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

" 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."

Didn't know that!

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.

How does that work, jac? Both for you, who more or less believe that 'he did it if she says he did it' and for anyone, given how difficult rape is to prove? Surely if you are only going on 'proof', there are going to be virtually no convictions because consent is basically intangible? I hadn't thought it would be possible to prove lack of consent in the way you could prove a burglary, for instance. So how does it work for a feminist to suddenly say 'I believe you but in a completely impartial way, please prove you were raped'? Surely in practice, this is not that kind of crime.

My understanding was that a jury should listen to each narrative in context, and decide for themselves which narrative is most plausible. My reservation about your attitude was that this is only a 'just' process if the jury approach their task with the mindset that either (or neither) narrative may be plausible. Obviously, if it's got to court, there is a need to listen very carefully to both narratives. From what has been said here, feminists would not be able or willing to do that because they believe the victim without question (as TBH, I would if I met someone in that position) and believe that anyone who doesn't unquestioningly believe is perpetuating a rape myth. And any alternative narrative given by the defence is definitely a lie because why would she lie?

Is there something I'm not getting?

"Is there something I'm not getting?"

That's right, yes.

The We Believe You campaign is to counter the dangerous rape myths (including the massively disproportionate media and societal emphasis on false accusations versus the actual number of these) which stop women reporting, getting support etc. See the telegraph link re many people thinking women are partly to blame for their rapes if flirting etc.

It starts from the premise of believing a woman who tells you she has been raped or assaulted, rather than saying, "are you sure? Were you flirting.? Did you send mixed messages?" Etc.

It is not about continuing to believe her if she's shown to have made a false accusation. It is also not about putting aside your civic duty in a court room to assess the legal case in front of you, (though I would expect that there are more people on the average jury steeped in rape myths than who are aware of WBY, which I imagine also concerns you with respect to justice.)

Oh, I see you aren't interested in really engaging with my question or the points I made jac. Fair enough.

I understand the we believe you campaign - what myths it is there to counteract. It's interesting that feminists assume women who don't agree with them are simply under-informed, or don't care about women. I don't agree with your methods and the sloppy ends-justify-the-means thinking; doesn't mean I don't know. However I'm not sure you understand or care to understand how the 'I believe you' campaign might affect juries or indeed how your indignant presence on a jury panel might intimidate other members.

Is a nation saying 'we believe you' really compatible with allowing yourself to 'see' that a false accusation has been made? Evaluating a narrative is the way to arrive at truth, but if you really believe you've already got definitive truth, how are you going to entertain a different narrative? Or, as I believe rarely but occasionally happens, consent was wrongly but genuinely assumed, how are you going to see that when you have previously decided this can never happen?

which I imagine also concerns you with respect to justice

I rather imagine you imagine it doesn't. Cut the PA, please.

I did engage with it. I said what I said upthread; you've misinterpreted WBY if you think it's about changing the burden of proof in a court room.

With respect to the prejudices you ascribe to feminists that you think might stand in the way of justice, you should also have regard to prejudices that others hold (as per the telegraph article) which could stand in the way of justice.

Frankly, gone, I'm done banging my head against your brick wall. Good evening to you.

We believe you is perhaps in some ways unfortunate wording. It does not really mean "we believe you" but "we don't disbelieve you "

For example:-

If I call the police and say my house has been burgled they will behave in a neutral manner and take details of the missing items. At this point they make no assumptions.

They will ask if the burglar alarm was on (no, it wasn't. I've no idea how to set it) and who else has keys (my cleaner) and who else lives in the house. They will ask what jobs my husband and I do. They will ask if I have insurance.

They will, as in all crimes, evaluate my responses and in my case almost certainly come to the conclusion that the large amount of good quality antique jewellery (all bought from one jeweller and with receipts) and small, easily resalable electrical goods reported stolen is plausible in the circumstances.

Second scenario.The person reporting the burglary is long term unemployed and lives in a much less salubrious post code area than me. The police will still go through exactly the same process; starting off neutrally and evaluating what they hear.

If this person reports the theft of small , easily resalable electrical items and say £50 in cash they will almost certainly conclude this report is equally plausible.

They might however start to find this second report a wee bit less credible if the second person also reports the loss of a large amount of good quality antique jewellery.

Of course they might well discover say that actually I'm not as solvent as I at first appeared or that the second person inherited her jewellery and it's the only thing of value she has causing them to reassess what they believe. But in neither case is it their first assumption that the reports are insurance scams.

Oh and should say I'm not suggesting the police do not believe victims. The scenarios are just to try to explain how WAY works.

I don't know if you were around back then, as this was a couple of years ago Lass, but there were a couple of police officers who came and posted that basically they and their colleagues went from a point of disbelieving anyone who reported a rape, because of the myth about "so many women lie". It was a real jolt, although they may not have been who they say they were of course.

Hopefully, those people are no longer working in sexual crimes units and the general consensus is the same as your post about reporting burglary.

I remember that, Xenophile. One of the reasons WBY is so necessary.

I agree Lass that WBY is perhaps unfortunate wording. It's more like "we believe you unless further investigations show otherwise." But that would be a shit slogan that not many rape victims would buy in to.

Not necessarily related to the subject of the thread but worth a mention: I mentioned in my OP that one of the defendant was commenting on said Facebook page during the trial, even posting selfies in court. Im going to admit that yesterday, after mulling this thread over, I took a look at his profile, which is all public.

It seems that he has a toddler and posted A LOT about fathers rights and "bitches not letting dads see their kids". He was rather candid and said "because of lying cunts my ex won't let me see my child". It seems after the rape allegation the mother of his child restricted access.

When anyone posts these "good mum's don't keep their kids away from their dads" kind of memes I'm always a bit and think "I'd like to hear the mum's side of the story".

Clearly the mum of his DC believed the victim, enough to keep her child away from the rapist. Perfectly understandable. She will no doubt feel she's made the right decision.

Furthermore there's lots of statuses about "lying bitches trying to ruin my life for a bit of fame". It made me wonder - did he actually believe he raped her or does he conform to rape myths that it doesn't count if she is pissed and seems up for it? I was always of the thought of the "men don't know they rape" being bullshit, men are not stupid creatures. But perhaps in some circumstances this is true? Or perhaps he's just a nasty individual trying to garner sympathy (which always worked - about 50 comments to each status saying what a bitch so-and-so is).

His mate also commented on the Facebook article yesterday. Saying "I know him and I know for a fact he's not capable of this". Which shows some people, even after a conviction, will see a victim as a liar

I've never understood the fame claim. Rape complainants are kept anonymous, not famous, and the right to anonymity is rarely waived, though some brave women do, including the woman raped in a hotel after the (acquitted) defendant "went into the wrong room".

I've seen the simple words "we believe you" mean so much to women on here, often whose mothers/friends/colleagues did not believe them.

I would be loath to alter the strength of that pure message of solidarity. Most of them never report, it all happened too long ago for many, but if they can gain some comfort, I will say it whenever and wherever it is needed.

The explanation as per Lass's email makes sense. So it's not simply we believe you. I feel a bit stupid for getting confused. It is a powerful thing to hear.

I still get the value of the message though in terms of changing the default assumption of its a lie.

I can see now how your answers to gone make sense. I didn't entirely get the answers before.

It does not really mean "we believe you" but "we don't disbelieve you "

You know that. No one else knows that is what they're supposed to mean when they say that. To anyone with a brain, it seems over-emotional, under-analytical - very healing, perhaps very helpful - but not just and not something you should be tearing others to pieces for not saying. Also not something that should be the starting point in a court of law.

In response to the question in your latest post, OP, I don't think for one moment that all men are aware that feminists may well define having sex with a drunk but responsive woman as rape. I imagine that many more are aware it is rape if the woman is unable to participate.

If I call the police and say my house has been burgled they will behave in a neutral manner and take details of the missing items. At this point they will make no assumptions.

WFT? No, they'll think you've been burgled.

"No, they'll think you've been burgled."

Women lie though don't they?

lass I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that long and involved burglary post if not to say that police make assumptions.

If you're trying to say that 'we believe you' means 'we don't automatically believe you're lying', I'm not sure why you're bothering. I know what it means and was interested in the implications of this kind of thinking in the justice system - given that feminists (with this slogan) are bent on making it unPC to question the accuracy of a rape victim in the first place.

If it takes such a long and involved post to describe what 'we believe you' really means, perhaps you should think about the authenticity of the statement to begin with. I'm sure you won't though because it's not your job to care about human beings in general, just women, and it's good for women, right...

make assumptions that the rape victim is lying

Which they may well not do anymore.

I wish Mumsnet had an ignore user function.

Sigh, Gone.

Surely if you are only going on 'proof', there are going to be virtually no convictions because consent is basically intangible?

Ding Ding Ding! - yes, there are virtually no convictions, despite most of us having had some very questionable experiences, and many of us out right raped. That is because, women are not believed, we start from the assumption that it was just unwanted sex, not rape, because women lie, and because men can't be expected to know when we want to have sex.

We believe you attempts to reverse that socially, saying that actually, on balance, given our experiences, I think that you are telling the truth when you say you've been raped, not the bloke who says that you're just changing your mind in the morning.

What I would also like is the legal system to switch from a woman having to prove that she didn't give consent, to the man having to prove that she did. Both are admittedly hard, both will require juries to listed to evidence and decide, on balance, what they think is proven.

I want this because at the moment a pitifully small number of cases make it to court, and a pitiful number get rape convictions, and since I don't believe women are lying about being raped, that means there are a lot of men walking free who shouldn't be and, I think that that means we're doing something wrong in court, and trying to prove a negative strikes me as that wrong thing (since it is in so many other situations, and it's not how we prosecute other crimes - prove you didn't give that person permission to take the wallet? No, you can't? Right well, not-guilty).

I think that women shouldn't be thought of as walking orifices that have to prove they didn't want to have sex with whichever random man put their penis in them.

I think they should be thought of as people who can choose when they have sex, and that the random man needs to prove that the woman wanted to have sex with them.

Not sure how many more ways I can put that if I'm honest.

gone

For about the 9000th time, you have to be informed that Lass IS NOT a feminist. She is however a lawyer, and probably has a far better grasp of all facets of the law and it's interpretation than you do. You are ascribing to her views she simply doesn't hold. Please stop doing this, it's incredibly rude.

(sorry Lass, I realise you're more than capable of pointing this out, but yeesh!)

WFT? No, they'll think you've been burgled

Will they? If you say so.

I would prefer they treated me as a person who is reporting a burglary ; listened to me reporting the details of what was stolen; offered practical assistance and advice if my house needs to be made secure; dealt with me politely and professionally and did not tell me I was lying about being burgled or that I am to blame for being burgled by owning a large quantity of valuable jewellery and not switching my burglar alarm on.

gone