20 months for false rape claim. any threads on this?

[mayorquimby]

title says it all really. Two women colluded in a false rape claim and got found out and have been sentenced to 20 months for perverting the course of justice.
Seems about the right sentence to me when you take into account the collusion of the two women as being an aggravating factor.
Just wondering what others thought.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030471/Wicked-women-jailed-accusing-man-rape-showed-police-pictures-consensual-threesome.html

P.S

"Men"="People". I am quoting old fashioned language. It is not a man vs woman thing. I also prefer 10 guilty women to go free rather than one innocent jailed. I know I have to be very careful of my language with you.

larry....What a very poignant 'old fashioned language' mistake.

The more interesting fact about rape cases is that so many seem not to result in a guilty man going to prison, not whether ten innocent men go to prison. As so many guilty ones never make it it is entirely unlikely that an innocent man would.

Posie,

It is not a mistake but a a quote from Blackstone, an English jurist of the 1760s. I think it would be tough to pull him up on his sexist language!

That is the whole point of justice. It admits many guilty go unpunished in order to spare any innocents from going to jail. It is not an argument of whether rape is worse than prison but of whether the state has a right to incarcerate innocent people in order to increase the number of guilty who get punished. A lot of people who hate this principle when it comes to rape would also be against capital punishment, no matter that a mass murderer who slowly tortured his victims to death would have committed a far worse offence than a humane lethal injection. The point is that individuals should be punished for evil acts but, when the state punishes, it has to uphold a higher standard, both in terms of burden of proof and in terms of the humanity of the punishment.

Rape is a tough crime to prove in that, often, it is one person's word against another but is that an argument to lower the burden of proof, no matter that that more innocents may go to jail, or do we have to accept it is a hard crime to prove and that means some rapists will walk free? That is a very tough dilemma (for me, anyway). Personally, I do not think that it justifies altering the principles of jurisprudence developed over centuries. It may be a reason for making it easier for women to pursue civil cases (where the burden of proof is much lower) and get those rapists whose crimes cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt named and shamed and also pay a financial price for their crime.

Rape is no more difficult than assault without witnesses. It's just that the whole fucking legal system seems to think a man truly doesn't know when he's raping someone unless he beats her up and violently assaults her in addition to raping her.

Non violent rape is far more difficult than assault. The problem is that physical violence (beyond a certain level) is illegal regardless of consent. There is a famous case of a ring of homosexual sado masochists who liked to do things like nail one another's scrotums to planks. They were found guilty of assault, even though it was entirely consensual. In addition, very few people consent to be beaten up. It just does not really happen. On the other hand, sex is not a crime in itself but non-consensual sex is. So, if there is no violence, it all turns on a question of consent which is a "he says, she says" decision, very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

The law defines rape fairly explicitly and I do not think there is too much argument that the definition is reasonable. Certain judges and juries may not apply the law properly but that is a reason for the appeals court and law lords (is it supreme court now?) to overturn those judgments and give better guidance to the lower courts. It is not a reason to change the law.

Non violent rape? WTF? Do mean rape without aggravated assault?

herebebollox

Your interest in the thread is therefore peripheral to the topic which is not about rape at all, it is about a conviction perverting the course of justice.

"A claim can be true that a man has raped a woman but he may not have raped her? MQ? "

OK I think my language may have been unclear or poorly articulated on my part.
What I was trying to convey is that there can be a claim of rape which can not be considered false reporting/perjury/perverting the course of justice and as such is a genuine claim, this does not automatically mean that the claim is true to the objective facts etc.,
surely the 6% of false claims only include claims which are made with the knowledge or intention that they are false (a stat which I belive is about in line with other crimes).
So the 94% of the remaining claims do not automatically mean all 94% are guilty of rape, many of them will be and some will not be, in the same way that the 94% of other crimes which are genuinely reported do not automatically mean the accused is guilty. They may have defences which are available to them, the burden of proof may not be met etc.
So you can have a situation where a claim is genuine and a woman has had non-consesnual sex forced upon her but that the person accused is either not the guilty party, lacks the required mens rea or there is not enough evidence to convict. This doesn't mean that all the men who have not been convicted are rapists free to rape again.As the argument put forward earlier was
"So that left 94 guilty men having claims made against them. Of that, only 7 went to prison. That leaves 87 free to rape again."
Is just not factually correct,it's a highly subjective reading of statistics which assumes that all 94 men out of 100 who were accused of rape are automatically guilty. I have no doubt that the 87 men who are not convicted will contain some who were guilty, but to suggest that simply because the accusation is not one which could be considered an intentionally fraudulent one that the accused is automatically guilty is nonsense.

"Until rape myths are busted juries will always err on the side of caution for the rapist and not justice for the victim."

I'd agree with this completely and it's something which I said earlier on when I asked what others would do if they were placed in charge of the legal system to improve rape convictions. Because,as i said, it's my belief that the problem stems mostly from societal attitudes and acceptance of rape myths which see juries squeeze certain defendants through an implausible window of 'reasonable doubt' rather than any actual structure of the legal system as rape is treated the same as other consent based crimes.

LArrygrylls I believe the case you're thinking of is R v Brown

• the phrase non-consensual sex forced upon her The "forced" is irrelevant and redundant. She may have been subjected to non-consensual sex, the use of force is neither here or there once consent was absent.

"is that an argument to lower the burden of proof?"

Yes, it is,. At the moment the burden of proof for rape, is higher than for any other crime. The standard is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt. With rape, most juries apply the standard of beyond all doubt. They should stop doing it, they should lower the burden of proof and go with reasonable doubt, as they do with most other crimes, including murder. I have never understood why people think it's worse to be accused of rape than murder, surely taking someone's life is the ultimate crime?

Also the default assumption, is that women are in a permanent state of consent, unless they say they aren't. Currently, the law requires a rape victim to prove that she wasn't in a state of consent, it shouldn't do that. It should assume that if a woman says she wasn't in a state of consent, she should be presumed to not have been in a state of consent unless it can be demonstrated that she was. Why should the law see me as an open goal? That presumption means that rapists have carte blanche to rape women whenever they feel like it, unless they are incredibly incompetent or violent (and even then, they often get off with the "she asked for rough sex" defence).

"At the moment the burden of proof for rape, is higher than for any other crime."

It's not though, as far as the law is concerned the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt the same as all other crimes. Which is why I'd reiterate my belief that societal education with regards to rape myths is what is needed rather than any reform of legal structures. Juries appear to be finding reasonable doubt for rape cases in a way which they do not for other crimes, this is nothing to do with there being a higher burden of proof for rape than other crimes,such as murder which you used as an example, because rape does not have a higher burden of proof. It has everything to do with juries reflecting societies attitude to rape and finding reasons to believe the defendant did not rape.
It's not possible to lower the burden of proof to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' becausethat's what the burden of proof for rape already is, as it is with all other crimes.

Not sure why people keep blaming the courts when the most recent statistic is 71% of rape cases that end up in court result in a conviction. The reason so many rape cases are left unresolved happen long before the courts or juries get involved.

Mayor, I think you are missing Herbe's point. Technically the burden of proof for rape is the same, reasonable doubt, but juries and courts (especially some judges summing up) act as if it's all doubt.

And yes, the problems in the criminal justice system start long before cases reach court - look at Warboys and other recent cases of serial rapists who have been able to keep attacking women for years because the police didn't take the victims seriously.

Herbebollox,

I don't think what you say is actually true. As MayorQuimby says, it has the same burden of proof as any other crime.

I believe a defense to rape is where a man REASONABLY believed that the woman had consented. The key is the reasonableness of it and it is that which has to be tested in a court. I think the level of assumption of consent will totally depend on the circumstances. For example, if a boyfriend and girlfriend regularly gave one another money, it would be quite hard for one to prove theft against the other, as it would be assumed that, even though £100 had definitely left one's wallet and entered the other's, that consent had been given and it was a gift. On the other hand, if two people who had never met had transferred that amount of money, the assumption would be that it had been theft. Both of these are not necessarily true and could be tested in a court if one had claimed theft against another, but the hurdle to prove it would be much harder to prove in the former case.

It is the same with rape amongst people who know one another and have had sex before. It is not impossible to prove rape but the hurdle is set higher, reasonably enough.

The alternative that someone had to prove consent was given would lead to papers having to be signed before anyone had sex. I just don't think most people want that.

"Mayor, I think you are missing Herbe's point. "

I may well be, and if I am I apologise. My interpretation of his/her statement stems from the assetion that the burden of proof is higher for rape and that the burden of proof for rape needs to be lowered. In fact the post as a whole read as though he/she was of the belief that the legal requirments and approach to the crime of rape were in some way unique when in fact they are the same as all consent based crimes.
As I read it they were making factual staements as to how the law regarding rape operates and were insinuating that it is treated differently to other crimes as a matter of procedure, as I say I could be wrong but that was how it read to me.

"but juries and courts (especially some judges summing up) act as if it's all doubt. "

I agree wrt to juries, but as I say this is not the result of legal structures or procedures, it reflects an unfortunate aspect of society. As for judges, while there have been a few appalling summing ups (awful grammar I know), luckily a judges opinion should not affect a trial or conviction (bar poor directions or admissibility of evidence.)
Some may feel this is semantics as the result is the same, poor conviction rates for rape. But I honestly feel it is fundamental to finding the solution. As I have seen on threads like this people often blame the legal structure and many believe that it is set up to let rapists off, while I personally don't believe this is true I would still ask what they would change or what aspects of the crime of rape they believe to be unique as oppossed to other consent based crimes.
Where as I would believe that it stems from a societal issue and no amount of structural reorganisation within the law would result in an improved system if the attitudes of potential jurors remains the same and so a grass-roots initiative educating people as to the realities of rape and debunking rape myths would be the way to achieve a more effective process, although the obvious pitfall being that this may take time to see results.

Agree with education and debunking rape myths. They could start in schools by tackling sexism and treating it as important as racism. And making domestic violence a topic in PHSE so it is very, very, very clear to teenagers that it is NOT acceptable to hit your partner, let alone rape them. (Research about attitudes amongst teenagers and the level of sexual harassment in schools is seriously scary.)

It should be 'summings up', btw. I think.

I know a man who got away with sexually assaulting two colleagues, btw. This was what I'd thought was a decent, ethical company. But he intimidated the woman so she didn't go to the police (she checked out his threats about knowing people who would do serious damage and apparently there was reason to believe the threat was real). She did insist on an investigation at work but was intimidated by the company who really didn't want to deal with it. He eventually left on very favourable terms and with a freelance contract. The women left with sod-all, although my friend found a great new job, thankfully.

For every man who is wrongly accused, I guess there are 20 getting away with it. Look how long it took the police to stop Warboys - and several other cases as well.

wasn't there recently a report that there is a huge variation of degree of investigation by regional police of rape allegations?

Yes, I'm sure there was.

But it is not "reasonable" to assume that a woman who has had sex with a man several times before, because he is her boyfriend, will suddenly accuse him of rape when they have normal sex again.

The attitude that says that is reasonable doubt, is also the attitude that says women are hysterical idiots who don't know their own minds and who randomly accuse men of rape for no good reason. When in fact, most women who accuse men or rape, accuse them of rape because they have been raped by them.

It also assumes permanent consent unless a woman can prove she didn't consent. So if your wife's colleague rapes her, she is presumed to be in a state of consent to having sex with him, unless she can persuade the jury beyond any shadow of a doubt, that she hasn't just said he raped her because you might be angry with her, but that she was in fact raped by that colleague. And since the default assumption is that she is consenting to sex with any random man who might want to have sex with her, it's extremely difficult for her to prove that she in fact didn't consent to have sex with him.

Also this nonsense of signing papers to say you consent to fucking someone: um, that would be silly wouldn't it, because actually, both parties are allowed to change their mind about sex, so it would still be rape and a signature wouldn't change that. Most men are perfectly capable of understanding when they have consent and when they don't and don't need legal documents as they have brains, hearts and communication skills.

Most men also understand that just because they are in an ongoing sexual relationship with a woman, or have had a sexual relationship with her in the past, that doesn't mean that they have the right to penetrate her body whenever they feel like it without her freely given and enthusiastic agreement. Juries appear to believe that most men are too stupid, lacking in empathy and brutal, to be able to know that. This constant excuse that men can't be expected to fully communicate with a woman before entering her body, for chrissakes, is just that - an excuse to let a rapist off, because juries are desperate to let the nice man in the suit off because they identify with him, more than they identify with the woman he has probably raped.

A lot of it is about who we are taught to empathise with. And it ain't women.

Herbebollox,

You state these truisms that a man should understand "X" and be sensitive enough to realise when a woman does not want sex. And also that most reasonable women will not accuse a man of rape when they have not been raped. All undeniably true. Most women and men are reasonable and, luckily, most of us manage to remain in relationships all of our lives without either having been raped or being accused of rape.

The courts are there for when normal social interaction has broken down, to test whether a man has been guilty of criminal behaviour (rape) or has been falsely accused. This is exactly the same as for any other crime.

I don't think there is an assumption that a woman is in "a state of permanent" consent. I have no idea where this idea comes from except, maybe, that, as discussed above, not having consented is hard to prove in the case of rape which does not leave an objective mark of violence and, especially, where two people have already had consensual sex. The point is, as reiterated time and time again, that in criminal law the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". I seem to remember asking a lawyer what this amounted to (in a general discussion about crime) and being told it was a 95% probability. That means that even if one assumed that 92/100 women were truthful about being raped, you would still need further corroborating evidence to convict. That is not equivalent to assuming women are liars. In addition, if all it took to convict a man was an accusation by a woman (which seems to be what you are actually suggesting, as it would certainly be 100% impossible to prove consent was given), you would go back to the days of the Salem witch hunts, but in reverse.

Juries are, I would guess, at least 50% women. I cannot see why women, many of whom have been victim of rape, would empathise with a "man in a suit".

Rape is vile. Deliberately trying to send someone to prison (to also probably suffer rape) is also vile. The latter may be rarer than the former but that does not mean it does not happen or that courts should ignore the possibility. Human beings of both sexes are capable of dishonesty and causing harm.

I do not know why you have changed my "having sex" into "fucking someone". Is that how you view normal consensual sex?

Oh Larry, you don't know much about human nature if you assume women will automatically side with women. Haven't you heard of members of the oppressed group siding with the oppressor? Although it's better for the group if everyone stands up to the powerful, as an individual it can be quite a successful strategy to collude - and we all know that instinctively. Study the history of civil rights in the US if you need to be convinced.

There's also the 'if I'm a good girl nothing bad will happen to me' belief system. Victim blaming reassures people that they haven't done anything wrong so they will be safe. Again, very human magical thinking. If I stay in at night, if I never wear short skirts, if I do X, Y or Z, then I'll be safe. Sadly it's a crock of shit, but people believe it - and not just about rape, about all sorts of things.