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?

[SusanBunch]

Personally I think we need to move away from our adversarial justice system towards an inquisitorial one. The adversarial one means that the defence does not have access to all the evidence- only what is disclosed by the prosecution. The jury who is meant to decide the case is often deprived of crucial information. The jury consists of ordinary members of the public who have not had any training on what they are meant to be deciding on. Instead, they often rely on outdated stereotypes about what a 'real rape' is and what they would do in a similar situation e.g. 'I would have fought back'.

[Shimmershimmerandshine]

I don't know, I guess one way might be for it to be standard for witnesses to be assessed in relation to their mental health as long as they consent to this (bit like defendants where this can be used in law for 'diminished responsibility'). The evidence from the victim needs to be used fairly in balance of the rest of it. Tbh even if I was the most credible witness in the world if it is my word against his with no further evidence then he will get off anyway because I might be lying and no one on the jury could be sure whether I'd had a history of lying or not.

[SusanBunch]

Shit, that's so awful hungry. Often rapists rely on the passage of time as well, arguing that they should not be prosecuted because the offence took place so long ago. child victims are particularly vulnerable to this- either they are discredited for being children if the case is brought straight away or they are discredited for having waited a long time if they report historical offences.

[Jaygee61]

I think pen everything you are saying is true but the point is that it needs to change if we are going to get more convictions of guilty rapists. It isn't easy, no one thinks that but people in vulnerable mental states lie, that needs to be treated sensibly and fairly as part of the evidence.

So you’re saying that even if an alleged rape victim is shown to have lied about some aspect of the case that should not be allowed to undermine the case against the defendant?

[OnionKnight]

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

With the recent rape cases that imploded after text messages etc were discovered, what evidence was there in the first place to take it to court? I'm thinking of the Liam Allen case etc, surely if there was enough evidence to take them to court then it must have been pretty irrefutable?

On the other hand, a man was falsely accused of raping a celebrity after brushing past her at a train station, so in some cases is the burden of proof needed very low, too low?

CCTV footage showed the 51-year-old walking through the station holding a newspaper in his left hand and with his right hand on his bag strap when he brushes past the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

The alleged victim later told police he had “penetrated” her and hit her on the shoulder - although footage showing he had never broken his stride.

That ^ should never have got as far as it did.

[Shimmershimmerandshine]

Yes jayjee. It should be about getting to the truth and weighing up the whole of the evidence. Not chucking the whole thing out because a person in a very bad place makes a mistake.

[Catsize]

hungry, that’s hideous on too many levels. I am so sorry.

[Shimmershimmerandshine]

It weakens the testimony yes but it doesn't make it worthless is the point I'm making. Anyone can be lying whether they are a 'reliable' witness or not.

[Jaygee61]

Shouldn’t that logic apply equally to the accused, you could argue that being accused of rape is very traumatic if you are innocent and that to be shown to have lied about something shouldn’t necessarily be taken as strengthening the case against them?

[Quartz2208]

I think the issue is the standard of criminal proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Advances in evidence collection mean for a lot of crimes concrete evidence is needed (DNA etc). The problem with so called "date" rape cases that evidence is not in dispute by either party. Then the standard of proof means it cannot be who I believe is the more believing party - it has to be who I believe beyond reasonable doubt.

That then becomes problematic because witness credibility (for any crime) has a certain amount of bias and differences in stories anyway.

Therefore with the presumption innocent until proven guilty the accuser is often going to walk due to how difficult it is to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty to me means there was not enough evidence to prove this not that they are innocent

[SusanBunch]

Shouldn’t that logic apply equally to the accused, you could argue that being accused of rape is very traumatic if you are innocent and that to be shown to have lied about something shouldn’t necessarily be taken as strengthening the case against them?

No. In a word. Firstly, it is a little insulting to compare being raped to being accused of rape. Secondly, people who lie when accused of something generally do so to cover their tracks and to appear innocent. Thirdly, they will have access to legal advice which will hopefully reduce the 'trauma'.

[Shimmershimmerandshine]

No that isn't what I'm suggesting at all. I am saying testimony should be treated fairly which it isn't. Ridiculous, unfair arguments are often used to tear it to pieces which takes the balance of power away from the victim. And if it really comes down to one person's word against another there will never be a conviction anyway, it wouldn't even make it to court whether it was true or not.

[MargaretCavendish]

The politics of the issue aside, the mechanics of rape are such that, in many cases, it IS either that the accused is guilty or the victim is lying. I don't mean in court, I mean in fact. So, a woman says X man raped her in her home. He says he didn't. That is totally different to a trial where, say, someone has stolen a car and X has been accused. X can be innocent without any accusations of lying being thrown about because the car is still missing.

I completely disagree with this, which I think misses one of the most difficult issues surrounding the prosecution of rape. It is completely possible for the victim to feel they have been raped - and therefore to be telling the truth - but for the accused to not believe themselves to be a rapist. It happens all the time, and indeed many victims themselves only slowly realise quite what an experience they considered 'bad sex' was over time and as they get clear of the situation. In many of these cases the alleged rapist may be legally not guilty, as they had a reasonable belief the victim was consenting even if they weren't. But that definitely doesn't mean the victim is lying. In this sense it's very different and much more complicated than a stolen car, because it's much harder to imagine a scenario where someone steals a car but thought it was ok. In contrast, many - maybe even the majority - of rapists don't think of themselves as rapists, they think what they did was normal and fine.

[PatriarchyPersonified]

Agree with the OP 100%, but the point is moot. I mean, if I was put on trial for theft and found not guilty, everybody knows that doesn't mean I have 'proved' I didn't do it.

The problem is that the nature of rape as a crime means it is nearly always going to be a he said/she said decision for the jury in court as the physical activity involved is usually not in dispute.

In that scenario I genuinely can't think of another way of running a fair trial, without introducing changes that would bias it towards a default guilty verdict in nearly every case.

[vampirethriller]

Happened to me. He raped and beat me, forced me to "work"for him (I'm not going into details) or he would hurt my family- he absolutely would have- kept me locked in his house. By the time it got to court it was years later and because after he beat me he told the police I had started it, they didn't even examine me in the hospital, so there was no medical evidence etc....
He got not guilty because of lack of evidence and I was called a professional liar by his lawyer because of the work he had made me do.

[mustbemad17]

Even with physical evidence it can be absolute hell. I was dragged down an alley at knife point when I was at Uni & raped. The being dragged part was caught on CCTV, as was him legging it afterwards & me stumbling out of the alley with blood pissing down my face where he'd used the knife.

Because I didn't report it until three days later I was made to feel like I was lying. They took all my clothes - which had his gunk on as well as being covered in blood - they took photos of my neck & face & of the bruising to my wrists. I had to initially tell a male officer what happened, which in itself was so degrading; 'you say he raped you, what with? His hand, his penis, an object?' Then was told to wait for a specialist female officer to go over it again.

After all that, & having to do video statements, medical examinations, being told off by a female officer because I 'should have reported it immediately'; i was told the chances of it going to court were slim. After three months of absolute hell I dropped the case because I was final year of Uni, struggling massively & didn't want to throw three years of hard work down the shoot for something that I was being made to feel was my fault. Then I had to sign a statement to say i hadn't made it up!!!

I always look at rape cases that get to court & have massive sympathy for the victim. To me, if it has made it that far & the victim is still standing, they are telling the truth. You would have to be very unhinged to willingly put yourself through all that shit based on a lie.

[Shimmershimmerandshine]

Omissions for one pen. Where the victim is embarrassed and horrified by what's happened so for example doesn't initially mention that perhaps there was also oral penetration but it comes out later. A second might be personal information, for example own sexual history which is irrelevant anyway to the act that took place. A third might be confusion around events while they are distressed.

[mustbemad17]

A victim's sexual history or sexual preferences - ie fetishes etc - should have no bearing. And I find it disgusting that often it is the victim's sexual history used against them whilst the accused's history can be left out due to being 'prejudicial'