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

And I did respond to your 'strong point' in my 12.29 post

Very strange bottom line when all toad has done is request proof, not provide proof that it doesn't exist or claim that it doesn't exist.

And no one has provided proof. Ergo, proof does not exist. How can we make a move like that (anonymised accused) when we have no facts to underatand the impact of such a move?

'in rape... He's believed.'

By whom?

no, it doesn't mean there are no pieces of research into this. Surely you don't think the sum of all knowledge is available on the thread? It means no one here is aware of data either way. It would be interesting to know why you are so keen for a rape accusation not to carry a particularly heavy stigma... I should have thought we wanted the stigma to be very great.

See this is one of the many reasons I'm a feminist. Because whenever men as a class do something wrong, it's women who have to correct their own behaviour before people call men on their behaviour. If a man does something wrong, it's the nearest woman's fault. This thread has done a great job in reinforcing why I feel feminism is so important
Women are more likely to suffer sexual violence than men. This is true. But (my figures are about 10 years out of date and from Ireland, but I don't imagine they have changed much) the group most likely to be violently assaulted when out at night was actually older teenage boys/men. As a teacher we put a lot of time and effort into the same sort of 'stay safe' message for boys as we did for girls. Boys shouldn't have to change their behaviour either because there are gangs of violent muggers looking for a fight and an iPhone, but they do. I think the idea that it is somehow anti-feminist to say to our daughters that the world shouldn't be like this, but it is, so be careful, is bizarre.

no, it doesn't mean there are no pieces of research into this. Surely you don't think the sum of all knowledge is available on the thread? It means no one here is aware of data either way. It would be interesting to know why you are so keen for a rape accusation not to carry a particularly heavy stigma... I should have thought we wanted the stigma to be very great.

Well if you want to point me in the direction of research I'd be happy to read it? Until then let's not say we assume there is some out there.

When did I say I didn't want a rape accusation to carry a stigma?!

Regarding employment, what I meant was that employers have a duty of care towards employees and clients. They aren't really free to employ someone with a hint of notoriety about them, deserved or not. Presumably you don't think someone who has been plastered all over the papers in a rape trial has the same chance of getting a job working with the public had they did before?

Also can you answer my question re anonymity - do you think accused rapists should be given anonymity? If so, just rapists? And do you understand why accused people are named publicly?

as they did before, sorry

Presumably you don't think someone who has been plastered all over the papers in a rape trial has the same chance of getting a job working with the public had they did before?

If someone Google a person's name before offering them a job, I suspect this may put them off, yes. It would depend on the individual employer - I'm not sure if there's discrimination laws around this though (ie if an acquitted person isn't employed due to acquittal could they sue?).

However I don't think it's even close to a good enough reason to give anonymity to anyone. Remember pensioners who will never work again commit crimes too

My post today at 14.20.

Emma - I'm also not sure of figures on male violence, I suspect you're correct! However messages are very different to women than they are to men. No one ever told a man not to wear a certain item of clothing a lead a person on because they might be assualted.

I also note that when a man is raped, public sympathy is in droves - as it should be! This is a good thing, no one asks how drunk he was or what he was doing being alone with another man. I just wish the same sympathy and views were reserved for women

That post doesn't answer my question gone, it was about the 'I believe you' campaign.

A simple yes or no would do, do you think only accused rapists should be given anonymity?

Wrt evidence about false allegations ruining people's lives Toad did actually say that she'should searched for it in the past (because of people being so adamant that it's true) and said she has never been able to find any.

But the point re the evidence is that if you make a claim then you should be able to back that claim up with evidence that you have found. Not keep telling everyone who asks for it that they have to go and look for it. If you make a claim then can't be bothered to go and find any evidence to back that claim up you look like a fool. It's basic essay writing. Write a history or social sciences essay and you have to provide evidence for your claims.

If you can prove what you're saying is true gone then please do so. Stop telling everyone who questions you to go and do it for you. Your claim, your evidence.

What on earth does the point about pensioners make? You could just as easily observe that some people on trial are in the middle of their careers, or just starting out.

Re: suing because you weren't offered a job because you were tried and acquitted, don't be ridiculous. This would very rarely be the reason given. As for googling a person's name, it's common practice. The information might well be asked for upfront on application forms anyway. You don't seem to have thought very deeply about how indelibly a rape trial will mark someone's life forever, whether guilty or not. Arguably, that's the real punishment and it starts from the accusation.

The earlier post answered one of your questions, actually. It showed that I understand the argument for naming someone publicly.

I have said a couple of times that I think anonymity around crimes relating to groups perceived as vulnerable might be a good idea. Someone had the classic comeback, 'no it wouldn't'.

A survivor of rape has the opportunity to come forward at any time and report the crime, regardless of court cases that are ongoing. As we know, support is available continually. It seems a pity that women would not take this support up unless a trial hits the media as there could well be information on file against many others which won't make it to trial without their input. Coming forward because someone is being tried is obviously better than nothing, but not the ideal situation to begin with. The focus should be on enhancing and publicising the support available to come forward in the first place. But yes, if a rape survivor would like to come forward but lacks the confidence to do so without some sort of trigger, I would expect it to be very significant if she knows that someone matching the description of the rapist she encountered is being tried. Not forgetting that most rapists are well known to the people involved so a lot of details regarding accent, distinguishing characteristics, background could be used by her to make a positive identification.

As we've seen with the high profile child abuse cases recently, there is a real risk of a wealth of false accusations being made that only slow police down and take up a great deal of time.

I think you're wrong about public sympathy being wholly for men. People in general are often very sympathetic towards these issues but meet such antagonism from the 'feminist side' that they go on the defensive.

You haven't answered my question, OP. How can you expect men to fully engage with and sympathise with your perspective when you have dehumanised men and cast them in the role of 'people who don't care about women, so why should women care about them'? Can you see that this is a bit of a stalemate if you end up expecting more than you are prepared to give?

When did I say I didn't want rape to carry stigma

When posters have made the point that people accused of rape carry a heavy stigma in society, you have denied that this is the case and seem keen not to believe it or entertain the possibility without data. It's not my point particularly lilac - others also made it. I find it ludicrous you would not think it self-evident.

The other thing to note about young men being assaulted is that they are most often assaulted by men. the problem is still that men are committing the crime. No-one is calling for those men to have anonymity. The same man can assault a man, steal his money and beat him up, people are happy for him to be named. If he then attacks or rapes a woman, some people seem to think he should be able to remain anonymous. Why?

And surely there's also the point that if I found out someone I knew had been accused of mugging or raping, I might review whether I wished to be close friends with them. I wouldn't just assume that they were guilty, but I would look at their general behavior and attitudes towards others and think about this. We all decide if we want to be friends with people based on various things, including their moral values. There are endless threads on here about people not wanting to be too close to someone who they suspect is committing benefit fraud etc. If someone had a reputation for violence, a couple of arrests (even if then let off) I would think carefully about why that was. And I would consider it a good thing that I could make that decision.

"People in general are often very sympathetic towards these issues but meet such antagonism from the 'feminist side' that they go on the defensive."

Feminists perpetuate rape myths - nice MRE logic there, good one

If I'm with someone, and I come out with a black eye, and I say 'it was him, he punched me' then I'm believed.
Because, outside the boxing ring there are very few circumstances where one consents to being given a black eye perhaps?
Also worth pointing out is that just as with rape, the vast majority of assaults are not reported or prosecuted. Physical bullying between teens, domestic abuse...I can think of scenarios for lots of non sexual physical assaults that are also under-reported and probably for similar reasons - shame/humiliation (incorrectly ascribed to the victim obviously), reluctance to discuss the incident with strangers, fear of the legal process, wanting to forget it happened and try to get on with life...

In rape, if I say 'he raped me' and he says 'I had sex with her' I'm not believed - he is.

Firstly, as above, people do frequently have consensual sex. When one person says there was consent and the other says there wasn't above then it becomes a matter of character and motive regarding who to believe. Secondly, because some people don't believe the victim (especially those with a vested interest in believing the rapist) doesn't mean you can sweepingly generalise that the victim is "not believed". Conviction rates do not demonstrate how widely believed victims of rape are, just how inadequate our evidence based legal system is when it comes to rape. The appalling abuse of the victim by the supporters of the two men in the OP's case does not mean that the VAST majority of the people who knew her or even who were neutral bystanders were not completely accepting of her version of events as were the CPS, police etc.
Toad was raped by a family friend who certainly wasn't admitting to it. Her family immediately believed her. I believe her.
I think you are making very sweeping generalisations without valid foundation.
I also think that in our culture (not everywhere) times have changed a lot when it comes to believing the victims of rape and child abuse.

Rape's really handy like that. A lot of the time you have a human being to ask, someone who was there when the crime was committed, who can tell you if the sex was consensual or not, because she was the one who had a penis inserted in her, and she can be pretty sure how she felt about that.
What are you suggesting...that we unquestioningly accept the version of one party because in most cases victims are telling the truth. Do you think a trial is necessary or should the presumed rapist go straight to jail?
You have two human beings to ask. Thankfully Louis Walsh was listened to as well as the man who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by him? Surely that's reasonable, even if (sorry to labour the point, but I need to be clear) I do agree that it is far more usual for the victim to be telling the truth?

I find it ludicrous that you keep saying things like 'it's self evident' and then telling other people to go and find evidence because you can't be bothered.

And we all know the reason you won'the go and look is because you won't find any evidence.

You can keep writing all the long-winded posts you like but you are not being taken seriously on this thread because your MRE agenda is blatant and yes, you're coming across like a fool.

Yes, I would also like to know the answer to the question above. Do you think a rape case should be tried at all? At no point in your approach to rape has there been any acknowledgement that it ever acceptable to question a rape accusation. Or even consider the possibility that it may not be accurate. But presumably you are not so disinterested in justice that you think this should be done by a judge and jury?

"Do you think a rape case should be tried at all? "

Yes, of course.

The WBY campaign. Let us know which parts you disapprove of. Bye for now.

www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-mumsnet-rape-awareness-campaign

lilac

Ah. The mask slipped. I was wondering how long it would take for the insults to roll out. Ironically, accusing a woman of behaving like a fool is exactly the kind of insult a chauvinist would use in an attempt to make her toe the line.

The bottom line is, you have no interest in the welfare of any other people group and you want this to be a war in which only the feminists are allowed to fire. You also can't bear people to disagree with you or to question whether the line you are taking on behalf of women is the line that most women would wish you to take - because you think you know what's best for women. Just as controlling men think they know what's best for women.

jacquetta

I'm not sure if you are dismissing me from the thread or dismissing yourself. I won't be going anywhere unless I wish to and I don't take 'homework orders', thanks very much.