To think a woman isn't automatically lying if a rape trial verdict is not guilty?

[lilly0]

The courts in this country prosecute only on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. In rape cases the forensic evidence might not be there and it turns into a case of he said she said.
Every other crime we don't seem to automatically call victims liars if the accused is found not guilty. Why is rape so different?

Thats very interesting janice

AngelsSins*

In the interest of fairness, the stat being quoted most often on here for false rape accusations is approx 5% (although some sources, including some cited by the Home Office put it as high as 10%). And that's for proven false allegations so in reality the number is going to be higher.

If we go with 5% then that's still 1700 false rape allegations a year. That's not 'a comparative handful'.

I don't for one minute think men need more protection. I do however think we are running a dangerous line if we say that one side should be named but not the other especially when it comes to not guilty verdicts

Take e.g. drink driving, If you can't see the difference between being accused of rape and drink driving I will leave you to it.

Why do you think a victim of rape should be anonymous but the victim of having their handbag snatched shouldn't? Is it anything to do with the nature of the offense, so can you see that being accused of snatching a handbag won't carry the same stigma as being accused of rape.

Correction, 4250 false allegations.

Bloody maths...

How do they know they're false allegations?

It's not that 'men' need more protection.
It's that people in society, regardless of gender need to be treated equally. In such an emotive crime, it's easy to lose track of that, as most right minded people want victims to be heard, and guilty people found out. But we can't let that desire trample over the rights of a the comparative few who are wrongly accused. A 'comparative few' is still quite a lot.
Not ONE single woman should ever be raped. Our laws should protect the very last woman on earth. But we must apply that to men to. Not one single innocent man should suffer either.

We know the reality is that we fall short of that aim. But it shouldn't stop it being our aim (imo).

Is it anything to do with the nature of the offense, so can you see that being accused of snatching a handbag won't carry the same stigma as being accused of rape.

That was the answer I was looking for- you think rape is essentially the worst crime that a person can be accused of. What about possession of child pornography, bestiality, child cruelty, pedophilia, incest? I would argue that these carry far more stigma than rape yet people are slow to come out in defence of potentially wrongly accused defendants for these crimes. They are also crimes that are more likely to end up in the paper than rape. I would suggest that part of the reason is that people are naturally repulsed by the other offences and would not want to be seen to stick up for anyone accused of them. However, rape is often presumed to be a woman who has misunderstood or regretted sex and is seeking revenge on an innocent man. Note also that there are calls for e.g. Ched Evans' or Liam Allan's accuser to be identified, but not so for e.g. John Worboys' victims. Is that because it is only Worboys who fits the 'bad rapist' image and the other two don't, so we want to find out who the accusers are and rip them apart?

Victims in sexual offences are usually the key witness- without them there is no prosecution. The anonymity also ensures that people are not put off reporting rape for fear that their name will be in the papers. They may feel a sense of shame about the offence, which is an extreme form of bodily violation. The way that the papers have been baying for blood in recent acquittals and some of the comments on here about how women's names should be revealed, convinces me that it's a necessary thing to keep them anonymous.

It's that people in society, regardless of gender need to be treated equally

Sure but we live in a society where women are already massively disadvantaged.

TheBrilliantMistake but it is equal, rape is not treated differently. So I ask again, are you saying that people accused of murder, robbery, child abuse, benefit fraud, everything, should not be named? Because weirdly it's only when discussing rape that this arguement ever comes up.

And I will repeat, yes I'm in favour of not naming until a verdict is reached regardless of the crime.
I've also stated there are valid reasons why naming happens (and valid ones for it not to happen). I'm on the 'not naming' side - which is nothing to do with being on the side of the accused, that's entirely different.

Victims in sexual offences are usually the key witness- without them there is no prosecution. The anonymity also ensures that people are not put off reporting rape for fear that their name will be in the papers. They may feel a sense of shame about the offence, which is an extreme form of bodily violation.

I agree with that, and that's why I don't want victims named either.

Okay, TheBrilliantMistake that is fair enough if you believe it applies to all crimes. I don't necessarily agree, but I think that is a valid opinion to have. That is not the same as people who think that rape should be an exception and that defendants should be named in other cases but not rape.

I guess part of the reason we name people is that it's part of the culture of open justice. We always have complaints about so-called 'secret courts', referring to the family courts. Because there is a real public interest in seeing justice being seen to be done, there is perhaps a strong case for allowing direct reporting of trials etc rather than only hearing about the ones resulting in a guilty verdict. I guess maybe we could get around that by using initials for the defendants in reports.

That was the answer I was looking for- you think rape is essentially the worst crime that a person can be accused of. No I don't but it is the only crime where an adult victim can make the accusation and remain anonymous, if being a victim carries such a stigma (I don't think it should) then being accused must as well.

The most shocking crime I ever saw was when I walked into the murder incident room and realised I knew the victim. That was shocking. Apart from that a baby lying in intensive care with broken bones, bite mark and cigarette burns.

No I don't but it is the only crime where an adult victim can make the accusation and remain anonymous, if being a victim carries such a stigma (I don't think it should) then being accused must as well

I think what people don't address is that this is not a case of being 'treated equally' or 'like for like'. The victim and the defendant play completely separate roles in the justice system. The case is not brought by the victim, it is brought by the Crown. The victim is a prosecution witness and there are measures in place for vulnerable witnesses. The judge can order anonymity in other crimes if the witness is vulnerable- not just in rape. The defendant is accused of a crime and has to face a public trial. We have a system where we name defendants. How witnesses are treated has little bearing on the defendant's rights. It's not a case of 'tit for tat' because the victim is not on trial.

But that is at the judges discretion, he could do the same for a rape victim if he deems it necessary.

What do people think of the situation where the CPS might choose to prosecute against the wishes of a victim?

I'm a defence lawyer in Scotland. I haven't read the whole thread but we need to make specific applications to the court if we want to make reference to any sexual behaviour of the complainer and the judge has to decide whether or not to grant them. I've also dealt with cases where accused were convicted and also acquitted. In each case, I think it was the right result based on the evidence that was available. What really happened? Only the two people involved will ever know.

The 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement is a sound one (imo), but in a rape situation, it can be terribly problematic, and rape can be so difficult to prove in many cases. A one night stand situation, when alcohol has been partaken, or a woman has a change of heart can all lead to a difficult set of circumstances where (usually) only two accounts of the events are available - hers and his. Lots of anecdotal accounts of events leading up to the rape might exist, but behind closed doors, it's just so difficult for a jury to never to have a reasonable doubt.

This can also make for a difficult situation whenever drink has been partaken, even between husband and wife. Essentially, if a woman is drunk, you shouldn't have sex. If the man is also drunk, an incapable of making a rational decision, he's still at huge risk of committing rape.

I think the cases where rape is crystal clear are few and far between, which in part explains the low conviction rates. I don't think those low rates are a reflection on the lack of gravity given to the crime, rather it demonstrates the difficulties a jury must face.

I got sexually assulted at work in a kitchen with no cameras, i didnt even get to court wasnt enough evidence. He still did it though and is probably doing it to others

would the op feel the same if she was falsely accused of rape?

would the op feel the same if she was falsely accused of rape?

As women can't legally commit rape I think it is pretty safe to assume she won't be falsely accused of it. Your question is nonsensical.

Similar thing happened to me @fluffedupferretonsteroids. I was sexually assaulted at work by a coworker but because it was my word against his the case was dropped. Oh and he kept his job and I can assure you my allegation resulted in no negative repercussions at work for him.

Actually, in a very very rare instance a woman can commit rape, but she'd need to have a penis.

would the op feel the same if she was falsely accused of rape?

As women can't legally commit rape I think it is pretty safe to assume she won't be falsely accused of it. Your question is nonsensical.
yes they can
no they would be charged in the exact same maner as rape but under 'sexual assault by penetration’ (unless she is transexual then she could be charged with rape or was an accomplice) but its semantics and my question still stands and is not nonsensical.