to have not let this go with my dad and ended up in an argument? (TRIGGER WARNING: Rape)

[Bogeyface]

Locally there has been relatively important public figure accused of rape.

I was discussing it with my mother and she said that she doesnt know what she thinks, but I said that the fact it got to court at all, especially taking into account that it happened several years ago, suggests that the CPS must have some pretty damning evidence. I said that considering that most reported rapes dont get to court because of a lack of evidence, the fact that this one did says that there is something in the accusation. She conceded that I had a point but I could see that she wasnt convinced.

Then my dad says "Well its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, she says he did, he says he didnt, its probably a misunderstanding" and I was really cross and said that I was appalled that he viewed rape like that. I said that his attitude was one of the reasons that many women dont bother reporting rape because they know that the chances of conviction are tiny, as most of the jury will have that attitude. Anyway, it went on and we ended up having a row about it, which shook me, I havent hada row with dad in years and years. He stormed off and obviously thinks that I am in the wrong and should accept that the accused probably didnt do it as the woman sounded "like a piece of work" (DONT GET ME STARTED ON THAT ).

Mum says I should have left it and not got into a row, I said that I would get into a row with anyone with that attitude to women and to rape. I asked her how she would feel if I was the victim and someone said that about me, she sort of shrugged and said that I still should have let it go.

I had to ring them about something a few minutes ago and dad was really short and snotty with me on the phone, not like him at all, but I was damned if I was going to let a comment like that go unchallenged. The court case is ongoing and if I mention it again I just know that mum will try to shut me up about it, rather than "make a fuss" and "wind your dad up".

WIBU? I wasnt was I? Questioning myself now!

[Burke1]

Sounds like you're not convinced he is innocent. We can never know for certain whether he did or didn't but being found not guilty means that all the evidence was checked thoroughly by experts and it was found that there was not enough evidence to convict him of the alleged crime. That's as close to innocent as anyone can get.

[Bogeyface]

I made the distinction because there is a world of difference between being found Not Guilty and being proven innocent.

I dont know enough to say either way whether he did it or not, but I have to say that if the statistics are to be believed then he is more likely to be lying than she is, there simply wasnt enough evidence to convict "beyond reasonable doubt". Couple that with attitudes towards rape victims (my dad being a prime example) and the fact that some people with that attitude could have been on the jury, I am not convinced that the verdict was necessarily the correct one.

[Burke1]

The evidence suggested he was not guilty. That's the closest you can come to being found innocent (it's almost impossible to prove that a rape allegation was malicious) so it should be considered that he did not commit the crime he was accused of.

[Aridane]

I hope to God if I am never prosecuted for a criminal offence - but if I were to be and found not guilty, people say, oh, she's not innocent, just that there wasn't enough evidence to confict beyond reasonable doubt.

[Suzannewithaplan]

lots of people commit crimes and escape prosecution because of insufficient evidence and/or clever lawyers 'technicalities' etc.
this is nothing new

It well known that in cases of rape it is extremely difficult to secure a conviction because of the nature of the crime.

Only 'incompetent' criminals get caught, a criminal with a particularly devious mind will think things through weigh it up and make sure he doesnt get caught out.

A 'successful' sexual predator will chose a victim and a situation which maximizes his chances of getting away with it

[SardineQueen]

Well at the moment we have a situation where forever really people (usually women and children but also men too) who have been sexually assaulted, raped or abused have been dismissed when they have tried to tell people about it.

So you have a campaign which at it's heart of it says, when people say this stuff has happened, it would be nice if they were listened to, if their allegations were investigated, of they were taken seriously, if they weren't told to shut up and go away.

The response to this from some quarters is "no no you can't have that! it undermines the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

That gets a from me.

Maybe in a society where victims of sex crimes weren't routinely disbelieved and sent away there would be a conversation. But as things stand, nope. If we could just get all the police forces for eg to not treat people reporting sex offences with suspicion then that would be a start.

[SardineQueen]

Suzanne in the case of sexual offences many predators are serial and so one or two victims would be hard to form a prosecution around but when you get into larger numbers it becomes more feasible.

As we know that sex offenders escalate and are often serial I think it is extremely important to encourage all victims to report and to join these reports up so that names / large similarities which come up multiple times can be flagged. This approach would have worked with John Warboys and Ian Huntley, for example.

A lot of the time in society (and I've seen it lots on here) victims are encouraged to triage their own experience and think "well what can they do about it there's no proof" and so not to tell anyone (on top of the other barriers to reporting). I think this is an incorrect approach and that if all victims reported and the information was collated properly we could get some really serious serial offenders off the streets.

That's what I think anyway

[Burke1]

I agree with you Aridane, I would find it rather disappointing if, after being accused and found not guilty of a crime, people still thought I had done it. There is nothing we can do about that attitude unfortunately. Some people make up their own mind that someone is guilty and simply go into denial when confronted by any evidence that the person is innocent. For them, not guilty just means "he got away with it", and CCTV footage that proves his innocence will mean "he tampered with te tapes".

Not guilty doesn't always mean innocent, but it does in most circumstances.

[AWholeLottaNosy]

Problem is, there's still a misconception about what is 'real rape', ie a monster jumping out at night on a poor innocent girl. That's bollocks in the main. Many people feel threatened by the fact that 'normal' men are capable if commiting this crime. Just look at the initial outcry at all the male celebs, Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, et al who were shown to be guilty of many heinous crimes. Good for you for confronting your parents but sadly those attitudes are very hard to change...

[SardineQueen]

People can think whatever they like about you Burke1.

Fortunately in the UK at the moment many people believe that rapists are innocent or have been fucked over in some way even when they are serving time for their crime. So maybe that goes some way towards putting your mind at rest.

[Jackieharris]

Yanbu

If we don't chanllenge rape myths within our own circle of friends and family then the rape culture we live in will continue indefinitely.

[Burke1]

We can't assume that both parties are innocent without utilizing doublethink. If he is innocent then that means she's guilty, and if she's innocent that means he's guilty. At the moment, I'll assume that he's the innocent one because he's the only one who has been found to be not guilty by experts who are more qualified than you or I to decide on his guilt as they have access to more information about the case than we will.

It wouldn't be in the interests of justice to pursue her for making a false allegation though, it would deter other women reporting rape if they feared being prosecuted if they couldn't get the rapist convicted, and also because it's nearly impossible to prove. "He did rape me but I just couldn't prove it" is enough reasonable doubt for her to be found not guilty.

[Bogeyface]

he's the only one who has been found to be not guilty by experts who are more qualified than you or I to decide on his guilt.

Wrong. He was found not guilty by a jury made up of people just like you or me not "experts" and they are no more able to interpret the evidence presented than we are. We just have to hope that they interpreted it correnctly.

[Burke1]

Bogeyface they will have had access to much more information about the case than you or I will, and will have been instructed on legal matters by a qualified judge. They are far more qualified than you or I to determine whether he was guilty or not, simply because they will have had the full facts, not speculation like we do.

[Bogeyface]

Yes they had facts presented to them in court that we do not know about, I am merely stating that they are no more "experts" than you or me.

[Burke1]

Bogeyface they are however more qualified than you or I to make a decision on his guilt simply because they have access to the facts that we don't. And they found that he wasn't guilty. If there's nothing to suggest that they came to the wrong verdict, and I'd welcome you to show me anything that suggests this, then I'm happy to assume his innocence.

[kawliga]

"I believe you" is not confusing at all. There is nothing complicated about it, there is nothing to understand there. If a friend got mugged and the mugger took their bag nobody would say 'well, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, I wasn't there so I don't know, I must assume there was no mugging until it is proved in court'. We usually believe people when something bad happens to them. We don't get confused and start wondering about legal systems and burdens of proof we just believe them. Even if the perpetrator gets off the charges, we don't stop believing them. Rape is just like any other violent crime in that regard.

As for the stats re 98% of rape allegations being genuine, again there is nothing surprising there, that's what you would expect. Most people who report crimes to the police are telling the truth. Of course they are. Some people do make up false criminal allegations to get others in trouble, but most people who go to the police to report that something happened, something did happen. There is no reason to treat rape as if there is something special about it that would cause loads of women to fabricate this crime. Unless you think women generally fabricate crimes (rape, burglary, theft, mugging, traffic accidents, anything - if it is reported by a woman should we think 'hang on, she might be making it all up')

Just to be clear, rape is a crime of power and violence. So if you would not be surprised to hear that most muggings reported to police actually happened, why would you be surprised that most rapes reported to police actually happened.

[kawliga]

We can't assume that both parties are innocent without utilizing doublethink

This is nonsense. Most legal cases involve both sides being 'innocent'!!! Of course they do. If one side truly believed themselves to be 'guilty' they would be unlikely to defend the case in the first place. They would tell the police 'yes, I did it' and they would be convicted and sentenced with no need for a full trial. If there is a trial, it means both sides are 'innocent'.

If you think that the person who 'loses' a legal case must be the 'guilty' one and the other must be the 'innocent' one you are being ridiculous. Think about this for five seconds. Imagine two children squabbling 'he said she said' over a toy. You listen to them, you give the toy to one child for whatever reason. Peace is restored. It doesn't mean one child is the 'innocent' one and the other child is the 'guilty' one. Many disputes are resolved according to rules which have nothing to do with deciding who is 'guilty' and who is 'innocent'. They are both telling their truth. This is common sense.

In courts of law, many rules of evidence mean that relevant evidence cannot be admitted to court: the thing happened, the evidence is there, the police know exactly what happened, but the evidence is inadmissible. For anyone to conclude that people get off crimes in court because they are 'proved innocent' is ridiculous.

[Bogeyface]

For anyone to conclude that people get off crimes in court because they are 'proved innocent' is ridiculous.

Thats my point. Thats why there is no option to declare a person innocent in giving a verdict. All you can do is say that there wasnt enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and sadly in rape cases, especially where the victim went willingly with their attacker to the place of assault, its difficult to prove because its her word against his.

[kawliga]

Bogey, you are absolutely correct. I don't know why some people find this confusing.

Moreover, we experience this all the time in daily life, when we know something to be true but find ourselves unable to convince others because we have no proof. The idea that somebody would think a rape trial collapsed because the man was 'innocent' beggars belief, and the suggestion that the woman is thus 'proved' to have been telling lies is beyond preposterous.

The odd thing is people don't get tied up in these ridiculous knots over other crimes, just rape.