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

I think men in general are very unconfortable with the idea that another man can be found guilty of rape

You haven't known many decent men in your life, have you.

My DH (along with every other partner I've had) is horrified that rape ever occurs and horrified that it isn't punished with a longer prison sentence. Just like most women I know.

Stop drawing lines where there are no lines. We have enough divisions without fantasising that all men are beasts.

According to Wikipedia, they aren't admissible most places:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

it's really not about equality as such.

I can see what you're trying to do but tell me...are you aware that this compromises feminism and makes feminists appear impartial and bitter?

Just to make my point clearer, I don't think they should be admissible, I agreed that if they were for one crime they should be for all crimes.

They are far too unreliable

" *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.*

(oops...effect, not affect)
Read what I said again @Jaquetta. I did not say that rape wasn't more serious than a false allegation of rape. I made the point that the frequency of each crime occurring has no bearing on the seriousness of the crime. This was in response to comments on the stats earlier in the thread which claimed that the numbers of un-convicted rapes justified ignoring the separate crime of false allegations. Equally ridiculous was the claim that because some famous men's careers (list was provided) have survived conviction/allegation that it's not that serious a crime. I hazard a guess that nobody would accept that because some women build themselves brilliant careers and happy lives after being raped that we should downgrade the importance of rape as a crime.

However, as to the tariffs for the crimes, it is possible that someone convicted of perverting the course of justice with a malicious accusation could potentially get a higher sentence than someone got for a rape conviction.
The maximum sentence for both is life imprisonment. Both have to be heard under indictment.
However, that said, the starting tariff for rape is higher so it indicates that the courts (and I) agree that while no false accusation of rape is inconsequential, the seriousness of a rape (without aggravation and with mitigating factors) is a more serious crime than the a false allegation (without aggravation and with mitigating factors).

Hope that clarifies.

jacquetta

Yes, I'm aware that's the case now but I think the status quo is likely to change.

To what, and why?

".are you aware that this compromises feminism and makes feminists appear impartial and bitter?"

Bitter? How so?

If I campaign for cancer research, am I bitter if I tell you my focus isn't heart disease?

Feminists seem to think they are (1) fair and (2) should be obeyed and unquestioningly supported by other women.

If you are pushing the agenda for women in the knowledge that not everyone's interests can be considered priority all the time and prioritising women may be at the expense of another group in society, can you appreciate that not everyone is going to feel you are in a position to talk about what is 'fair'? You are not even trying to be 'just'; you're attempting a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. And can you then appreciate that women are a great deal more than their sex and are sometimes likely to, and perfectly entitled to, care about the interests of these other groups in society? I am a woman but I'm many other things besides and feel deeply uncomfortable with the feminist rhetoric that often does not acknowledge the partiality of the feminist position. I also dislike the bullying emotionalism that feminists reserve for women who want to consider difficult situations from the point of view of others.

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

Plus, he may not even be lying. He may truly believe that he didn't rape the woman.

As we discussed earlier, there have been studies done that showed that when rape was described using different words that did not include the word "rape", a third of men said they had done or would do this.

We have also upthread discussed consent and enthusiastic consent. How men persuade women they were getting intimate with to go further than the woman wants to. And they believe this is a normal part of sex; that women need to be persuaded and worn down until they agree to give the man sex, as is his right (if he's put in enough effort, he's rewarded with sex).

So the man might not consider this rape/coercion. The woman might. So the brother wouldn't think he was lying; he'd just think he'd got her drunk and she didn't resist and didn't say no so she obviously wanted it.

"However, that said, the starting tariff for rape is higher so it indicates that the courts (and I) agree that while no false accusation of rape is inconsequential, the seriousness of a rape (without aggravation and with mitigating factors) is a more serious crime than the a false allegation (without aggravation and with mitigating factors)."

Then we agree. Lovely.

jacquetta - Read your response to my post (to which i was replying).

Bad analogy re: heart disease IMO. They're not competing interests.

How can you expect men to care about justice for women unless you show an interest in making sure your position is just towards other groups in society? How can you expect there to be such things as justice and compassion if you are not interested in seeing that anyone except women receive it? How can you expect others to take the time to see things from your perspective if that perspective deliberately does not bother to include their perspective?

Feminists seem to think they are (1) fair and (2) should be obeyed and unquestioningly supported by other women.

Fiddlesticks

Aye i see where you're coming from but still maintain I would know as I know him, I know how he thinks and know his values. Maybe it's not that common, but I know him inside out.

So am a the only one who feels they could do this? Would you all have doubt over a close family member? Just out of interest, not looking for a bun fight.

Gone completely agree with you

Because I expect women to be perceived as fully human, gone.

New

Yes, I would have doubt over a close family member because I know how very rare false accusations are. As per Aye's point, I would also know that many men (and women, for that matter), do not perceive some rapes as rape (eg if victim is very drunk)

The OP is a good case in point. The OP is not remotely interested in what any innocent man might go through when falsely accused of rape. Not interested in how his life might be affected. Yet we expect that same man to be intensely concerned about women. We expect him to automatically believe all women who say they have been raped. Yet we aren't interested, apparently, in seeing that he is punished for what he has done. Instead, it looks like we would like to see every men accused of rape being punished by society from the moment the accusation is made, whether they have done it or not. And any suggestion that this is unfair is met with a personal dislike and anger that comes across as unmeasured and bitter.

Men are not the enemy. Most men are there to be worked with and alienating them/not caring about them is not likely to engage them in fruitful discussion or bring about change.

It's interesting that my point about the 'I believe you' campaign was ignored earlier. It's a strong point. We don't have that for any other crime. As a society, we don't stand up and say 'yes, we know he's a thief/fraudster/etc' before we know any facts and before he's had a chance to put his narrative across. That does change things.

How can you expect men to care about justice for women unless you show an interest in making sure your position is just towards other groups in society? How can you expect there to be such things as justice and compassion if you are not interested in seeing that anyone except women receive it? How can you expect others to take the time to see things from your perspective if that perspective deliberately does not bother to include their perspective?

Why are women expected to do this and not men?

Why over the last few hundred years have men not seen things from a womans perspective, or been interested in justice and compassion?

And i am talking about men as a class...not my dp or yours, or my brother or yours, or my sons and yours

jacquetta

If you want your own humanity to be fully acknowledged, you must fully acknowledge the humanity of the person in the dock, and in all men.

Why are women expected to do this and not men?

That's just the point. Men are expected to do this. That's exactly what you're expecting them to do. And they could say exactly the same thing back at you.

Then why arent men doing it then?

I'm with @Gone.
I don't see feminism as benefiting in any way by minimising wrongs affecting men. I support the #heforshe principle, but it has to work both ways.
I am as appalled by the plight of any man suffering an injustice or crime as I am of any woman suffering an injustice or crime. Why? because if as a feminist, I aspire to equality of opportunity, then issues where men suffer discrimination have the potential to negatively affect women as society becomes less gender specific. I get that the focus here is on women's issues, but on occasions when the two come into the same sphere I think it is an error not to be respectful of both.

The only point that the vast amount of posters on here have made is that cases of rape far, far, far, far ,far, far outnumber cases of false accusations

Yet everytime some one talks about rape people come on to blether about false accusations

I could start a thread now about being mugged and not one person would say" well i know someone who was falsely accused of nicking a car"

And i say this as someone who knows a person falsely accused of assault

Then we agree. Lovely

Shall I take that as an acknowledgement that you reread my initial comment more carefully?!!