do you think "false rape" cases should be given media attention?

[traceyracer]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47738892

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6860231/Fantasist-jailed-falsely-accusing-15-men-rape-sexual-assault-appeals-conviction.html

Judging by the DM comments it seems cases like this are going to make people think false rape allegations are a big problem when in fact they are extremely rare. Should there be a law where the media is not allowed to report on these cases?

I'm really not sure, but in this case where she made the allegations so many times including someone spending 2 years in jail l think it should be news.

There's enough manipulation of the news and our laws from certain powerful male dominated groups at the moment. Why would anyone want to add yet more manipulation?
Prosecuting rape is difficult enough as it is to the detriment of women.

They should be reporting the same percentage of false rape reports that they do rape reports. I don't suppose that can be a matter of legislation, but the media need to be held to account for their total lack of responsibility in Britain. Again and again they pander to the lowest kind of right wing hate - and thereby spread it.

I don't have a problem with cases such as this one being given media attention.

What I do have a problem with however is the media giving attention to rape allegations which don't result in a conviction and lazily slapping them with the label 'false accusation'. 99% of so-called false rape accusations I've seen reported in the media have been of this variety.

This was a horrible case of a genuine false accusation. But Queen is right - the vast majority of reported rapes which don't lead to conviction either get "no-crimed" at an early stage (police decision) or the CPS decides they don't have a high enough chance of conviction, or, if it does get to court, the jury decides that the standard of beyond reasonable doubt has not been met.

People who've been on juries have said (re. a variety of crimes) that they may have been, for instance, 90% sure the accused did it, but 90% wasn't enough, because it had been spelled out to them that the threshold was reasonable doubt.

And that's before we get to the fact that occasionally you get juries where you suspect that "reasonable doubt" can be raised by excuses of the calibre of "alien space dogs from the planet zog ate my homework by travelling back in time to before the teacher had actually set it." I can't forget the dreadful case where the man used the defence that he had tripped and fallen penis first into the vagina of his drunken-to-the-point-of-unconsciousness underage partner who happened to be lying on the floor in precisely the right position to make this unlikely scenario play out as he described it... he was acquitted.

2-5% of allegations are false, is that right? Then 95-98% of coverage of rape should be unquestioning

" Should there be a law where the media is not allowed to report on these cases? "

how can you censor court cases?

You can’t censor criminal court cases (thank you king whose name I can’t remember), although family yes.

But remember all this is why teen girls grow up knowing not to bother reporting being raped as they already know no one will believe them and their knickers will be exposed to prove a point.

Ooh apart from those cases that those in power say should be censored

This particular case was egregious. Why shouldn’t we cover it in the public interest?

But remember all this is why teen girls grow up knowing not to bother reporting being raped as they already know no one will believe them and their knickers will be exposed to prove a point.

Not to mention that men think that the worst thing about rape is that they can get accused of it.

I don't believe in suppressing news. I would have thought the reasons were obvious.

As soon as actual rape cases get media attention at least 50% of the time they happen, we can start paying attention to any false rape cases at all. Right now every time there is a false charge it gets five times as much attention as the 500 rape cases that have happened and been thrown out since the last false charge.

It's like whenever someone gasps "thank god we are finally paying attention to the fact men can be abused!" 3 times a day while women still can't get help for being abused 100 times as often, and more brutally.

It would be plain wrong to have reporting restrictions.

And women who do this should have the bloody book thrown at them. Because what they are doing is truly awful. Both for those falsely accused and for every honest person who find themselves stymied by rape myths.

Of course they should be reported . Fewer than

As soon as actual rape cases get media attention at least 50% of the time they happen

Things that happen often are sadly not news. To get traction, the story typically has to be unusual or noteworthy in some way. False rape accusations like this are rare which is why they make headlines.

I don’t think false allegations are that rare at all. Yes they should be given attention.

I think they should have to give figures on actual rape or be accused of bias.

They are reported on the basis that dog bites man (rape) is so common that only the worst cases get reported while man bites dog (genuine false accusation) is so rare by comparison it hits the headlines. T'was ever thus.

Yup, that's about the size of it BiologyisReal.

for every honest person who find themselves stymied by rape myths Yes, this is often trotted out as a reason to expose women. But it never actually stops rape myths does it? In fact the frequency with which 'false rape' claims (like many pp I think most of these are unproven, rather than proven false) are reported compared to real rape enables and spreads rape myths.

BeardedMum, when this question was actually investigated by the police they found that false rape claims were a very low percentage of the whole, and of course rape is massively underreported.