Why are people so defensive towards alleged rapists?

[PinkyofPie]

If you're charged with a crime that goes to court, unless there's a reason to retain anonymity (such as it involves your child therefore naming you effectively names them) the press can name you if they wish to do so. Be it burglary, assault, theft or rape.

So why, every time a rapist is on trial, do people hop about saying "innocent until proven guilty" "they shouldn't be named they're tarred for life now" etc. But literally NO other crime.

A few days ago my local paper posted a picture on their FB newsfeed of 2 men on trial accused of raping a 18yo in the park. The above comments were there and even calls to "name and shame" the victim and also "will she get sentenced if they're found not guilty". Perhaps because "not guilty" does not mean innocent and if the law worked that way even fewer women would report rape than there is now

One of the men accused also posted mocking both the trial and people who actually had sensible comments. I looked at his profile, which is public, and there's lots of people saying "good luck mate" for today (verdict) and memes about liars getting their comeuppance.

Today both men were unanimously found guilty by the jury in just 7 hours.

No comments so far on the post about their guilt.

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why people take this attitude with rape, and only rape? The poor survivor has had to read all that sympathy for them

Nobody is disputing rape happens

And nobody is disputing that false accusations happen either.

How would you feel if one of your relatives was struck by lightening and then eaten by a bear NewStart?

Considering how rare false rape accusations are and how tiny the chances of one of my relatives being falsely accused are I would say that is an equally valid question.

You wouldn't know if for example your brother had been falsely accused? Surely you would know him enough to see through his behaviour etc. You wouldn't just blanket believe because that's naïve, but through their actions surely?

Toads it's fair to say I would be devastated, but anything is possible

I think that because rape is so hard to prove (although thankfully not in this case) people find it much easier to believe what they want to on both sides.
YES, I get that there are far, far more victims of rapes (women and some men too) that are not prosecuted than there are victims of false allegations. However, not having the perpetrator prosecuted is a very different thing from the victim not being believed - in many cases there may not be enough evidence for a conviction but the police and counsellors, perhaps even the official in the CPS who reviews and decides against taking the case to trial, will absolutely have believed the victim. Evidence to secure a conviction is not the same as believing the rape took place.
I take a bit of issue with Selkie (and others) who seem to believe that the differing quantities of un-prosecuted rapes vs prosecuted false allegations makes the latter unimportant. I thought the whole point of feminism is to promote equality between the sexes? Both are equally wrong and it isn't for anyone else to dictate how the trauma of a rape, or the trauma of being falsely accused of a rape affects an individual. And the affects of crime are individual so crimes aren't considered more or less serious because of how many there are of particular crimes.

But back to OP's question. I think the grey area of proving whether consent was established makes rape different to other crimes in terms of the people in the lives of the accused perpetrators. It is easier to believe there was consent because often (mostly I hope) sex is consensual and often there are no witness bar the people involved. Conversely, it would be pretty hard to believe that someone consented to being beaten up or having their houses broken into and burgled. As a result people close to the accused make the choice to disbelieve the victim, and many seem to believe that shouting loudly about it and being abusive about the victim will somehow help the scumbags they are supporting.

On the bright side it seems as if whoever looks after the Facebook page for the newspaper has taken down the vile comments now they've got so much negative attention. Maybe they'll be a bit more careful of giving scumbags a platform in future. I hope the girl who named the victim has been reported to the police and gets charged and that the poster who said they were going to forward screen shots of some people's vile comments to their public service employers actually does so.

On another note...is there any reason why modern high-tech lie detectors are not used automatically in these cases? The conviction rate as it stands is so poor that I think the risks of people having the immense skill set to beat the test are very low in comparison to the many rapists who walk because their crime cannot be proved, and the margin of error lies with being inconclusive about guilt rather than falsely confirming guilt. They are routinely used to screen employees and by the security services - why are we stuck in the dark ages when there is technology that could protect the victims of crime?

Should have written a bit more really, I just wanted to provide some stats on how many men use force to have sex after the discussion above.

As far as false accusations go, I believe that when you look at the convictions for rape vs the convictions for false allegation of rape the % of false allegations is actually a bit lower than it is for other crimes (presumably people are charged under 'perverting the course of justice' but I couldn't find figures that split it up crime by crime).

Lie detectors have been proved to be unreliable, medications for heart problems etc can interfere, as can the persons nerves taking the test.

Gone

It is not up to feminists to defend the publication of the names of those accused of rape

By default, identification of victims and alleged perpetrators of crime by the media is the norm. Exceptions are made for certain victims: children and victims of sexual crimes (both male and female). There may be some other exceptions, I'm not sure.

AFAIK, all adults accused of any crime can be named unless doing so would identify a child involved.

So you could argue that victims of sexual crimes should not have anonymity. You could argue that no accused person should be identified until conviction. But it's you wanting to change the status quo either way.

"You wouldn't know if for example your brother had been falsely accused? Surely you would You wouldn't know if for example your brother had been falsely accused? Surely you would know him enough to see through his behaviour etc. him enough to see through his behaviour etc. "

Given the number of friends and family who come out and say, "he was a great guy though" when some man murders his wife and kids and then himself, no, I wouldn't "know" for sure.

I did read the thread my phoned glitched and posted several pages in.

Ched Evans, by his own admission, let himself into a room without invitation where a drunk and vulnerable woman, who was unknown to him, was naked and with a mate of his who she also did not know. Either or both of those men was in a far greater position of power than the woman in the room. Ched Evans took steps that hotel staff didn't see him and either he it his mate encouraged friends to film this naked woman without her knowledge or permission.

I am conscious that Ched Evans is not at this moment in time a convicted rapist. However, given all the things that Ched Evans has stated he did that night, the fact that his family and in laws believe whole heartedly that he cannot possibly be a rapist carries zero weight, wouldn't you say?

See I can tell if my brother is lying a mile off (it wasn't a family member I spoke of earlier btw) and I'm convinced I would know. His actions change, the way he speaks, his facial expressions - things a stranger would probably not pick up on.

My eldest son is the same - though he's early teens so this could change.

On another note...is there any reason why modern high-tech lie detectors are not used automatically in these cases?

Lie detector results are not admissable evidence in the UK. I don't know about other jurisdictions.

". And the affects of crime are individual so crimes aren't considered more or less serious because of how many there are of particular crimes."

Nope. Rape convictions carry a higher sentence than convictions for false accusations though; rape is a more serious crime, just as GBH is more serious than ABH.

Ched Evans is a public figure, his family will back him - at least to the papers no matter what they believe behind closed doors. Celebrities are a different breed.

"See I can tell if my brother is lying a mile off"

Some people are bad liars; your brother may be one.

Separately, many rapists may not believe they are rapists. Back to Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald: the notion of "capacity to consent" doesn't seem to be one either were familiar with. I suspect they both believe their behaviour was "normal" in that hotel room.

Lie detectors have been proved to be unreliable, medications for heart problems etc can interfere, as can the persons nerves taking the test.
Yeah, but unreliable mostly because they produce an 'inconclusive' result. Not unreliable because they produce a false positive. I'm not an expert, but I imagine the number of cases where the results will clearly confirm that the victim is telling the truth about being raped AND the rapist is lying about consent would be negligible in circumstances where the opposite was the case.
It is also very easy to establish if someone is taking beta blockers or other medications via blood or urine tests, or to hold them for testing until the effect has worn off.
My point wasn't that lie detectors are a 100% solution but that they are a technology that some legal systems use effectively and this is an area of law where it consistently proves difficult to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and we know that conviction rates are low compared to the incidence of the crime. I'd be happy for a jury to be allowed to consider the results of tests as part of the evidence.

Emma

Conviction rates aren't dissimilar to other crimes of bodily assault. Thousands of rapes are never reported though.

So long as both parties were to take the test yes, but I can't see it being put through that the victim has to take one - we are then back to "victim blaming"

They aren't admissible in the UK; either they are for any crime, or they shouldn't be for any crime.

I agree, my thought re victim blaming would he relevant for any crime

When it comes to the admissibility in court of such evidence, it seems that the doubts are simply too significant to authorise its use. In 2013, a US man was jailed for eight months for coaching others how to deceive the machines. Amazingly, this involved techniques as simple as controlled breathing, muscle tensing, mental arithmetic and tongue biting. Even more amazingly, using these techniques his clients succeeded in skewing polygraph results in their favour

Polygraph tests should not be admissable evidence for the accused or witnesses.

So long as both parties were to take the test yes

That is a ridiculous statement. A rape trial, like all criminal trials, involves one or more accused and witnesses. Some witnesses may also be victims - it is not a question of "parties".

Ok, rip my terminology apart. If lie detectors were to be used, everyone involved would have to take one - prosecution, defence and witnesses. It was clear what I was saying - no need to be pedantic about it.

emmaroos, it's not that I think false accusations are unimportant, just that they're not a feminist topic, and they're not my battle. by the bye, I don't actually believe they're very common, but that's irrelevant really.

my feminism centres women, and my main goal is to redress the balance of discourse about rape not taking women's experiences, thoughts, feelings etc as being paramount. I want to change the way we think about sex, and about rape, and about power. it's really not about equality as such.