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?

...tumbleweed...

Pengggwn it appears rape apologists, have NOTHING to say when they are not challenging a vulnerable rape victim.

I've been the victim in a rape trial and it almost killed me. It still might. Sometimes I don't think I can live with it anymore.

He was found not guilty so his family think I'm a liar who should be prosecuted because they think not guilty = didn't do it. It's devastating. I had justice for the violence but not for what hurt the most. I never lied, I did as I was told by the Police, CPS and Judge, I told nothing but the truth.

It's also no longer beyond all reasonable doubt, it's can you be sure? Being sure is really driven home in the Judges' recap opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt. You must be sure to convict.

I would never report a sexual assault again to the police and that leaves me feeling very unsafe and uncertain of the future. I hope the general public are one day educated on that a not guilty verdict does not equate to innocence.
Chances are if they've been charged and gone to court they are guilty because meeting the criteria to get as far as that is very slim, more so with rape/sexual assault accusations.

I'm just glad MN understands.

I've got no sympathy for rapists. I've got no sympathy for women who make false allegations. I have sympathy for any victim of rape and also anyone who has been subject to false allegations. I don't see that that makes me pro rapists or pro women, it does make me pro justice.

A dear friend of mine was told after the conviction of her rapist, that the conviction was secured because she "made a good victim".

Not because the evidence clearly showed it had occurred, not because of how he was perceived; but rather, the conviction was secured by the sympathetic way in which the jury saw her.

Teenage, from a stable home, hadn't been drinking prior to it happening, and- and this fact was focused on heavily- she was a virgin prior to the rape.

"X was a virgin, which makes the trauma significantly worse" is a dangerous argument I think. It suggests that if you enjoyed a healthy sex life prior to your assault, you are less deserving of sympathy and justice, because you won't be as traumatised by the act, since you don't have your female seal of 'purity' anymore.
Except, rape is not sex

As far as court goes, it appears to still primarily be the victim on trial.
A conviction is far more likely when the jury like the victim. And sadly, some women make better victims than others.

They might not have meant it how you think NotASingleFuckToGive, the prostitutes who I mentioned above made good witnesses, they weren't teenagers from a stable home, they hadn't been drinking as far as I know but they did have a string of convictions but the jury believed them and the men were convicted.

Mind you I have worked with police officers who were idiots so nothing would surprise me.

Since we're swapping dictionary definitions... The OED says ' Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.' Which I think captures the whole semantic problem at the heart of this argument: rape is a legally defined crime, but it is also a term with a broader meaning ('the act of forced sexual intercourse'). So in a country where rape is legal the first definition wouldn't apply, but the second would. And most people use the term with this understanding, so most would agree that, for instance, married women forced into sex by their husbands were raped even when that was not a crime.

Iooselipssinkships
I believe you and I'm so sorry you went through all of that without justice . I hope you are receiving support.

Being found not guilty does not mean Innocent. It doesn't mean the victim and witnesses were lying.

In Scotland we have three verdicts, guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not proven essentially means guilty but the jury doesn't think the PF case meets the legal stage of beyond reasonable doubt.

I think English law should also include not proven.

In English law you are innocent unless proved guilty so if you are found not guilty you are innocent in legal terms.

The ones that get to Court? Mostly not.
This is where we have a real problem in courts.
If jurors already have this attitude, then there's a bias in place already.

Jurors should be basing their judgement on evidence presented before them, not on an assumption that 'if it's got this far, he probably did it'.

In recent weeks a number of cases have come to light that cast considerable doubt on the convictions of some men.

WIthout doubt men do carry out the overwhelming majority of sexual offences, but that cannot carry over into thinking 'the overwhelming odds are that a man is guilty'. That is two entirely different things.

Personally I would allow anonymity for both the accuser and accused in a rape case until the verdict is reached.

I agree.

If found guilty, the rapist should be named, if found innocent, the complainant should be named.

WTF?? Not Guilty does not mean someone has been "Found Innocent"

I've been the victim of serious sexual assault, and didn't feel I could report it. I had 3 v. young DC then, and just wanted to forget.

For the women brave enough to report, if they were operating under a legal system which, if the jury failed to convict, would see to it that their name was published in the paper, social media etc, and insinuate their rapist was a victim of lies, nobody would EVER report. Would you?

I would be reluctant to report anyway. Not because I think I would be badly treated, that was never my experience, but because I think sometimes the legal process prolongs the trauma. I know as a good citizen you should report because of future possible victims.

“so most would agree that, for instance, married women forced into sex by their husbands were raped even when that was not a crime”

Agreed, although quite often on here you do see people relying on the legal definition if there is a suggestion that a man is claiming to have been raped by a woman and a lot of posters rush to point out that this is not rape because it doesn’t tally with the uk’s legal definition.

Which I think further proves your point about a difficulty arising in the language used as people move between semantic, colloquial and legal terms as they discuss the issue.

I dont disagree with you but you have to flip it aswell, what about the men/people who were accused abd genuinely didnt do it, does that mean because they were not guilty that they might still have done it due to insufficient evidence? What about the women that cry rape for attention, because that does actually happen. Then the men they wrongly accuse will forevere have 'hes not innocent as such, there just wasn't enough evidence' there is a flaw to say that there wasnt enough evidence. And its, what if there wasnt evidence in the first place because ut never happened? And before i get lynched, im not pointing the finger to women that go through this saying they are lying, because we all know rape is common, disgusting, but common. Im just looking at it from the other side

Personally I would allow anonymity for both the accuser and accused in a rape case until the verdict is reached.

What is it about rape that means that complainants should have anonymity which they do not have in respect of any other offence? As Ched et al prove, rape does not destroy your reputation and these days there seems to be a presumption that you're a victim of a malicious allegation if you're accused. Additionally, John Worboys and other rapists were caught because their name appeared in the media.

If found guilty, the rapist should be named, if found innocent, the complainant should be named.

I actually can't believe I am reading this on a site mainly frequented by women. So we have a really low conviction rate as it is and you want to further humiliate and name and shame victims in the media if they don't get a guilty verdict. How fucking compassionate.

By the way, if they did lie, then they can be prosecuted for perjury or perverting the course of justice and their name WILL be public. But you would like to rub women's faces in it because they didn't secure a guilty verdict? Lovely.

False allegations of rape are rare why would women put themselves through questioning, just because someone was found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it just the burden of proof wasn't met enough to prosecute. It's why family courts remove kids even if the parents haven't faced criminal charges of abuse because the burden of proof is lower in family courts than it is in criminal courts.

YADNBU, OP. Not enough evidence does not automatically mean innocent.

I must admit I do get sceptical when I read in a paper about an accusation made against someone where the alleged victim's story does not add up or is ludicrous. Not many years ago a man alleged that he was raped by a celebrity when he was attending a rally led by a Christian evangelical preacher. In a crowded place, if someone was raped, would there not be witnesses??That story did not add up at all. Having said that, I am going by what I read in a tabloid, and tabloids are not known for letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Who knows. Then there was another story of a woman who accused a soap star- apparently she had gone to aseminar on rape and "suddenly remembered" it. Sorry, but I am sceptical.