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

choc

Fair point.

How would the burden of proof idea work? We both know it's very, very difficult to prove you have been raped. But, at least you can go to the police and have them verify that sex took place. Men have absolutely nothing like that, do they? How could they begin to prove it?

Announcement: For the fourth/fifth time, I think it's worth exploring anonymity for those accused of crimes against groups in society who are perceived as vulnerable. If that doesn't answer your question adequately, please tell me why instead of muttering that I'm avoiding it.

The same way anyone proves that they had permission to do something?

As said before, in many cases, there is no doubt that the sex took place. The he said/she said regards consent.

For some reason, society thinks that women are more likely to lie about giving consent than a man is about having it.

This is why I think we should always go from the position of no consent, and argue why you think you had it - ie argue a positive.

Rather than assume that women forgot that they said OK, and men couldn't be expected to know if a woman actually wants to have sex with them or not.

Do that, enforce it, watch all these ambiguous rapes plummet as men realise that their freedom is in the hands of the women they were planning to coerce into having sex, and they'd better be damn sure that the woman really wants to be there.

Also worth noting that we probably have a fundamentally different approach to rape. I expect that you will think a woman has been raped if she thinks she was raped, full stop. You will believe consent is a simple matter and if there was any cause for doubt, the man should have picked up on this and asked if she was willing to have sex. He should then have evaluated her physical and mental condition for evidence that she was in a fit state to make her own mind up on this matter. If he proceeded when she was drunk but willing, you probably believe this is rape if she afterwards decides that it was. I don't, necessarily. Therefore, we have completely different ideas about the necessity of the court case and what it's there to achieve.

Apologies for telling you what you think, but I have done this thread and have no desire to do it again. Let's accept that we are never going to agree. I think there is no straight connection between 'I believe I was raped' and 'he's a rapist', although there often is. But without wishing to give men an 'out' I think consent can indeed be complicated in ways that straight-talking, assertive feminists (who probably have never had unwanted sex without making clear that they didn't want it) don't understand and don't wish to acknowledge.

All that to say, I don't think a 'not guilty' verdict means there was a false rape accusation. So no, IMO the low conviction of rapists is only partly down to the difficulty of getting evidence.

The same way anyone proves that they had permission to do something?

Which is

This is why I think we should always go from the position of no consent, and argue why you think you had it - ie argue a positive.

But isn't this what happens in a rape trial? There have been many complaints in this thread about the 'excuses' men give as they explain (or indeed lie) about how they perceived there was consent. What else are they trying to do, if not exactly what you describe? And you hate them for it.

If you want the entire justice system to change and people on trial to be 'guilty unless proven innocent' it's beyond the scope of this thread and you would have to prove what is special about rape, particularly, to merit that.

I haven't been accused of rape myself so experience is limited. However I have read testimonies of people who have been accused of rape. They talk about how clear it was that the police thought they did it. They certainly seem to feel guilty until proven innocent.

anonymity for those accused of crimes against groups in society who are perceived as vulnerable
Are you suggesting men accused of rape are vulnerable?
Otherwise you are suggesting rape is a special case and different to other crimes like murder and child abuse, if you argue defendants should be anonymous.

Consent isn't complicated gone as we have discussed in detail before. You like to think it is, doesn't make it so.

what a checks and balances approach will achieve is maintaining that unfairness at its current level.

Says who? It depends entirely upon the force of whatever checks and balances are there - like politics. If you're saying that this approach is all wrong and we should be working across the genders for mutual goals, then I agree. But that's not what it looks like.

In fact, we don't need to choose between male casualties and female casualties. And we will not get widespread support for female casualties if we show no concern for anyone else's position but our own. Too many women identify as human before they are women for this to work. Too many women are mothers to boys. Too many men perceive feminism as a dangerous force that would delight in crushing men as women have been crushed (I'm not convinced they're wrong). It's not helpful.

Feminism goes wrong in failing to fight for justice, full stop. Why should anyone stop caring about something because it doesn't happen often? Stranger rape doesn't happen often but we think men should care. Ensuring the legal process is just and that only the guilty are punished is something we should all work towards together because it benefits everyone. Feminism, like 'black lives matter' can't achieve anything really significant without being trustworthy.

Sorry, wyld, I didn't mean court reporting per se, but all reporting to do with crimes and judicial matters. For example, this dreadful article on the Cheryl James inquest:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3624754/Sex-bullying-toxic-atmosphere-female-recruits-yearned-accepted-fury-continues-Deepcut-verdict-question-remains-women-really-serving-alongside-men.html

"Feminism goes wrong in failing to fight for justice, full stop"

Do you spend as much time on male dominated boards exhorting them to fight for justice for women as you do here?

We disagree on consent. You think I'm wrong. I'm convinced your experience is limited and it can occasionally be complex for others. No one wants to have that thread again. I'm interested to see you are reading my posts again felas. Unless feminists have been democratically elected in charge of women while I wasn't looking, you are in no position to tell another woman if anything is complicated or otherwise in her life. We have had centuries of being dictated to by men. It's not starting again under a different label.

felas I've responded to your question in an earlier post. Sorry, but I'm not repeating myself just because you couldn't be bothered to read it.

Gone. A man is a human being, reasonably educated. I'm sure a man is able to discern consent. Men are not stupid.

A woman is a human being, reasonably educated. I'm sure a woman is able to discern consent. Women are not stupid.

When you say we have a different approach to rape, whom are you alluding to?

And why is that any business of yours jac? Do you think I have to earn the right to an opinion?

Of course I don't think you have to earn the right to have an opinion. I'm sick and tired of you making up things you think posters have said to you, which they manifestly haven't.

I think it's reasonable to be curious if you stating that feminists to make sure that they focus on justice for all is a position you only take towards feminists, or if you similarly exhort men to focus on justice for all. You don't have to answer, just as you haven't answered many other questions, but please don't misrepresent others when you don't.

what does gone want feminists to do that will make asking men to care about women a "reasonable" request?

A friend's daughter was contacted by Swallow on Tin*er. Apart from the "charming" comment we all gave, sarcastically, we did wonder collectively if this person would be fully conversant with the concept of consent. We all agreed no. Friend and her husband, her daughters and myself.

What possesses a person to call themselves Swallow on a social media site for dating? Someone who has little regard for consent.

hap

Completely agree with that article

I'm not making up anything that has been said, though it does seem that many posters haven't thought through what their views mean for groups outside their own sphere.

No, I'm really not buffy. I'm saying it's a two way street and the 'you go first' 'no you go first' approach is unhelpful and unrealistic.

buffy

Seems fair enough to me, we have been doing it the way they want for hundreds of years

Maybe it should be our way now,

You stop raping and we will stop being worried that we might be raped

I think it's pretty likely that anyone arrested for any offense is probably treated like they have something to admit, as the police question them about where they were and what they did. I don't think it's just men arrested for rape.

Just as there are likely to be innocent people arrested for other crimes who find their lives upset and themselves traumatized.

It doesn't mean that someone arrested for rape is being treated any differently than someone arrested for bodily harm, or attempted murder.