Why is it worse to lie about being a victim of rape, than it is to lie about being the perpetrator?

Oh there was a US study which showed majority of false rape claims were made by women with mental health problems and not against anyone specific.

Same study showed that police logged many reports as "false" for no apparent reason. Recent (ish?) figures on "no criming" for rape amongst different police authorities in UK shows a similar pattern.

Oh in line with a poster upthread I know 2 men who have been accused of rape and one woman who reported a rape.

The two men are happily living their lives and the woman was lambasted locally as being an unstable liar.

So there you go

Very dubious about JoTheHot's post.

It's not how things work at the moment. We do not need absolute certainty for a conviction, we have beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes the wrong people go to prison, for all sorts of crimes, that is something that our criminal justice system seeks to balance.

The point that is missed in that post is the point of further harm. Most men escalate to rape through an often very long process of escalating sexual assaults. They harm many people along the way. If they continue unchecked then they harm many more other people.

I would say it is better to wrongly imprison one person if that saves hundreds, and that is the way our criminal justice system currently operates.

Can I ask Jo, why you want the current system changed, and what form those changes would take?

This thread has prompted me to go back and read Kier Starmer's report

Nearly 40% of the false rape claims were made by third parties. They weren't malicious claims. They were things like young girls trying not to get in to trouble with their families. And the family reporting the rape.

In the 17 month period examined

"there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape , and 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape

there were 111,891 prosecutions for domestic violence, and 610 for making false allegations of domestic violence."

And we still have to talk on and on and on about the false allegations, not about the horrific number of women (and children and men) who have been raped.

TheDoctrineOfAllan, Are you using a leading question to insinuate I've said something I haven't? And in answer, no, I don't.

NotDT, I think you are absolutely right.

JoTheHot, do you believe that false claims of any crime should attract a longer sentence than the crime itself than, as it's worse for the innocent to be convicted than the guilty to go free?

I don't think you can be found guilty of perjury in that way - if you are found guilty of a crime but haven't pleaded guilty, it's incorporated into the fact that you don't get the sentence reduced for your plea.

I think perjury is when you lie, you get off and then are later proved to have been lying. But maybe that's wrong.

The sentences for false claims of rape are in line with the sentences for other false claims, I believe the guideline sentence is six months to two years.

It's not just a case of a guilty man going free though, it's a rapist who can, and almost certainly will, rape again.

ecclesvet I would disagree that lying about being a rapist isn't malicious. It forces the victim to go through an entire trial and, in some cases, horrible questioning by the defense. While it might not be done with malicious intent it is still a horrible thing to do to someone you've already badly hurt (not saying it's worse than lying about being raped, just that it isn't as trivial as being just self preservation makes it out to be)

I think the explanation for this is quite simple: a lot of men can't really imagine being in a situation where they would be the victim of rape, but they can imagine themseleves being in a situation where they could be falsely accused of rape. Hence, they prioritise their concerns accordingly.

Ironically, I suspect the reality is exactly the opposite and that far more men are victims of rape than are ever falsely accused of commiting it.

OK, just let me sort this out in my head.

If a man commits rape and is found guilty, he goes to jail.

If a man commits rape and lies about it under oath and is subsequently found guilty he will be jailed for the rape, with the time extended for lying about it. Depending exactly what he's done in the course of his lying, he could get done for perjury or perverting the course of justice as well.

If a woman lies about being raped and is found out she goes to jail.

In which of these three scenarii shoudl the guilty not be jailed?

If a woman lies about being raped should she just be allowed to do that and have an innocent man jailed, then? Without penalty?

I'm quite confused about what the OP thinks is right and wrong.

Also, lying about being raped is probably done to hurt someone. Lying about being a rapist is probably done out of self-preservation. One is malicious, the other isn't.

Lying about being a rapist potentially means a guilty man escapes spending a chunk of his life in prison.

Lying about being raped potentially means an innocent man has to spend a chunk of his life in prison.

I and most of society think it is worse for an innocent man to go to prison, than it is for a guilty man to stay free.

"But lying about not having committed a crime when you have is not a monstrous thing to do, Louise? It's less monstrous is it?"

So which is worse? Committing rape? Or lying about it subsequently?

Would you seriously think that someone who has the level of morality that would allow them to subject a woman to rape would suddenly feel overcome with guilt and confess?

Doesn't surprise me.

The people who write things like this, are totally unaware that they believe men's lives are more valuable than women's.

They honestly believe what they're suggesting, is just equality.

False rape claim article on the DM today and these are two of the top rated comments.

"This crime should carry the same sentence as rape plus 5 years."

"Anyone who makes a false accusation of rape should do the time that those falsely accused would have served." (971 thumbs up)

"This woman should have been jailed for the same length of time as her "attackers" would have been !!! ... We really do have a Two Tier justice system here - one for men and another for women."

Yes, something like that! I see that it has criticisms levelled against it, but I do think that it might represent progress when applied to sexual assault cases - as long as juries understood the different thresholds for guilty, not proven and not guilty.

Like the Scottish "not proven", Peonies?

I agree with other posters who say that juries seem to have the idea that being convicted of rape would ruin a man's life, and they can be reluctant to find someone guilty because of it.

I wonder if introducing some kind of neutral verdict would be a step in the right direction? It might be a crazy idea, but something like, that where a jury can't agree on a guilty verdict for some reason, but also recognise that the evidence does suggest on the balance of probabilities that a rape took place, that instead of returning a not guilty verdict, they would return a neutral one.

In these circumstances, there could be special entries on the sex offenders register recording that this defendant was subject to a neutral verdict in a rape case.

I don't know, in an ideal world of course, it would be easier to simply convict guilty people of rape.

I don't think a rebuttable presumption would work.

What sort of evidence do most people end up with to prove consent after sex? I think the vast majority of people who don't film the act or don't demand their partner signs an agreement won't have any evidence to prove it, so either all these people would be unable to overcome the presumption, or their word would be enough to do it, making it useless because genuine rapists would simply lie.

Also, we do already have a number of rebuttable presumptions that there was no consent already.

I didn't know that about hidden presumptions, thanks.