youtube gang rape "victim" arrested.

[wannaBe]

not so innocent after all?

but you don't know this woman is a victim. You might think it, but you cannot be 100% certain. She is the one who has been accused, subsequent to three lads being arrested on suspicion of her rape, the evidence for which was apparently glarinly obvious, and them not being charged, but instead the woman being arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice and having sex with a minor - that's right, a minor.

I do not believe she is a victim.

But that doesn't make me sympathetic to rapists, because I do not believe these lads were rapists.

I do not have sympathy with rapists.

FGS Wannabe. Many MANY MANY cases do not get as far as court.
Fact is, none of us know whether this was rape or not and my personal issue with this thread is that it represents a trait in certain quarters to jump on the slightest evidence that someone who alleges rape is lying. It's done in such a triumphant-look-we-found-a-witch sort of tone.
I find it really mysoginistic and rather depressing that this attitude often comes from other women. Just look at how you chose to word your OP.... It's like the old Hollywood scary movie formula - the virgin is always saved.

and the 2-4% has to come from somewhere ditteny.

WannaBe, you talk sense. Surely, with such damning evidence of the alleged crime, the police must have very, very good reason to release the boys and charge the woman.

but jv, while rape cases often don't make it to court, it is extremely rare for the accused to then be arrested and charged.

But I think that even if she is convicted there will still be people out there that say it's disgusting, miscarriage of justice etc. It's as if some people don't believe women are capable of crime.

agree with wannabe

not just the fact that there is video evidence of the alleged rape, and yet no charges will be brought against the men involved... but that the alleged victim has been arrested and charged

the police and CPS must know what sort of attention this case would bring, and i doubt they would take it to this level without some serious evidence that the alleged victim might not be the victim of a rape.

This may not clear this up any more/any less but on another thread, there is a dreadful yet typical Daily rag story about a so called "evil 5yr old girl" Who reports the new? Are there only certain sections of the meeja that are credible? Are we always in full possesion of the facts? Can we speculate? Yes. More questions than answers imo but very sad story whatever lies at the heart of it.

reports the news even.

It is odd that, as soon as a woman uses the word rape it is immediatly assumed that she is a victim - by some rather zealous factions, regardless of the evidence or lack of it.

Personally I think rape is a terrible crime and anyone who does this to omeone else deserves to be punished fully. However, I also feel that the default standpoint should be innocent until proven guilty - as with every other crime I do not think that taking a balanced view rather than a hysterical view is actually that bad.

dittany - you are doing a very good job...I need to be quick but just want to add quickly

• there is no other crime where the credibility of the testimony of victims is routinely and systematically called into question at the investigation stage

• the fact that these lads aren;t going to be charged doesn't mean that either the police involved are corrupt and mysogynistic or that the police have strong evidence she's lying. There is, disturbingly and unfortortunately a third possible explanation - bu far the most likely - which is institutional and societal mysogony, or at least, institutional and societal gender-bias, such that crimes against women, such as rape, are uniquely low in their reporting, prosecution and conviction rates. It's almost a truism - it's a fact that these reporting, prosecution and conviction rates are low - it's also a fact that this is connected to deeply embedded gender bias in our societal attitudes, our criminal law, our policing, our courts.

Thanks to Stephen Lawrence and his family we've come a reasonable way in recognising institutional racism, but we are so far off (as shown in this thread tbh) when it comes to gender bias.

"I think this assumption that they must have good evidence to charge her is wishful thinking.". But they had good evidence to charge the lads. video evidence in fact, and they haven't charged them. Often rape cases fail because it's often a his word against hers senario. It's not right but that's how it is. But in this instance they have a video of the woman supposedly being raped, so it would be her word against theirs but with video evidence to back up her word so almost certain to result in a conviction.

Of course there is something else to suggest she's not innocent. Otherwise her defence lawyer could just show the video as part of his opening statement and the whole case would collapse.

Rape is an abhorrent crime. But unfortunately there are women who falsely accuse men of rape, and I think they deserve the same treatment as actual rapists, because to accuse someone like that is the lowest of the low. Mud sticks, and anyone accused of rape will most likely be branded for the rest of his life.

HW, I am pretty certain that I would feel the same if it were gender-reversed sorry!

yorkishbirdy - it's more complex than that. of course the accused is innocent til proven guilty in a court of law. but, admittedly slightly counter-intuitively, in order for criminal law to work at all and for anyone to actually end up in court - so that their guilt or innoncence can be established - victims must also be believed.

but is it right that accused should be named before they are convicted?

find me 1000s of similar cases where the genders are reversed and I'll accept that perhaps we are institutionally sexist

Video evidence isn't as good as you'd think.

This is really sad. There seems to be less presumtion of innocence for the victims of rape than the purpetrators.

There are huge costs to being accused of rape yes, but I think many people wrongly assume that being wrongly accused is worse than being raped itself.

Wannabe, false accusation of rape is no higher than any other false accusaion of crime.

And i don't think Ian Huntley is the only man with a string of abusive acts towards women for which he was never charged.

interesting point mt - about people thinking being wrongly accused is worse than being raped. I think you are absolutely right and I think it is a sign of just how deeply embedded our sexism is.

very odd indeed to claim women who falsely accuse men of rape [though this happens incredibly rarely] deserve the same treatment as rapists themselves. Disturbing.

i thikn being wrongly accused of rape would be horrific, your life would be ruined, it is not the same as rape , as it is not physical, but the emotional impact would be horrendous.. you could lose your family, your job, your home, your life as you know it. i don;t thikn that being wrongly accsued would be a walk in the park

100% behind dittany with this.

We really dont know enough about this. What we do know is:

• That the newspaper doesnt know all the facts either
• Newspapers will run a story that is going to sell papers - truth doesnt necessarily factor in to that and an unusual case will almost certainly attract more attention, giving a false spin on just how frequent these incidences are
• Rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove, largely because the issue of consent is considered too murky and muddies the water (I hate that this is the case but it is)
• It is far easier to prove the woman had sex with minors than it is to prove the minors raped her (the consent issue again) - either way - its a win-win for the police and they'll not have wasted their time

and for some reasons if there is the slightest possibility a woman has falsely accused man of rape, the sensationalism attached [and the degree of derogation towards the woman] is so much more than if a bloke rapes a woman. the latter is almost [by the press anyway] seen as something that just occasionlly happens whereas the former is a perversion of humanity or something.