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

We believe you attempts to reverse that

Do you really think I don't understand this concept? I do. I also think it's wrong and won't, ultimately achieve what you want it to achieve.

It's ironic. I grew up in a heavily patriarchal culture. I fought it then and don't feel fettered by it now. However, when I talk to feminists, of all people, I am reminded what it is like to speak to a group of people who think that women should submit to their views and, if they refuse, will assume they're a few sandwiches short of a picnic before eventually trying to shame and abuse them into doing so. In short, if you lot had the reins of power, it would be a text-book revolution; you'd overthrow everything before restoring a mirror-image of the old society, but with yourselves in charge.

You are as incapable of perceiving a different argument without thinking 'ah, the little woman has got it wrong because she doesn't understand' as the most chauvinistic men in the country. And then, true to form, you seem to think, 'Well, if she doesn't agree with us she must be some version of morally bankrupt'.

For the final time, I do not think it is ultimately a good idea to encourage individuals to by-pass their ability to reason, regardless of the good you think you will achieve by doing so. I also, personally, think it is patronising to women to say 'We believe you,' regardless of what they are about to say next, in the full knowledge that you may not continue to believe them. 'We believe you' is full of unspoken qualifications and without these, it doesn't make sense. It's patronising and illogical. It's feminism lite. If what you mean to say is 'I have an open mind, I'm listening and I care' then say so. Don't demand that the nation promises something they cannot follow through with - unless they really have been brain-washed.

In telling the nation that they are woman-hating, chauvinistic rape apologists if they do anything but automatically 'believe' a rape narrative (some of whom will be sitting on juries where they are honour bound not to unquestioningly believe anything at all), you are not ultimately helping people to think responsibly and really move forward in their attitudes to crime against women. You are not turning out people who will be better fitted to sit on a jury in a rape trial, though they may be slightly more likely to bring in the verdict you want (and I appreciate this is all you care about) but not that likely, because it doesn't change the real obstacles of lack of evidence and innocent until proven guilty. To really be able to consider narratives with an open mind, individuals need to be more broad-minded and flexible in their thinking, not more brainwashed and dictated to.

BTW I am still waiting to hear how feminists really believe that the accused in a rape trial should should go to jail unless they can prove they had consent. WTF?? Do you even realise that expressing views like that is about as helpful to finding common ground across the genders as burning a male effigy on top of a bonfire? Is this really the way you wish to move women's issues forward in the 21st century?

You're in a bubble where everyone agrees. Like most bubbles it looks self-congratulatory, antagonistic and intellectually complacent from the outside.

feminists really believe that the accused in a rape trial should should go to jail unless they can prove they had consent.

No one said that. They said the onus should be on the offender to explain how he came to think he had consent, rather than the focus being on the actions of the victim. There is no other crime where that happens, as Lass has explained very eloquently to you.

If you don't want us to assume you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic don't post like you are

My friend was dragged out of her home by an ex and mugged, beaten and raped by him. He got a years suspended sentence. Then the day after court. He stood outside her parents home theating her brother until she came down to talk and he dragged her away again. The police said she gave consent by walking out the door. It's discussing how little rights women seem to have in these cases.

Jesus Gone, as I and plenty of others have said, that's not what I'm asking for. What I'm asking for is exactly the same as currently happens for every other crime.

I don't have to prove that I didn't give the burglar my TV, I don't have to prove that I didn't give permission for someone to hit me, I don't have to prove that I didn't give someone permission to access my bank account. They have to prove that they did beyond all reasonable doubt.

That is what I want. That rather than I have to prove that I didn't give consent beyond all reasonable doubt, but that he has to prove he did, again beyond all reasonable doubt - just as for any other crime.

I want the presumption to be that I didn't give consent, just as it is presumed that I didn't want someone nicking my ipad, or driving off in my car. It's not changing how justice or the law works, it's changing who has the onus of proof, away from the rape victim, and onto the accused rapist.

That's terrible Harry. Your poor friend.

JoeNOTHarry

Gosh - that's incredible, the sentencing guidelines for that would have been between 12-15 years and he got a one year's suspended ?? and when you say 'mugged', do you mean a robbery ? Are you quite sure ?

I think your last post choc has hit the nail on the head! We don't want rape or rapists to be special cases - just treated with the same attitude that it's up to the accused to prove he did nothing wrong, not the victim!

Another great post chocchoc
joe I'm sorry about your friend

Choc great post - although, you are completely misinformed - other than that technicality, very well done.

Wtf cadno?!!

I wouldn't bother felas, he treats threads about rape in FWR as entertainment and seems to think it's normal behaviour

Burden of proof falls upon the prosecution.

If a person is found with someone's reportedly stolen iPad, doesn't deny having it or that they have taken it but says the other person said they could take it. That explanation would be accepted without any proof would it, even when the person they stole it from says that wasn't how it happened?

ChocChocPorridge Mon 01-Aug-16 16:25:13
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.

And that is exactly what it would boil down to. Guilty unless he can prove the unprovable - that he had consent. Impossible to prove because that kind of proof doesn't exist. It would never exist, in any possible world, unless a bloke hit the jack pot and some passing windowcleaner or hotel worker happened to overhear consent being given. We do not live in a culture where it is expected that you sign anything before having sex. Therefore there is no 'proof'. Saying that a man will go to jail unless he can prove the unproveable, is exactly what it seems. You know this would be impossible for any man, guilty or innocent. You know some of the men faced with this task would be innocent, and, unable to do something that is impossible, would go to jail. You know that no jury in the country would be able to pass a 'not guilty' verdict on a crime under these conditions because the evidence they would need to see simply doesn't exist. And you don't care.

That's not the way feminists should act. After centuries of being oppressed by men who didn't understand us, we should have learnt something. That life doesn't work when it's not fair. That we are better than this. That it is hell to live in a system set up to bring you down and no one deserves it. We should aim higher. Who gives a flying fuck where our allegiances lie? We're all better than this. We all want a better world for our sons as well as our daughters. As well as not allowing ourselves to be backed into a corner, let's also not set anyone up in position that is doomed. Let's not be so hypocritical and self-serving that we yearn for this kind of 'fair trial' when we know it's nothing of the sort.

It is always for the Crown to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in any criminal case.

In your stolen ipad situation a defence could be put that it was a gift and it would be for the jury to assess if that were credible in the circumstances. In most cases it will not be.

An accused person does not even have to give evidence beyond stating their plea. I can't remember what the current position is on the inferences which a jury may make of that, but it is for the judge to direct the jury.

In a rape trial the Crown has a number of scenarios to prove. The defence case may simply be the accused is not the person who committed the offence ; or that there is no doubt as to identity but that nothing happened at all ; or there is no doubt as to identity and that something happened but the doubt is about the consent.

If it is the latter then the current law is the defendant has the responsibility to ensure that the other person consents to the sexual activity. The police should ask the offender what steps (s)he took to satisfy him or herself that the person consented in order to show his or her state of mind at the time.

The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test an an objective one.

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 think it's because people would rather gang up with the same class of person than accept that they have members who do grievous things. So if a young girl is molested by an upper class guy, upper class women will often justify it by choosing to believe she was probably a slut who was leading him on. If it's a lower class guy, the women will defend him saying he's led a deprived life. I was molested at eight by a 19 year old - even though my parents took it to the police nothing happened because his father, my own found out years later, was a very well-off, influential pedophile. These are the same sort who keep sending us off to all these horrible wars in the name of saving Western civilization

"I wonder how many people are booking Cliff Richard for gigs these days..."

And I wonder how many TV offers John Leslie is getting these days? He was accused but never found guilty of anything.

answer to OP: the stigma attached to anyone accused of rape is extremely high and much (or most or all) of it remains even if charges are dropped or if a not-guilty verdict is delivered.

This stigma can destroy the accused's life.

I think there is a tendency to give disproportionate weight to false accusations. I don't think they are as common as some would have you believe. Far more common is unreported rapes or those that the CPS doesn't put to court. I know 2 women who told me they were raped when younger and there may be others among my own circle. The only sure fire way to ensure no one is ever raped or sexually assaulted is to suspend all sexual contact which clearly won't happen.There are probably a significant number of people who are out there who are rapists but don't know it, in other words they didn't establish consent or ignored the withdrawal of it. I could have been a rapist in one situation. A somewhat drunk but not incoherent woman invited me to bed and proceeded to remove her clothes. I was worried the drunkenness meant she wouldn't have made the same choices if sober, plus she seemed to lack a certain joy, a certain warmth and happiness which I had thought might be present. For these reasons I did not do anything beyond kissing and talking. Having reassured her I found her attractive but would prefer to talk it over the next day, we both went to sleep. The next day she came out with a stream of consciousness about certain things that were in her head at the time which, had I proceeded with intercourse would have made me very regretful. The undeniable and tbh difficult but fleeting frustration I experienced was as nothing compared to what we would both have felt if things had worked out differently. If you don't have intercourse with someone well you have the opportunity to reverse that decision should circumstances change. Once sexual touching or penetration has occurred, it can't be.

BestoftheBest
A somewhat drunk but not incoherent woman invited me to bed and proceeded to remove her clothes. I was worried the drunkenness meant she wouldn't have made the same choices if sober, plus she seemed to lack a certain joy, a certain warmth and happiness which I had thought might be present

You were so right, even in that apparently grey situation, to know the difference. If only more people like you would explain to boys and young men. Apart from anything, sensitivity to the other, like you described, is the way to real relationships, and to sex with a feeling of connection to the other person.

A lot rapes though are not even through drunkeness, but a sort of pushing on, maybe even after the woman says no. Afterwards the woman feels responsible for having consented to any initial petting or so on in the first place.

No harm in putting this back again, just as a reminder, even though, yes, it must be terrible to be falsely accused of rape.

If you honestly think that John Leslie is a good example of men who's lives have been ruined by a rape allegation, then you really have no understanding of his downfall at all.

Most men who are accused of rape are able to carry on their jobs, their lives and everything else when the allegation is no crimed, dropped or they are found not guilty.

Hasn't John Leslie being accused of rape by more than one woman?

Hasn't John Leslie been accused of rape by more than one woman?

even if charges are dropped or if a not-guilty verdict is delivered.

Charges being dropped or a not guilty verdict does not mean the accusations were false.