should young girls go to prison for "false rape claims"

[traceyracer]

nypost.com/2018/06/05/former-college-student-who-claimed-rape-admits-it-was-all-lies/

Won't sending her to prison make it harder for the real victims to come forward?

And what if she's mentally ill and needs help rather than criminal-minded?

A jury can only convict if they are sure "beyond all reasonable doubt". Which why is so many victims never even go to the police. And so many cases end in acquittal. Does that then constitute proof "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the alleged victim was lying? Do you honestly believe that miscarriages of justice never happen?

There have been a couple of cases recently where women who got a not guilty / not proven (scotland) went to civil courts and won.

I assume they are talking about malicious allegations which are pretty rare (not out of step with other false reports of crime).

Clearly it would be beyond nuts to send every woman / girl (boy / man) who reported and anything happened other than a "guilty" verdict.

A woman was imprisoned for a false retraction of rape though so that was um a great decision.

There is lengthy, sensitive, careful and balanced guidance issued by the Crown Prosecution Service around the complex issues in case of false allegations.

A TEAM of people from a range of agencies monitor and review the (very rare) cases in real time. There are checks and balances and a host of considerations: the police action is reviewed; CPS's actions are reviewed and so on and so on. There are specialist investigators and lawyers involved.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/false-allegations-rape-andor-domestic-abuse-see-guidance-charging-perverting-course

The USA does things differently.

If perjury or providing false statements to the police can be proven then I believe it's far more damaging to the credibility of actual rape victims for the precedent to be be set that lying about rape carries no penalties.

NothingOnTellyAgain The threshold for guilt in civil cases is lower than criminal cases.

There have been a couple of cases recently where women who got a not guilty / not proven (scotland) went to civil courts and won

Yes there have

In a very recent one the accused was fined 100k

Gronky I am well aware of that.

What is your point?

An important aspect is what people believe to be true rather than what is true.
The media reports crimes by women and POC at a much higher rate than that of white males. As a result people believe that women and POC commit crimes at very high rates.
Some white males actually believe that they are the majority population of the world because everything they know they learned from watching white men on television.
Representation matters. It is used by the media both to tell the truth and to tell lies.

The media reports crimes by women and POC at a much higher rate than that of white males. As a result people believe that women and POC commit crimes at very high rates.

Perhaps they don't assume it happens so very often. Perhaps they just don't dismiss it on the basis that it's rare.

What is your point?

A civil conviction after a not guilty verdict in a criminal case does not serve as an indictment of the latter. While the criminal justice system has some pretty serious flaws, 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is not one of them.

We don’t have to make this gendered.
The man who falsely accused Louis Walsh of sexual assault was jailed. Correctly I think.

as with fake assault it comes up on police searches & the individual accused even when proven innocent are unable to get work as teachers etc - there have been several incidences of this occurring. Not the same but there are also incidences where disabled/vulnerable people get attached by a group of young males but the actual attack is orchestrated by a young malicious female - who usually gets off scot free.

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

Gronky you seen to be saying that a guilty finding in a civil court (on the balance of probability) is

Not enough to make you believe that they are guilty of anything
Not worth the paper it's written on
Something else?

Can you expand on what you mean.

Sorry for the ambiguity, that's not what I meant. I was trying (and apparently failing) to say that one system does not invalidate the other, in either direction. It is frustrating, distressing even, when a likely criminal escapes prosecution but I don't believe that this represents a problem with the core principles of the justice system. If anything, lowering the standards required to secure a criminal conviction would be more harmful to women in particular because it would likely result in more women being convicted of giving false statements in cases where those cases were dropped due to insufficient evidence. This would, in turn, further discourage reporting of incidents in the first place.

gronky

I agree, i see what you mean now as i do think your post was a little ambiguous

Like masses of mine

Thank you, Rufustheyawningreindeer (the below isn't directed at you specifically).

I've had a good search but not found anything. Are there any cases of an accuser being found guilty of perjury/making false statements to the police and subsequently winning a civil case against the accused?

gronky

I dont think there is

But as far as i know very few cases would go to court if there was any doubts...so i doubt there would be any

Oooh too many 'doubts' in that post

Has anyone on the thread suggested that the burden of proof/ approach in the criminal justice system be changed?

I haven't seen anything saying that.

I don't think that anyone had suggested either that when the criminal justice system find people guilty, it's likely to be wrong.

Where are you getting this stuff?

"has anyone on the thread suggested that the burden of proof/ approach in the criminal justice system be changed?"

"Tell you what. I can sort out the whole thing. Do it on balance of probabilities"

Yesterday @23:30

That was me and it was quite clearly hyperbole born of frustration.

What do think deserves a look is whether past convictions should be admissible. The recidivism rate for sexual offences is sky high. Someone having a prior conviction for a similar offence with a similar MO... they looked at this years ago for child sexual offences. What happened there?

mrsTP

Well i did assume that the strapping everyone to a lie detector wasn't actually a serious suggestion

(Plus lie detectors dont really work)

If it’s 100% proven she lied, she should 100% go to prison. A made up rape accusation can destroy someone’s life as much as a rapist can destroy their victims.