Is a man accused of rape guilty until proven innocent?

Hadn't realised that ISNT. What is the actual conviction rate for rape cases that go to trial? And how does it compare to that for other crimes like say assault, robbery, murder, etc.? Apologies if this has been done to death elsewhere.

I have serious doubts about the innocence of lots of people found Not Guilty, or who have had the case against them dropped. The killers of Stephen Lawrence, for example, have never been found guilty of anything. OJ Simpson, as someone mentioned above,and this lowlife.

Just because the state doesn't find them guilty, doesn't mean I can't believe they are, that's up to me. You can't build a justice system around how people might think individually, that's why we have a jury and not a judge. People react differently and we have to go with the jury's consensus. Most times I think the consensus of 12 people who've heard the evidence is worth more than my own opinion. But where it's clear that the reason for letting the accused off is not because the jury believes them innocent, but because the police or prosecution have not done their jobs properly WRT collecting evidence, why shouldn't I believe them guilty?

I mean, if your neighbour came to the door with a head wound and said they'd been beaten up by their partner, you'd probably believe the partner guilty, wouldn't you?

Do we have to go through all the reasons again for not having anonimity?

PLus the other reasons that we have thought of in the meantime?

Are we going to have to go over again the fact that the vast majority of cases which get to court are the ones that have corroborating evidence, photographs of injuries and so on?

The ones where "it's her word against his" are on the whole filtered out by a long process starting with the victim "I won't report it as there's no evidence it's his word against mine" and ending with teh CPS "we won't take this to trial as it's her word against his and we are unlikely to secure a conviction".

That is why the conviction rate for cases which get to trial is not bad, but the proportion of reported rapes that actually get to trial is so low.

PerfectDromedary, the problem with your point that "The idea that anyone would put themselves through the trauma of a trial to make a false accusation is frankly insane" is that as other anti-Anonymity posters have pointed out, independent reasearch has shown that a small minority of women in 'rape' cases do make false allegations.

I take your point that in general terms it's unlikely that too many women would ever want to do such a thing, particularly when they will likely be subjected to intrusive and aggressive cross-examination into all areas of their life, morals, character, etc. But equally you can't simply say "well this woman is hardly like to have made her story up therefore the defendant is guilty". Everyone is entitled to due process.

I'm on my way out now so can't answer you, but all this has been discussed on the rape threads - can someone else please link to them for noyoucant as I have to go and gallivant? Thanks!

I'm not sure how "men's reputations" and "women's safety" are so mutually exclusive. I don't think that anonymity for defendants will have a huge impact on the conviction rate.

And I don't think that arguing for anonymity means that you think women's lives are less important than those of men, or that rape shouldn't be "treated with the same outrage and seriousness".

The reasons why rape has an unusually low conviction rate will still exist, regardless of whether or not anonymity comes in. I think anonymity is a red herring in terms of trying to improve the conviction rate.

It won't change the fact that in a lot of cases a conviction will come down to one person's word - "she consented" - against another's - "I didn't". And given the nature of 'date rape' what realistic measures can we come up with to improve the conviction rate for it?

I'm not sure there's much difference in men and women when it comes to belief or not in verdicts noyoucant. I think women are just as likely to believe a man to be innocent, because they don't want to believe it could happen to them and so they're happy to underplay the likelihood of rape.

But I have no evidence of that, it's only blithe assertion.

HerBeatitude Which I think this thread proves beautifully. The moment that we discuss changes in rape laws, a million people appear to ask "but what about teh mens"?

The idea that anyone would put themselves through the trauma of a trial to make a false accusation is frankly insane. And this kind of rhetoric has been around since the 17th century - if only I were at home, I could find the article that quotes a 17th Justice suggesting that a change in law would make malicious accusation easier.

Anonymity for a defendent does not happen in any other criminal prosecution. It will always be the case that some people hoist their bosoms and lean on the fence to discuss the fact that there's no smoke without fire. To respond to this by granting anonymity to the defendent in rape cases would be to enshrine the belief that most women are lying when they bring a rape accusation to trial. And thus the circle would continue.

Apologies: I'm really quite angry about this, apparently.

IME people are more suspicious of the true guilt/innocence of people who are charged with non-sexual crimes, and get off. Than people charged with sexual crimes, who they don't want to believe did it in the first place. Often they carry on not believing it after a guilty verdict.

The response to that 8yo girl who was raped, the headlines in the papers saying "SEE!!!! She WAS lying!!! We knew it all along. Now STOP the trial! Those poor poor boys..." shows the prevailing attitudes in our society to people accused of sexual offenses, and their victims.

I wonder if there have been any studies? PLenty of artciles etc linked on these threads which show that juries will do their absolute darndest to find and believe any trivial excuse or reason for assault.

Intuitively I'd suspect that a higher proportion of men than women would regard people found not guilty of rape as 'innocent'. Do you think that would be the reality? I'm curious about the general perception of women to such people though? Do you think that the majority of women would agree that in general most men found not guilty of rape are indeed innocent of the crime?

As with ISNT I think we all can look at individual cases - not just involving rape -where we think "hmmmmm" after an acquital (though to be fair this is often based on media reports which may not necessarily give the same insight that you'd have got had you actually heard all the evidence). But how widespread is the perception that a large number of men acquitted of rape were actually guilty?

And noyoucant - it depends on whether you think that men's reputations are more important than women's safety.

It is unfortunate that the low conviction rate makes acquittals inevitable and therefore untrustworthy; but it is more than unfortunate, it is horrific, that so many women are being raped and not getting the protection of the law. I personally think that that is a bigger problem than stigma. But then, I think women's lives are just as important as those of men and that being raped is every bit as important as being accused of rape and should be treated with the same outrage and seriousness. But that'll be the day.

But my belief isn't widespread across society.

Most people believe that the main problem with rape, is mad women inventing incidences of it, rather than the reality, which is that most women don't even report it.

I have to admit that I harbour suspicions about people found not guilty of all sorts of different crimes. Don't know what that says about my personality but there you have it.

I'm not sure how you can say there is no stigma. Between the media reports of men whose lives have been negatively affected by the stigma they have experienced, and the fact that from what you've said, and the impression I've got from reading threads on the subject on here, that a lot of women seem to think that many men found not guilty of rape are actually guilty, then surely that does lead to an increased stigma compared to many other crimes.

You yourself said above that people are more like to 'accept the innocence', so to speak, of someone found not guilty of a crime that has a higher conviction rate, rather than that of someone convicted of rape as it has a much lower conviction rate. If that belief is relatively widespread across society then I think that that is a strong argument in favour of anonymity for rape defendants.

Also I don't think that the issue is that people generally don't think that 'date rape' happens and that the only kind of rape that occurs is 'stranger rape'. I think it's more that 'date rape' is harder to obtain a conviction for because you're talking about an action where there is no argument about whether or not it took place, and no argument over whether or not it was the defendant who enaged in the action; rather it too often comes down to simply one person's word against another's, and given that you need proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' I don't think in that context that it's so surprising that rape has a lower conviction rate than other crimes, where the evidence is less subjective.

But it's not a stigma noyoucant.

Most people simply aren't bothered by rape.

It's probably more of a stigma to be found not guilty of burglary - people believe you actually might have done it then, but got lucky and got a good verdict, whereas with rape, most people don't believe men ever do it, except in the stranger jumps out of bushes scenario.

So there's no need to protect men from a stigma, seeing as how the stigma is non-existent. Unless of course, you're suggesting that all people accused of all crimes have anonymity.

My initial reaction to the proposed change re. anonymity was to think that it was not unreasonable, given some of the recent stories in the press about the consequences for some men who were wrongly accused.

But having read some of the arguments on here I have to admit I could see a lot of the logic in them, particularly in regard to encouraging other possible victims to come forward.

However if HerBeatitude's view - that a significant proportion of people found innocent in the eyes of the law for a given crime are actually guilty - is widely held, then if anything I think that makes the point for why anonymity IS a good idea.

I don't think it's fair for someone who has gone through due process and who is innocent in the eyes of the law to have that stigma attached to them.

That's in no way to be sympathetic to men who do commit rape and who get away with it, nor to disagree with the notion that it would be better if there were a higher proportion of rapists convicted. But if a lot of people are going to look at a large percentage of people acquitted of rape as rapists then perhaps there is some merit in protecting their identity.

UQD you can't believe WHO is serious?

"However listening to Woman's Hour this morning I felt we now want to change the burden of poof from proof of guilt to the man having to prove he is innocent. "

So did anyone actually say that this is what they wanted? Or did you infer it?

It would be helpful if you could see if there is a link to listen to the program and tell us how far in these comments happen.

I find it hard to believe that anyone (especially a high profile politician) has called for rape cases to be guilty unless proven innocent.

i suspect that the title of this thread is simply an effort to get everyone in a fight, with people who dislike feminism / attempts to improve matters re rape convictions piling in to say "yes it's disgusting outrageous that this is what they want blah" (as I see has already happened). And everyone else saying what eh? Who has said this? What are you on about?

Of course no-one on woman's hour, let alone harriet harman, has seriously proposed changing the law so that men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent.

I would have thought a fair number are guilty noyoucant I don't know how that would compare to the number of guilty burglars who get off because there is enough reasonable doubt. Juries are desperate to give men accused of rape the benefit of the doubt in a way they just aren't desperate to give men accused of burglary the same leeway.

What we do know, is that most rapists don't even get to trial or even reported. There are a hell of a lot more rapists who have never been reported or charged walking around, than who have been found not guilty in a trial. (And even fewer who have been found guilty.)

HerBeatitude, so you think that a relatively high percentage of men acquited of rape are actually guilty of the crime with which they were accused?

I very much doubt if HH is proposing what the OP says, but it will doubtless suit lots of anti-feminists to pretend that she believes that and get irate about it and wring their hands about it having All Gone Too Far. She was the Attorney General FGS, it's unlikely that she doesn't believe in the rule fo law.

Didn't listen to WH but I'll eat my hat if that is really what HH is proposing.