Why are people so defensive towards alleged rapists?

anonymity for those accused of crimes against groups in society who are perceived as vulnerable
Are you suggesting men accused of rape are vulnerable?
Otherwise you are suggesting rape is a special case and different to other crimes like murder and child abuse, if you argue defendants should be anonymous.

This is why I think we should always go from the position of no consent, and argue why you think you had it - ie argue a positive.

But isn't this what happens in a rape trial? There have been many complaints in this thread about the 'excuses' men give as they explain (or indeed lie) about how they perceived there was consent. What else are they trying to do, if not exactly what you describe? And you hate them for it.

If you want the entire justice system to change and people on trial to be 'guilty unless proven innocent' it's beyond the scope of this thread and you would have to prove what is special about rape, particularly, to merit that.

I haven't been accused of rape myself so experience is limited. However I have read testimonies of people who have been accused of rape. They talk about how clear it was that the police thought they did it. They certainly seem to feel guilty until proven innocent.

The same way anyone proves that they had permission to do something?

Which is

Also worth noting that we probably have a fundamentally different approach to rape. I expect that you will think a woman has been raped if she thinks she was raped, full stop. You will believe consent is a simple matter and if there was any cause for doubt, the man should have picked up on this and asked if she was willing to have sex. He should then have evaluated her physical and mental condition for evidence that she was in a fit state to make her own mind up on this matter. If he proceeded when she was drunk but willing, you probably believe this is rape if she afterwards decides that it was. I don't, necessarily. Therefore, we have completely different ideas about the necessity of the court case and what it's there to achieve.

Apologies for telling you what you think, but I have done this thread and have no desire to do it again. Let's accept that we are never going to agree. I think there is no straight connection between 'I believe I was raped' and 'he's a rapist', although there often is. But without wishing to give men an 'out' I think consent can indeed be complicated in ways that straight-talking, assertive feminists (who probably have never had unwanted sex without making clear that they didn't want it) don't understand and don't wish to acknowledge.

All that to say, I don't think a 'not guilty' verdict means there was a false rape accusation. So no, IMO the low conviction of rapists is only partly down to the difficulty of getting evidence.

The same way anyone proves that they had permission to do something?

As said before, in many cases, there is no doubt that the sex took place. The he said/she said regards consent.

For some reason, society thinks that women are more likely to lie about giving consent than a man is about having it.

This is why I think we should always go from the position of no consent, and argue why you think you had it - ie argue a positive.

Rather than assume that women forgot that they said OK, and men couldn't be expected to know if a woman actually wants to have sex with them or not.

Do that, enforce it, watch all these ambiguous rapes plummet as men realise that their freedom is in the hands of the women they were planning to coerce into having sex, and they'd better be damn sure that the woman really wants to be there.

choc

Fair point.

How would the burden of proof idea work? We both know it's very, very difficult to prove you have been raped. But, at least you can go to the police and have them verify that sex took place. Men have absolutely nothing like that, do they? How could they begin to prove it?

Announcement: For the fourth/fifth time, I think it's worth exploring anonymity for those accused of crimes against groups in society who are perceived as vulnerable. If that doesn't answer your question adequately, please tell me why instead of muttering that I'm avoiding it.

Jaquetta court reporting must, by law, be a fair, accurate and contemporaneous account of proceedings in court. To be eligible for qualified privilege, the reporter must report facts, not opinion - otherwise they risk being in contempt.

Yy pinky.

Alternatively, further restrictions could be imposed on the manner of press reports on judicial matters, both with respect to victims and accused, to be more factual than opinionated. I guess that wouldn't suit gone either.

I'm not sure how your post relates to what I've written. When you say 'who would want to ruin a man's life over a bit of regrettable sex', are you implying that a rape trial should really only have one outcome? I can't make out your point otherwise

No gone, as I replied before, I want the burden to be on the man to prove that he had consent, not on the woman to make the jury prove beyond doubt that he didn't.

If you say that you don't believe 90% of women are lying in their rape accusations, yet the conviction rate is even lower than that, then that's an awful lot of rapists, by your own words, going free. Something is broken with the way we prosecute rape if that is the case no?

"I'm deeply uncomfortable with the power of the press to vilify and destroy regardless of a fair trial and a society that metes out its most severe punishments outside of the legal system"

Then why don't you support anonymity until conviction for all?

There's a lot of vilifying of rape complainants too, of course, including illegal naming of them. The woman in the Ched Evans case has had to change her identity and move house more than once, and it wasn't even her that brought the accusation.

"And anyone who argues with this is anti-women and fair game for abuse."

No one has said this. Please stop being so unpleasant.

"why, in its present form, feminism's power must be curtailed and balanced by an opposing force in the interests of justice. "

What is this power that feminism has? And what is the nature of the opposing force you envisage?

" Yes, it's better than nothing, but rape should be reported full-stop."

Why do you think rape is so under reported, gone?

(Incidentally, this isn't just about going to the police when a rape trial is underway; the press also reports on arrests etc. We all know that police forces aren't as joined up as they might be - if I reported that a blond called Jim raped me at a party in Exeter 10 years ago but it wasn't possible to track him down then, a report of a greying man called James who has recently moved from Devon being arrested for questioning about a rape might prompt me to call the relevant authorities to make a connection that might not have been made otherwise.)

moral and intellectual fuckwittery

And you had the temerity to say I was insulting you yesterday by saying you were making yourself look foolish.

Don't think your views represent womankind either gone because they really, really don't.

prepared to do my part.

What does that mean gone?

The police may well have doubts about the burglary, mugging etc unless I was seriously injured but even then I may have self inflicted them. But I would not hesitate to call out that crime. Why is that?

It makes me doubt the veracity of those who say rape is a heinous crime next only to murder.

elendon

In that case, in the nicest possible way, you're part of the problem.

Don't complain about the way the world is and the way the justice system works unless you're prepared to do your part.

I don't have to care about everything...Why do you believe concern for women has to be earned rather than automatically given? It's not a reward for hard work you know

So care for women ought to be automatically given by men. But women don't have to give a fuck about anyone else. And anyone who argues with this is anti-women and fair game for abuse.

That's a great illustration of why feminism has bad press and why, in its present form, feminism's power must be curtailed and balanced by an opposing force in the interests of justice.

Don't think you represent all women - I personally would be ashamed to be represented by such moral and intellectual fuckwittery.

If I was mugged or assaulted, I would report it to the police, same with a burglary. If raped, no. And I have been raped and coerced into having sex. I do think those who report rapes are brilliant, but I couldn't do it.

For those who are bleating on about false accusations here is an interesting case.

barristerblogger.com/2016/07/21/shocking-case-david-bryant-reveals-fallacy-can-always-spot-liar/

OP, that's the difference, really and we clearly won't agree. You think a few male casualties are an acceptable loss because it's a just war. I don't come to that conclusion.

The number of rape trials that don't end in a conviction indicate not only a lack of evidence, but a lack of guilt in others and therefore there should be an absence of punishment. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the power of the press to vilify and destroy regardless of a fair trial and a society that metes out its most severe punishments outside of the legal system.

I also don't think it's at all helpful to encourage a culture of coming forward to report a rape when a trial is ongoing. Yes, it's better than nothing, but rape should be reported full-stop.

toads I'm sorry you feel that way because you have no idea what information is on file about that man already - perhaps someone has come forward but there wasn't enough evidence for a trial. This is why waiting for a trial to hit the papers is a terrible way to stop rapists.

If we only care about people in our own group then we're pretty much shafted as a society aren't we?

Yes, exactly. You are.

*Oh, and no I certainly don't think 90% of rape survivors are lying. I very much doubt that I think any more rape survivors are lying than you do.

choc

I'm not sure how your post relates to what I've written. When you say 'who would want to ruin a man's life over a bit of regrettable sex', are you implying that a rape trial should really only have one outcome? I can't make out your point otherwise.

Gone - just look at conviction statistics (unless you think that 90% of women are lying about their rapes?)

Or the law that Lass posted. The law that says that if the man could have reasonably believed he had consent, then it's OK. If the jury believe that he could reasonably have believed he had consent HE

And because of all this shit about these terrible lying women, who change their minds in the morning and cry rape, juries believe the man. Who would want to ruin a man's life over a bit of regrettable sex (forgetting that the woman has already been damaged enough to go to the police and go through the whole process)?

I guess I can thank my lucky stars that at least in 2003 they seem to have changed it because Lass's post suggests that before then if he unreasonably believed it was still fine.