Long post NOT sorry
I have never in real life or read about a genuine case of false accusation. I believe they happen but believe those that deal with such crimes that it's incredibly rare.
The combination of it being a crime that generally happens in private, plus the misogynistic societal attitude to rape and rape victims means it's incredibly hard to get rapists convicted - doesn't mean they're not rapists.
"the victim might not come across too well (too many prior partners for a jury to be sympathetic, prior sexual contact with the accused, drunkenness, etc.)" and here is a large part of the problem! This is NOT 'the victim not coming across too well' but the victim being further victimised and blamed when the only person to blame is the rapist!
"I would distrust any claim that a rape accusation was false if it is proven that PiV happened." Me too. CCTV can't tell investigators/jurors if there were threats made, coercion or even very well if victim was too intoxicated to consent.
It's common for genuine rape victims to recant because of:
how rape victims are treated
How those close to them react
Under pressure from perpetrator or their friends/family
Because they're scared of their rapist
Because they don't feel strong enough to go through a trial.
"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." As a Scot I agree. Frequently see/hear people equating 'not guilty' with 'innocent' no! Given how much evidence is needed JUST to get a case to court I don't believe that's always the case.
"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."
Do you know how rape complainants are treated? Questioned and cross-examined yes - as should the accused. But how often do you see victims of other crimes (especially men) expected to defend
Their lifestyle (and in this case sex life) prior to the crime ?
What they were wearing at the time, including underwear, make up and hairstyle and did it make them 'look older than 16' ?
If they were intoxicated at the time and if so how much ?
Their location at the time and if it was 'wise' to be there ? (Ie 'know your place women!'
EXACTLY what they said to the accused ?
Did they 'entice' the accused to commit the crime ?
The nature of the relationship with the accused ?
Yet the accused is rarely subjected to similar scrutiny or held to a similar moral standard.
Does the accused:
Have a history of abusing their sexual partners? Like rough sex? (Imo the SECOND the defence goes down this route then the accused's history is fair game too!)
Were they dressed? Wearing easily removable clothes? Wearing dark clothes so they couldn't be seen?
Were they intoxicated? If so how much?
Why were they in that location at that time?
EXACTLY what they said to the accuser
did they coerce/manipulate the accuser into a situation/location they were more vulnerable to an attack? To make them think it wasn't 'really' rape.
The nature of their relationship with the accuser?
Sort of agree with:
"It is perfectly possible for me to genuinely believe I have been raped, and for the accused to genuinely believe himself to be innocent." But I do believe the majority of the time the accused believes it wasn't rape is because they misunderstand/disagree with what constitutes consent/rape.
"but for those that are falsely accused it is life changing" yes - as is rape.
I don't think people expect rape trials to have a lesser burden of proof but that the burden of proof for other crimes IS lesser. People focus on 'beyond ALL reasonable doubt' in rape trials where the emphasis should be 'beyond all REASONABLE doubt' far too many people believe the myths.
"You come across cases with the most ridiculous stories by the defendant being accepted" exactly! As seen in some recent high profile cases!
"Juries don't bend over backwards to let burglars go free just because they look nice in a suit either." Or judges! Wealthy, educated, well-connected rapists are rarely if ever convicted - I can't think of one!
"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." Excellent point!
"The conviction rate for rapes in court is fairly consistent with other crimes. Juries aren't bending over backwards to find these men innocent." I wholeheartedly disagree! And it is not just juries it's judges too. Far fewer rape cases reach court compared to other crimes for starters, then even when they do a conviction for burglary is twice as likely as a conviction for rape. Even if a rapist IS convicted the victim is STILL vilified and the rapist EXCUSED!
Scottish stats
6% of rapes reported to police reach court
33% of rape cases that reach court result in conviction
78% of burglary cases that reach court result in conviction.
"I have always wondered, if 90% of rapes are unreported, how do we know about them?" It's all in full disclosure - 90% of rapes are unreported TO POLICE but they are reported to a&e staff, gp's & nurses, social workers, health visitors, midwives, rape crisis, mental health services...
"their main witness was unreliable" given the nature of sexual assault/rape I'm guessing you mean the alleged victim? And if so 'unreliable' could mean she was too distressed to give evidence not necessarily that she was wrong.
Lux
what about serial rapists? As a pp says how are police supposed to investigate if not allowed to reveal accused's name? Particularly in serial/child abuse ring cases where they need to know if there are more victims/witnesses out there?
"Either there is evidence or not" what evidence do you think is needed? Or is even available?! Do you think all rapes are 'obvious'? Leave physical evidence? What about date rape? Drug rape? Rape within relationships ? Coerced rape?
Not guilty does NOT necessarily mean innocent.
Victims of child abuse when still children sometimes accuse someone 'safer' purely out of fear of their abuser.
Your post is clearly ignorant and you have little knowledge or experience in the area.
Marsin are you SERIOUS you think rape culture doesn't exist?!!!
Very VERY few false allegations are made.
I'm asking what you think we could do to change that? Genuine question!
It starts on a general societal level right up to judges and legislators attitudes
Educate everyone: children, those in positions likely to hear a disclosure, lawyers etc properly on consent, respect for others bodies and personal space, and what rape and sexual assault are.
Train professionals rape victims are more likely to disclose to on how to handle that disclosure.
Train lawyers properly as part of their initial training on rape myths, long term consequences for victims. Clearly current training isn't working.
All perpetuating of rape myths in media and entertainment should be challenged. By us all. Depiction of rape as 'passionate sex' on tv and film subject to close scrutiny and has to be made clear it is rape.
Stop judges and lawyers from perpetuating rape myths in court or in comments they make in their position as judges/lawyers. It's insane this is allowed.
As I said earlier, the accused MUST be subjected to the SAME scrutiny as the accuser. Although personally I think how a victim was dressed etc shouldn't be admitted as evidence - this type of evidence isn't admitted for other crimes.
"Why are defendant's ex girlfriends not brought into court to testify about their normal sexual behaviour and attitudes, in the way that victim's sexual partners are? Hmm? Can you imagine the horror some of these rapey blokes would feel, if it came out in court how they regularly coerced their girlfriends into unwanted sex acts? But that's not allowed, while a woman's sexual history can be picked apart to prove that she's a slut who can't be really raped because she's up for it all the time." As I said I cannot recall EVER reading that this ever happens but I don't know the specific law on this.
IF there is no legal reason why this DOESN'T happen WHY do police not investigate the accused's prior sexual history? WHY doesn't the prosecution bring this evidence into court?
I've been googling using various different terms and CANNOT find ANYTHING definitive on if the ACCUSED's sexual history is admissible can any lawyers clarify?