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.

TAB I have not mentioned your statistics?

Are you saying innocence is a state that a court can remove by finding you guilty? If a person is accused of rape they are innocent, unless the court says they did it? That sounds reasonable.

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 th4ere wasn't enough evidence to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt.

That is simply a correct stating of the legal position. It doesn't mean that being accused is the same as being guilty, that's faulty reasoning.

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.

Can you provide the context? I suspect what the poster was saying, was that in general someone wouldn't put themselves through it, which seems a reasonable proposition ot me. The prevailing view is that most women who allege rape, are doing that, which is berserk. If s/he doesn't mean in general, if s/he means in every single case, then obviously that would mean that you had found one post in hundreds where it might be taken as the poster believing that accusation = guilt. But I very much doubt that that poster meant that, people who post on this board tend to be reasonable.

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

Again, that doesn't mean the poster thinks that every single man who is accused is guilty,. It just means most of them are. Which the figures suggest is true. The figures are police figures, they are not known as bastions of radical feminism so they don't have a vested interest in making this stuff up.

Scraping the barrel a bit, aren't you?

Usingmainlyspells
Courts are in the business of giving 100% guilty stickers to people, and unless you have one of those you are innocent.

Its a binary state, you go into court innocent, and unless you are found to be not innocent you remain innocent.

All i read from this is 'just because a judge said you are not guilty it doesnt matter, we know you are'

Het your torches and pitchforks out and get rid of that pesky judiciary.

MIssHodge you are confusing being innocent with proven innocent. Most of the time, thank god, they overlap. But they're not the same.

I agree, you dont have to be proven innocent, you have to be proven not innocent (guilty). Nothing else, you are innocent unless proved guilty.

Unless of course you are saying 'in rape cases you should have to prove you are innocent'?

I'll try again.

One can be something, without being proven so. That can be innocent/guilty or anything else.

I think that's very simply put, and you don't need to extrapolate any more odd 'viewpoints' from it.

And I will explain again, courts do not find you innocent, they find you guilty.

You are innocent unless they say you are guilty.

And tobe guilty it has to be proven so.

But the sentiment on here seems to be 'just because you were found not guilty does not mean you are innocent'

Yes it does.

Hodge, argueing the definition of innocence is argueing symantics. What point are you making? Did they do it is the question. What is your answer? What proportion of those 95.5% of those who not proven guilty did not do it? As there was insufficent evidence to prove guilt, does that mean there was sufficient evidence to prove innocence? No. Becaue, by law, you are classified as innocent whether you commit a crime or not, and the job is to prove guilt.

Therefore, arguing the symantics of it is pointless. Do you disagree, then, that in order to ensure that more trials result in a verdict that matches whether or not the accused did it or not, the police should devote more resources to investigation? Or that the claiments clothing should not be taken into account?

Innocent is a neutral stait, in practical terms of law, that you retain regardless of whether you did it or not until it is proved otherwise, simply because you walk in innocent and run the risk of leaving guilty. And they don't hand out 100% innocent stickers, they only hand out guilty stickers.

Did they do it is the question.

Who decides this question? The court. And they say if you did it or not.

Always good to have more resources, I am happy to throw all the spare cash we have at it, but not with the aim of improving some rather easy to manipulate statistics, to try and decide guilt.

Its a simple thing we agree on or not, the court is the final say in our system of if one did something or not.

And yes, Miss, we have said that it does not mean that you definitely did not do it. It means you did not have enough evidence. It is the lack of evidence that is the issue, not the definitions of terms that you are repeatedley re-iterating.

An absense of proof is not the same as an absense of guilt.

If someone close comes to me and tells me she's been raped, I'll believe her.
If the man gets off in court, I'll still believe her. I won't tell her to shut up whinging and telling tales and give up wasting peoples' time at counselling. Would you MissHodge?

TAM you have confused reported rapes with rapes taken to court 95.5% is the percentage that doesn't go to court so there is no judgement made.

women who cry rape wrongly is pretty rare in court

As for naming the accused, isn't this supposed to be illegal in all crimes because it may prejudice a trial? It seems like the media just do it anyway, these days more than ever, with no comeback. Footballers (or Top Gear presenters) can get super-injunctions but that guy that may have killed Jo Yates is known to the public. Does the public 'need to know' more than the accused have the presumption of innocence and anonymity?

There is the argument that making it known may bring other accusations, but the only time I can remember this happening is with the current DSK case and John Leslie. Neither seemed to get a better case because of it, even with scores of supposed new claims against Leslie nothing came of it.

there are plent of male rapists who plead innocent and get away with it. Some on multiple occasions

Good point UsingMainlySpells. I'm torn then.

Mumsnet banned me, seems you cannot spout an unpopular opinion in a forum filled with people who get offended easily if you do not tow the line.

Enjoy the consensus cos you have no choice.

surelynottrue = Yes, I am aware. That is why I argue for better evidence gathering prior to trial, to make sure more get to trial.

I know LeninGrad, but I imagine it'll be a slap on the wrist and nothing will change. And that case is about someone who was arrested but not charged. It seems these days once someone is charged the papers can reveal the name. In some cases it might help, but I think it's more about the papers wanting the story and the police showing they have made progress (ie look at him, he's probably guilty, right?) at the expense of the right of an innocent person to keep their anonymity and the chance it could influence a jury and possibly cause a mistrial.