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A claim being withdrawn or charges being dropped or a not guilty verdict being reached does not mean the accusation were false, surely?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

[AskBasil]

Sorry I mean people get more uptight about men serving time wrongly for rape, than wrongly serving time for any other crime, even though the latter is probably far more likely

[M0stlyBowlingHedgehog]

Sadly Mars, it is indeed true: Independent report of case.

Incredible, depressing, infuriating.

[MarsInScorpio]

@AskBasil

while blithely accepting that it's OK to have a higher burden of proof than for other crimes.

Do you really believe the burden of proof is higher in rape cases?

Someone already posted about how conviction rats for rape are similar to most crimes.

I have always wondered, if 90% of rapes are unreported, how do we know about them? Surely the only credible thing we can say is 100% of rapes are reported. If they aren't reported then we don't know about them and can't include them in our 'facts'.

the victim's behaviour with regards to their belongings and property, do not get scrutinised and they are not accused of being liars.

But the main aspect of a rape case is often not whether sex happened, it's down to consent. If you are defending someone accused of rape then the only real defense is that the other person is a liar.

Surely you don't think that they don't have a right to a defence.



@WeDoNotSow - I can't see anything about that in a quick internet search.

[CherryChasingDotMuncher]

I know of several people who claim to have a friend falsely accused of rape. I'm always as they're not going to exactly say "oh yeah I did rape her" are they?

In this situation people usually hark "innocent until proven guilty". But only ever about the man. Falsely accusing someone of rape is a crime. Its perverting the course of justice. However these apologists never say "innocent until proven guilty" for this woman's alleged crime, they are happy to label her a criminal based on the word of a man. It's a deep misogyny ingrained in our society and there's a reason sex assault victims get lifelong anonymity.

Also "not guilty" does not mean a jury believes the defendant is innocent. Often it means they just don't have the evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

Last stats I saw showed that in an 18 month period, 35 women were convicted for perverting the course of justice relating to rape. Many of these did not target one specific man, but rather an unknown assailant - so no myth of "I regretted sleeping with him so will accuse him of rape". In the same period, 5,600 men were convicted of rape. We know this number is higher, but even if it weren't that is 1 false accusation for every 161 rapes.

The same apologists also claim a false allegation ruins a man's life, career etc. There is a list as long as my arm of men who've raped or been accused and then gone on to have successful careers. Donald Trump, anyone?

Which is why I really can't get on the rape myth bandwagon, I'd much rather concentrate my efforts on rape victims then get wound up about the minuscule number of people who make false accusations.

[Nicknacky]

cherry Like I said yesterday, we do not routinely charge people on my force for false reporting so the stats don't accurately reflect that in my opinion.

[TheSparrowhawk]

Some people accuse other people falsely of crimes. Generally a false accusation won't go anywhere. Sometimes the person who brings the false accusation is prosecuted. On the whole it's a relatively rare problem.

Meanwhile 85,000+ women are raped every year and 6% of the men responsible are prosecuted.

And yet there are certain people who are far more concerned about the small number of accused people than they are about the thousands of raped women.

I wonder why?

[MarsInScorpio]

@CherryChasingDotMuncher

Harking on about innocent until proven guilty? Are you a real person with a working brain? It's Article 11, in case you were wondering. I find it very hard to take someone seriously who says people "hark on about [human rights]". It's very Daily Mail.

An accuser is not locked up until they prove the rape did happen in case they are doing so falsely. I don't understand the point you were trying to make.

What rape myth bandwagon are you talking about. I can't see a single post where someone suggests that a large number of rape victims are liars.

I wince at the stupidity of people saying that we only know about X% of rapes. The flawed logic is mindblowing.

The conviction rate for rapes in court is fairly consistent with other crimes. Juries aren't bending over backwards to find these men innocent.

[grannytomine]

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

Well actually it does make a difference. Thugs, thieves, burglars don't generally turn up in court looking like they did at the time of the crime they are accused of. I know instances when the defence solicitor/barrister tells the accused to get their hair cut, cover up tattooes, wear a smart suit. It is sad we are all so shallow but I'm afraid most of us are.

[AskBasil]

"Someone already posted about how conviction rats for rape are similar to most crimes"

Yeah. Once they get to court.

Ignoring the fact that the rate of those getting to court, is only about 10%. Unlike those other crimes.

[Nicknacky]

Ask What is your solution to conviction rates? Obviously the nature of the offence means it's difficult but would you be entirely comfortable with anyone being convicted with little evidence?

I wouldn't. I don't have the answers but I'm uncomfortable with any person being convicted without the burden of proof.

[AskBasil]

"Surely you don't think that they don't have a right to a defence."

Correct. I don't think they have no right to a defence.

They're allowed to call women liars. But their motives, behaviour, attitudes etc. - the things that point to the fact that the woman is in fact, not lying about them, should be scrutinised.

[AskBasil]

FFS.

Why do people think that wanting justice for rape victims, wanting rape to be investigated and prosecuted properly, is the same as lowering the burden of proof?

[AskBasil]

Nicknacky, I'm as uncomfortable about anyone being convicted on a low burden of proof as you are.

But there's absolutely no danger of that happening with rape.

Investigating and prosecuting properly, would also not affect that IMO.

[Nicknacky]

Why the swearing? Sexual offences are generally investigated properly and victims treated the way they should be. You have an issue with conviction rates and I'm asking what you think we could do to change that? Genuine question!

[M0stlyBowlingHedgehog]

Home Office report from 2013

"Females who had reported being victims of the most serious sexual offences in the last year were asked, regarding the most recent incident, whether or not they had reported the incident to the police. Only 15 per cent of victims of such offences said that they had done so."

Not made up statistics, statistics from the Home Office. Unless you want to argue that they are making up the statistics.

[MarsInScorpio]

AskBasil

Do calm down dear.

So let's pretend all the women who are raped and don't report, don't exist.

That would be foolish. Putting a figure on unreported rapes is equally foolish and nothing more than a guess. Treating guesses as facts does no one any good.

For women, it's our reality

I'm a woman but this certainly isn't my reality.

They're allowed to call women liars. But their motives, behaviour, attitudes etc. - the things that point to the fact that the woman is in fact, not lying about them, should be scrutinised.

I can't understand this at all. What do you mean?

[M0stlyBowlingHedgehog]

Sorry, the "unless you want to argue" was directed at Mars, not Nicky - Mars seems to be suggesting that there is no reason to suppose that there are more rapes occurring than those actually reported to the police.

[Foldedtshirt]

OP
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.
You need to change your friendship group. I don't know of any rl cases.
Keir Starmer's report suggests the whole false allegation trope is a myth.

[BillSykesDog]

Not made up statistics, statistics from the Home Office. Unless you want to argue that they are making up the statistics.

They're not 'made up statistics', but, like most kinds of statistics relating to these kinds of things they're problematic statistics. Because there is no way of testing their validity. They can be used as a general guide, but can't be taken as definitive numbers and need to be treated carefully.

[AskBasil]

"Why the swearing? Sexual offences are generally investigated properly and victims treated the way they should be. "

Hmm. Take a look at how the Sapphire team, the gold standard of rape offences investigators, treated the women who reported John Worboys and then tell me that all the other teams around the country, who don't measure up to even Sapphire's standard, are investigating properly and treating victims the way they should be.

The figures are against you Nicky.

And you only have to look at the second Ched Evans' trial, to see how prosecutions aren't handled properly.

[TheSparrowhawk]

'Sexual offences are generally investigated the properly and victims treated the way they should be' WTF??? What planet do you live on Nick? John Worboys was accused of rape multiple times before the police did anything. It's estimated that he raped 100 women before he was caught. Despite changes in practice it is still common for a rape victim's past sexual history to be used as a way of discrediting her. Take a look at the Ched Evans case.

[TheSparrowhawk]

X-post Basil :)

[Nicknacky]

ask I did say that historically they weren't dealt with as they should be. As a current Cid officer I can assure you they are. I deal with them every week.

As to Ched Evans, I'm unsure why you say they prosecution wasn't handled properly? I will need to read up on it in more detail but a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the prosecution didn't do their role.

[MyHamsterAteMyCat]

Sexual offences are generally investigated properly and victims treated the way they should be.

It took 12 women reporting John Worboys before the police began taking their claims seriously and began investigating him.

Surely if reports of sexual offences are always treated the way they should be then they should have took the claim seriously from the very first woman who tried to report him?