Why are people so defensive towards alleged rapists?

jacquetta

Yes, I'm aware that's the case now but I think the status quo is likely to change.

" *And the affects of crime are individual so crimes aren't considered more or less serious because of how many there are of particular crimes."

Nope. Rape convictions carry a higher sentence than convictions for false accusations though; rape is a more serious crime, just as GBH is more serious than ABH.*

(oops...effect, not affect)
Read what I said again @Jaquetta. I did not say that rape wasn't more serious than a false allegation of rape. I made the point that the frequency of each crime occurring has no bearing on the seriousness of the crime. This was in response to comments on the stats earlier in the thread which claimed that the numbers of un-convicted rapes justified ignoring the separate crime of false allegations. Equally ridiculous was the claim that because some famous men's careers (list was provided) have survived conviction/allegation that it's not that serious a crime. I hazard a guess that nobody would accept that because some women build themselves brilliant careers and happy lives after being raped that we should downgrade the importance of rape as a crime.

However, as to the tariffs for the crimes, it is possible that someone convicted of perverting the course of justice with a malicious accusation could potentially get a higher sentence than someone got for a rape conviction.
The maximum sentence for both is life imprisonment. Both have to be heard under indictment.
However, that said, the starting tariff for rape is higher so it indicates that the courts (and I) agree that while no false accusation of rape is inconsequential, the seriousness of a rape (without aggravation and with mitigating factors) is a more serious crime than the a false allegation (without aggravation and with mitigating factors).

Hope that clarifies.

Just to make my point clearer, I don't think they should be admissible, I agreed that if they were for one crime they should be for all crimes.

They are far too unreliable

it's really not about equality as such.

I can see what you're trying to do but tell me...are you aware that this compromises feminism and makes feminists appear impartial and bitter?

According to Wikipedia, they aren't admissible most places:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

I think men in general are very unconfortable with the idea that another man can be found guilty of rape

You haven't known many decent men in your life, have you.

My DH (along with every other partner I've had) is horrified that rape ever occurs and horrified that it isn't punished with a longer prison sentence. Just like most women I know.

Stop drawing lines where there are no lines. We have enough divisions without fantasising that all men are beasts.

emmaroos, it's not that I think false accusations are unimportant, just that they're not a feminist topic, and they're not my battle. by the bye, I don't actually believe they're very common, but that's irrelevant really.

my feminism centres women, and my main goal is to redress the balance of discourse about rape not taking women's experiences, thoughts, feelings etc as being paramount. I want to change the way we think about sex, and about rape, and about power. it's really not about equality as such.

Ok, rip my terminology apart. If lie detectors were to be used, everyone involved would have to take one - prosecution, defence and witnesses. It was clear what I was saying - no need to be pedantic about it.

So long as both parties were to take the test yes

That is a ridiculous statement. A rape trial, like all criminal trials, involves one or more accused and witnesses. Some witnesses may also be victims - it is not a question of "parties".

When it comes to the admissibility in court of such evidence, it seems that the doubts are simply too significant to authorise its use. In 2013, a US man was jailed for eight months for coaching others how to deceive the machines. Amazingly, this involved techniques as simple as controlled breathing, muscle tensing, mental arithmetic and tongue biting. Even more amazingly, using these techniques his clients succeeded in skewing polygraph results in their favour

Polygraph tests should not be admissable evidence for the accused or witnesses.

I agree, my thought re victim blaming would he relevant for any crime

They aren't admissible in the UK; either they are for any crime, or they shouldn't be for any crime.

So long as both parties were to take the test yes, but I can't see it being put through that the victim has to take one - we are then back to "victim blaming"

Emma

Conviction rates aren't dissimilar to other crimes of bodily assault. Thousands of rapes are never reported though.

Lie detectors have been proved to be unreliable, medications for heart problems etc can interfere, as can the persons nerves taking the test.
Yeah, but unreliable mostly because they produce an 'inconclusive' result. Not unreliable because they produce a false positive. I'm not an expert, but I imagine the number of cases where the results will clearly confirm that the victim is telling the truth about being raped AND the rapist is lying about consent would be negligible in circumstances where the opposite was the case.
It is also very easy to establish if someone is taking beta blockers or other medications via blood or urine tests, or to hold them for testing until the effect has worn off.
My point wasn't that lie detectors are a 100% solution but that they are a technology that some legal systems use effectively and this is an area of law where it consistently proves difficult to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and we know that conviction rates are low compared to the incidence of the crime. I'd be happy for a jury to be allowed to consider the results of tests as part of the evidence.

"See I can tell if my brother is lying a mile off"

Some people are bad liars; your brother may be one.

Separately, many rapists may not believe they are rapists. Back to Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald: the notion of "capacity to consent" doesn't seem to be one either were familiar with. I suspect they both believe their behaviour was "normal" in that hotel room.

Ched Evans is a public figure, his family will back him - at least to the papers no matter what they believe behind closed doors. Celebrities are a different breed.

". And the affects of crime are individual so crimes aren't considered more or less serious because of how many there are of particular crimes."

Nope. Rape convictions carry a higher sentence than convictions for false accusations though; rape is a more serious crime, just as GBH is more serious than ABH.

On another note...is there any reason why modern high-tech lie detectors are not used automatically in these cases?

Lie detector results are not admissable evidence in the UK. I don't know about other jurisdictions.

See I can tell if my brother is lying a mile off (it wasn't a family member I spoke of earlier btw) and I'm convinced I would know. His actions change, the way he speaks, his facial expressions - things a stranger would probably not pick up on.

My eldest son is the same - though he's early teens so this could change.

Ched Evans, by his own admission, let himself into a room without invitation where a drunk and vulnerable woman, who was unknown to him, was naked and with a mate of his who she also did not know. Either or both of those men was in a far greater position of power than the woman in the room. Ched Evans took steps that hotel staff didn't see him and either he it his mate encouraged friends to film this naked woman without her knowledge or permission.

I am conscious that Ched Evans is not at this moment in time a convicted rapist. However, given all the things that Ched Evans has stated he did that night, the fact that his family and in laws believe whole heartedly that he cannot possibly be a rapist carries zero weight, wouldn't you say?

I did read the thread my phoned glitched and posted several pages in.

"You wouldn't know if for example your brother had been falsely accused? Surely you would You wouldn't know if for example your brother had been falsely accused? Surely you would know him enough to see through his behaviour etc. him enough to see through his behaviour etc. "

Given the number of friends and family who come out and say, "he was a great guy though" when some man murders his wife and kids and then himself, no, I wouldn't "know" for sure.

Gone

It is not up to feminists to defend the publication of the names of those accused of rape

By default, identification of victims and alleged perpetrators of crime by the media is the norm. Exceptions are made for certain victims: children and victims of sexual crimes (both male and female). There may be some other exceptions, I'm not sure.

AFAIK, all adults accused of any crime can be named unless doing so would identify a child involved.

So you could argue that victims of sexual crimes should not have anonymity. You could argue that no accused person should be identified until conviction. But it's you wanting to change the status quo either way.

Lie detectors have been proved to be unreliable, medications for heart problems etc can interfere, as can the persons nerves taking the test.