To wonder how we determine if a rape accusation is false?

[FlinchGirl]

It seems just about everyone I talk to about this "knows" someone who was definitely falsely accused whilst their accuser apparently got away scott free.

But how do we determine whether an accusation is false?

A claim being withdrawn or charges being dropped or a not guilty verdict being reached does not mean the accusation were false, surely? But those are always the responses I get when I ask how they know the accusations were false. Occasionally the accuser apparently admitted they made it up but then when you probe further it becomes apparent that there is no evidence such a confession took place; it is just what people perceived to have happened and is now being repeated as fact.

I can't say I blame women in being reluctant to report rape

conviction rate is currently at 63%

The overall conviction rate is only around 6%.

That 63% figure refers to cases which reach court.

But thats how conviction rates are measured.

I would like to see the Scottish legal system's verdict of "not proven" for cases where there is no clear cut guilty / not guilty.

Who's 'we'?

The law (CPS) usually doesn't attempt to prove that an allegation is false, but that it is true, with the presumption for the purposes of the trial being that it didn't happen unless proven otherwise.

If evidence exists that the accusation is malicious, that evidence can be used in a separate prosecution against the accuser, in which case it can be proved that the accusation is false.

Outwith those two situations, you can't 'prove' anything one way or the other.

And of course both acquittals when the accused is guilty of the crime and convictions when they are innocent do happen as well.

Why do you ask?

It seems just about everyone I talk to about this "knows" someone who was definitely falsely accused whilst their accuser apparently got away scott free.

I can only assume that these people are talking about someone not being found guilty or a case not going to court as opposed to actually being proven false.

I know first hand of someone who was accused of ABH. CCTV showed him in a different city at the time of the attack. Not rape of course, but the woman was attempting to discredit him in the same way.

But how do we determine whether an accusation is false?

This can only be when the accusation is proven to be false such as the example above with the woman re-arranging her clothes.

If a woman hates a man enough to want to frame him for rape, and hates him so much she is willing to endure the way rape victims are treated in court just to get back at him - then the likelihood of her consenting to have sex with a man she hates so much, is so small that it is almost non-existent.

In your opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "endure the way rape victims are treated in court just to get back at him". Rape accusers must be questioned and defense teams must be given the opportunity to cross examine. Lowering the burden of proof in a rape trial compared to anything else simply mustn't be allowed.

Let's not forget that this isn't a binary thing either, as in, she says she was raped and he says he was 100 miles away at the time. Most of the time in a rape case the fact that penetration took place is not in dispute. The case rests on a dispute over consent, often involving capacity to consent (in cases where the alleged victim had been drinking, for example). It is perfectly possible for me to genuinely believe I have been raped, and for the accused to genuinely believe himself to be innocent.

My partners ex falsely accused him of rape when she discovered he had started a relationship with me .
He was on police bail for 3 months whilst the claims were investigated.
My partner had rock solid alibis from the night in question including CCTV evidence of his whereabouts at the EXACT time she claimed he raped her.

She was charged with wasting police time , and got given a fine and ordered to complete community service .
Since then she has harassed us both further and at the beginning of the month , the magistrates granted us both with restraining orders against her .

Those 3 months were absolute HELL.
I understand that it's a low percentage that make false accusations but for those that are falsely accused it is life changing .
My partner is a different man to who he was prior to this. He is always conscious of where he is and makes sure he is in sight of CCTV .

i have just been through hell with my ex. i pressed charges on two violent assaults in january for which he pleaded guilty. however, he also raped me on a weekly basis for years and that resulted in my ds. it took me 2 months of building trust in the people trying to help protect my children to admit that he had done it and there is no way in a million years i would press charges because i cant face court or being accused of lying.

I just think it's so telling that such a tiny proportion of rape cases are false, but yet there's such a disproportionate amount of scrutiny placed on the victim.
Fwiw, I've never met a woman who was raped/sexually abused, where at least one person didn't accuse outright accuse them of lying/ talk about their past sexual history in hushed tones.
I mean most of the time, people are believed, but there's always one person in every case with a 'well, you never know' kind of attitude.
I don't know if I've explained that very well

there's such a disproportionate amount of scrutiny placed on the victim

That's because, as Trifle said, "Most of the time in a rape case the fact that penetration took place is not in dispute. The case rests on a dispute over consent". Assuming there was sex, the only two people who really know the truth are the accused and the accused.

Do you have any other suggestions?

there's always one person in every case with a 'well, you never know' kind of attitude

It's important that there is. In the UK people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Do you think that because it is a rape trial we should presume guilt?

I think it's this presumption of guilt that makes the small number of false accusations so pertinent.

Why are there a few posters who think that the standard of proof as well as the entire legal process should be different for rape and every other criminal case?

A claim being withdrawn or charges being dropped or a not guilty verdict being reached does not mean the accusation were false

This is true. But the misogynistic, patriarchal world we live in likes to muddle this up, and call any allegation of rape which goes to trial, but doesn't result in a Guilty verdict, a "false" allegation.

But the misogynistic, patriarchal world we live in likes to muddle this up, and call any allegation of rape which goes to trial, but doesn't result in a Guilty verdict, a "false" allegation

This is also true. But the converse isn't true either, is it?

UptheChimne

Any proof? I seem to find quite the opposite when looking at false allegation statistics.

Why are there a few posters who think that the standard of proof as well as the entire legal process should be different for rape and every other criminal case?

I think it is the result of frustration that a) rape is so hard to prove and b) so many people are unfairly biased against people who make allegations of rape.

It seems just about everyone I talk to about this "knows" someone who was definitely falsely accused whilst their accuser apparently got away scott free.

That's because not every rapist jumps from behind a bush in a park at night. They happen to be friends, colleagues, classmates, family members and seemingly 'nice' guys who 'would never do such a thing'.

I think it is very rare, just like falsely reporting any crime is very rare.

The one case I know of personally where an accusation was definitely false was because the accuser had never actually met the person they were accusing, and there were plenty of witnesses to say that he hadn't been in the particular place where she said it happened on the date when she said it happened. (She had made the accusation as she knew his name and had a grudge against his wife). So I'd imagine that in some cases it is very clear cut.

But in most cases, insufficient evidence is nowhere near the same as it being a false accusation.

So for the second worst crime (I hope it isn't crass to say, murder then rape then others) we should have a lower burden of proof? Simply an accusation? Balance of probability? If this isn't the definition of sexism - as only men can rape - then I don't know what is.

People in the legal system need support and help. This can be for the defence being given access to legal support who have the opportunity to question the accuser or psychological support for the accuer.

However, nothing can or should be changed with regard how someone is found guilty in one crime as opposed to another.

MarsInScorpio:

Was that to me?

One of the problems I see in rape cases is the issue of how juries understand "beyond reasonable doubt". You come across cases with the most ridiculous stories by the defendant being accepted - for instance the man who claimed recently to have tripped and fallen, erect penis first, into a woman's vagina as she just happened to be lying prostrate on the ground. I remember a woman writing in the Guardian about her experience of the trial where she was the victim - CCTV showed her chatting to a man in a bar, and the jury accepted his defence that she had asked for rough sex down an alley which left her bruised and bleeding, with cuts and abrasions - despite the fact that she had never, in her life, asked any of her partners for rough sex because it wasn't her thing.

How do we get across the fact that it's reasonable doubt, not the slightest hint of doubt, to the level of "alien dogs from mars ate my homework"?

I suspect one of the problems lies in having, at one and the same time, an adversarial system but treating the victim as a witness rather than the complainant. This means (and partly for good reasons like worrying about barristers coaching witnesses) that the prosecution barrister can't meet up with the victim before the trial to listen to her version of events. So the process of controlling the narrative (springing surprise defences like "she liked rough sex") is entirely in the hands of the defence barrister.

I think its rare

I do know of an alleged sexual assault that didnt get as far as court as the cctv evidence proved the accuseds innocence

Boyfriend had persuaded her to make an accusation in an act of 'revenge'

So she had probably be been pressured into it, i dont know what happened to either of them

But i dont think it common and the mythology which has built up that women routinely lie is incredibly dangerous

Mars I think you're completely misunderstanding me.
I wasn't talking about the legal system, I was talking about people/society in general.
Literally, every person I know who has been sexually assaulted, I have heard at least one other person whispering about 'what if she's exaggerating' etc.
Even in cases where the man has been prosecuted.

I've seen on parenting forums quite occasionally -- parents dislike their child's boyfriend/girlfriend, so 'let's frame him/her for a statutory rape', given the child was 5min underage at the time they had sex.

Trifle - yep. You quoted me and replied so I replied back

HedgeHog

the man who claimed recently to have tripped and fallen, erect penis first, into a woman's vagina as she just happened to be lying prostrate on the ground

Is this true? Was it accepted?

Yes, he defence that he 'may have tripped and fell' and that's how he penetrated her, was accepted

at getting aerated at the idea of how terrible it would be to have a lower burden of proof for rape than other crimes, while blithely accepting that it's OK to have a higher burden of proof than for other crimes.

The fact is, rape is different from other crimes. 85%-90% of burglary victims are not so lacking in confidence that the legal system will give them justice, that they don't bother to report. 90% of burglaries do not get thrown out before they even get to court. If they do get to court, the victim's behaviour with regards to their belongings and property, do not get scrutinised and they are not accused of being liars.

That doesn't mean we should have a lower standard of proof for rape. It means recognising that we have to have a different approach to investigation and prosecution, than we do for burglary. Scrutinising the defendant's attitudes and behaviour would be a start.

Juries don't bend over backwards to let burglars go free just because they look nice in a suit either.

I bet there are more convicted prisoners serving time for crimes they didn't commit which are not rape, than those serving time for false allegations of rape.

But people don't more uptight about the rape ones. Not because those men are treated worse in prison, but because of the "evil women banging up innocent men" idea. It's not so bad if other men bang up innocent men, in people's minds.