is why I would always believe someone if they told me they had been raped.

I just don't think it is something that 99.9999% of people would lie about. And the miniscule fraction that would probably have extremely serious mental health ishoos which I would expect might have manifested themselves in other ways first.

DontCallMePeanut, I'm sorry that the thread has not gone the way you (and me, and others) would have wanted. You said: "Maybe I'm just not in the right frame of mind for feminism atm." Honestly, I think what you're not in the mood for is sexism. The response to the OP was about doing down women, not believing them. It had nothing to do with feminism, quite the opposite.

Your question to MoonFerret is a good one. Of course, it assumes MoonFerret is a woman. I think there's a better-than-fair chance that MoonFerret is a man. In which case, there is a particular poignancy to your question about whether MoonFerret would lie about rape.

Lenin: I'm not calling for secret trials, I'm calling for trials to take place in open court without the accused having been already 'convicted' in the media and had his (or her) personal life splattered all over the papers, including any number of wild accusations sent in by people with grudges.

Reflecting on the original article, and linking it to this issue of who we believe. So far, the two women who've dared to step forward and say that DSK has sexually assaulted them have been trashed and further attacked:

• Tristane Banon has said "I can no longer hear that I am a liar because I haven't made a legal complaint. For eight years I have carried the weight of this incident alone, hearing rumours and lies about me." DSK's lawyers have announced they are counter-suing her for libel.
• The chambermaid has been repeatedly and publicly vilified as a liar, an illegal immigrant, and a prostitute.

That didn't sound like it was in the right place. It was the answer to your 10.22 post, Peanut.

I'm sorry to hear about you're history, Peanut. And I hope that realising helps you in some way. It is terrible that this behaviour goes on, but unfortunately it is not the first time I've seen it.

I'm just glad to here that at least you're away from that now.

I think there is something to be said for a law banning the naming of accused criminals until after conviction. Though it is worth bearing in mind that the harm done to both Colin Stagg and Christopher Jefferies, who were wrongly accused of terrible crimes, was mostly done by men(ie newspaper reporters and editors) not women lying about being assaulted. There are always going to be cases of rape where the woman is not lying but the man on trial is innocent because it's the wrong man (ie stranger rape when a man matching the physical decription of the rapist is arrested).

Moonferret, you need to look to your logic and your conscience. You claim to care about evidence: "If I was ever on a jury for sexual assault trial, the evidence would need to be absolutely overwhelming for me to be convinced."

Yet you freely admit that despite not knowing "what the precise percentage [of false allegations of rape] is you would be "confident of two things. Firstly, a good number of claims will be false (of course the majority never even reach court), and secondly, more than for virtually any other offence as a percentage of the total."

If you really cared about evidence, you would not hold to the position you have taken without some facts to back it up. Instead, you have shown all the hallmarks of someone who is driven by their sexist prejudice to seek confirmatory anecdotes* from women-hating newspapers in support of a morally reprehensible position: attacking rape victims by casting blanket doubt on their credibility as a group. Splutter denial all you want, but as far as I'm concerned if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. As I said, you need to look to your conscience. This is vile behaviour and you ought to stop.

*Repeat after me: the plural of anecdotes is not data.