Why are people so defensive towards alleged rapists?

We believe you is perhaps in some ways unfortunate wording. It does not really mean "we believe you" but "we don't disbelieve you "

For example:-

If I call the police and say my house has been burgled they will behave in a neutral manner and take details of the missing items. At this point they make no assumptions.

They will ask if the burglar alarm was on (no, it wasn't. I've no idea how to set it) and who else has keys (my cleaner) and who else lives in the house. They will ask what jobs my husband and I do. They will ask if I have insurance.

They will, as in all crimes, evaluate my responses and in my case almost certainly come to the conclusion that the large amount of good quality antique jewellery (all bought from one jeweller and with receipts) and small, easily resalable electrical goods reported stolen is plausible in the circumstances.

Second scenario.The person reporting the burglary is long term unemployed and lives in a much less salubrious post code area than me. The police will still go through exactly the same process; starting off neutrally and evaluating what they hear.

If this person reports the theft of small , easily resalable electrical items and say £50 in cash they will almost certainly conclude this report is equally plausible.

They might however start to find this second report a wee bit less credible if the second person also reports the loss of a large amount of good quality antique jewellery.

Of course they might well discover say that actually I'm not as solvent as I at first appeared or that the second person inherited her jewellery and it's the only thing of value she has causing them to reassess what they believe. But in neither case is it their first assumption that the reports are insurance scams.

I did engage with it. I said what I said upthread; you've misinterpreted WBY if you think it's about changing the burden of proof in a court room.

With respect to the prejudices you ascribe to feminists that you think might stand in the way of justice, you should also have regard to prejudices that others hold (as per the telegraph article) which could stand in the way of justice.

Frankly, gone, I'm done banging my head against your brick wall. Good evening to you.

Oh, I see you aren't interested in really engaging with my question or the points I made jac. Fair enough.

I understand the we believe you campaign - what myths it is there to counteract. It's interesting that feminists assume women who don't agree with them are simply under-informed, or don't care about women. I don't agree with your methods and the sloppy ends-justify-the-means thinking; doesn't mean I don't know. However I'm not sure you understand or care to understand how the 'I believe you' campaign might affect juries or indeed how your indignant presence on a jury panel might intimidate other members.

Is a nation saying 'we believe you' really compatible with allowing yourself to 'see' that a false accusation has been made? Evaluating a narrative is the way to arrive at truth, but if you really believe you've already got definitive truth, how are you going to entertain a different narrative? Or, as I believe rarely but occasionally happens, consent was wrongly but genuinely assumed, how are you going to see that when you have previously decided this can never happen?

which I imagine also concerns you with respect to justice

I rather imagine you imagine it doesn't. Cut the PA, please.

"Is there something I'm not getting?"

That's right, yes.

The We Believe You campaign is to counter the dangerous rape myths (including the massively disproportionate media and societal emphasis on false accusations versus the actual number of these) which stop women reporting, getting support etc. See the telegraph link re many people thinking women are partly to blame for their rapes if flirting etc.

It starts from the premise of believing a woman who tells you she has been raped or assaulted, rather than saying, "are you sure? Were you flirting.? Did you send mixed messages?" Etc.

It is not about continuing to believe her if she's shown to have made a false accusation. It is also not about putting aside your civic duty in a court room to assess the legal case in front of you, (though I would expect that there are more people on the average jury steeped in rape myths than who are aware of WBY, which I imagine also concerns you with respect to justice.)

I've also seen posts on here in the past from women who served on juries and believed on balance of probabilities that the defendant probably did it but that the case had not been proven and therefore they did not convict.

How does that work, jac? Both for you, who more or less believe that 'he did it if she says he did it' and for anyone, given how difficult rape is to prove? Surely if you are only going on 'proof', there are going to be virtually no convictions because consent is basically intangible? I hadn't thought it would be possible to prove lack of consent in the way you could prove a burglary, for instance. So how does it work for a feminist to suddenly say 'I believe you but in a completely impartial way, please prove you were raped'? Surely in practice, this is not that kind of crime.

My understanding was that a jury should listen to each narrative in context, and decide for themselves which narrative is most plausible. My reservation about your attitude was that this is only a 'just' process if the jury approach their task with the mindset that either (or neither) narrative may be plausible. Obviously, if it's got to court, there is a need to listen very carefully to both narratives. From what has been said here, feminists would not be able or willing to do that because they believe the victim without question (as TBH, I would if I met someone in that position) and believe that anyone who doesn't unquestioningly believe is perpetuating a rape myth. And any alternative narrative given by the defence is definitely a lie because why would she lie?

Is there something I'm not getting?

" They each have a number of challenges where they don't have to justify exclusion and when they are used up must produce a reason."

Didn't know that!

Thanks Lass, always useful to have you around

Scots law only but I imagine it is the same. Once a jury has been selected from the available pool the clerk of court will explain about the case and ask the jury if any of them have an interest to declare e.g personal knowledge, same employer. It is for the judge to decide if a juror will be excluded.

I'm not a criminal lawyer and have never served on a jury (I'm permanently ineligible until the expiry of a period of 10 years after I stop working ) but I doubt very much you can self excuse on a point of principle although at the point where the defence and the Crown can object they may well object that say Julie Bindel or that Roosh bloke should be excluded. They each have a number of challenges where they don't have to justify exclusion and when they are used up must produce a reason.

jac

They are allowed to excuse themselves if the trial is going to go on for a long time, so that could be a get out clause

i served on a jury (not rape) that was fairly positive that the accused was guilty but had to find them not guilty because we were not convinced that the evidence was cut and dried

Oh, erm... not sure.

I would imagine they are asked if they have a conflict of interest though, and having a relative "falsely accused" would seem to be that?

I'm very willing to be wrong about this btw, but I seem to remember reading something about this a while back. I have slept since then so..

Xenophile, are jury members allowed to self-recuse in the UK? I didn't know that..

Jacquetta, if I recall, juries are now supposed to have basic rape myths explained to them and the reasons why they are incorrect before a rape trial, and I would expect anyone with a vested interest in finding the defendant not guilty, such as a relative of someone who has been "falsely accused" to recuse themselves.

Hopefully Lass (or someone equally knowledgeable) will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Having mulled this over, and looked at crime stats,

I wonder if it's men who rape anyone that some sections of society want to protect, or if it's just men who rape women. If the assumed rate of "false allegations" is circa 3% for all crimes (although, we know that this is lower when it comes to rape) then does that also include the 3741 men and boys who reported rape in the last year? Or is it only women for whom this mythical "regrettable sex" happens.

There were over 8,000 reports of indecent exposure and/or voyeurism during the same time period. Also a crime of a sexual nature, and a heavy indicator of future offender behaviour, including for rape and murder. Are 3% of those reports also false? And if so, do those men also warrant anonymity?

Why does society assume that men can't tell the difference between consent and lack of it? It seems to be quite insulting to men and men's sexuality to do so, almost infantilising them really to the point where they can't be held responsible for their own actions.

Also got any examples of this meanwhile he will probably never get a job working with the public again and a man who may or may not be a rapist is very likely to lose his employment, friends family. As we've discussed at length on this thread it's hard to find concrete examples of this happening from an accusation. Apart from Hannahs brother.

"I don't think you would be able to do your job on a jury panel "

I disagree.

Jury trial is a trial by your peers: all jury members come into the court with their own backgrounds (which might include having a family member who they feel was falsely accused, having been raped in the past, being one of the people referred to in the linked Telegraph article who thinks that women are 'partly to blame' for their rapes if they have been flirting etc).

It doesn't matter. Every person in the jury room has the civic duty to vote guilty if they consider the case proven beyond reasonable doubt. Of course I would do (and have done) jury duty with this obligation front and centre in my mind. I've also seen posts on here in the past from women who served on juries and believed on balance of probabilities that the defendant probably did it but that the case had not been proven and therefore they did not convict.

If a woman chooses to have sex, that is referred to in the literature as unwanted sex. It is an area that academics acknowledge needs more research because why women may be choosing to have unwanted sex, and when this choice becomes something they are coerced into, had not been properly looked.
Can I have links to this research please, or citations? I'm not clear at all what this paragraph means.

So you think the only way a person can prove that they had consent is if the other person says they gave it?

I think it's a bloody key indicator yes!

I think that people can be mistaken sometimes, but I also think that most people, yes, even men, know when they really have consent, and when they are trying it on/prefer to ask forgiveness than permission.

"And fuck off with your patronising 'i know you really want to make this hard but it really isn't' "

is aggressive. And rude.

vulnerable GROUPS

I'm not being aggressive jac. I'm being assertive. Surprised a feminist (especially one so good at being aggressive herself) can't tell the difference.

felas you're wrong. If a woman chooses to have sex, that is referred to in the literature as unwanted sex. It is an area that academics acknowledge needs more research because why women may be choosing to have unwanted sex, and when this choice becomes something they are coerced into, had not been properly looked.

You didn't read my post properly re other crimes. As I've said at least twice, I think it is worth exploring how people accused of crimes against GROUPS in society are negatively impacted regardless of the verdict. Society does not need names and addresses in order for justice to be done or for the public to be kept informed of events.

I think you feminists should examine how you really feel about the justice system at all. You genuinely seem to believe someone is guilty of rape because they are accused of it. I don't think you would be able to do your job on a jury panel or would be able to allow anyone else to do theirs because your position does not allow any evaluative process and the way you would like a court case to proceed (with the assumption he is guilty and the onus on him to make a string of 'excuses' which you will scoff at) seems to have no opportunity for any outcome but guilty. And you're fine with that because you think he is guilty of he's been accused. Meanwhile he will probably never get a job working with the public again and a man who may or may not be a rapist is very likely to lose his employment, friends family. I think the justice system is there for a reason and those punishments should not be coming to men unless they are found guilty. You think they're as near definitely guilty as makes no difference si fuck 'em. Our views are too different to find common ground

Gone, please don't be so aggressive. Thanks.

chocolate

So you think the only way a person can prove that they had consent is if the other person says they gave it?

And fuck off with your patronising 'i know you really want to make this hard but it really isn't'. Feminists are not the only people to have a view and certainly don't have the right to the definitive view. Moreover you have no idea if I wish to make it hard or if I simply see that occasionally it may be hard.

Anyway, we'll never agree so I'm not doing the consent thread again.

Jacquette I don't quite know how you missed it, but someone had made the point unilaterally that people reporting rape aren't believed. I responded with another view-from men who have been questioned and felt disbelieved and found guilty by the people taking them through the process. Get it now?

"unlike other crimes, a rape victim isn't believed in society and within the legal process, the other person is. That may still be true in some ways but it doesn't seem to hold any truth from the perspective of the person accused."

I don't know what this statement means re 'the perspective of the accused'.

A victim of rape is a witness in the legal process, just as a victim of GBH would be. The police decide whether to question someone about a crime and whether to arrest and charge them; the CPS decide whether to prosecute the case. IIRC, the CPS make this decision when they believe they have a good chance of the court reaching a guilty verdict.

If the victim is disbelieved by the police, or the police believe that there is mistaken identity etc, then the case is unlikely to get to court at all.

The case has gone to court because the CPS consider that there is a case to be answered. So from the perspective of the person accused of either crime, the Crown is building the case for the prosecution i.e. the case for a guilty verdict. The case will include a witness statement from the victim and also any other evidence and the defendant can build his own case for 'not guilty'; in the Ched Evans charge, these cases included CCTV footage, testimony of the hotel staff, testimony of friends of the footballer etc.

It is then up to the jury to weigh all the evidence, including witness statements, whatever the charge.

gone I never stopped reading your posts. I just can't be bothered to respond to some of the things you say when we've been over it loads. It's exhausting. I'll let someone else have a turn.
Your point about "vulnerable defendants" was one we hadn't discussed before. Yes I have read your posts but I don't understand why you think all defendants of rape should be anonymous but only vulnerable defendants of other crimes. It seems like and odd position to take.
Oh and btw unwanted sex is rape. Coerced sex is rape. If a woman chooses to have sex but isn't all that keen, that isn't rape.
HTH.