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.

Ah ok, xposts.

On conviction rates.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/28/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy

"An analysis of Home Office figures reveals that only 9.7 per cent of all 'serious woundings', including stabbings, that are reported to the police result in a conviction. For robberies the figure falls to 8.9 per cent and for rape, it is 5.5 per cent."

I'd say the police and courts don't treat any violent crime seriously enough. The rape conviction figure is very low, but it's not that far from the very low conviction rate for serious woundings, which I would guess are more likely to involve witnesses, almost guaranteed to have evidence of injury, and much less likely to involve the issue of consent!

The slightly hard to follow conclusion from the same piece -

"However, The Observer's investigation reveals that fewer than a third of the 20,000 people acquitted of serious offences in the Crown Court last year owed their freedom to 'not guilty' verdicts by judges, not juries. Cases were often discharged by judges, usually when the prosecution decided not to proceed - because cases were not ready, because victims or other witnesses withdrew or had been intimidated, or because Crown Prosecution Service lawyers decided that the evidence was 'unreliable'.

The answer, said judges, was not to make sweeping changes in the law to reduce suspects' protections, and hence risk wrongful convictions, but to find ways of getting the CPS and the police to work more closely together when investigating crimes so that the evidence is more watertight."

So maybe we can blame the police and the CPS - and while public opinion about rape myths may play some part in decisions that a case is unwinnable, it seems that there are wider problems. According to judges anyway.

I don't know about blaming the police, but it is clear that the police are underfunded. They need more people, not 25% budget cuts. It may be sad to say this, but they probably just don't have the time for a proper investigation and so, they just don't try.

Cases just aren't ready in time so they are thrown out of court? Either it's down to lack of funding, lack of effort or the trial being to soon.

"I don't see another way without changing the entire legal system."

Me neither.

That's why we have to change the entire legal system and the society in which it functions, to one where a woman's right to bodily integrity is taken as for granted as that of a man's is currently.

But HerBeX, don't the conviction rates quoted above show that nobody of either sex can expect much right to 'bodily integrity?' ie to be stabbed or seriously injured and then get the perp convicted?

In the case of a violent crime, is provocation taken into account in the trial?

Also, Herb, what are the conviction rates for male>male rape? Are they higher, lower or similar? I know the reporting rates are far lower. (I know they say 90-95% of all reported are male>female, not denying that.) Seems all violent crimes are not as bad.

I'm sure I heard that conviction rates for murders are about 90%. I guess in those cases, they don't stop until they catch someone. Shows it's possible.

HerBeX, changing society's views is one thing, but how would you specifically change the legal system? I already said I'd be in favour of disallowing from being a juror people who think sexual history is a reason to blame the victim (etc), what do you suggest?

for HerBex
"Prove it. Back up your lies.

You won't be able to. Nobody says women never lie about rape or that men should be considered guilty before charged. YOu won't find one post that says that on this section, unless it's by some loon alleging that that's what regulars on this forum say."

On just one thread...(Is a man accused of rape guilty until proven innocent)

HerBeatitude Thu 10-Jun-10 14:56:43
The verdict "Not Guilty" does not mean Innocent. It just means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt

PerfectDromedary Thu 10-Jun-10
The idea that anyone would put themselves through the trauma of a trial to make a false accusation is frankly insane

ElephantsAndMiasmas Thu 10-Jun-10 17:05:43
I have serious doubts about the innocence of lots of people found Not Guilty, or who have had the case against them dropped

Its a long thread and I have work to do but it shows that some people think being accused is the same as being guilty.

I think only the quote from PerfectDromedary comes close to saying all accused are guilty.

MissHodgeInHist, those comments are in reference to the fact that 94.5% of defendents get off, and I don't think you can claim that all those are innocent.

Anyway, it's true. Not Guilty is not the same as innocent. It means that there is not enough evidence to convict beyond resonable doubt. It doesn't mean that are definitely innocent. It means they are not convicted.

Most people do find it incomprehensible that someone would make a false allegation. It is true. And as the best estimate is about 3% are rated as "no crime" (which isn't even the same thing as a false allegation, which could be much lower), it's reasonable to believe that the victim is relling the truth in a vast, vast majority of cases. Hanging onto that little percentage like it's your lifeline and like it somehow nulifies rape as a crime is insane. False accusations are no higher than any other crime, and therefore the arguement that rape cases deserve some sort of special dispensation becasue of it is bullshit.

So no one can ever be founf innocent of rape?

but that 94.5% isn't due to the courts since only about 6% go to the courts where 58% end up in conviction.

If complaints of rape went to civil courts to sue for damages, the decision is on the balance of probability. What proportion of rape cases would find in favour of the plaintiff, do you think?

TheAtomicBludger - "Not Guilty is not the same as innocent"

So are you saying everyone found not guilty of rape (or any crime actually) is not innocent? Just because it cannot be proved they did something.

I would accuse you of being a foolish moron, the fact I cannot conclusively prove it does not mean you are not one it seems.

I bet there are a hell of a lot more guilty rapists walking the streets free than there are innocent men in the dock for crimes they did not commit, that's all.

MissHodgeInHay You are deliberately mis-quoting people, just because TAB has said "Not Guilty is not the same as innocent" does not imply that all people found not-guilty were guilty, it just defines the term 'not-guilty'

Ishani I would prefer guilty people to go free than innocent people wrongly convicted.

I'd rather neither happened but if you had to push me for an answer i'd say the opposite tbh on the basis that it was in this day and age less likely that an innocent person is locked up.

No, you obviously cannot prove it. Since you have not proven anything you've said at all, just made wild accusations at everyone. Which obviously as there is not enough evidence for a convcition, it was thrown out of the thread.

But no, innocence cannot be attained by a court on any crime. It's job is to prove guilt, not innocence. Perhaps I have very little faith in our law system, but yes I believe that of any crime.

So, you are saying 95.5% of claiments are lying? That is my arguement. It is in the disproportionate amount of convictions. And as above has been said, this is true of all crimes. Do I believe 90% of people who were beaten and/or stabbed are lying? Uh, no. I believe there is not enough evidence.

No, I do not believe everyone on trial is guilty. I just don't trust the justice system as it is to find that out. It is based on what evidence is found and how good your barister is.

queen... I may have misunderstoon TAB, maybe they meant only in rape cases "Not Guilty is not the same as innocent"?

And we have all agreed that the answer is a more thourough investigation is required if an accusation is made. That lowers the chances of innocent people being found guilty and raises the chances of convictions.

Also, I think that the idea of different baristers in different areas being on different money should be stopped. Divorce is the highest paid area of barrister, whilst rape and incest is the lowest paid and so the barristers who are either trying to do what's right or the one's who couldn't get into the higher paid brances go. It just means you less likely to get a good barrister if you are the claiment.