The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

[DontCallMePeanut]

From The Telegraph

Sorry, my head's not in the right place to provide any critique of this at the moment, but thought this would interest the members of the feminist section. Will attempt to comment when I have a clearer head.

Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here are just some of the reasons to be cautious. I could have provided countless more if I'd wanted. If I was ever on a jury for sexual assault trial, the evidence would need to be absolutely overwhelming for me to be convinced. It would be a start if women falsely crying rape received the same sentence as the falsely accused man would have received if convicted.

I don't know what the precise percentage is. And of course categorically proving that an accusation is totally false isn't easy and the accusers often know this. I would be confident of two things. Firstly, a good number of claims will be false (of course the majority never even reach court), and secondly, more than for virtually any other offence as a percentage of the total.

Wow... Moonferret, how did you find yourself on the feminism board, do you mind me asking?

Funnily enough, the Daily Fail are pretty damn misogynistic as it is. Any chance to hinder the feminists cause, and they're there...

Less than 5% of all rape claims are false. 5, out of 100. Yet only 5% of the gods honest truthful claims see a conviction. Yet you're on the feminism board saying you'd rather not believe the victim.

Interesting tidbit for you. The media reports disproportionately. And it disproportionately represents the number of false rape claims as being greater than the truthful ones.

"Overwhelming evidence"... So... erm... we'd have problems with short skirts, high heels, marital rape, previous sexual relationships.... y'know, the usual shit misogyny spouts?

Those on here know it takes a lot for me to call someone a misogynist, but those are the tendencies you've just displayed.

If you want to just have a discussion with people who see it your way, fine...

So you don't know what the percentage of false accusations is, but you're sure that it's significantly higher than any other offence?

You are also aware that the onus of proof is on the prosecution and not the defence, and the standard is reasonable doubt?

I assume you know these very basic things, given that you've just told us categorically that you're on the side of accused rapists over victims?

There's feminist... Or there's non-feminist. Misogynistic. Rape apologisers. People who allow rape to go unpunished. People who lead women to think they won't be believed if they come forward to report a rape...

I was raising this article, as it's pretty pro-feminist. Which is a damn rarity in the media. Yet you've already spouted a load of rape apologetics, and we're on the same page

You always know you've easily "won" an argument here because people start claiming you've said things that you didn't say in any way whatsoever. Such as I'm "on the side of accused rapists over victims". What nonsense..

If you'd been reasonable I'd have addressed your points...too much to expect of course.

So "Peanut" are just "feminists" permitted here? If so, I'll leave now...

What I mean is, given that you've made your decision about who is more likely to be lying without hearing any evidence, I assume that this is due to you having easily citable evidence to support your assumption that the system is biased towards women.

Well, let's see. This is the "women's rights" section? You know? Where we want the best for "women"? Isn't that a pretty bug clue?

And yes. You did say that. Just not in those words. Look forward to meeting dittany... Wouldn't like to be you when she arrives

NB. This isn't an attack on Dittany... I actually wish she was here right now....

It's not a case of "who's more likely to be lying". It's about realising that cases need to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt". And it's true that I have read (and heard) of so many cases of women lying, that without any independent evidence, I'd be reluctant to believe it. In fact, it'd take more than one person's word for me to be convinced of anyone's guilt of anything! And to the person pouring scorn on the Mail, did they invent those stories? And did you look at the comments at the bottom of each article? Are the "popular" comments closer to my point of view, or yours?

It's a discussion forum "Peanut"...where you come to debate issues! If you'd rather just nod in agreement at each other, fine..whatever makes you happy. I'll leave you to it... And you "wouldn't like to be me" if someone arrives? Do you think debating with anyone would concern me? If so then you're seriously mistaken (again)...

I'm still waiting on your stats to prove that more rape accusations are false than for any other offence, and that the accused needs to "categorically prove" that "an accusation is totally false".

I assume you do have that proof, since you're basing your views on those assumptions?

I'll leave you for some of the more establiished board members. There's reasons I can't be bothered arguing this at the moment. Good luck with the slaughter...

Incidentally, in a scenario where you have one accuser and one accused, you are happy to take one person's word for what happened, aren't you? The accused.

Try not to get wound up about the insults! This forum is notably intolerant and hostile if you are not part of the claque. I keep posting despite that, as it is important that proper debate takes place, and occasionally it does.

There are no good statistics AFAIK about false allegations, on rape or other crimes (unless you are prepared to count things like false accusations against teachers, which can be shown to be on the rise, some of which are sexual in nature). For other crimes, estimates vary. So there is plenty of space in this question to make whatever assertion you like.

There are admitted cases if rape (and other offences) where false allegations have been made, but it is not because of these that all evidence does have to be fully tested in Court - that is in itself an important pillar of the judicial system and one that (rightly) applies to any trial.

What do you mean "there are no good statistics" about false allegations, meditrina? What is your criticism of the statistics? In what way aren't they good?

So according to moonferret, the only crimes, full stop, on which there should ever be a conviction are those with multiple witnesses? .

I mean that, when discussing allegations of rape and other sexual offences, it is acknowledged by all sides that there is under-reporting (and of course the scale of that by definition cannot be known). But I can see that that might be a side issue here.

Could you point me to an authoritative source on Trials and their outcomes (ideally all offences) showing guilty/not guilty, and also a breakdown of not guilty to show which were indeed attributed to a deliberate false allegation (rather than just not being proved). There is an important difference in intent there, and I have never seen data from a reliable source. Hence grateful for links.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the key... it is not about party politics one way or another, it is about people being found "not GUILTY" (not "innocent", but "not guilty") if there is not enough evidence staked against him. One fundamental human right.

With respect, meditrina, you (and moonferret) are the ones making the claim that there are no good statistics on whether there are more or less false allegations for rape than any other crime. So no, I'm not inclined to do your research for you if you're now admitting that that statement is founded on nothing.

PaleHands, yes, but if there is only one accused and no witnesses, that sole person's word is presumably good enough to be believed.