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?

Mustbemad17

They have a bearing if relevant.

For example if a woman claims she has been raped and uses as part of her argument that a certain act or practice took place during the rape, which she would never and had never consented to.

If it later becomes clear that she actually had done that act or practice many times in the past and witnesses can be produced to that effect, then that is directly relevant because it calls her initial statement into question and undermines a key part of her argument.

Fine, but read up about the stuff they try and discredit witnesses over in cases of rape.

But it shouldn't. It's akin to saying a prostitute can't claim rape, because in the past they have done x y & z. And again, the sexual history of the accused is often thrown out because it could prejudice the jury. The system is geared towards helping the accused imo.

I did a therapy group for a few months & the stories that came out from there about sexual history being used to discredit a victim were unreal. Because one victim admitted she enjoyed bondage with her partner, the prosecution made a song & dance about her actually enjoying being tied up & gang raped. It's disgusting. If it is prejudicial for one side, then it should be prejudicial for the other. The only exception should be if the victim or the accused has had contact with the police previously regarding sexual assault...and even that to me is dodgy ground.

Shimmershimmershine

When things that have been brought up at rape trials that are particularly bad are reported in the papers, it's always stated as if 'the court' have somehow brought it up when it's nearly always the defence legal team, who have a duty to defend their client to the best of their ability, in any way they can.

Now I do agree that there is a difference between valid lines of defence for those accused and lines of defence that amount to just smearing the character of the accuser.

I have read proposals in the past that suggest the defence team should have to 'pre-vet' their lines of questioning with the judge before they are heard in open court to ensure that they are valid and not just an attempt at character assassination.

Sounds pretty sensible to me and might go someway towards getting rid of some of the worst practices that you occasionally read about.

I was raped in 2016

It took me over a year to report it and to realise that I was actually raped
The sexual assault centre and the police encouraged me to take it further but I knew it would never stand up in court in a million years and that I would be ripped to shreds

I decided to report anonymously and so it stays on his record and builds a picture if he ever does it again in future

Patriarchy that definitely sounds like it would be a solid way forward. Rape trials seem to focus on the prosecution trying to emotionally dismantle a victim until they can't focus anymore. It's no wonder that so many rapists repeat offend; they know that the liklihood of getting put away is ridiculously slim

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.

In the case of Aziz Ansari, he received a text the morning after a ONS, saying that he should have noticed her "non-verbal clues" that she wanted to slow down.

One of these non-verbal cues, was giving him a blow job.
From her perspective, she feels he needs to slow down and so she gives him a B.J.
From his perspective (the word "No" or words to that effect were never used) I imagine he was just happy to have a woman give him oral sex.
The morning after, she said Ansari "should have followed my non-verbal cues to slow down", and now she feels violated.

In cases like this, the shades of grey are just too numerous.
But bad sex is not rape, and regret is not rape. "Bad sex" should never see the inside of a courtroom. Rape is a crime, the regret of bad sex is just unfortunate but not a crime.

I believe this woman when she says she feels violated by Aziz Ansari.
But I also believe Aziz Ansari is not a predatory man.
That's the problem with these cases.

Not that case most definitely shouldn't have gone to court imo. There's a difference between someone misinterpreting non-verbal cues & someone ignoring very obvious cues of distress.

I personally wouldn't like to be working in any area that involved prosecuting rape, because there are so many avenues to it. But i do think our system is still flawed & focuses too much on destroying a victim instead of breaking a rapist

Aziz Ansari is not a predator but he is the thin end of the wedge where men think If a women says no she just needs more persuading. It’s in pop culture everywhere with men trying to wheedle sex out of women instead of just backing off.

The conviction rates for DV and sexual assault are abismal I know some one who was knocked unconscious by her boyfriend at the time and sexually assaulted nearly 6 months ago she is still waiting to see if the cps is going to charge him. All this time he is walking around the streets without a care in the world and she’s going through hell.

Aziz Ansari is not a predator but he is the thin end of the wedge where men think If a women says no she just needs more persuading.

I agree with that. Also, just as an aside, from my single days, I had one or two men say "thank you" after sex (which was absolutely revolting and cringeworthy), but it got me thinking; do some men believe that sex isn't something a man and a woman "have", but rather that it's something they "do" to a woman? So the woman needs thanking for allowing them to do it afterwards?

People really seem to be struggling with innocence - and believing not guilty is different.

People are innocent until proven guilty - and if the defendant was found not guilty they are 100% innocent, and it is then fact that the crime of rape did not take place. The only grey area is if the trial could not reach a verdict.

Of course the women may be not lying, so YNBU - but is mistaken that what she thought was rape is rape. It doesn't matter what she said was or wasn't true, it cannot be implied she lied - but her accusation was false and she would be lying in the future if she claimed she had been raped.

Legally if someone is found not guilty then yeah, i guess they are innocent in the eyes of the law. But it doesn't mean that the event didn't take place. Which doesn't necessarily make the victim a liar, more a further victim of the system/circumstance/lack of proof

YANBU. In fact, I usually presume the opposite ie that they are actually guilty but it couldnt be proved. It's hard to get a case to court so if a case gets that far, I assume (correctly or not) that the woman's story has been believed by police, the DPP etc so they think she has a chance of 'winning.'

Of course it doesn't mean they are all lying but being accused doesn't mean a man is definitely guilty. Unfortunately that is how the law works and it can be a difficult thing to prove/disprove.

But it shouldn't. It's akin to saying a prostitute can't claim rape, because in the past they have done x y & z. Back in the early 80s I was on a case where 2 prostitutes were raped, well gang raped. The men, I think there were three of them, were found, arrested and convicted. I remember one young detective saying a prostitute couldn't be raped. The DCI ripped him to shreds. I don't think he opened his mouth again.

blink you're the confused one, because you're mixing up legal concepts with objective fact. Of course you can be found not guilty of a crime you are in fact guilty of - verdicts are fallible, and they can't rewrite what actually happened. Legal systems are the products of human societies, they can't be any more objective, fair or omniscient than people themselves are.

Similarly, Peng I think the problem is that the legal concept of 'reasonable belief in consent' and the broader concept of being a rapist are connected but not identical. Just as if I commit manslaughter I'm not a murderer (a legal category) but I am a killer (not a legal category), I think that a person who is acquitted on the grounds of having a reasonable belief in consent obviously isn't guilty of the crime of rape, but may well still have raped someone. This is particularly so because I think a less misogynistic society would set the bar for 'reasonable belief there is consent' much higher than ours does.

Seems like only sex crime gets treated like this, where any accusation ever = proof of guilt forever. :( Totally undermines the justice system.

LisaSimpsonsbff

I think your analogy is flawed because it still assumes that a man who had an honest belief that he had consent is somehow still a criminal. (Manslaughter is still a crime).

If he had an honest belief that a reasonable person would have held in the same circumstances then he has by definition done nothing wrong.

A better analogy would be the difference between if you chose to kill a child (you would be a killer and a murderer) but if you were driving and a child jumped out in front of your car. (you are still technically a killer but you have done nothing wrong)

Pengggwn

Unfortunately such assertions are meaningless - and undermines those seeking redress. You do not know the global truth and the crime requires knowledge of the accused beliefs, which you cannot know.

Even if no case is ever brought to court, the most you can say is that you believe you were raped, and have made an accusation of rape. Any other party is innocent by definition, until it is proven otherwise - this does not mean some event did not take place.