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

@Pinky
I can assure you I have never told any teenager that what they wear is an invitation to rape. We would have discussed that in some cultures people have outdated views about how women should dress and what they think they can infer from this, but that's back to the world being an imperfect place.
I've discussed with boys and girls the difficulty of making good judgements about your personal safety when very drunk/high. That's relevant to both. But you can talk about being careful without ever suggesting that drunkenness gives permission to anyone (friend or stranger) to rape or mug you.
And finally I think public sympathy is overwhelmingly on the side of the victim of OP's case. That's just an opinion, but when you read the account of the case how could it not be? There was vile abuse from the rapists supporters, but a single string of comments does not speak for everyone.
Perhaps I am more positive about where we could/should be going as a society because the young people I work with rarely make any distinction between rape or abuse of men vs women. Increasing public awareness in Ireland of historical child sexual abuse has often been rape/sexual assault of boys so it is something the kids discuss, and victims of rape are victims of rape - there is no distinction.

Rather than engaging with your attempts to goad me I'll ask and continue to ask why should you continue to claim that false rape allegations destroy people's lives when you refuse to provide evidence and tell other people to find it for you?

And I will ask and continue to ask in what conceivable universe a rape accusation will not impact a person's life! With respect, what planet are you on?!

Where is your evidence of this?

What on earth does the point about pensioners make?

Well, you think alleged rapists should be granted anonymity because if they're found "not guilty" it may ruin career chances later in life. Pensioners won't work again so wouldn't apply to them. It's really not hard

suing because you weren't offered a job because you were tried and acquitted, don't be ridiculous

Erm, did you actually read my post? I'm not suggesting this. I said I was unsure if there was a discrimination law that could be used in these circumstances

ou 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.

I don't care how it affects guilty people. And for the very few false allegations, men being falsely accused is not my fight to fight. I am a feminist, my concern is for the 85,000 rape victims. I support the law in prosecuting anyone for making false allegations about anything, but I won't jump up and down about the minuscule number of men affected.

What you're asking me to do is the equivalent of asking a black lives matter campaigner to get up in arms because "white people w pertinence racism too" when the latter pales in comparison. I doubt you'd do that though, it only ever seems feminists are fair game

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'.

Sorry are you saying potential rapists are 'vulnerable'? How so? And how not anyone else accused of other crimes. I'm really just looking for a yes or no answer - should accused rapists be given anonymity?

Coming forward because someone is being tried is obviously better than nothing, but not the ideal situation to begin with.

Why not? Any time is ideal surely?

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

Which one? Do you mean Cliff Richard? Can you point me to a link where it states the allegation was actually false?

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?

You have completely 100% extrapolated. Where did I say men didn't care about women? Where did I dehumanise anyone? I expect men not to rape. I expect humans to have sympathy when other humans say they were raped. I don't expect anyone to a top caring about men. As stated many times - I am a feminist, my fight is for the large number of victims of sexual violence, rather than the very low number of men falsely accused. As someone said earlier, society already has their back on that one.

This all goes back to the nit-picking I referred to earlier, I really don't know why I bother engaging with apologists on a thread I started to help me understand why people excuse accused rapists

hen 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.

?!

That's not me saying "I don't want rape to carry a stigma"

That's me saying "I don't want VICTIMS OF RAPE to carry a stigma". Who would?!

Because, outside the boxing ring there are very few circumstances where one consents to being given a black eye perhaps?

I get tired of this argument

A newspaper may show a picture of someone's black eye, but probably not their damaged vagina.

Secondly expecting a vagina being penetrated by a penis to have the same visual effect as a black eye is a ridiculous.

It's a bloody terrible analogy

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

Of course. What a strange question

Almost every single woman I've ever spoken to on the subject has been the victim of at least one serious sexual assault (often including rape) by a man. None felt able to report to police

No man I have ever met has falsely been falsely accused of rape that I am aware of (and given its reported effect on a man's life I would surely be aware if they had been)

so which situation is going to take up most of my concern?

I can assure you I have never told any teenager that what they wear is an invitation to rape

I'm pleased to hear this (not sarcasm I promise). I have a DD and worry what lessons she'll be taught in years to come. I do think it sounds like society has come further from when I was a teen when it comes to messages for young women - I certainly remember being told what to wear, not to get drunk or lead boys on etc by teachers, adults, family and my own mother. And I'm only 30.

And I will ask and continue to ask in what conceivable universe a rape accusation will not impact a person's life! With respect, what planet are you on?!

I don't think you quite get it gone. You insist that something is so - in this case that rape allegations destroy lives - it's up to you to prove that, not for us to disprove it.

It's the equivalent of me saying "I think drinking milk causes herpes" and when challenged on it, saying "well prove it DOESN'T cause herpes".

Studies tend to be done on the effects of things that happen, not on the things that don't happen

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

I may well get thrown off FWR for saying this but here goes. I did not believe Max Clifford would be found guilty. I could imagine a situation where Clifford might have engineered a situation where it was hinted at that sexual favours might lead to something worthwhile. If that is what had happened it is certainly not anywhere near the legal definition of rape. Had he been acquitted I doubt I would have thought anything more about it.

Same with Craig Charles- until someone pointed it out on here I hadn't remembered it. If you had said to me "Craig Charles" brain would have processed Red Dwarf and I think he was briefly married to Cathy Tyson)

(Strictly speaking Clifford wasn't convicted of rape but only because at the time the offences were committed they didn't fall within the definition. And having read the case report the offences were a million miles from dropping hints to naive starlets)

gone I have no idea why you addressed your long comment on a previous page to me, but just so you know I can't be arsed to debate the ins and outs of how to treat rapists with you. I know your views, you know mine, let's just not bother.

emma interesting you keep mentioning Louis Walsh. Another one who's life has not been noticeably impacted by the accusation.

I don't think it's a good enough reason. Victims have the opportunity to come forward if the police issue a description of the person on trial, the area he/she comes from, the time period they are interested in and the locations where they believe crimes could have occurred. There is absolutely nothing to stop a victim from matching their experience up with the description, time period and location, and going to the police. I do not see how having the extra information of a face or a name is going to make it any easier for them to take action

Utter bollocks. There is no reason either in law, theoretical, practical or philosophical for offering anonymity to accused.

What bloody good does "the attacker was white and aged around 30" ?

I suspect gay men who are raped have similar issues with the criminal process to women. Certainly the attitude that women don't own their sexuality and a man has to lead/coerce/push her into sexual acts is a serious problem with clouding people's perception of rape. That's why I totally agree that a lie detection test is completely useless. Rape for many is what evil men do who grab strangers and force themselves upon them. Not the boyfriend who won't take no for an answer. Or the friend who you let crash who makes you feel so afraid it's EASIER to go along with it because the alternative could be a beating or death. Or the passed out woman who is used when she is unable to consent with as much thought as picking up money found in the street.

People fight against rape accusations because it makes men feel uncomfortable because they have crossed the line, and women are afraid to look too closely at the times in their lives when they did not enthusiastically consent. Because the men don't want to be rapists and the women don't want to be victims.

I am a survivor of rape. Of sexual assaults. And I will not be ashamed or lessened by this.

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?

No, I'm saying that at the moment, if someone punches me, I'm not going to be interrogated about my MMA watching habits, or whether I'd been to a boxercise class earlier that day the default is that I didn't want to be hit, that I am believed. Yes, I could falsely accuse someone of punching me, perhaps it was someone else, but the fact I've been assaulted isn't really questioned

In rape, the default is that, as a woman, this was just unwanted sex, I'll be interrogated as to my sex life and what I'd said to the person earlier in the evening, what I was wearing - if the bloke who raped me could inject any doubt as to whether I didn't want to have sex with him, then he is believed, not me. There can be no doubt that sex happened, that his penis went into my vagina, but, unless I can prove that he knew that I didn't want to have sex with him, he didn't rape me according to the law, my word doesn't matter a jot, all that matters is what he thought.

I think the burden of proof needs to go onto the man. He should have to prove that he knew he did have consent. Not that I should have to prove that he didn't (since my word, that I didn't give consent is apparently not enough in this case, unlike other crimes)

Been following this long thread and just saw in the news today that Cliff Richard has secured a new album deal with Sony and a possible future tour. It doesn't seem as though his career has been ruined by the allegations made against him that were dropped.

www.femalefirst.co.uk/music/musicnews/sir-cliff-richards-new-record-deal-970643.html

It doesn't matter speak. You can have a list as long as your arm of men who've kept their jobs, kept their relationships, certainly after and accusation and sometimes after conviction. But there's still a mythical unicorn of the men who's lives were ruined that we all have to care so much about and protect through the legal system.

And it makes me so cross that women who haven't been assaulted (or at least don't recognise if they have been) are on this thread telling people who have been that they are wrong, and we should be protecting rapists. I mean wtf?

harlot

I think the burden of proof needs to go onto the man. He should have to prove that he knew he did have consent. Not that I should have to prove that he didn't (since my word, that I didn't give consent is apparently not enough in this case, unlike other crimes)

What the law (England and Wales) requires is:-

Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps (A) has taken to ascertain whether (B) consents (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant's attributes, such as disability or extreme youth, but not if (s)he has any particular fetishes.

The Act [the 2003 Act] abolished the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. The defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps (s)he took to satisfy him or herself that the complainant consented in order to show his or her state of mind at the time.

The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:

Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).
If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element)

I am a feminist, my fight is for the large number of victims of sexual violence, rather than the very low number of men falsely accused.

Your fight is for hearts and minds primarily. You are trying to encourage, force and persuade men to care deeply about a group in society to which they don't belong. It goes further than not wanting rapists to rape - that's relatively straightforward insofar as you are saying, 'no, you can't do that'. But getting other men to care enough about the position you are in to give your needs and wishes priority is harder. And that is what you are doing. It's not only about justice. It's about redress. You are asking men to care about you in a way you don't care about them, and you feel it's owed to you. Maybe it is.

If there was a situation that negatively affected a relatively small number of women but was beneficial for a larger proportion of men, feminists would not consider that an acceptable price for women to pay. Yet false accusations are like that and you expect men not only to be fine with it, but to continue to support you. That is not just, nor is it realistic.

Statistically (I don't know where the statistic came from so it may not be accurate), I've seen a figure floating around the web that a rape victim is 20 times more likely to see the rapist jailed than someone who has been falsely accused of rape is likely to see their accuser sentenced. That isn't just either.

Not only should those falsely accused of rape not be punished without cause, but the accused in rape trials should not be punished, either by the legal system or by society, unless the trial ends in a guilty verdict. That's what the legal system is there for. Feminism seems to have an uneasy relationship with the legal system. On one hand, you want to use it and reform it. On the other hand, you have a huge problem with anyone responding to the words 'I was raped' with anything other than 'I believe you'. Perhaps it is isn't surprising that you are in favour of the punishment for the accused beginning as early as possible; the accused is nothing more to you than a guilty man who hasn't yet been sentenced. That is not just. And yes, it does matter whether or not you are just because, just as the with the 'black lives matter' protests, the people you are appealing to are also the people you are accusing. They need to see you as trustworthy and capable of a measured response that acknowledges their rights as well as your own. Otherwise, what are you left with but a bloody gunfight?

JacquettaWoodville:

Emma, sorry for multiple posts to you, but you almost certainly do know a rapist - I will look up the stats but I think it's estimated more than 1 in 100 men is a rapist.

Please look up those stats, because the stats I've seen have stated that in one survey 1 in 7 men is a rapist, and in another survey 1 in 16 men is a rapist.

More generally,

One or two posters (sorry I can't remember who exactly) have said or inferred that in the region of 50% of men are rapists or potential rapists. The closest stat to that figure that has been mentioned is the reference to the survey in which 1 in 3 men said they would rape if they could get away with it.

Irrespective of the 50% figure, the 1 in 3 stat presented is quite frankly shocking and, as a man, troubles me greatly that 33% of men questioned would respond in such a way. And that's not taking into account the men questioned in that survey who may have lied and said they wouldn't respond in such a way. Clearly there is a huge problem here - what do men constitute as rape - what scenario is acceptable to them and what isn't?

It's about time that women's voices were listened to in regards to this topic, for it's without doubt women who form the majority victim of this abhorrent crime. It saddens me, as a man, that whenever this discussion surfaces, excuses are made in the favour of men and to the detriment of women. Rape is supposedly seen by all as a horrible crime, and yet these kinds of discussions are rarely, if ever, allowed to focus upon the female victims, because they are derailed by some who point out that "women make false accusations", "accusations can ruin men's lives", "men get raped too".

None of that is incorrect, but ALL of that is deflection. It's about time we as a society as a whole listened to women and listened to the experiences that they have. I'm a man, and it just saddens me that women are subjected to what us men put upon them, day after day after day. It saddens me that so many women feel unable to speak up and defend themselves. It saddens me that when women DO speak up and defend themselves, they are shot down.

No good can or ever will come from that. All that will do is silence women, silence victims of rape, sexual harassment, sexual assault. And in silencing victims, the only thing that can possibly happen is to enable the perpetrators to get away with their crimes.

if the bloke who raped me could inject any doubt as to whether I didn't want to have sex with him, then he is believed, not me

Are you able to provide some recent evidence that this is habitually the case, please?

And it makes me so cross that women who haven't been assaulted (or at least don't recognise if they have been

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Can you sniff a rape survivor out through the internet now?!

Talk about a superiority complex!

I hid this thread for a bit but I feel like I can come back now.

I don't want to be all "poor me" again but I just felt the need to point out that although my family believe me now they didn't initially believe me.

When I say they didn't believe me I don't mean they called me a liar. There was just this air of "but are you sure?" "he's such a nice man, I just can't picture him doing that", etc.

My mum even sat me down and started asking me if I was sure, was I sure I made it clear I didn't want it, was I sure this wasn't just a misunderstanding because John would never do this on purpose, etc all the while getting visibly more upset until she broke down.

I guess not believing me is the wrong choice of words...it was more a case of denial..."but I've known John for years, he was always so nice!" kind of thing.