should young girls go to prison for "false rape claims"

Agreed tallulah

Very sad

I agree completely fermats

Thats what incensed me about the young man mentioned in an earlier post

The newspaper article said quite clearly that she withdrew the accusation, and it then goes on to say that its a false accusation when its not the same thing at all

Trouble is a lot of people read those articles and believe them...and thats another tick in the women lie box...the comments section is full of fuckwits calling for the woman's immediate arrest and imprisonment

If those fuckwits had a brain they would be dangerous...as it is they are just very very stupid

YY Rufus

And the situation where she recants in order to save her friends and family (who are also his friends and family) from having to pick a side.

Doesn't have to be bullying.

Yup, Rufus. My friend who was raped on the way back from a maths lecture - I sat through a lot of her interviews with the police because she wanted someone there for support. They were absolutely fucking shite, and their whole MO was to bully her as badly as possible to see if she was likely to cope with the stress of a court case. They then bullied her into withdrawing the complaint. (Which was then presumably "no-crimed").

I then spent several months sleeping on her floor in the halls of residence so she'd have someone there when she woke up screaming in the night. Then she became suicidal and had to go home to her parents for support.

Which is one reason why I get so incredibly fucking angry with people who think not guilty verdicts/complaints withdrawn/CPS didn't proceed mean that the victim lied. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the victim is telling the truth and the system has let her down totally and utterly.

I know I am extremely late to this thread but going back to the original title of the thread should young girls go to prison for false rape claims, if young girls literally means under 18 and not some way of describing grown women as so many people still describe women in this way then answer is NO not always after all not all convicted rapists who are under 18 go to prison. Look at this story
www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/rapist-walked-free-suffer-sentence-501933

Sometimes i dont think its always bullying from family and friends

Especially if they are worried about how other people and the authorities are going to treat their daughter for example

Or they have had experience of a rape trial themselves

But the end result would still be the victim recanting

WHICH TO SOME FUCKWITS MEANS THAT SHE WAS LYING WHEN SHE FUCKING WASN'T

Just thought id 'yell' that last bit

It's extremely common in the U.K. for girls and women to be bullied into recanting by police / perpetrator / perpetrator's family / own family / wider social circle

citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/6/1/8/1/p161817_index.html

I think it important to recognize that most young girls who are convicted of false rape allegations are guilty pleas and not jury verdicts

I presume from your post that you are not in the UK. We don't usually refer to a "perp" in the UK. We also don't have plea bargains. The nearest we get in the UK is when the prosecution agrees to drop a more serious charge if the accused pleads guilty to a lesser charge. A defendant is never offered the choice you describe.

If you are in the UK, do you have any data to support your allegation? The only figures I can find show how many people are charged with making false rape allegations but don't even tell us what proportion are convicted, let alone whether they plead guilty or are found guilty by a jury.

I think it important to recognize that most young girls who are convicted of false rape allegations are guilty pleas and not jury verdicts.
There is a clearly documented record of intimidation of young girls by the police and sometimes by the perp when the victim goes to the police after being raped.
They are offered a choice between continued harassment ending in public humiliation at trial or a plea bargain where the victim recants and is promised a fine if they confess to making a false allegation. Judges like to put young girls in jail to teach them a lesson so they rarely respect the deal the prosecutors make.

Thanks for the link.

The first thing to say is that the "penetration by accident" stuff is something the prosecution said in their opening remarks and was their interpretation of the defendant's second interview with the police. It is, of course, in the prosecution's interests to make the defendant's explanations to the police sound as ridiculous as possible. If you don't think the defendant is guilty after the prosecution's opening speech they aren't doing their job properly.

The trial appears to have lasted a week. The only reports I can find cover the prosecution's opening remarks and the verdict. The prosecution's evidence and the defence case don't appear to have been reported, beyond a brief mention that the defence accused the victim of lying. Given the lack of coverage, we don't even know if the prosecution's version of the defendant's statement was accurate.

Juries do sometimes arrive at surprising verdicts. I cannot rule out the possibility that this was the defence and the jury bought it but I find that difficult to believe.

The defendant was a very wealthy individual and I would not be surprised if that was a factor in his acquittal

I note the petition suggesting the judge was bribed. The basis for this seems to be that 20 minutes of the defence case was heard in private and therefore we don't know what was said, and that the judge decided the defendant's story was true. The petition is wrong on both counts. When evidence is given in private there is a named member of the press present who can report on proceedings. We don't know what was said in the defence case because the press chose not to report it, not because the press were excluded. And the judge does not decide whether or not the defendant's story is true. That is a matter for the jury. The judge's role is to ensure the correct process is followed and guide the jury on the relevant law.

As with the first case, if you would like to point me at the cases concerned I will see if I can find out more.

There was such a case, see the indy link below - and as absurd as it sounds, that was the defense and he was acquitted by the jury.

The defendant was a very wealthy individual and I would not be surprised if that was a factor in his acquittal.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/i-fell-and-penetrated-her-by-accident-millionaire-rape-suspect-claims-a6767486.html

You are arguing against men who dishonestly claim they had an honest belief. I join you in condemning them.

So do I.

By way of full disclosure, having posted more on this thread than I intended, I am a man. I was a victim of sexual assault and attempted rape when I was in my early teens (a long time ago!). I did not report the incident to the authorities.

I would love to see a perfect system where all rapists were convicted and anyone falsely accused was acquitted. Achieving that would mean that defendants would only be able to get away with claiming an honest belief when they did indeed honestly and reasonably believe that the victim consented. Unfortunately, such a system is not possible in the real world.

Fucking hell would'ja look at my typing

On second thoughts DONT

Previous posters claimed that approx 3% of all crimes are deliberately falsr reports therefore the rate of deliberately false rapes as a percentage of all rapes will be similar

You (or they) have misunderstood

False rape reports stand at approximately 3% which is ariund about the same as ither crimes

They haven't said all crime false reports are 3% so rape must be as well

That is absolutely arse about face

I come away with the strong impression that "belief in consent" appears to equate to "I once saw a violent porn film with this practice in it, so women, including this one, must all like this sort of practice."

No, it doesn't mean that or anywhere near. Remember that coverage in the press is often highly inaccurate and sensationalised.

I fell penis first into her vagina as she lay drunk and borderline unconscious on my floor

That doesn't sound like any case I know of. However, if the victim is unconscious the law dictates a presumption that there was no consent and that the defendant knew there was no consent. If he wanted to argue otherwise the burden of proof that there was consent or that he reasonably believed there was consent would fall on the defendant. If you can point me towards the case to which this refers I will see if I can find out more.

I hadn't actually talked to her, let myself into the hotel room with a pass-key obtained by deception, asked my mate if I could 'have a go', and had sex with her from behind even though there were no indications that she even knew it was a different person having sex with her

As I say, this bears little relationship to the actual defence. The evidence of Ched Evans and his friend was that the victim was specifically asked if Evans could have sex with her and she looked at Evans and agreed. They said that she actively encouraged Evans and that, at her request, he gave her oral sex (his friend having declined to do so) prior to full sex. This was an unusual case in that the victim at no point alleged that she was raped. The case was based entirely on her inability to recall events despite, according to expert evidence, not consuming anywhere near enough alcohol to cause memory loss. Indeed, the only evidence that Evans and his friend actually had sex with her came from Evans and his friend.

I am not familiar with the other two cases referred to. I would expect a defence in the terms described to fail. As with the first case, if you would like to point me at the cases concerned I will see if I can find out more.

You need to watch what you're saying here patriarchy. The suggestion that women who have been raped may be "defiining it" in ways other than it's meant ie non consensual penetration is a totally shitty one.

But the problem sometimes lies around the definition of 'consensual' IMO. What if a couple of drunken students have sex and then the girl can't remember anything the next morning. This seems to be a common university situation where the guy is seen not to have obtained consent although he was equally drunk (and may not have consented when sober).

Karya

I commend you on your google research over lunch but you could have saved yourself a lot of effort if you had read my original points.

I have never said that revenge/finance etc cannot be motives for other crimes. (that's just silly)

I have stated repeatedly that when you compare false, malicious reports of rape against false, malicious reports of other types of crime, then the motives i have listed are far more applicable, if not solely applicable to rape.

I mean, its possible to make a long, convoluted argument that someone may be motivated to make a false, malicious report of burglary against another person on the grounds of reputational protection, but its not very likely is it?

However its very easy to make a strong argument for the false, malicious reporting of rape against another person on the grounds of reputational protection.

You see what I mean?

Fermat

You are projecting and speculating.

You are arguing against men who dishonestly claim they had an honest belief. I join you in condemning them.

As I said, the key words are reasonable and honest

I don't mean caution as in "they should get a caution" but caution as in "has she done this entirely independently and there is nothing else going on with her".

Astonishment -

Excuses

If a woman makes a malicious allegation for rape then she should face prosecution same as anyone else who makes a malicious allegation.

For children (the OP talks about "young girls") I am not sure. Ahe of criminal responsibility is 10 I think? If a 10yo made a malicious allegation of rape I'd think that social services should be involved as there would be ??? around whether she was put up to it by an adult, or had been abused by someone else etc

What is your view? Thread title is "should young girls go prison for false rape claims". My answer is NO if they are under the age of criminal responsibility, and caution for under 16s (under 18s?).

Which bits are "distortions", prh ?

Because as a woman, reading rape cases covered in the press, week in, week out, I come away with the strong impression that "belief in consent" appears to equate to "I once saw a violent porn film with this practice in it, so women, including this one, must all like this sort of practice."