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

Are perhaps they don't know how to use Google?

Are?

Obviously I meant or perhaps they don't know how to use Google

It's late...

However that's not what people mean is it?

What they really mean is they think every woman who accuses someone of rape but whose accusation doesn't result in a conviction should be thrown in jail.

Because of course any accusation that doesn't result in a conviction is automatically a false accusation

Or it's because the accused was their brother/friend/uncle etc and they just "know" he was falsely accused (of course they don't have any evidence he was falsely accused but...but "I just know it wasn't true damn it so throw the bitch in jail!" )

Or it might not even be someone they know...it might be a celebrity or even just someone they read about or heard about or even an acquaintance..."but I don't think he did it, I think she made it up...no I don't have any proof but...but...she made it up so throw the evil lying bitch in jail!"

That's what people mean when they claim that false accusers aren't punished.

Isn't that right Hannah?

On a slightly different note - I think if I saw John's face appear on the news tomorrow and I saw that he had raped someone else then I would probably come forward with my story. Because then it wouldn't just be my word against his - it would be at least two people's word against his which would mean he would be more likely to be convicted.

Otherwise no, I'm not going to report it. I'm not brave enough or strong enough to do it alone. So I have to wait for another woman who is stronger than me to come forward first .

Quite, Toads, that's exactly why those accused of crimes aren't anonymous. Please don't feel bad. T

On a separate note, identification could work the other way too - if you see your local barmaid accused of theft, you might remember that you saw her at the gym on the day in question and so could be her alibi.

On a separate note, identification could work the other way too - if you see your local barmaid accused of theft, you might remember that you saw her at the gym on the day in question and so could be her alibi

Again, as I have mentioned before there was a case where former female employees came forward as character witnesses for an accused man.

There are endless reasons why accused should not remain anonymous.

Off the top of my head....imagine seeing your 11yo child's teacher from year 4 in the paper accused of child abuse towards his pupils. There's an opportunity to have a discussion with your child about anything that might have happened to them. If they remained anonymous, and perhaps didn't get convictes because too few people came forward, there's someone getting away with child abuse

I wouldn't want to miss out on that for the sake of a few people who may not be guilty - whose lives we know will go on after acquittal. Yes there's a risk he may be innocent, but the high risk of criminals getting off Scot free far outweighs this IMO - and more importantly, in the eyes of the law

I don't think the system will change and allow any accused people to be anonymous - at least not for the forseeable future. Despite what some on this thread think, false accusations aren't a big enough problem to warrant a change

Gone - just look at conviction statistics (unless you think that 90% of women are lying about their rapes?)

Or the law that Lass posted. The law that says that if the man could have reasonably believed he had consent, then it's OK. If the jury believe that he could reasonably have believed he had consent HE

And because of all this shit about these terrible lying women, who change their minds in the morning and cry rape, juries believe the man. Who would want to ruin a man's life over a bit of regrettable sex (forgetting that the woman has already been damaged enough to go to the police and go through the whole process)?

I guess I can thank my lucky stars that at least in 2003 they seem to have changed it because Lass's post suggests that before then if he unreasonably believed it was still fine.

choc

I'm not sure how your post relates to what I've written. When you say 'who would want to ruin a man's life over a bit of regrettable sex', are you implying that a rape trial should really only have one outcome? I can't make out your point otherwise.

*Oh, and no I certainly don't think 90% of rape survivors are lying. I very much doubt that I think any more rape survivors are lying than you do.

OP, that's the difference, really and we clearly won't agree. You think a few male casualties are an acceptable loss because it's a just war. I don't come to that conclusion.

The number of rape trials that don't end in a conviction indicate not only a lack of evidence, but a lack of guilt in others and therefore there should be an absence of punishment. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the power of the press to vilify and destroy regardless of a fair trial and a society that metes out its most severe punishments outside of the legal system.

I also don't think it's at all helpful to encourage a culture of coming forward to report a rape when a trial is ongoing. Yes, it's better than nothing, but rape should be reported full-stop.

toads I'm sorry you feel that way because you have no idea what information is on file about that man already - perhaps someone has come forward but there wasn't enough evidence for a trial. This is why waiting for a trial to hit the papers is a terrible way to stop rapists.

If we only care about people in our own group then we're pretty much shafted as a society aren't we?

Yes, exactly. You are.

If I was mugged or assaulted, I would report it to the police, same with a burglary. If raped, no. And I have been raped and coerced into having sex. I do think those who report rapes are brilliant, but I couldn't do it.

For those who are bleating on about false accusations here is an interesting case.

barristerblogger.com/2016/07/21/shocking-case-david-bryant-reveals-fallacy-can-always-spot-liar/

I don't have to care about everything...Why do you believe concern for women has to be earned rather than automatically given? It's not a reward for hard work you know

So care for women ought to be automatically given by men. But women don't have to give a fuck about anyone else. And anyone who argues with this is anti-women and fair game for abuse.

That's a great illustration of why feminism has bad press and why, in its present form, feminism's power must be curtailed and balanced by an opposing force in the interests of justice.

Don't think you represent all women - I personally would be ashamed to be represented by such moral and intellectual fuckwittery.

elendon

In that case, in the nicest possible way, you're part of the problem.

Don't complain about the way the world is and the way the justice system works unless you're prepared to do your part.

The police may well have doubts about the burglary, mugging etc unless I was seriously injured but even then I may have self inflicted them. But I would not hesitate to call out that crime. Why is that?

It makes me doubt the veracity of those who say rape is a heinous crime next only to murder.

prepared to do my part.

What does that mean gone?

moral and intellectual fuckwittery

And you had the temerity to say I was insulting you yesterday by saying you were making yourself look foolish.

Don't think your views represent womankind either gone because they really, really don't.

" Yes, it's better than nothing, but rape should be reported full-stop."

Why do you think rape is so under reported, gone?

(Incidentally, this isn't just about going to the police when a rape trial is underway; the press also reports on arrests etc. We all know that police forces aren't as joined up as they might be - if I reported that a blond called Jim raped me at a party in Exeter 10 years ago but it wasn't possible to track him down then, a report of a greying man called James who has recently moved from Devon being arrested for questioning about a rape might prompt me to call the relevant authorities to make a connection that might not have been made otherwise.)

"why, in its present form, feminism's power must be curtailed and balanced by an opposing force in the interests of justice. "

What is this power that feminism has? And what is the nature of the opposing force you envisage?

"And anyone who argues with this is anti-women and fair game for abuse."

No one has said this. Please stop being so unpleasant.

"I'm deeply uncomfortable with the power of the press to vilify and destroy regardless of a fair trial and a society that metes out its most severe punishments outside of the legal system"

Then why don't you support anonymity until conviction for all?

There's a lot of vilifying of rape complainants too, of course, including illegal naming of them. The woman in the Ched Evans case has had to change her identity and move house more than once, and it wasn't even her that brought the accusation.

Then why don't you support anonymity until conviction for all?

Jacquetta this is what I have tried and failed to get gone to answer. I suspect it's because they just want accused rapists to be anonymised but can't back their beliefs up with reason. And is also why I am no longer engaging with them (despite goady attempts at hypocritical name calling). It's very frustrating when people only cherry pick the points they want to respond to. Notice no apologists on this thread have cast their views on my Roman Polanski point.

Although as at the start of this thread I am quite happy with my moral compass pointing in the direction of supporting rape victims.

I'm not sure how your post relates to what I've written. When you say 'who would want to ruin a man's life over a bit of regrettable sex', are you implying that a rape trial should really only have one outcome? I can't make out your point otherwise

No gone, as I replied before, I want the burden to be on the man to prove that he had consent, not on the woman to make the jury prove beyond doubt that he didn't.

If you say that you don't believe 90% of women are lying in their rape accusations, yet the conviction rate is even lower than that, then that's an awful lot of rapists, by your own words, going free. Something is broken with the way we prosecute rape if that is the case no?

Yy pinky.

Alternatively, further restrictions could be imposed on the manner of press reports on judicial matters, both with respect to victims and accused, to be more factual than opinionated. I guess that wouldn't suit gone either.

Jaquetta court reporting must, by law, be a fair, accurate and contemporaneous account of proceedings in court. To be eligible for qualified privilege, the reporter must report facts, not opinion - otherwise they risk being in contempt.