Is a man accused of rape guilty until proven innocent?

[APBrasRule]

I have listened to a lot of debate about rape over the years and I felt it was a great step forward when a woman who had been raped was given anonymity in court.

However listening to Woman's Hour this morning I felt we now want to change the burden of poof from proof of guilt to the man having to prove he is innocent.

the same rule of law to other crimes should be applied - if that means that police should ivestigate further than they currently do - then so be it - but the law should remain

tenet of criminal justice is innocent until proven guilty.cant change that or pick and chose to suit your particular preferences

are you seriously suggesting applying such flawed logic to all crimes

so homicide change the burden of proof and assume guilt.what about potential miscarriages of justice

no one has suggested changing the burden of proof

other posters are accusing people of wanting to change the burden of proof

note the subtle difference

Again ihave typed and deleted about 3 stupid facetious comments because i find this so pointless, circular and frustrating

how does everyone manage to keep to calm and patient

meh i quit

doh,posts responding to op and thread title.

"However listening to Woman's Hour this morning I felt we now want to change the burden of poof from proof of guilt to the man having to prove he is innocent."

The however in that sentence, implies to me that the OP doesn't agree with the proposition she says she "feels" was being discussed on WH.

Which it wasn't.

Have been thinking about Dittany's comment about the burden of proof being more for rape than other crimes and remember something from a while back

It was how in a case the judge had directed the jury, not that they had to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they had to be absolutely 100% sure. So of course the only verdict possible was not guilty.

If things like that are going on in rape trials then it needs to be looked at as well. We cannot have situations where the judge feels sorry for teh man and thinks that it is a terrible crime to be accused of (which it is) and thus directs the jury that they cannot convict unless they are absolutely sure, due to the consequences for the defendent.

If it is the case that a few/some/many rape trials are being conducted like this, then that needs to be addressed urgently.

Do you remember that other judge who threw out a case because the women who had been gang-raped had previously exchanged messages about fantasies of group sex with one of the men over the internet. This despite the fact that she had clearly arranged to meet up with this one bloke. THe judge didn't even let it be considered in court. Who, if not a judge, should know the difference between sex and rape? Let alone between "imaginary" sex, and real actual rape being done to a woman. It's disgusting and FRIGHTENING. The judge is ignoring so many things, among them the simple and (one would hope ) obvious fact that consenting to sex with one man doesn't = consenting to sex with every man.

It is becoming more and more clear that the justice system has an institutional bias against women reporting crimes done by men. It seems a woman has to be dead for the police/CPS/courts to believe that someone bad has been done to her. If there's breath left in her, it's all open to question apparently. She is lying about the whole thing, did it to herself, "provoked" him, was too drunk to be rapeable, probably consented but went to the police when she "regretted" it (has this EVER happened?), probably consented but was worried about what her boyfriend would think, probably consented but then wanted "revenge". He was tired, drunk, stressed, "under pressure at work", depressed, not his usual self, irritable because he'd given up smoking, going through a difficult time, or thought she wanted it because she dared to make eye contact with him.

Yes I remember that case well.

It was appalling. She had shared this certain sexual fantasy, and arranged to meet one man for a consensual encounter. Then she was gang raped and the judge threw it out because of her fantasy.

The idea is as old as the hills - it comes back to the fact that she as a woman dared to have her own sexual desires and to share them with others, and that obviously she was therefore promiscous/immoral etc and deserved what they did to her.

How can we eradicate all this rape myth stuff?

It feels like we're not that far - in terms of mindset - from countries where a woman who has been raped will be punished for adultery. There's no way out, and a lot of it is because of the sexual purity bullshit which still has an effect. I mean, if it's her boyfriend/husband/anyone she's ever had sex with who raped her - well, she must have consented! And if it wasn't - well, what she was she doing within 50 yards of a strange man anyway!

Exactly right.

The stranger/violent rapes are still the only ones that result in a conviction.

We like to think that we are so enlightened and far ahead of some other parts of the world, but actually we just don't talk about it.

and when you talk about how there are all these rapes that go unpunished everyone ignores you because they assume you are talking about woman-changed-her-mind/her-word-against-his/no-other-evidence date rapes. When in fact there are gang rapes, stranger rapes, violent rapes with injuries, etc etc that still don't get convictions (and even ones where the woman gets in trouble )

(for making a false accusation I mean, because someone has decided she must have been lying just because the man got off)

"Prolesworth" said " Think the OP popped in to do a bit of stirring and has now buggered off tbh."

Sorry not so I've been away at my Mother in Law?s with my husband sorting out a care home for her. I've had too much to do and in any case she doesn?t have a computer and I use a desk top at home not a laptop so I cannot take the internet with me.

My post was not to do some stirring as you say, but I genuinely believe that feminism has changed its focus from equality to special dispensation from the law (and revenge?) over and above equality. It has been subtle and slow but there are so many instances. Women only health clubs, remember the feminist outcry over men only clubs? On the news last night (Midlands Today) there was an article about a writers retreat all expenses found, but only women could apply. Who here would stand for it if it was men only? If a woman makes a sexist joke/comment and a man complains he is at best ignored or told to "get a life" "grow up" etc, a man does the same and he loses his job.

The rape issue worried me al lot as I felt we were moving to set the seen for a latter enshrining "women don?t lie about rape, therefore accusation is evidence of guilt". And if you believe women don't lie, which planet are you on?

I have always been a passionate believer in equality, and by the way so is my husband. He hates feminists, but I have never met anyone who is more equality focused than he is. His mother says he always was even as a child he always thought it stupid if one person was treated different from another based on sex or race or any arbitrary reason, and would have many intense arguments with his dad (who was a bigot) over the years. He often puts me to shame.

APBrasRule wrote "my husband. He hates feminists"

How depressing.