Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

339 replies

FastidiaBlueberry · 17/02/2013 00:18

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.

OP posts:
Mitchy1nge · 20/02/2013 21:12

it's not that difficult to prove, which is why of the cases that do get to court the conviction rate compares favourably to other violent crimes

however only a few of all cases are reported, and only a very few of those will go on to be prosecuted

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 20/02/2013 21:08

apple - here's the MN 'We Believe You' page on rape myths

Useful reading.

Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 21:08

"I think good argument for this in personal/difficult to prove crimes like rape, but clearly has to be symmetrical ie anonymity for both for accused and accuser."

Ah yes, false symmetry again.

Like the number of falsely accused men = the number of women alleging rape who are falsely accusing.

Clearly someone who has decided to completely ignore all the arguments that have taken place on this thread.

OP posts:
apple1234 · 20/02/2013 21:08

Hi FastidiaBlueberry

You've missed my main point....

Rape is very difficult to prove/disprove (perhaps almost unique in crime ?)

Therefore we have choice (as society) of

  1. lowering the level of evidence required to increase conviction rate or

  2. maintain the level of evidence required to prevent mis-conviction

In UK, we do (2). Therefore there will be a low conviction rate and a lot of rapists go free. Unfortunately. That is a sad inevitable fact but I can't see any better way to do it.

Can you ?

Mitchy1nge · 20/02/2013 21:08

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Trekkie · 20/02/2013 21:07

apple I think it's best to approach your post point by point.

  • It is not correct that there is no evidence in rape cases and that it is one person's word against another. At each stage decisions are made about going forward with a report / prosecution for rape. First the victim has a good idea of what is "rape rape" and what is not. Victims self-select - rapes which involve people in a relationship with no physical evidence are far less likely to be reported to police than a violent stranger rape. So the cases that get to the police have already whittled out most of the "his word against hers" cases
  • Next come the police. Depends on where you go. Some forces you are far more likely to have your report of rape marked as a "no crime" than other forces. Some forces / individual officers do not treat victims well, say they think they are lying, don't take physical evidence or witness statements etc. So another tranche of accusations gets no further than this stage
  • Next the CPS need to decide whether they want to prosecute. In order to prosecute they have to believe they will have a reasonable chance of getting a prosecution. Thus they only take forward rape cases which they believe (due to physical or other evidence) they have a pretty good chance of winning (and the stats bear out that when cases do go to court, they do indeed get a conviction rate in line with other crimes

The vast majority of rape cases that go to court thus have supporting evidence.

The point you made "Also, a lot of sex occurs in a drunken haze and consenting sex often involves ambiguous games eg one partner says no means yes. " I don't even know what to do with this Confused It seems to be saying that many rape accusations are due to people having drunken sex and then playing rather odd sex games leading to ambiguity and it's all grey areas and then women deciding to lie about it for no obvious reason. Alternatively. Lots of people simply get raped, is probably a less convoluted way of looking at it.

Your two possible approaches.

  1. The police should believe people who come forward and say they have been a victim of crime. Unless they have an extremely good reason not to. Yes EVEN victims of rape.

No-one in the world thinks that all men accused of rape should be imprisoned immediately with no due process. Not sure where that came from.

  1. Is the system we have in place at the moment. I don't hear for any calls to change it to a system like you mention in 1.
Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 21:06

Also the idea that it's "easy" to just make up a rape allegation.

Well yes, in theory it is, but what on earth is the point of making up an allegation that no one believes when it's true, let alone when it's false?

I could make up an allegation that Nick Clegg shagged my dog, but given that I've not got a dog, who will take it seriously?

This constant, hammering home of rape myths like anyone can be arrested at any time - the poster here whose husband was arrested, wasn't falsely accused, he was the victim of mistaken identity. Women can't just go down the cop shop and claim they were raped and a police investigation swings into action - even where women really are raped, the police tell them to bugger off and stop wasting their time, as in the case of the first few victims of John Worboys.

OP posts:
apple1234 · 20/02/2013 21:02

ps just realized i didnt address the OP about anonymity !

I think good argument for this in personal/difficult to prove crimes like rape, but clearly has to be symmetrical ie anonymity for both for accused and accuser.

Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 20:59

Sorry apple but practically everything you've just posted is pure, undiluted rape-myth.

Men don't turn into rapists because they are a bit drunk or because a woman is a bit drunk and it is incredibly insulting and man-hating of you to say that.

Women who have bad or unintentional sex because they're a bit drunk, wake up, realise they've fucked up, go home and have a bacon sandwich.

They don't go down to the police and make a rape allegation, because they're not all mad, unstable, malicious and generally appalling people.

You have just regurgitated all the misogynist stereotypes of women (and men all being rapists and just needing a bit of booze to release their inner rapist) all in one go.

Outstanding performance.

OP posts:
apple1234 · 20/02/2013 20:53

There seem to be a lot of strongly held assertive opinions about rape when the one thing we know is that we dont know much !

Most sex occurs in private so it is often impossible to prove/disprove rape other than go on the word of the two individuals involved. Thus it is an easy crime to make a false allegation. Also, a lot of sex occurs in a drunken haze and consenting sex often involves ambiguous games eg one partner says no means yes.

So an extraordinarily difficult crime for a jury to decide who is telling the truth/whether a crime has occurred.

So two possible approaches...

  1. assume that most people bringing rape allegations are telling the truth and convict the defendant willy nilly. And therefore successfully convict all rapists but also convict a few innocents.

  2. assume the defendant is innocent until proven otherwise and only convict when the evidence is really strong enough. And therefore only convict a small percentage of rapists but never falsely convict non-rapists.

I think it is very difficult, but my personal view is (2) is best.

PS I think discussions about rape should be gender neutral in their wording as above (regardless of any legal definition of rape)

Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 20:49

Ooh, look what someone posted on my FB page:

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/02/19/comment-anonymity-for-rape-defendants-is-a-tired-argument-th

OP posts:
Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 20:33

Yes I find it quite extraordinary that people would be so willing to give up the principle of open justice.

The thing about not having anonymity for accused people, is so that justice can be seen to be done.

Witnesses who read that XYZ is standing trial for murder/ rape/ robbery etc., can ring the police and either offer information which might help get the guilty defendant banged up, or offer information which might help ensure an acquittal or dropped prosecution of a victim of mistaken identity or malicious accusation.

If everyone was anonymous, that principle would be lost.

You could argue that if police are doing their job properly that won't be needed (because they interview everyone who ever stepped within 2 feet of the defendant) but I'm not sure I'd be happy to rely on the police to find every single person who might be able to add something to a criminal enquiry. Granted, potential witnesses overlooked by police enquiry might not come across reports of a person standing for trial, but they definitely wouldn't if they were anonymous, would they?

OP posts:
Trekkie · 20/02/2013 20:21

I imagine she means that people make a false equivalence when actually there is not equivalence.

In all of these things there needs to be balance, and that is what the law is currently set up to give.

It allows anonimity to people who are vulnerable and takes into account the reticence of victims of certain crimes to come forward and wants to improve reporting rates.

Separately, people who are accused of crimes are not protected with anonimity in the UK. This helps with getting witnesses, further victims coming forward and so on.

It is not a "tit for tat" - the thinking behind these things is different.

There is also lack of equivalence in this argument for numbers. There is always an offset - and a balance must be struck. At the moment the authorities believe that the abbility of other victims / witnesses to come forward and thus getting more convictions is worth more than granting anonimity to people accused of crimes and losing all those convictions.

There is also the principle of open justice in the UK.

Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 20:18

I don't think so.

OP posts:
SigmundFraude · 20/02/2013 20:14

'And that's why you like it SF'

You've lost me?

Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 20:11

^'Why is it better to say that?'

Because it's true. Both situations are horrendous.^

But it glosses over the fact that one is an anthill and one is Mount Everest, doesn't it?

And that's why you like it SF

OP posts:
Trekkie · 20/02/2013 20:07

So it's a yes to anonimity for people accused of all crimes, morethanpotatoprints?

Personally I can't support singling rape out and cannot understand why anyone would want to do that. Unless they genuinely believed that women commonly lie about rape. And surely no-one believes that.

Incidentally I know 2 men who have raped people, not involving the police, but it has been common knowledge. And the general reaction has been that nothing has changed for them at all, even with this knowledge in circulation.

I also know of one girl who was raped and everyone, from people my age to people of my parents generation, immediately stated that she had made it up (for no reason whatsoever). When I asked people why they thought that, they looked a bit taken aback and mentioned things like "attention seeking" and being guilty about having sex with someone they'd only just met. Hmm.

I think the we believe you message is very very important. because actually, people don't.

Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 20:00

In that case more, are you in favour of ALL defendants of all crimes being anonymous until found guilty?

Because that is consistent and logical and though I don't agree with it, I can see the logic of it.

OP posts:
SigmundFraude · 20/02/2013 20:00

'surveys which show that most people believe women are lying about rape.'

Which surveys? I've never seen a survey that's said that. This is the first time I've heard this. I would imagine that most people are aware that a percentage of women lie about it, as evidenced in the media, but that most women don't.

I have never heard a blanket statement like this before.

Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 19:59

And yes I can see why your experience isn't typical, because your DH was accused of being a stranger rapist - less than 8% of all rape cases. Disastrous, I know, but no more disastrous in general, than being accused of other crimes.

And you have to balance the disaster of your DH's situation, against the disaster of thousands of women who are raped who have very little chance of justice and who would have even less chance of justice if anonymity for rapists were introduced.

No justice system is ever perfect and there will always be people who will be terribly damaged by it.

Those who believe in anonymity for defendants, believe that it is always preferable that women be damaged, than that men be.

OP posts:
morethanpotatoprints · 20/02/2013 19:58

Fast.

We will have to beg to differ on this. I don't care what others think in surveys I care what they say to my face and if we want to continue with a justice system that considers innocent until proven guilty, we can't name and shame people who are innocent/accused

SigmundFraude · 20/02/2013 19:56

'Why is it better to say that?'

Because it's true. Both situations are horrendous.

Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 19:55

morethanpotatoprints, that says more about how bloody awful police procedures are and local media reporting is, than being a good argument for anonymity for rape alone.

The police should have informed your husband and the local press.

The fact that they didn't shows how much in its infancy victim, witness and suspect support is.

It's not an argument for anonymity for rape defendants and no other defendants.

OP posts:
Original poster
FastidiaBlueberry · 20/02/2013 19:53

"People don't generally believe men are innocent of rape ime." Sorry, but "IYO" isn't representative. Most people believe men who rape, unless it's strangers in dark alleys, are innocent. If your experience is different, then that's your experience, but it's not borne out by surveys which show that most people believe women are lying about rape.

"Of course it is punishing him, have you never seen what it does to a person, to families ( and I don't mean because they don't believe him ). Do you know what it does to his children, how his work is affected. He may be temporarily suspended from his work, especially if with children. His work colleagues may be questioned, his wife will have to answer all manner of personal questions.
They may be targeted by vigilantes, they may have to move."

All those things may also happen to men accused of other crimes. Rape is not a special case. The only reason people think it is a special case, is because of the misogynist hangover.

OP posts:
morethanpotatoprints · 20/02/2013 19:51

Fast.

My dh didn't know the person and it was a call to crime stoppers. Unfortunately, witness statements described my dh to a tea, car, looks everything. He was even in the place at the time. Although the person couldn't have known this because it was a one off visit.
It nearly killed my dh and I don't exagerate, he was named, shamed, police night and day. We had 2 small dc and I was frightened to death of what might happen. Dh lost 3 stone in no time at all.
They caught the man in the end, I heard on the news. No apology, no police call to tell us. Nothing.