8 year old girl admits lying about rape allegations

[FlyMeToDunoon]

I felt really sad about this for more than one reason.
here

Imsonottelling People are finding it hard to believe on the grounds that we do not have much information. Im not saying it hasnt happened, Im not saying the girl hasnt been raped. I mearly posting in response to what Ive read. We havnt read to initial police reports, so we cant judge on what they say.

I have an 11 year old boy and I know that he could not be capable of rape either mentally or physically. Thats not to say other boys couldnt be, but it does explain why we are not so quick to judge. Im not saying the little girl is lying, my last post said I think she told the truth but as she thorght she was in a lot of trouble she made out that the boys made her.

I also know that if it was my DD who came home and told me that story, I would probably act in the same way as her mother.

I am not being quick to judge though, I'm saying that I have no idea what happened one way or the other.

However I have read reports on the BBC that said that the initial reports and videotaped evidence described a rape occuring.

Then the girl said under questioning at the trial from the defence lawyers that something different had happened.

I find it strange that on the basis of what the girl has said to the defence lawyers at trial, that people are saying that the charge of rape should never have been brought at the beginning of the process, when the evidence was that a rape had occured. The charge was brought on the evidence at the inquiry stage. That's correct prodecure, isn't it?

It doesn't make any sense to me, all these comment.

Thinking about this a bit more, this thread is a good example of why some experts think there is a real problem with sex crimes and juries.

So many people have preconceived ideas. Some of us are desperate to believe that the girl is lying, others that she is not. We all have our own reasons based in our own experience and feelings. But if we were in a jury it could cause real problems, coudn't it. People find it incredibly difficult to over-ride their pre-conceived ideas, no matter what a judge directs them to do.

good post ISNT.
It's like the race issue in America & the O.J.Simpson trial.

I was talking about sex crimes - as per my post.

I agree with you that generally children don't lie.

But it's not impossible. It's also possible that something terrible has happened to this girl on some other occasion/s with someone else which has led to her saying these things on another occasion.

We don't know.

But if we were all on a jury, I don't think any of us would not be at the very least leaning in one direction or another.

They have brought in additional direction from judges in rape trials, to try and over-ride "rape myths" that people often believe, but I don't think that one person saying something can really over-ride a person's lifetime beliefs. You woulnd't have a member of the BNP in the jury for a black person accused of a crime, yet there is no screening for people who hate women/girls or believe them predisposed to lying. Or equally those who (due to their life experience) are going to start from teh POV that the male is guilty as hell.

With children we need a different style of court. What is happening in this case, an adult trial and the way it's being reported, is disgusting. If a not guilty verdict is found, I can just imagine abusers using it to back up their claims to their victims that no-one will believe them. It should not be reported like this.

I wonder if a different style of court is needed for sex crimes generally as well.

I'm not implying they're 50/50 IRL.

On this thread I think they seem to be, with a few people who are seemingly neutral (but may secretly feel one way or the other) thrown in. I know which way I lean so am trying to be balanced.

My comment about life experience also wasn't directed at you Dittany, not at all. I'm sorry you read it that way.

I do know what you mean though, in that in trying to be balanced, more weight than should be is given to the people whose beliefs go against what is statistically likely.

I just can't be doing with a huge argument today, I;m trying to make some points without accusing anyone on the thread of doing anything IYSWIM as that will only lead to a ruck. And we don't actually know the truth of what happened with this girl, and I doubt we ever will.

After what this girl has been put through in this trial and its reporting in the media, do you think the mother now regrets going to the police?

Knowing what I do about how rape victims are treated by the justice system I wouldn't put my DD through it, even if it meant the perpetrator going free (which there is a 97% chance of hapening anyway).

The vast majority of victims certainly agree with you there foreverastudent.

I am continually angered and saddened by the whole situation WRT sex crimes and the treatment of victims and the reporting levels and the rate at which people get away scott free. Nearly every day I read about something in the papers which disgusts/saddens/angers me.

I wish I could think of what could be done about it. God knows people try so hard and nothing ever seems to come of it.

It seems to me as if a child is likely to become more disturbed by our wonderful justice system than by the assault itself. Making them go over what happened again & again along with the physical examination is tough enough on an adult never mind a child. I don't know what could be done to improve the situation mind you. There does seem to be an innate bias against victims of sexual crime which I don't understand.

Claire- it is because we have an adversarial system of justice which puts each side in opposition. The purpose of OUR courts, as opposed to those on the continent is to chose a 'winner' from each side. It is an 'all or nothing' approach. A more inquisitorial system, like the rest of Europe, has the purpose of finding the truth, which in most cases is somewhere in between the extreme arguments of opposing sides.

I think a solution to the problem of sex crimes in general is to shift the emphasis from criminal to civil actions. Perpetrators would be more likely to lose because the burden of proof would only be on the balance of probabilities. Ok, so they would escape prison,but that is what is happening anyway. At least using the civil route the victim would be compensated (financially)and wouldnt be called a liar so hastily.

I didn't mean so much from a legal perspective but generally people seem to wonder if rape really happened in a way that doesn't happen if someone has been mugged for example. I don't know if it's because it's usually difficult to prove sexual offences or because they tend to be perpetrated by someone the victim knows. I think if sex crimes became civil cases rather than criminal it would just make it seem as if they weren't that serious & not 'proper' crimes.

But that's the point they aren't seen as serious and proper crimes esp when the victim knows the perpetrator.

Anyway it doesn't have to be either/or, they could be pursued as BOTH civil and criminal cases.

Anything is better than the status quo.

I don't think decriminalising sexual offences is the way to go foreverstudent...there's nothing stopping a civil case anyway alongside the criminal

foreverastudent - But making them civil cases instead of criminal wouldn't improve that it would reinforce it. Sexual offences need to be recognised as serious crimes not decriminalised which is in affect what you're suggesting.

I didn't say they should decriminalise them but that more emphasis should be placed upon pursuing civil actions in these cases.

At the moment civil cases against rapists AREN'T being pursued, that is my point.

A civil case victory after a failed prosecution would

-act as a disincentive to rape
-recompense the victim
-financially 'punish' the rapist
-dispel the myth that the victim in a failed prosecutions 'must have been lying'
-dispel the myth that most men accused of rape are innocent
-dispel the myth that rape and rapists are uncommon
-encourage more victims to come forward in the first place

A civil case should be run alongside the criminal, never replace it and certainly not have a greater emphasis....that puts rape in the same category as trespass

Criminal law is meant to punish acts which harm society as a whole.
Civil law is meant to deal with private acts between individuals.
I cannot think of anything more private than rape.
Is rape not more of an injury to the individual than society?

And I mean greater emphasis in terms of legal(aid) funding for civil cases.
It could work well for cases that aren't prosecuted at all, rather than as now where these cases are dropped altogether.

Rape does harm society as a whole, sorry but it is and should always be criminal. It is not a private transaction that has gone wrong.

This story just leaves me empty and sad for the world my children will grow up in.

I never said it shouldn't be a crime! Could you please read a post before commenting on it?

A lot of aquaintance rapes are akin to transactions that have gone wrong.
Boy wants sex. Girl doesnt. He **s her regardless.

I do understand the rape harms society as a whole, but to the victim I am sure she feels like she has suffered more of a violation than society has.