British woman found guilty of making up rape claims

I know that's the really upsetting thing, as with the ched e case, the women didn't even report rape. And now this one is in prison for it, the woman in the ched e case had her life torn apart as well (not sure how many new IDs she had to be given, moved away from all friends family, death and rape threats constantly etc)

Yes. I have long since thought (and the Stanford case in the US and the Belfast rape trial absolutely confirmed it for me) that if my daughters were raped I would not encourage them to report it. I'd give it a go myself on the basis I am old and boring (although the Brett Kavanaugh hearings made me think twice about that too - another woman under cover for telling her story about an assault - even middle age respectability doesn't really protect you) Now I have to think they can't even seek medical attention without being at risk of imprisonment themselves. Awful.

You can't consent to being harmed either, or at least it's not a defence. Unless you're a woman. Then suddenly the law not only disappears, but "she asked for it" becomes a full defence covering anything from rape to murder.

"Consent" should never be a defence when it comes to actual bodily harm.

I refer you to my earlier comment: "Women who enjoy pain would be much safer if they knew that the police and courts would assume that being hit wasn't ever consensual, because a woman could call the police on any dom who overstepped her boundaries and he would know that."

To the PP who said they couldn't believe that I was talking about kink on a rape thread, there is a reason for me doing so: kink is used to acquit rapists.

By your logic, we should acquit because you giving a stranger all your money isn't outright unthinkable

PanicAndRun - yes - absolutely - this is something that needs to be urgently addressed in UK law too. "Consent" should never be a defence when it comes to actual bodily harm.

You can't consent to being harmed either, or at least it's not a defence. Unless you're a woman. Then suddenly the law not only disappears, but "she asked for it" becomes a full defence covering anything from rape to murder.

It's more likely that a woman would consent to sex with 12 men most of whom are strangers

Than 12 men would plan to gang rape a woman one of them is seeing.

One must disbelieve the woman because women like this sort of thing.
One must believe the men as men rarely lie about rape, or indeed commit it.

On the internet, the same rules apply as in a courtroom. Women who think she was likely to have been raped must keep their opinions to themselves. Men who think she's a liar are welcome to comment freely.

Obviously.

Like the judge who said he wouldn't hear any evidence she was raped as it's not a rape trial. All sensible and above board.

It really is not that unknown for people to make "unthinkable" decisions, and if you can't imagine that kind of scenario that's really about you.

Say that someone stops you in an alleyway and mugs you. You tell the the police. It's highly unlikely that you would take out your wallet and give a random stranger in an alleyway all your money, so you would expect a conviction. By your logic, we should acquit because you giving a stranger all your money isn't outright unthinkable: the stranger might be a beggar and you might feel generous.

It's amazing how the rules are always different when it comes to rape.

Is it believable that she has been convicted of making the whole thing up?

Or does that not require the same standard of proof?

I would suggest a universal truth that someone who believes that a woman who can consent to sex with 12 men is not in possession of a vagina.

I know that's the really upsetting thing, as with the ched e case, the women didn't even report rape. And now this one is in prison for it, the woman in the ched e case had her life torn apart as well (not sure how many new IDs she had to be given, moved away from all friends family, death and rape threats constantly etc)

That's not unexpected, it's not even shocking. Not anymore.

What is shocking and absolutely terrifying is that now there is a 19 yo girl,in a foreign country, who has been injured, who reportedly now suffers from PTSD, abuse ho has bee in jail that's waiting for a sentence because she had a crime reported on her behalf.

Well it's not the end of it for the girl is it

They're not coming back.

They've got away with it.

End of.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You don't want rape trials to be decided on believablity or what is more likely to have happened? That is exactly what happens all the time. There is a presumption of innocence in most common law countris and the standard in most common law countries is beyond a reasonable doubt. Lots of crimes still get convictions despite the presumption of innocence. Just seems particularly difficult in rape cases for some reason.

Is there any other crime where the defense is something defies belief by most people and the victim says no it didn't happen like that and the accused would be believed?

The woman involved is saying it didn't happen like that and you still think it ok to believe the men on the off chance she is the one woman in a million who would like nothing more than to finish off an evening at a nightclub having sex with a man and his 11 friends. Seriously?

Where has any common sense gone. We all know it is far more likely that the Cyprus government didn't want the mess of a rape trial like this as it would be far more likely to affect tourism than banging up one teenage girl.

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt in most common law countries.

MrsGolightly

This reminds me of the case in the US. They made a series about it for Netflix, Unbelievable. I believe the girl.

I saw something about this too from the US - but I don't have Netflix so maybe not the same one.

Same thing though, girl says she was raped by 3 men in a bathroom then was persuaded to withdraw her claims and admit she made it up by a police officer who lied to her about there being video footage which looked as though she had consented. Apparently this isn't illegal there so it's OK. He didn't warn her or her parents (in whose home he did the questioning but without them present) that she might need legal representation whilst being questioned. In fact to begin with I think she believed he was just checking on some details.

She ended up in prison - she was told that if she pleaded guilty it would be a short sentence whereas if she didn't and was found guilty it would be a really long sentence (they seem to have these in the US). So, against the advice of her lawyer and because she was frightened, she pleaded guilty.

At the end of the programme the men concerned said they were going to sue her. I don't know what happened then. I have to say (and I do know that this is just my opinion judging by the demeanour of all parties on the programme) that I utterly believed her and that I thought the men who agreed to be on the programme were very unbelievable. I don't think all of them consented to be interviewed.

Yes, I can understand why women don't report rape.

And where does the doubt come from? Because she "likely" asked for it..asked to be raped,beaten,tortured even murdered.

No matter how outrageous or heinous the crime.

Yes, often in rape trials it comes down to there being no or ambiguous concrete evidence apart from reports of the people involved.

And usually, that results in a lack of conviction. That's not because someone is deciding the woman is less believable, it's because of the way the legal system is set up for all crimes, if there is any doubt, any possibility something else happened, they are required not to convict. The woman may be more believable if you are thinking "what would most women do in a situation like that" but legally that doesn't matter.

Individual cases are not decided on the basis of what is most statistically likely. All kinds of things are statistically unlikely, but sometimes they happen. Do you really want people to be convicted in such cases because they fit some statistical profile? Based on their sex, on their race, on their social class? That's what you are talking about.
An individual case can be a one in 10 million incident, it could be something that has never happened in the history of humanity. It needs to be judged on the evidence, not on what is likely. Now what might have happened in some general situation but what we can show actually happened in this particular one.

This kind of approach, of what seems "likely", what people do which you happen to think is normal, would ultimately be as likely to undermine the victim's cases as the accused, as well as resulting in many false convictions for various crimes. It would also undermine the basic principles of our legal system, which goodness knows are already difficult to keep to a high standard at times.

I am not judging any woman who does like group sex.

But lets look at this realistically.

Would any of us like to have sex with twelve men in one go?

I wouldn't. Because - I wouldn't like to be vulnerable in front of twelve men. That is a ver vulnerable situation.

I wouldn't like a large group of men watching me have sex with a man.

It certainly wouldn't give me any pleasure, 12 men would be sore. And mentally for me - after maybe a third man at tops - mentally, I would find it boring and not pleasurable and tiring.

Realistically - it was not what she wanted. It is more realistic that 11 young men on tour would abuse a woman.

But don't worry. Men are extremely unlikely to face any consequences in the UK if they rape, so I do hope that puts your mind at rest.

This reminds me of the case in the US. They made a series about it for Netflix, Unbelievable. I believe the girl.

This case seems to me like it's been mishandled, but that discussion is undermined by these kinds of claims that we should go back to the days of making legal judgements based on what seems most likely and who seems most believable, and what we personally can imagine people doing. People will inevitably push back against that sort of approach because they know what it leads to.

What? This is EXACTLY how most rape trials or decisions to prosecute are conducted today. Legal judgments based on what seems most likely and who seems most believable. What do you think happens in rape trials? It is nearly always he said/she said and so it comes down to what seems most likely and who seems most believable. Nearly always the man funnily enough but there you go.

We all know that a woman consenting to have sex with 12 men at the same time is highly unlikely - this without the physical evidence of bruising etc. Why do we have to pretend that in case some deeply vulnerable woman has ostensibly given "consent" to just this then we must presume that the average woman is up for it? Why are we contorting our common sense to try to pretend that porn is actually real life.

Any man who gets in line as the 12th to have sex with a woman on a random night out should realise that he needs to get explicit consent or run the risk of what he is doing been seen as non consensual. Amazing the presumption that all sex is consensual - even porn-fueled extreme shit.

Man was found not guilty of rape as he 'fell on her'.

Man was found not guilty of rape as he did not understand the word no as English was not his first language.

Man was found not guilty of rape as woman was wearing tight jeans.

Etc etc

This 'is it more likely they are telling the truth or not' seems to cut one way.

If I add a 17yo talked to a man in the pub who followed me out and raped me in a muddy field, should I have known what I was 'getting myself into'.

Classic victim blaming.

'they don't really understand what they are getting themselves into'

Should women understand that they are 'getting themselves into' gang rape if they go back with a man they are seeing?

I mean listen to yourself.

' It really is not that unknown for people to make "unthinkable" decisions,'

Very few women will enthusiastically consent to sex with a dozen men they don't know.

That's a simple fact.

The idea that this is more likely, than that she was attacked, is counter intuitive, yet here we have people saying that is the natural thing to believe.

Same as the idea it's likely that teenage virgins will consent to violent anal sex in alleyways with strangers, or that they will decide to have their 'first time' in a field deep with mud with a man they just met.

All of these women reported rape. People who are quick to say, well it seems something pretty likely to me, so she's lying. Rather than hmm that sounds unlikely and a rape has been reported, so maybe just maybe the men are lying, have some seriously dodgy ideas.

I think you'll find it's usually men who make reckless decisions when it comes to sex. It's men who drag non-consenting women into nightclub cleaners cupboards to dip their wicks. It's men who will pay hundreds to a "Belle Du Jour" for a couple of hours of sexual gratification. It's men who will endanger their jobs, marriages, and liberty to view child abuse images. Women do not make that kind of "bad decision".From the female perspective, there's "bad decisions" like not using a condom, and then there's handing yourself over a gang of 12 men who may not have your best interests at heart. The latter goes so far beyond "bad decisions" as to be unthinkable for a woman outside of carefully planned and safeguarded situations.

It's this kind of commentary that makes many people very wary of improving or hanging laws and procedures around rape. It really is not that unknown for people to make "unthinkable" decisions, and if you can't imagine that kind of scenario that's really about you. There are all kinds of reasons people will make decisions like that, often they are self-destructive, or they don't really understand what they are getting themselves into, or for some reason they have come to expect that sort of treatment.

You cannot make a decision, a legal ruling, about a particular instance, that it will follow the pattern you expect, based on claims that no one would do something so stupid. As a civilian you can say, I think that seems an unlikely thing for someone to do, but we should all be glad that the law is not supposed to work that way.

This case seems to me like it's been mishandled, but that discussion is undermined by these kinds of claims that we should go back to the days of making legal judgements based on what seems most likely and who seems most believable, and what we personally can imagine people doing. People will inevitably push back against that sort of approach because they know what it leads to.