Why is it worse to lie about being a victim of rape, than it is to lie about being the perpetrator?

[Thistledew]

We hear the MRA/misogynist view trotted out time and time again when any discussion about rape convictions is had: that it is terribly important to remember that women (sometimes) lie about being raped, and how horribly devastating this is for the innocent men who are accused.

I find myself struggling to remember what the relevance of this is to the 'debate' about low conviction rates- maybe that we shouldn't take steps to make it more likely that women are believed when they say they have been raped. I'm sure someone will remind me if there is more to it than that.

But what about the fact that many more men lie about the fact that they are the perpetrators of rape?

Surely it is correct to say that the statistics show that more men falsely deny they have raped someone than women falsely claim they have been raped?

And just as a false accusation of rape is a guilty person setting out to harm an innocent person by telling lies, a false denial of rape is a guilty person harming an innocent person both by their actions and by their lies?

If there is any moral case to be made in saying that we should be sceptical about the assertions of any person or people as a group when it comes to rape allegations, then the scepticism should be against the men who deny it? And that this should remain the case until every man who rapes a woman not only confesses his crime immediately that he is arrested, but in fact hands himself in to the police as soon as he realises what he has done.

In other words, the MRA's should ensure that their house is in order when it comes to making a fuss about dishonesty in rape allegations, and should campaign on this issue first, before attacking women for the same thing.

In an ideal world no criminal acts would be perpetrated. The next best thing would, I suppose, be that all individuals who commit criminal acts would immediately confess to them. Unfortunately crime happens and perpetrators are frequently reluctant to admit their guilt.

Faced with that, this particular society applies a test to determine an individual's guilt or otherwise. The test is whether or not the evidence available proves (in the eyes of a Jury) that the person accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

You could undoubtedly improve the conviction rate by altering the test. Society could, for instance, apply the civil standard of proof - i.e. whather, on the evidence, it appears more likely than not that the accused is guilty. You might also, I suppose, get more convictions if you changed the nature of the tribunal - i.e. by recruiting a jury only from people who had a particular concern about low conviction rates generally and might be inclined to weigh that concern together with the evidence actually presented in coming to their verdict.

Is guilt in relation to certain crimes intrinsically harder to prove on an evidential basis than in relation to others? I suspect that that is the case. Where the only witnesses to a crime are the perpetrator and the victim then it is probably going to be more difficult to establish guilt than where a number of witnesses are also present.

Are you arguing that the test which society applies to determine guilt in the case of rape should be set at a different level to that which it applies in relation to other crimes?

"If there is any moral case to be made in saying that we should be sceptical about the assertions of any person or people as a group when it comes to rape allegations, then the scepticism should be against the men who deny it?"

So you mean that, based on the statistics, we should take the stance of 'guilty until proven innocent'?

Ugh, I have seen so many variations of that line 'Women who falsely accuse are if anything even worse than rapists'. You see it on every Daily Fail article about a false rape claim (they seem to cover practically every single one of them), along with the moronic suggestion that we jail every woman in a rape case that ends with a Not Guilty result.

Of course it's simply not true that being falsely accused is worse.

Marking place and thinking.

Basically, I really agree with your OP Thistledew.

In other words, the MRA's should ensure that their house is in order when it comes to making a fuss about dishonesty in rape allegations, and should campaign on this issue first, before attacking women for the same thing.

This, yes.

But they won't, because their aim is to minimise, deny and blame, the pursuit of fairness, honesty or justice.

Um, add a "not" in between "blame" and "the" above. Soz.

Yes it's interesting that people are so much more concerned about women who lie about being raped when they haven't been, than about men who lie about not having raped when they have.

I blame the patriarchy.

IslandMoose I agree that the standard of proof for all criminal cases should be beyond reasonable doubt. However I agree that society's perception of rape and treatment of rape victims should change so that more rape cases actually make it to court (I can't remember the actual statistics but I think it's pretty low)

Yes. Surely it is far more likely that someone accused of rape will lie and say they are innocent than women will lie about being raped.

accusing anyone of a crime falsely is a monstrous thing to do. everyone should be sceptical about an accusation until it is proven. In this country, the accused is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

But lying about not having committed a crime when you have is not a monstrous thing to do, Louise? It's less monstrous is it?

IslandMoose wrote - "Is guilt in relation to certain crimes intrinsically harder to prove on an evidential basis than in relation to others? I suspect that that is the case. Where the only witnesses to a crime are the perpetrator and the victim then it is probably going to be more difficult to establish guilt than where a number of witnesses are also present."

Many people have been convicted of crimes, even when there are no witnesses e.g. murder. A guilty verdict in these cases can imprison the defendant for much longer than the average sentence for rape. In non-rape cases with no witnesses, some jurors seem willing to accept relatively weak circumstantial evidence as proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't think the number of witnesses is the main problem for rape cases. I think a bigger problem is the patriarchal conditioning that seems to persuade many people that being accused or convicted of rape ruins a man's life. Perhaps subconsciously they raise the bar as far as quality and quantity of evidence is concerned. I wonder if the seriousness of convicting someone of rape is seen by some jurors in a similar way to when the death sentence was in operation, when a guilty verdict would definitely ruin the convicted person's life.

I have noticed lots of outrage coming from some men accused of rape, and from their supporters. Is this reaction typical of people accused of a crime? I don't think it is typical of crimes in general. Of course, most people accused of a crime will deny it, but I don't recall hearing of many non-rape cases, where the accused person expressed outrage in public that the state dared to accuse them of a crime.

Perhaps it isn't right to bring personal stories into this, but growing up I knew two men who were accused of rape (separate cases). They both had their names in the local paper, one had his picture too.

They both had strong support locally, to the extent that it was the girls who had to hide and the girls who were verbally abused by people who were nothing to do with it standing outside their houses, I would hear a lot of nasty gossip about them when I was out. A friend of mine who worked in a pub in town said that when one of these guys was in, shortly after his face had been in the paper, he didn't have to buy a drink while he was there. No-one knew if he was guilty or innocent but he had plenty of sympathy. Both the men were found not guilty in their cases, and as far as I'm aware neither suffered any stigma. They both live and work locally, and both are married now. Neither of the accusers still live in town.

(One of them, by the way had a reputation for not being 'safe' around girls. I worked in the same place as him for a while and was warned by my supervisor not to be alone with him. I'm not saying that's proof of his guilt, but let's face it, if the same things had been said about one of the accusers, it would have been brought up in court as relevant.)

My point is, as Louise said, people are sceptical about accusations, the accused can actually be treated very sympathetically, and the accusers not always.

I don't think changing societies perception of rape will ensure the CPS put forward more cases. The CPS makes a judgement based on the evidence available. I'm sure they are aware just as we are that public perception and myths around rape mean that the evidence needs to be pretty compelling to warrant putting a victim through the stress of court.

I think being accused of rape is probably very different to being accused of other crimes, due to the fact that it is usually a crime without other witnesses, sometimes it does come down to his word against hers and of course even if "found" not guilty there might always be some doubt on the part of other people.

Because so few false allegations are made, when a man is found not guilty I usually rightly or wrongly conclude he wasn't found guilty because of a lack of evidence or because the jury was in some way biased and held discriminatory or perhaps even moralistic views about women, rather than because he is innocent. I would think that is fairly common and those accused know that it is fairly likely that walking away isn't the same as clearing your name.

It would help if women were not divided into deserving and undeserving of male punishment camps by society, perhaps then I might think that a jury will clear a man on the basis of his innocence and not on the basis of their opinion about the victim. Then the MRAs could never make the case of allegations ruining reputations.

Of course the best way to prevent rape ruining lives is for men to stop raping. Its a man made mess, its about time they cleaned up their act,

I'm not sure what the exact statistics are, but most cases I've heard of that don't get to court have been as a result of the woman retracting her statement, rather then the CPS deciding there isn't enough evidence.
If women are treated like the above poster suggests you can't really blame them for not wanting to take things further, so I would hope changing societies attitudes would help.

Hmm, never thought about it that way but I see what the OP means.

A woman who admits making a false accusation is reviled and can face criminal charges. A man who says he's innocent and is then found guilty faces prosecution only for the rape, not for lying about the rape happening.

So we judge the woman who lies more harshly than the man. And yet, it must be, based on the figures, that more men lie about rape not happening than women lie about it happening.

But does our justice system really have room for it to be any other way given the premise of innocent until guilty ?

I think I need to give this a bit more thought but it genuinely hadn't occurred to me before.

I raised this point for discussion because it only just occurred to me that there is this imbalance in the perceptions about lying, and my point was more about how it is viewed from a moral point of view rather than a legal one, but there are valid points regarding the legal system.

We all know that in order for someone to be convicted in the UK, it is up to the Crown to prove that they have committed the offence "beyond all reasonable doubt". The accused does not have to 'prove' anything.

This creates problems in rape cases, because it is so often one person's word against another, so it becomes solely up to the woman to prove that she was raped. It is quite often the case that there is no other evidence that the Crown can put forward. This is quite different to most other criminal offences - in theft, there will be evidence that property has been taken from one place to another; in a physical assault there will often be an injury.

Where it is accepted that penetration took place, but the accused says that it was consensual, then it becomes up to the victim to prove that it was not.

This then actually offends against one of our other enshrined legal principles that no one should have to prove a negative. For example, in civil law, if two parties are arguing over the existence of a contract, the person who says that it does exist has to prove that fact, regardless of whether they are bringing or defending the case. This is because it is so much harder, if not impossible to prove that something does not exist rather than proving that it does.

In other criminal offences - let us take a mugging as an example - although it is down to the Crown to prove the elements of the case (that the accused took away someone's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it), there are 'hidden presumptions' that act in favour of the Crown's case. For example, there is a hidden presumption that you want to keep your iPod, and that you didn't give the person who took it permission to do so. The victim is not put on the stand and required to prove that they didn't say to the accused "here, have it". It is up to the accused to provide evidence to rebut the presumption by saying that you expressly told him he could have it. The burden is on him to convince the jury that you did say those words, not on you to prove the negative to that effect. The same applies to burglaries and other property related offences. In relation to physical assaults, there is in fact rule of law that you cannot consent to obtaining a physical injury (such as a cut or a bruise), except in limited situations such as engaging in a boxing match or going to hospital for an operation. There is the famous case of R v Brown that every law student has burned into their memories, involving a group of gay sadomasochists who nailed each other's scrotums to lumps of wood. The law held that even though they had apparently all consented, the injury was such that they could not in law consent.

In rape cases, however, the hidden presumption is not there. It remains down to the woman to prove the negative. To prove the absence of consent.

There has been some legal discussion about whether in this case there should at least be a rebuttable presumption that there was no consent. That it is down to the man to put forward evidence to show that he had an objectively reasonable belief that the woman/victim had consented to sex. It would still be up to the Crown to prove the case, but the legal test would be whether the man has put forward enough evidence on a balance of probabilities to show that there was consent.

I am personally in two minds about it. I am cautious in that it may backfire, and that if a man puts forwards any evidence that he believed in consent, he would be acquitted by a jury unwilling to give him too high a standard to meet.

On the other hand, if it were to send out the message that men are responsible for being damn sure that not only do they have consent but would be able to demonstrate that they did, then it would be no bad thing at all. If a man was in any doubt as to whether the person he was about to have sex with had consented, or as to whether he could demonstrate that proof, or as to the state of mind of that person that they would not make a false accusation against him, he of course has the choice not to have sex. It would bring out the message that it is a good idea to get to know someone properly before you have sex with them, and that if you do not, then you are running a risk for which the responsibility is yours.

Thistledew wrote - "there are 'hidden presumptions' that act in favour of the Crown's case."

Thanks for mentioning these. I think they should be more widely known. I think most people cling to the belief that during the trial process every defendant enjoys the same level of innocence as every other defendant, irrespective of the type of crime. The hidden presumptions suggest to me that the effective level of innocence depends on several factors, including the type of crime.

Thistledew wrote - "whether the man has put forward enough evidence on a balance of probabilities to show that there was consent"

Currently, the accused man usually claims that the victim didn't say no (which the accused man assumed meant yes) or he claims that the victim said yes explicitly. He doesn't have to supply evidence to back up his claims. Is my understanding correct? If things changed so that he had to provide evidence of consent, what form could that evidence take?

I didn't know that about hidden presumptions, thanks.

I don't think a rebuttable presumption would work.

What sort of evidence do most people end up with to prove consent after sex? I think the vast majority of people who don't film the act or don't demand their partner signs an agreement won't have any evidence to prove it, so either all these people would be unable to overcome the presumption, or their word would be enough to do it, making it useless because genuine rapists would simply lie.

Also, we do already have a number of rebuttable presumptions that there was no consent already.

I agree with other posters who say that juries seem to have the idea that being convicted of rape would ruin a man's life, and they can be reluctant to find someone guilty because of it.

I wonder if introducing some kind of neutral verdict would be a step in the right direction? It might be a crazy idea, but something like, that where a jury can't agree on a guilty verdict for some reason, but also recognise that the evidence does suggest on the balance of probabilities that a rape took place, that instead of returning a not guilty verdict, they would return a neutral one.

In these circumstances, there could be special entries on the sex offenders register recording that this defendant was subject to a neutral verdict in a rape case.

I don't know, in an ideal world of course, it would be easier to simply convict guilty people of rape.

Like the Scottish "not proven", Peonies?

Yes, something like that! I see that it has criticisms levelled against it, but I do think that it might represent progress when applied to sexual assault cases - as long as juries understood the different thresholds for guilty, not proven and not guilty.

False rape claim article on the DM today and these are two of the top rated comments.

"This crime should carry the same sentence as rape plus 5 years."

"Anyone who makes a false accusation of rape should do the time that those falsely accused would have served." (971 thumbs up)

"This woman should have been jailed for the same length of time as her "attackers" would have been !!! ... We really do have a Two Tier justice system here - one for men and another for women."

Doesn't surprise me.

The people who write things like this, are totally unaware that they believe men's lives are more valuable than women's.

They honestly believe what they're suggesting, is just equality.