Why are people so defensive towards alleged rapists?

but the accused in rape trials should not be punished, either by the legal system or by society, unless the trial ends in a guilty verdict.

I'd love to know what you think of the recent case where a Sexual Risk Order was granted on a man, Gone?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/it-consultant-says-his-life-is-ruined-after-police-forced-him-to/

So what are you suggesting?

No crime should ever be prosecuted unless the accused are running amok in the high street like the killers of Lee Rigby or caught red handed wearing stripey T-shirts, masks and carrying bags marked swag?

Everything you say is subjective to your mother. That is not to minimise her feelings but it is not evidence of how objectively others viewed her.

I find it very hard to believe that men who were simply accused of rape (falsely or otherwise) but then acquitted carry these huge stigma around with them for the rest of their lives and have their lives ruined.

It does happen. Has happened.

My mother was accused of an accounting fraud with the company she worked with. She went to trail, proved her innocence, but the effect the whole process had on her was profound. It had an effect. Affected her ability to find another job. Affected her confidence. Affected how she felt other people regarded her, even after proving her innocence.

This kind of thing can and does ruin lives.

Irrespective of the crime one is accused of, if one is innocent of that crime, then it will have a profound effect.

Not only should those falsely accused of rape not be punished without cause, but the accused in rape trials should not be punished, either by the legal system or by society, unless the trial ends in a guilty verdict. That's what the legal system is there for

And that is what happens. No one is being punished by being charged by being put on trial.

To be clear if a trial results in a not guilty verdict it does not follow , as some posters seem to be suggesting, the Crown will punish the victim by prosecuting the victim for a malicious accusation.

However there is no basis whether from an academic or philosophical viewpoint of how law works or a practical application of the law for giving any accused anonymity.

You are trying to encourage, force and persuade men to care deeply about a group in society to which they don't belong

Eh? Why would men not care about how rape victims are treated and/or rape is prosecuted?

Considering even convicted rapists still have people defending them whilst pissing all over their victims I find it very hard to believe that men who were simply accused of rape (falsely or otherwise) but then acquitted carry these huge stigma around with them for the rest of their lives and have their lives ruined.

I hid this thread for a bit but I feel like I can come back now.

I don't want to be all "poor me" again but I just felt the need to point out that although my family believe me now they didn't initially believe me.

When I say they didn't believe me I don't mean they called me a liar. There was just this air of "but are you sure?" "he's such a nice man, I just can't picture him doing that", etc.

My mum even sat me down and started asking me if I was sure, was I sure I made it clear I didn't want it, was I sure this wasn't just a misunderstanding because John would never do this on purpose, etc all the while getting visibly more upset until she broke down.

I guess not believing me is the wrong choice of words...it was more a case of denial..."but I've known John for years, he was always so nice!" kind of thing.

And it makes me so cross that women who haven't been assaulted (or at least don't recognise if they have been

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Can you sniff a rape survivor out through the internet now?!

Talk about a superiority complex!

if the bloke who raped me could inject any doubt as to whether I didn't want to have sex with him, then he is believed, not me

Are you able to provide some recent evidence that this is habitually the case, please?

JacquettaWoodville:

Emma, sorry for multiple posts to you, but you almost certainly do know a rapist - I will look up the stats but I think it's estimated more than 1 in 100 men is a rapist.

Please look up those stats, because the stats I've seen have stated that in one survey 1 in 7 men is a rapist, and in another survey 1 in 16 men is a rapist.

More generally,

One or two posters (sorry I can't remember who exactly) have said or inferred that in the region of 50% of men are rapists or potential rapists. The closest stat to that figure that has been mentioned is the reference to the survey in which 1 in 3 men said they would rape if they could get away with it.

Irrespective of the 50% figure, the 1 in 3 stat presented is quite frankly shocking and, as a man, troubles me greatly that 33% of men questioned would respond in such a way. And that's not taking into account the men questioned in that survey who may have lied and said they wouldn't respond in such a way. Clearly there is a huge problem here - what do men constitute as rape - what scenario is acceptable to them and what isn't?

It's about time that women's voices were listened to in regards to this topic, for it's without doubt women who form the majority victim of this abhorrent crime. It saddens me, as a man, that whenever this discussion surfaces, excuses are made in the favour of men and to the detriment of women. Rape is supposedly seen by all as a horrible crime, and yet these kinds of discussions are rarely, if ever, allowed to focus upon the female victims, because they are derailed by some who point out that "women make false accusations", "accusations can ruin men's lives", "men get raped too".

None of that is incorrect, but ALL of that is deflection. It's about time we as a society as a whole listened to women and listened to the experiences that they have. I'm a man, and it just saddens me that women are subjected to what us men put upon them, day after day after day. It saddens me that so many women feel unable to speak up and defend themselves. It saddens me that when women DO speak up and defend themselves, they are shot down.

No good can or ever will come from that. All that will do is silence women, silence victims of rape, sexual harassment, sexual assault. And in silencing victims, the only thing that can possibly happen is to enable the perpetrators to get away with their crimes.

I am a feminist, my fight is for the large number of victims of sexual violence, rather than the very low number of men falsely accused.

Your fight is for hearts and minds primarily. You are trying to encourage, force and persuade men to care deeply about a group in society to which they don't belong. It goes further than not wanting rapists to rape - that's relatively straightforward insofar as you are saying, 'no, you can't do that'. But getting other men to care enough about the position you are in to give your needs and wishes priority is harder. And that is what you are doing. It's not only about justice. It's about redress. You are asking men to care about you in a way you don't care about them, and you feel it's owed to you. Maybe it is.

If there was a situation that negatively affected a relatively small number of women but was beneficial for a larger proportion of men, feminists would not consider that an acceptable price for women to pay. Yet false accusations are like that and you expect men not only to be fine with it, but to continue to support you. That is not just, nor is it realistic.

Statistically (I don't know where the statistic came from so it may not be accurate), I've seen a figure floating around the web that a rape victim is 20 times more likely to see the rapist jailed than someone who has been falsely accused of rape is likely to see their accuser sentenced. That isn't just either.

Not only should those falsely accused of rape not be punished without cause, but the accused in rape trials should not be punished, either by the legal system or by society, unless the trial ends in a guilty verdict. That's what the legal system is there for. Feminism seems to have an uneasy relationship with the legal system. On one hand, you want to use it and reform it. On the other hand, you have a huge problem with anyone responding to the words 'I was raped' with anything other than 'I believe you'. Perhaps it is isn't surprising that you are in favour of the punishment for the accused beginning as early as possible; the accused is nothing more to you than a guilty man who hasn't yet been sentenced. That is not just. And yes, it does matter whether or not you are just because, just as the with the 'black lives matter' protests, the people you are appealing to are also the people you are accusing. They need to see you as trustworthy and capable of a measured response that acknowledges their rights as well as your own. Otherwise, what are you left with but a bloody gunfight?

I think the burden of proof needs to go onto the man. He should have to prove that he knew he did have consent. Not that I should have to prove that he didn't (since my word, that I didn't give consent is apparently not enough in this case, unlike other crimes)

What the law (England and Wales) requires is:-

Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps (A) has taken to ascertain whether (B) consents (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant's attributes, such as disability or extreme youth, but not if (s)he has any particular fetishes.

The Act [the 2003 Act] abolished the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. The defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps (s)he took to satisfy him or herself that the complainant consented in order to show his or her state of mind at the time.

The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:

Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).
If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element)

And it makes me so cross that women who haven't been assaulted (or at least don't recognise if they have been) are on this thread telling people who have been that they are wrong, and we should be protecting rapists. I mean wtf?

harlot

It doesn't matter speak. You can have a list as long as your arm of men who've kept their jobs, kept their relationships, certainly after and accusation and sometimes after conviction. But there's still a mythical unicorn of the men who's lives were ruined that we all have to care so much about and protect through the legal system.

Been following this long thread and just saw in the news today that Cliff Richard has secured a new album deal with Sony and a possible future tour. It doesn't seem as though his career has been ruined by the allegations made against him that were dropped.

www.femalefirst.co.uk/music/musicnews/sir-cliff-richards-new-record-deal-970643.html

What are you suggesting...that we unquestioningly accept the version of one party because in most cases victims are telling the truth. Do you think a trial is necessary or should the presumed rapist go straight to jail?

No, I'm saying that at the moment, if someone punches me, I'm not going to be interrogated about my MMA watching habits, or whether I'd been to a boxercise class earlier that day the default is that I didn't want to be hit, that I am believed. Yes, I could falsely accuse someone of punching me, perhaps it was someone else, but the fact I've been assaulted isn't really questioned

In rape, the default is that, as a woman, this was just unwanted sex, I'll be interrogated as to my sex life and what I'd said to the person earlier in the evening, what I was wearing - if the bloke who raped me could inject any doubt as to whether I didn't want to have sex with him, then he is believed, not me. There can be no doubt that sex happened, that his penis went into my vagina, but, unless I can prove that he knew that I didn't want to have sex with him, he didn't rape me according to the law, my word doesn't matter a jot, all that matters is what he thought.

I think the burden of proof needs to go onto the man. He should have to prove that he knew he did have consent. Not that I should have to prove that he didn't (since my word, that I didn't give consent is apparently not enough in this case, unlike other crimes)

I suspect gay men who are raped have similar issues with the criminal process to women. Certainly the attitude that women don't own their sexuality and a man has to lead/coerce/push her into sexual acts is a serious problem with clouding people's perception of rape. That's why I totally agree that a lie detection test is completely useless. Rape for many is what evil men do who grab strangers and force themselves upon them. Not the boyfriend who won't take no for an answer. Or the friend who you let crash who makes you feel so afraid it's EASIER to go along with it because the alternative could be a beating or death. Or the passed out woman who is used when she is unable to consent with as much thought as picking up money found in the street.

People fight against rape accusations because it makes men feel uncomfortable because they have crossed the line, and women are afraid to look too closely at the times in their lives when they did not enthusiastically consent. Because the men don't want to be rapists and the women don't want to be victims.

I am a survivor of rape. Of sexual assaults. And I will not be ashamed or lessened by this.

I don't think it's a good enough reason. Victims have the opportunity to come forward if the police issue a description of the person on trial, the area he/she comes from, the time period they are interested in and the locations where they believe crimes could have occurred. There is absolutely nothing to stop a victim from matching their experience up with the description, time period and location, and going to the police. I do not see how having the extra information of a face or a name is going to make it any easier for them to take action

Utter bollocks. There is no reason either in law, theoretical, practical or philosophical for offering anonymity to accused.

What bloody good does "the attacker was white and aged around 30" ?

gone I have no idea why you addressed your long comment on a previous page to me, but just so you know I can't be arsed to debate the ins and outs of how to treat rapists with you. I know your views, you know mine, let's just not bother.

emma interesting you keep mentioning Louis Walsh. Another one who's life has not been noticeably impacted by the accusation.

You don't seem to have thought very deeply about how indelibly a rape trial will mark someone's life forever, whether guilty or not

I may well get thrown off FWR for saying this but here goes. I did not believe Max Clifford would be found guilty. I could imagine a situation where Clifford might have engineered a situation where it was hinted at that sexual favours might lead to something worthwhile. If that is what had happened it is certainly not anywhere near the legal definition of rape. Had he been acquitted I doubt I would have thought anything more about it.

Same with Craig Charles- until someone pointed it out on here I hadn't remembered it. If you had said to me "Craig Charles" brain would have processed Red Dwarf and I think he was briefly married to Cathy Tyson)

(Strictly speaking Clifford wasn't convicted of rape but only because at the time the offences were committed they didn't fall within the definition. And having read the case report the offences were a million miles from dropping hints to naive starlets)

Almost every single woman I've ever spoken to on the subject has been the victim of at least one serious sexual assault (often including rape) by a man. None felt able to report to police

No man I have ever met has falsely been falsely accused of rape that I am aware of (and given its reported effect on a man's life I would surely be aware if they had been)

so which situation is going to take up most of my concern?