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A claim being withdrawn or charges being dropped or a not guilty verdict being reached does not mean the accusation were false, surely?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

Well you said I'll start worrying about innocent men being banged up, when we start banging up a higher percentage of guilty ones so maybe you didn't advocate it but you don't seem to think it's a problem. I don't think either is reasonable.

In the burglary I'm talking about the first person who said it wasn't genuine was my mother who was 70 at the time and had nothing to do with the police. She was a bit of a cynic though.

grannytomime, it depends on how you define a "problem".

Obviously, if you are an innocent man who is banged up, it's an individual problem, for you and your family.

On a societal basis, it is not a "problem" in that it isn't widespread and a massive, untackled, out of control problem. It happens extremely rarely. A man is more likely to be raped by another man, than he is to be banged up as a result of a false allegation of rape by a woman.

If you are desperately worried about it, but not worried about the huge numbers of women raped who will never, ever get justice, then you are worrying about a molehill, while ignoring the mountain.

I'd rather worry about the mountain. That's not to say the molehill doesn't matter, it's to recognise the proportion of my concern that should be given to each.

And don't you think it's noteworthy, that most of the concern of the media and most people, is concentrated on the molehill, not the mountain?

Hmm, now why might that be?

I worry about injustice, I don't have a different level of worry because it is a woman or a man.

Person makes a complaint, either there is evidence or not. If there is enough evidence it will go to trial. If the accused is convicted then the claim is genuine and the accused is guilty. If the jury don't convict then the accused is innocent, therefore the claim unproven and possibly false.

Police are very unwilling to accuse someone of falsely making a rape claim as it is very difficult to "prove" a claim is false - much harder than proving a claim is genuine. If a jury doesn't convict then it doesn't automatically mean the claim is false, just that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately the guarantee of anonymity encourages false claimants - they know that their false claim is unlikely to come back on them, they know that their name will not be made public, and they know the damage that will be done to the person they falsely accuse.

Personally I think that anonymity should be preserved for both the accused and the accuser until a verdict has been reached in a criminal court. If the accused is guilty, their name is published and the accuser is protected for life. If the accused is innocent, their name is protected and the jury decide whether the accuser retains their anonymity based on the level of doubt they have about the claim. This would hopefully cut down on the quantity of false claims and therefore raise the percentage of cases that result in conviction.

People who make false claims of rape, child abuse and so on are just as sick, twisted and downright evil as the people who actually commit those offences. If nobody made these claims up, it would be a damned sight easier to to convict the real perpetrators!

Lux how would police investigate a rape accusation if they can't name the suspect?

MarsInScorpio:

I am completely in agreement with you, though. I was explaining a sentiment, not advocating it.

lux

I think your jury decides on anonymity is a fairly shit idea

Also not keen on this People who make false claims of rape, child abuse and so on are just as sick, twisted and downright evil as the people who actually commit those offences.

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

I think you've misunderstood me, I am not against the theory of "innocent until proven guilty", I was stating my frustration about how, for some people, it only applies to the male party and never the female when they allegedly pervert the course of justice.

And yes brain is working thank you

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

SOrry, are you actually claiming rape myths don't exist?
And maybe not on this thread but there have been countless threads on MN claiming loads of rape victims are liars. And DV victims. I've seen some ugly things on here

Sexual history can be relevant and it would be foolish to state that it should never be used

Why would it EVER be relevant?
I think it's terrifying people like you work with rape victims

Sexual history is never relevant and its disturbing that anyone would think it would be.

As a pp said....why not the sexual history of the alleged rapist under the microscope? Why only the women?

Let's face it most rapists get away with it. The system is fucked up.

Personally I think that anonymity should be preserved for both the accused and the accuser until a verdict has been reached in a criminal court. If the accused is guilty, their name is published and the accuser is protected for life. If the accused is innocent, their name is protected and the jury decide whether the accuser retains their anonymity based on the level of doubt they have about the claim. This would hopefully cut down on the quantity of false claims and therefore raise the percentage of cases that result in conviction

This is a modern disgusting attitude. This is part of a rape myth that false accusations are so rife perpetrators need anonymity?

Lux would you give anonymity to any accused or just those accused of rape? If so why?

And do you actually understand why victims get anonymity? you'd be happy if you got raped, didn't get a conviction it got named as 'punishment' would you?

I seriously fucking despair. So much internalised misogyny on this thread

Sexual history can be relevant

Tell me, how would you feel about the following scenarios?

*17yo virgin girl raped
*34yo woman with three kids, slept with 4 men in her life
*27yo female porn star
*80yo widow married to one now dead husband

Various sexual histories. All claiming to have been raped. How on earth could you utilise any of their sexual histories at all in the case against the alleged rapist???

"I worry about injustice, I don't have a different level of worry because it is a woman or a man"

Actually, yes you do, if you worry as much about men being banged up for a false allegation of rape, as you do about women being raped and not having even a remote chance of justice.

Because the former happens so rarely, that if you worry about it as much as the latter, then you are giving it a greater proportion of worry than it deserves, given its likelihood.

It's like worrying as much about being struck by lightening, as being involved in a road accident. Which is more likely? Which is more common? Why would you worry as much about the former as the latter?

@CherryChasingDotMother

The way you said "harking on about..." suggests you have real disdain for Article 11. It's not so much a theory as a human right.

Sorry, are you actually claiming rape myths don't exist?

I don't know what you're talking about. What myths?

I don't think there's any such thing as rape culture so that's a myth, perhaps. I was surprised to just read that the majority of rapes don't happen at night time as I'd baselessly assumed but I'm not sure that's a myth.

I just read this. I knew all of it.

www.rapevictimadvocates.org/what-you-need-to-know/myths-and-facts/

FBI lists false rape accusations at 8%. This is what makes up that category:

1. Rape accusations where the police didn't even bother to investigate. These make up the majority of the 8%.

1. Rapes where the victim misidentifies the attacker.

1. The victim is extremely vulnerable and names the wrong person in an attempt to get help despite being utterly terrified of the rapist. This is most common when the rapist is a family member - father, uncles, brothers etc - or the victim is a child.

1. The victim has a serious mental illnesses. Numerically this group is very small and includes people with paranoid schizophrenia and other illnesses that involve quite severe Delusions.

1. Smallest group is genuine false accusations which is lower than every other crime category. A couple of years ago an FBI agent (name escapes me) made a speech stating that more men fake their own deaths for insurance scams that women make false rape accusations.

AskBasil I don't actually sit down and say I will worry about innocent men being locked up for the next half hour and then I will spent half an hour worrying about rape victims. I want a system that is just for everyone, I don't think that just dismissing one injustice helps the other.

Of course sexual history is relevant if for example the complainant has been in a sexual relationship with the defendant for ages.

Does that history they have together mean she was not raped on this occasion? No of course not. But it is relevant and surely no one would suggest it be concealed from the jury.

sonyaya:

It CAN be relevant in establishing circumstances. That is different to the "a history of promiscuous behaviour" type efforts to discredit complainants.

trifle

I agree. I was responding to the comment that sexual history can never be relevant.

I agree promiscuity can never be relevant (unless to discredit a complainant who tells the jury she was a virgin who would never consent to sex before marriage etc)

Mars you don't see anything about what by doing a quick internet search?
People believing convicted rapists are innocent, or the man who 'tripped and fell'?!!

Mars the man who 'accidentally' raped a woman by falling into her
At the time I remember people on Facebook sticking up for him.

He's a billionaire. Funny that!

Of course sexual history can be relevant

Not in terms of numbers of partners but experiences

For example, in a case mentioned earlier, the victims previous history demonstrated for the prosecution that she had no history of asking for rough sex against an alleyway, something the defence had obviously suggested

If someone has a phrase or action that they use in consensual sex then this could be used in a defence if the acusor claims she said or did it (obviously if only highly unique).

As I understand, sexual history is only used if it's part of the evidence itself. And something highly unique. that's what happened in ched Evans case as I understand. It wasn't just a case of going on about how many partners she had.

sometimes history is relevant on both sides - both for and against the case

Clearly I meant history of promiscuity being used to discredit the complaint