Women who falsely accuse, of RAPE etc. Feminists ?

[Oblomov]

FACT
There have been lots of discussions on here of RAPE recently.
But what about all these woman who falsley accused. what damage they do. then it is even harder for women who have really been raped to be believed.

Do feminists believe that women do falsely accuse.
That poor head of Dept, was accused by a troubled girl and has now lost his chance of being a Headmaster.
What about that girl, who i remember from the papaers, scuffed her own arms when a boy she knew refused to give her the taxi money. she accused him of rape.

At uni, I knew someone who we all thought was falsely accused of rape. He never recovered. his perssonality changed forever.

I am not a rape supporter. I don't support men who rape. But neither do I hate men and automatically assume that all men are cappable of rape. Men are falsely accused sometimes you know. not every woman tells the truth.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that that was dripping in sarcasm and a reference to the horrific stoning incident in Iran on the other thread.

By 'innocent' I mean, the victim of false accusation.

HerBeatitude - I take it you think its ok for the occasional innocent man to have his life destroyed so you can see rape conviction stats improve?

How does not granting accused anonymity improve rape conviction stats? The old 'other people will come forward' argument is a very poor one except in some very extreme cases.

Yes, but do you mena "victim of false accusation" as in; the accuser is proven to have lied or; the accused is found not guilty?

Very, very, very different things.

ccpccp - people are innocent until proven guilty, if it's media coverage you have a problem with then take it up with the media. But the tradition of an open justice system in this country is too strong to give up.

Currently the exception is made for women bringing allegations of rape, a move made to encourage more rape victims to come forward. There is a widespread knowledge that far more rapes take place than are ever reported - all the relevant groups, the police and the governmeent agree on this. To force a woman or man who has been raped to undergo the press scrutiny in the event of a not guilty verdict - which may come about through poor evidence-gathering by the police, because the victim had a state lawyer with little experience while the defendant had a QC, because the jury were hung up on rape myths etc - that's beyond brutal. If someone is found not guilty, even if we assume under law that they aren't guilty, that doesn't mean the victim is guilty.

I don't think that anonymity for defendant would work anyway.

In many occupations he would be suspended from his job, in serious cases may even be on remand.

It's very difficult to control anonymity because of forums such as these - we saw that with Baby Peter who was named all over the internet despite anonymity in court.

All that happens is a whispering campaign starts, innocent men are gossiped about as the possible 'rapist.'

This happened when the NoW published names and areas of known sex offenders in the wake of Sarah Payne.

Innocent men were villified because they shared name and area with those published in the paper.

At least if a defendant is named there is no room for misunderstanding. And justice is seen to be done in court.

and find me one story where a defendant is called 'the rapist' or 'the murderer' before conviction and i will eat my iphone.

Papers arent that stupid Semicolon. They dont just come out and say it.

Whispering campaigns are much preferable to national media I suspect. And in a standard 'non-celebrity' case would not be reported or whispered about at all.

Being fired/suspended happens BECAUSE of coverage. Without it being plastered all over the press these people would still have their jobs and lives.

Elephants - they couldnt control the media before (result - anonymity for accusor) so why do you think they can do it today?

Thats a long list of reasons why not-guilty verdicts can be ignored. No smoke without fire and all that.

This is the problem.

Not asking not guilty verdicts to be ignored. Just stating that "not guilty" to the accused, does not equal "guilty of telling lies" to the victim. See?

The media used to be able to release the name of the accuser as well as the accused. This was stopped to encourage women to come forward. The media are usually "controlled" now in that they can't issue the name of the accuser - I thought that was what you were complaining about?

You're right Elephants. I posted a clarification at 13:14:07

That was a clarification? The comment to HB and the question?

Well I think there is a wider discussion to be had about whether people accused of some crimes (plural) should be given anonymity - personally I think not, but am willing to discuss and would love to hear from lawyers etc. BUT when it comes to rape it is always treated as a special issue - the govt's recently abandoned pledge to introduce anonymity for rape defendants only for instance. Did you read the (v long) threads about that?

Just because someone is found innocent in court of a crime does not mean that the accuser is lying or making a false accusation.

"HerBeatitude - I take it you think its ok for the occasional innocent man to have his life destroyed so you can see rape conviction stats improve?"

No I don't think it's OK. But I take it you think it's OK for a woman who has been raped, to have her life destroyed by being vilified as a liar if she can't get a conviction for her rape because juries are so steeped in rape myths that they refuse to convict rapists even when it's obvious that they're guilty?

Do you think men's life and men's pain, are more significant and important and deserving of empathy and pity, than women's?

Because most juries/ people do - the thought of sending a rapist to jail when he is good looking, has a good job and a nice family, makes them shudder, while the thought of a woman who has been raped, not getting justice, just makes them shrug.

Rape myths and obviously guilty rapists? Mens pain vs womans pain?

How does that impact whether the accused gets anonymity or not? Unless of course the lack of anonymity is seen as part of the 'justice'?

Individuals are being accused of rape when they havent done it.

"By 'innocent' I mean, the victim of false accusation."

As in - where someone deliberately makes an accusation of rape, knowing rape did not occur.

Havent seent he long threads Elephants. May search them out though.

But how will you know whether a man is not convicted because he was falsely accused, or whether he was not convicted because the jury decided that there was not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt?

I think you need to read the rape threads to get the arguments about this ccpccp, it's been done to death - but basically the argument is that to grant a man accused of rape anonymity, uniquely, sends the message out that a rape allegation is more likely to be untrue than an allegation of any other crime; which re-inforces the widespread but wrong notion, that women who allege rape, are more likely to be lying, than any other group of accusers, and therefore will lead to a situation where even fewer women than the paltry 15% of victims who currently report rape, will do so in the event of a rapist being granted anonymity.

And the "other victims coming forward" argument is not spurious; John Worboys would probably not have been convicted if he had had anonymity and he'd still be out there raping women in London taxis.

Anonymity thread

FYI ccpccp. I wouldn't sit down to read it before you clear your diary though, it got to over 1000 posts. And there are at least 3 more threads almost as long, which also discuss the whole issue of rape. They are full of stats, info etc.

I am glad Beachcomber i had only read the last post seeing yours i was surprised read the rest and got it.

Phew!