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

PinkyofPie

Please read my comments. I was responding to this specific assertion made by another poster:

They do it because allegedly a rape allegation ruins a man's life, which it really doesn't, because the chances are almost nil of him ever being convicted.

My point was that this was quite clearly nonsense in the case of men who were falsely accused of rape, and that there was indeed a stigma attached to being accused of such a crime, which the original poster was denying.

I repeatedly stated that I was aware it was a smaller issue than the issue of rape as a whole. Responding to a patently untrue position taken by a poster does not mean I care more about that point than I do about the wider issue.

Even being convicted of a sexual assault doesn't necessarily ruin a man's life.

Mike Tyson
R Kelly
Woody Allen
Roman Polanski
Craig Charles
Al Gore
Jian Ghomeshi
Bill Cosby
Michael Jackson

They all still have careers, supporters, wives, homes etc (Jackson not so much these days of course).

FreshwaterSelkie

Lot of total shits on that list, but a small problem...

Al Gore was never charged, let alone convicted, for sexual assault. He was accused a masseuse of sexual assault. This individual did not report a crime, nor did she cooperate with the authorities. Instead, she sold her story to the National Enquirer. The Multnomah County District Attorney found the accusations to be baseless.

For what it's worth, and I have no time for him whatsoever, Woody Allen has also never been charged, let alone convicted. He has merely been accused. That does not make him guilty. That strikes me as a pretty major distinction.

This is 2016. You are on the internet. Fact-checking is not hard...

I think tgere is some true in all of the reasons given here- misogyny, rape culture, people who have in the past had sex when hazy on consent.

But I think the simple reason people are so defensive towards alleged rapists us because in many cases the victim is anonymous (unlike most other crimes with an adult victim). People confuse the role of victim and accuser, and so think that there is an asymmetry between the status afforded the accused and the accuser. One that doesn't sit well alongside "innocent until proven guilty".

Personally, I don't think the defensiveness is correct/warranted/ justified on that basis. And I think that some people with an axe to grind(e.g. Those who have been less than scrupulous about consent in the past and don't want to consider themselves rapists) exploit that perceived as symmetry to pwrniciosly cast doubt on the validity of both the whole system and in many cases, on individual instances of rape prosecution.

It's one of the reasons I think that there is a lot of merit in Greer's stance that sexual assaults should have the shame taken out of them and be treated like other assaults. I get the fact that no one should be shamed for being assaulted and that shame/blame being foisted on a victim is a total barrier to people coming forward and prosecutions taking place. I would also like to see a grey area in which rape apologists spew vicious bile and lies opened up to sunlight. That said, I think that the grey area could equally be cleared up by making it the case that any victim of any assault can remain anonymous. Right to know what you are accused of is not the same as right to public ally humiliate your alleged victim.

I deliberately selected a mixed bag of men who were variously accused, convicted and acquitted. Where did I say that was a list of convicted rapists?

Fact check my post before you get snidey, James.

As to 'convicted' - third word in.

FreshwaterSelkie

Even being convicted of a sexual assault doesn't necessarily ruin a man's life.

Never understand why in these conversations it's so black and white. It seems you can only think of the victims or think of the falsely accused. Not have room to think there are issues with both things.

We were talking about allegations. I should have thought that was clear, but obviously I have to be a bit clearer for some people to understand my point, and perhaps take it on board rather than nit-picking.

Fine. Whatever. Here is a reposted version.

Even being convicted of a sexual assault doesn't necessarily ruin a man's life. The following men have varyingly been accused, tried, convicted or acquitted of sexual assault and rape.

Mike Tyson
R Kelly
Woody Allen
Roman Polanski
Craig Charles
Al Gore
Jian Ghomeshi
Bill Cosby
Michael Jackson

They all still have careers, supporters, wives, homes etc (Jackson not so much these days of course).

Your post says "even being convicted..." There is a clear implication that the men you list have been convicted. There is no suggestion whatsoever that some were accused and not convicted. That may not have been what you meant to say, but that's how it reads.

Craig Charles is another who was accused but not convicted, for example. I'd agree with the PP - there is a WORLD of difference between the two and it isn't right to conflate them, however unintentionally.

glad they got meaningful sentences

Mide, despite the best efforts of a few here, it is still a feminist board.
so is it really surprising to see a woman centred viewpoint?

Too slow, now it looks like I'm piling on, sorry.

Yes, it does seem like piling on.

I have clarified.

It would be much appreciated if people could deal with the point as it was intended to be made, now that I have helped you out by clarifying what it was.

Although I honestly don't see that we can make much progress.

Freshwater

Why bother to frame things as a question when you have no intention of listening to anyone trying to give you an answer? You jumped on JTK and accused him of a whole bunch of things he didn't even say.

It's not the woman centred view point that I find weird Selkie, it's the refusal to acknowledge the other side. I suppose there wouldn't be much debate if everyone said " the bigger issues with regards to rape are the low report/ conviction rates, the way victims are treated and the media reporting but I can see for the small proportion that are falsely accused it can cause huge problems."

All this to-ing and fro-ing about who is or isn't a rapist, how easy or difficult it is to be found guilty, rights to anonymity etc. - isn't it because there is a significant level of revulsion within our society attached to crimes of a sexual nature? Which says to me that the heinous nature of sexual assaults is taken seriously by the general public. How can that be true if we live in a rape culture? Surely either we take sexual assault seriously, or we normalise it.

You asked why people defend alleged rapists. I believe the real answer is that they (men) see rape as something like speeding, that's on a murky continuum and could happen to anyone. You stop paying attention for a few minutes and whoops you've raped someone.

This isn't how rape works AT ALL but to many people this is what they believe. It's the same reason the penalties for vehicular homicide are so small and almost never enforced.

I don't think I jumped on anyone, A11.

I at first politely asked James to clarify. It's obvious that we don't agree, but I think this reponse from him/her is pretty rude "This is 2016. You are on the internet. Fact-checking is not hard...". Wouldn't it be politer to say "Well, not all of those men are convicted rapists, is that what you meant?", if it wasn't clear.

What acknowledgement of the other side should I make, Mide? I'm a feminist. I care about women. I care about woeful rape conviction rates. Protecting men from their fear of false accusations of rape isn't my fight. Society really already has men's back on that one, IMO. Does my saying that I guess it sometimes, very rarely happens make any difference?

"Surely either we take sexual assault seriously, or we normalise it."

It's about what is viewed as sexual assault. Virgin raped at knifepoint by hardened criminal = revulsion. Young woman drunk at a party sexually assaulted by swim team member = "20 minutes of action" that (unjustifiably in the eyes of his defenders) ruined Brock Turner's life (no mention of the victim's life). Yes, many were revolted by Brock Turner, but many others defended him.

I remember a discussion with a colleague on lunchtime about the recent announcement of a historic rape charge against a man in the public eye.

To my shock my colleague said "these women are just out for money or attention". When I pointed out that the accusers were men who had been teenagers at the time of the alleged offenses he said "that's dreadful those poor lads".

There followed a fairly pointed discussion about my colleague's two conflicting statements and why he'd made them.

He never expressed the true basis for his statements, which is presumably "women lie about rape, men don't"

I was so depressed. He was to all appearances a really very nice man in his late fifties. How many other seeming very nice people think the same way?

Exactly, Jacquetta.

Society is very keen that men are not perceived as rapists, but could best be described as lukewarm about whether women are raped.

No of course it doesn't Selkie but then does arguing on the internet make a difference to anything.

I'm not sure why I commented to be honest, this is one of the topics I try and steer clear of here because understandably it's emotive.

I think some people are defensive because some people think there are grey areas about what constitutes rape no matter what the legal definition is.