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 how can we be sure that once we've reassured men that we care, they'll return the favour and stop the rape?

I love the thought that men would only agree to stop raping when we say "we know it's bad for you too sometimes and we're here to listen". The thought of bargaining with people to stop raping is a depressing thought.

kickass yes quite, the post was in response to a number of posts claiming that unlike other crimes, a rape victim isn't believed in society and within the legal process, the other person is. That may still be true in some ways but it doesn't seem to hold any truth from the perspective of the person accused.

To me, attempting to work together is a lot less depressing than assuming no one cares about the other and we're all out to fight for ourselves. Apart from anything, it's so ineffective we'll be at it for the next millennium.

That's the point though - how much more assurance do men need that women care about them? Men's needs have been central for millennia. Are they so insecure that any indication that women's needs might be worth considering is enough for them to feel not cared about? Because that is how you are making men sound, gone. You are doing men as a group no favours here.

Gone, how does a pickpocket prove that he had permission to take someone's wallet vs. me taking my partner's wallet from his pocket to pay for something? Or a charity worker prove that they had permission to take someone's belongings to a charity shop rather than a burglar stealing it?

The only real way, is that my husband won't call the police to report it/the home owner doesn't consider the furniture stolen. ie. my partner and I can happily have sex, because, we both know that we want to have sex, and it won't be rape. A man needs to be sure that his penis is wanted.

I know you want to make out this is hard, but it really, really isn't. I've had a boyfriend continue to put his penis in me whilst I pushed on his chest and said stop - that's clear. I've had a bloke I knew buy me doubles and take me home - luckily, despite his dodgy tendencies, he wasn't a rapist, and I even safely slept next to him in his bed until morning and I could walk home. I've had sex with someone I was hugely attracted to, whilst drunk and got up the next morning with a smile on my face, but knowing that I really shouldn't have done it - that wasn't rape, that was just regrettable. WOMEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE - at least when society hasn't persuaded them that it's all their fault and they owe the bloke.

If you have to persuade and cajole, and get a woman drunk, if what you are doing could be described as 'taking advantage' then you know that what you are doing is wrong, and currently, you will never have to face any consequences for your abhorrent behaviour. Start treating women better, even as well as society treats a wallet, by believing them when they say they were raped, and having a man justify why he thought he could have sex, and we're a long way towards a better society.

As to the effect on other people (I assume you mean men here) - well, men might get less sex. I think that's a good trade for a lot less rape isn't it?

Great post chocchoc

gone I never stopped reading your posts. I just can't be bothered to respond to some of the things you say when we've been over it loads. It's exhausting. I'll let someone else have a turn.
Your point about "vulnerable defendants" was one we hadn't discussed before. Yes I have read your posts but I don't understand why you think all defendants of rape should be anonymous but only vulnerable defendants of other crimes. It seems like and odd position to take.
Oh and btw unwanted sex is rape. Coerced sex is rape. If a woman chooses to have sex but isn't all that keen, that isn't rape.
HTH.

"unlike other crimes, a rape victim isn't believed in society and within the legal process, the other person is. That may still be true in some ways but it doesn't seem to hold any truth from the perspective of the person accused."

I don't know what this statement means re 'the perspective of the accused'.

A victim of rape is a witness in the legal process, just as a victim of GBH would be. The police decide whether to question someone about a crime and whether to arrest and charge them; the CPS decide whether to prosecute the case. IIRC, the CPS make this decision when they believe they have a good chance of the court reaching a guilty verdict.

If the victim is disbelieved by the police, or the police believe that there is mistaken identity etc, then the case is unlikely to get to court at all.

The case has gone to court because the CPS consider that there is a case to be answered. So from the perspective of the person accused of either crime, the Crown is building the case for the prosecution i.e. the case for a guilty verdict. The case will include a witness statement from the victim and also any other evidence and the defendant can build his own case for 'not guilty'; in the Ched Evans charge, these cases included CCTV footage, testimony of the hotel staff, testimony of friends of the footballer etc.

It is then up to the jury to weigh all the evidence, including witness statements, whatever the charge.

chocolate

So you think the only way a person can prove that they had consent is if the other person says they gave it?

And fuck off with your patronising 'i know you really want to make this hard but it really isn't'. Feminists are not the only people to have a view and certainly don't have the right to the definitive view. Moreover you have no idea if I wish to make it hard or if I simply see that occasionally it may be hard.

Anyway, we'll never agree so I'm not doing the consent thread again.

Jacquette I don't quite know how you missed it, but someone had made the point unilaterally that people reporting rape aren't believed. I responded with another view-from men who have been questioned and felt disbelieved and found guilty by the people taking them through the process. Get it now?

Gone, please don't be so aggressive. Thanks.

felas you're wrong. If a woman chooses to have sex, that is referred to in the literature as unwanted sex. It is an area that academics acknowledge needs more research because why women may be choosing to have unwanted sex, and when this choice becomes something they are coerced into, had not been properly looked.

You didn't read my post properly re other crimes. As I've said at least twice, I think it is worth exploring how people accused of crimes against GROUPS in society are negatively impacted regardless of the verdict. Society does not need names and addresses in order for justice to be done or for the public to be kept informed of events.

I think you feminists should examine how you really feel about the justice system at all. You genuinely seem to believe someone is guilty of rape because they are accused of it. I don't think you would be able to do your job on a jury panel or would be able to allow anyone else to do theirs because your position does not allow any evaluative process and the way you would like a court case to proceed (with the assumption he is guilty and the onus on him to make a string of 'excuses' which you will scoff at) seems to have no opportunity for any outcome but guilty. And you're fine with that because you think he is guilty of he's been accused. Meanwhile he will probably never get a job working with the public again and a man who may or may not be a rapist is very likely to lose his employment, friends family. I think the justice system is there for a reason and those punishments should not be coming to men unless they are found guilty. You think they're as near definitely guilty as makes no difference si fuck 'em. Our views are too different to find common ground

I'm not being aggressive jac. I'm being assertive. Surprised a feminist (especially one so good at being aggressive herself) can't tell the difference.

vulnerable GROUPS

"And fuck off with your patronising 'i know you really want to make this hard but it really isn't' "

is aggressive. And rude.

So you think the only way a person can prove that they had consent is if the other person says they gave it?

I think it's a bloody key indicator yes!

I think that people can be mistaken sometimes, but I also think that most people, yes, even men, know when they really have consent, and when they are trying it on/prefer to ask forgiveness than permission.

If a woman chooses to have sex, that is referred to in the literature as unwanted sex. It is an area that academics acknowledge needs more research because why women may be choosing to have unwanted sex, and when this choice becomes something they are coerced into, had not been properly looked.
Can I have links to this research please, or citations? I'm not clear at all what this paragraph means.

"I don't think you would be able to do your job on a jury panel "

I disagree.

Jury trial is a trial by your peers: all jury members come into the court with their own backgrounds (which might include having a family member who they feel was falsely accused, having been raped in the past, being one of the people referred to in the linked Telegraph article who thinks that women are 'partly to blame' for their rapes if they have been flirting etc).

It doesn't matter. Every person in the jury room has the civic duty to vote guilty if they consider the case proven beyond reasonable doubt. Of course I would do (and have done) jury duty with this obligation front and centre in my mind. I've also seen posts on here in the past from women who served on juries and believed on balance of probabilities that the defendant probably did it but that the case had not been proven and therefore they did not convict.

Also got any examples of this meanwhile he will probably never get a job working with the public again and a man who may or may not be a rapist is very likely to lose his employment, friends family. As we've discussed at length on this thread it's hard to find concrete examples of this happening from an accusation. Apart from Hannahs brother.

Having mulled this over, and looked at crime stats,

I wonder if it's men who rape anyone that some sections of society want to protect, or if it's just men who rape women. If the assumed rate of "false allegations" is circa 3% for all crimes (although, we know that this is lower when it comes to rape) then does that also include the 3741 men and boys who reported rape in the last year? Or is it only women for whom this mythical "regrettable sex" happens.

There were over 8,000 reports of indecent exposure and/or voyeurism during the same time period. Also a crime of a sexual nature, and a heavy indicator of future offender behaviour, including for rape and murder. Are 3% of those reports also false? And if so, do those men also warrant anonymity?

Why does society assume that men can't tell the difference between consent and lack of it? It seems to be quite insulting to men and men's sexuality to do so, almost infantilising them really to the point where they can't be held responsible for their own actions.

Jacquetta, if I recall, juries are now supposed to have basic rape myths explained to them and the reasons why they are incorrect before a rape trial, and I would expect anyone with a vested interest in finding the defendant not guilty, such as a relative of someone who has been "falsely accused" to recuse themselves.

Hopefully Lass (or someone equally knowledgeable) will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Xenophile, are jury members allowed to self-recuse in the UK? I didn't know that..

Oh, erm... not sure.

I would imagine they are asked if they have a conflict of interest though, and having a relative "falsely accused" would seem to be that?

I'm very willing to be wrong about this btw, but I seem to remember reading something about this a while back. I have slept since then so..

jac

They are allowed to excuse themselves if the trial is going to go on for a long time, so that could be a get out clause

i served on a jury (not rape) that was fairly positive that the accused was guilty but had to find them not guilty because we were not convinced that the evidence was cut and dried

Scots law only but I imagine it is the same. Once a jury has been selected from the available pool the clerk of court will explain about the case and ask the jury if any of them have an interest to declare e.g personal knowledge, same employer. It is for the judge to decide if a juror will be excluded.

I'm not a criminal lawyer and have never served on a jury (I'm permanently ineligible until the expiry of a period of 10 years after I stop working ) but I doubt very much you can self excuse on a point of principle although at the point where the defence and the Crown can object they may well object that say Julie Bindel or that Roosh bloke should be excluded. They each have a number of challenges where they don't have to justify exclusion and when they are used up must produce a reason.

Thanks Lass, always useful to have you around