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

As mentioned by a PP, this is already covered under "perverting the course of justice"--there is no special need for a special law just for rape accusations, but yes, if there is really clear evidence of a fake claim/conspiracy then criminal charges should be brought.

I think it goes without saying that the barrier to bringing such a conviction needs to be quite high, though, as rape is a very hard crime to prove. There needs to be a strong case proving that the claim was maliciously meant and deliberate.

This thread is about something that happens so rarely that it's not worth mentioning.

There are all sorts of crimes that are statistically very rare, doesn't mean we can't talk about them.

The question was whether young girls should go to prison for false rape allegations.
This raises a number of questions.
Why young girls?
Why rape?
I understand that an innocent person is harmed by false accusations of a crime. Some people never recover their equilibrium after a violent crime investigation, even when they are not found guilty.
Suicide is the leading cause of death among people 10 to 32 in the UK.
So, my question when this issue of punishing young girls for bearing false witness comes up which it does repeatedly on Feminist boards is why the narrow focus on young girls and rape?

Not at all. The harm caused by false rape accusations does not in any way diminish the harm caused by rape.

People making false allegations (as in, those who do so maliciously, I'm not talking about individuals who make factual accusations which tragically lack sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, these are in no way comparable) are brutally and callously undermining the credibility of actual victims. It's a very small number but it's absolutely poisonous to people who are rightly seeking justice.

I'm unclear on how this could possibly constitute 'oppression olympics'. I was responding to a message questioning how a made up accusation could cause harm. If I've misunderstood, could you please explain?

Are you playing oppression olympics? Do you have the list of girls who committed suicide after being raped?

Have you evidence of this?

A very quick search turned up these people:
Jay Cheshire
Ross Bullock
Thomas Klocke

All committed suicide after they were falsely accused of rape. If you don't consider that sufficiently life destroying, Jay Cheshire's mother also committed suicide after her son's untimely death.

In those rare and exceptional circumstances (that can only happen in Scotland), a civil case was very likely to succeed

That is not correct. It is possible in most jurisdictions to bring a civil case for damages, and win , on a balance of probability despite a criminal court having returned a not guilty verdict. The "not proven" verdict has no bearing on this.

Perhaps there needs to be a 'not proven' verdict, (as I believe there is in other countries) that can be made public, so that people can tell the difference between unclear evidence and genuinely found to be innocent

Scotland has a "not proven" verdict. There are historic reasons for it - traditionally the options were "proven" and "not proven". Not guilty appeared in the mid 1700s. I'm not sure there is much merit in "not proven" , given the general uncertainty over what it means.

Courts , certainly in the UK, do not find any accused "genuinely innocent". To be found guilty the court must determine the case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as opposed to the civil test of proving a case on a balance of probability.

If I remember correctly, the "Civil Cases" had all been through a trial in a Criminal Court but were not proved beyond reasonable. But neither had the accused been found "Not Guilty". Instead, the jurors felt that the prosecution case had "not proven" guilt.

The "not proven" bit may have referred to a number of things - questions about forensic evidence, or failures to disclose evidence, or the way the police handled this, that or the other . ie Don't assume that jurors doubted the witness.

In those rare and exceptional circumstances (that can only happen in Scotland), a civil case was very likely to succeed.

I wouldn't consider the cases to be a precedent for suing rapists in the civil courts.

A made up rape accusation can destroy someone’s life as much as a rapist can destroy their victims

Have you evidence of this?

How young a girl do you think should be incarcerated for bearing false witness, OP?

History of the alleged perpetrator is inadmissible but history of the alleged victim is admissible and often milked in order to create a misleading impression based on implicit misogynist cultural narratives.

If it’s 100% proven she lied, she should 100% go to prison. A made up rape accusation can destroy someone’s life as much as a rapist can destroy their victims.

mrsTP

Well i did assume that the strapping everyone to a lie detector wasn't actually a serious suggestion

(Plus lie detectors dont really work)

That was me and it was quite clearly hyperbole born of frustration.

What do think deserves a look is whether past convictions should be admissible. The recidivism rate for sexual offences is sky high. Someone having a prior conviction for a similar offence with a similar MO... they looked at this years ago for child sexual offences. What happened there?

"has anyone on the thread suggested that the burden of proof/ approach in the criminal justice system be changed?"

"Tell you what. I can sort out the whole thing. Do it on balance of probabilities"

Yesterday @23:30

I don't think that anyone had suggested either that when the criminal justice system find people guilty, it's likely to be wrong.

Where are you getting this stuff?

Has anyone on the thread suggested that the burden of proof/ approach in the criminal justice system be changed?

I haven't seen anything saying that.

Oooh too many 'doubts' in that post

gronky

I dont think there is

But as far as i know very few cases would go to court if there was any doubts...so i doubt there would be any

Thank you, Rufustheyawningreindeer (the below isn't directed at you specifically).

I've had a good search but not found anything. Are there any cases of an accuser being found guilty of perjury/making false statements to the police and subsequently winning a civil case against the accused?

gronky

I agree, i see what you mean now as i do think your post was a little ambiguous

Like masses of mine

Sorry for the ambiguity, that's not what I meant. I was trying (and apparently failing) to say that one system does not invalidate the other, in either direction. It is frustrating, distressing even, when a likely criminal escapes prosecution but I don't believe that this represents a problem with the core principles of the justice system. If anything, lowering the standards required to secure a criminal conviction would be more harmful to women in particular because it would likely result in more women being convicted of giving false statements in cases where those cases were dropped due to insufficient evidence. This would, in turn, further discourage reporting of incidents in the first place.

Gronky you seen to be saying that a guilty finding in a civil court (on the balance of probability) is

Not enough to make you believe that they are guilty of anything
Not worth the paper it's written on
Something else?

Can you expand on what you mean.

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

as with fake assault it comes up on police searches & the individual accused even when proven innocent are unable to get work as teachers etc - there have been several incidences of this occurring. Not the same but there are also incidences where disabled/vulnerable people get attached by a group of young males but the actual attack is orchestrated by a young malicious female - who usually gets off scot free.