NationStates Jolt Archive

This is in response to certain inaccurate views regarding false reports of rape.

The amount of false accusations of rape is EXTREMELY LOW. Varying sources have found the figure to be under 2% or under 1% (never over 2%) - about the same as for any other crime (which makes the figure especially low as rape is reported a lot less often than many other crimes such as vehicle theft).

A rape report goes through the following phases:

Decision to report. Someone who is lying would have to think up a really good story and go over it several time to make sure it's the same each time. They also have the prospect of being charged with wasting police time if they are found to be lying. Any variation in the story would give them away.
Interview. This is bad enough for someone making a real report. Every detail has to be explained again and again and again in explicit detail, and false reports are usually caught at this stage.
Evidence to satisfy officers. There has to be enough evidence to satisfy the police that the story is true, that there is realistic prospect of a conviction, and that when they hand the case over to the prosecuters (the CPS in the UK), the prosecutors will not throw the case back in the faces of the police force
Evidence to satisfy the prosecutors. The prosecutors have to be satisfied that there is enough evidence to prove that the story is true, and that there is a reslistic prospect of conviction even in the face of certain sexist attitudes towards women

If a report is fake, as you can see, it is extremely difficult, perhaps even almost impossible, to get a person charged, let alone for the case to go to prosecution level. Thus, reports of rape where a person is actually charged are very rare.

And finally there is the jury, who are presented with evidence that the police AND the prosecutors believe shows guilt. The jury may also be made up of people with no legal experience (I personally know someone who was put on a jury who has no legal experience and is exactly the opposite of an "upstanding citizen") who may have certain sexist attitudes towards women. Thus if a person is found guilty, in a rape case, it is almost impossible for the decision to be wrong, and may in fact be totally impossible (due to the clear evidence approved by several police officers AND members of the prosecution team and due to the fact that a "not guilty" verdict is more likely due to sexist attitudes etc.).

References:
THAT FALSE REPORTS ARE LOW:
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/myths.html (Use CTRL and F and type "false")
http://www.hopeforhealing.org/myths.pdf#search=%222%25%20rape%20false%20FBI%22 (refers to FBI statistics)
THAT A "NOT GUILTY VERDICT IS MORE LIKELY THAN A GUILTY VERDICT:
http://www.truthaboutrape.co.uk/stats.html
http://www.truthaboutrape.co.uk/index2.html
http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/about_rape_8.htm
USEFUL:
http://survive.org.uk/index1.html#miscon
http://survive.org.uk/advice.html

http://www.americandaily.com/article/5075
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030811_spilbor.html

Funny. These all disagree with you.

This must be only a UK thing.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/5075
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030811_spilbor.html

Funny. These all disagree with you.

And there are many sources that do agree with me, like the FBI.

But forget about a statistics war for a moment and look at what I wrote. Look at the phases a report has to go through. And use an open mind to consider, based on EVERY ASPECT OF THAT, how likely it is that a false report coule even result in a charge, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Naturally, the answer is very unlikely to extremely unlikely (or perhaps even to almost impossible).

This must be only a UK thing.

No, it's USA as well. As for other coutnries, I don't know, it depends on the country, the systems of dealing with such a case, the attitudes, etc.

The very accusation of rape will ruin the object of the accusations life. Not only that, but the defendant has no ability to defend themselves against an accusation. All "proof" is on the "victims"'s side and even the remotest semblance of evidence can be used easily by the accuser because in case of rape a "he" said "she" said highly favors the "she."

And there are many sources that do agree with me, [i]like the FBI.



Linky please.

Actually, 2% is very high.

No, it's USA as well. As for other coutnries, I don't know, it depends on the country, the systems of dealing with such a case, the attitudes, etc.
You have no support that your editorial applies to the US. Every link was specific to the UK.

But forget about a statistics war for a moment and look at what I wrote. Look at the phases a report has to go through. And use an open mind to consider, based on EVERY ASPECT OF THAT, how likely it is that a false report coule even result in a charge,

About 1 in 10 according to the FBI.

Linky please.

I posted it in the links above http://www.hopeforhealing.org/myths....false%20FBI%22 (you could easily do a google search too)

I posted it in the links above http://www.hopeforhealing.org/myths....false%20FBI%22 (you could easily do a google search too)

This one disagrees w/ you:

http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp

But the FBI has been saying since 1991 that the annual rate for the false reporting of forcible sexual assault across the country has been a consistent 8 percent (through 1995, the most recent year available). That's four times higher than the average of the false-reporting rates of the other crimes tracked by the FBI in its Uniform Crime Report. The agency's guidelines define a report as false when an investigation determines that no offense occurred. A complainant's failure or refusal to cooperate in the investigation does not, by itself, lead to a finding of false report.

As does this:

http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaStats.html

• In the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit’s study of False Allegations conducted in 1983 of 556 rape investigations, a total of 220 (40%) of these reported rapes turned out to be false. Over one fourth of these 556 turned out to be hoaxes. And yet, some feminists and rape counselors claim that only two percent of rape reports are false.

The link you provided references to a dead site.

And there are many sources that do agree with me, like the FBI.

But forget about a statistics war for a moment and look at what I wrote. Look at the phases a report has to go through. And use an open mind to consider, based on EVERY ASPECT OF THAT, how likely it is that a false report coule even result in a charge, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Naturally, the answer is very unlikely to extremely unlikely (or perhaps even to almost impossible).
The likelihood depends on several factors completely outside the structural considerations. In cases like rape, where the basis of the case, regardless of physical evidence, is the credibility of the victim versus the credibility of the accused, there's great potential for a false accusation becoming a charge if there's a lopsided credibility gap. Throw in factors like racism and classism, and there's great potential for people being imprisoned on false charges--and it has happened, as any rudimentary look at stories of false imprisonment will show.

But the reverse is also true. Lots of rapists walk for precisely the same reason--they've got connections or money or the ability to slander the victim beyond redemption.

The likelihood depends on several factors completely outside the structural considerations. In cases like rape, where the basis of the case, regardless of physical evidence, is the credibility of the victim versus the credibility of the accused, there's great potential for a false accusation becoming a charge if there's a lopsided credibility gap. Throw in factors like racism and classism, and there's great potential for people being imprisoned on false charges--and it has happened, as any rudimentary look at stories of false imprisonment will show.

But the reverse is also true. Lots of rapists walk for precisely the same reason--they've got connections or money or the ability to slander the victim beyond redemption.

Perhaps it should come down to victim's word versus accussed, but it doesn't. It comes down to the amount of evidence - masses of it (see first post above), so there is very little opportunity for false rape accusations to even result in a charge.

As for the FBI stastistics, first, the FBI is specific to the USA, (UK doesn't even have an FBI, it has MI5 and MI6), and secondly the 2% statistic from the FBI is mentioned all over the internet. I am about to contact the FBI to get the percentage that they actually said confirmed beyond doubt, and will post the reply here.

Kecibukia, I presume you must not have PDF installed, or your computer doesn't support the link in the style it was automatically edited to, so I've "tinyurl'd" it http://************/lna85 (it's not dead, and as I said, plenty of sites are in total agreement with me, including reputable sites).

Kecibukia, I presume you must not have PDF installed, or your computer doesn't support the link in the style it was automatically edited to, so I've "tinyurl'd" it http://************/lna85 (it's not dead, and as I said, plenty of sites are in total agreement with me, including reputable sites).

Now if you actually click on the link that they got the "data" from, you get this:

http://oneinfour.iguide.com/iguide/index.jsp?portal_id=123&domain=oneinfour.com&keyword=domestic%20violence&referrer=

There isn't one site that actually sources the 2% number, only that "the FBI says..."

That is mentioned in numerous of the other links that actually provide the reference for the 41% number.

Now if you actually click on the link that they got the "data" from, you get this:

http://oneinfour.iguide.com/iguide/index.jsp?portal_id=123&domain=oneinfour.com&keyword=domestic%20violence&referrer=

There isn't one site that actually sources the 2% number, only that "the FBI says..."

That is mentioned in numerous of the other links that actually provide the reference for the 41% number.

Well like I said I'm going to e-mail the FBI to get the correct number once and for all.

Perhaps it should come down to victim's word versus accussed, but it doesn't. It comes down to the amount of evidence - masses of it (see first post above), so there is very little opportunity for false rape accusations to even result in a charge.
Son, have you ever seen a rape investigation unfold? Obviously not. I have, from both sides. One of my close friends as an undergrad was accused, and one of my students while I was in grad school was a victim, and in both cases, in the end, factors outside the chain of evidence were what had the most effect on the outcome of the case--which in both cases resulted in no charges being filed. My friend was innocent, and my student was raped, and I have no doubts about either case in my mind.

In the first case, the girl recanted when her story fell apart, but the charges stayed up for six weeks afterward because the parents had pull with the cops--they were only dropped because the prosecutor said he wasn't going to try the case.

With my student, she woke up in a fraternity house with no clothes on, with no memory of what had happened, with drugs in her bloodstream and with physical evidence of sexual assault--no charges because she couldn't give a positive ID, even though they had DNA. The guys in the house refused to give up a name, and the DA wasn't willing to push it. The university actually suggested that she leave and go to another school rather than stir up trouble.

If this were a perfect world, then your argument would hold water, but this isn't a perfect world, and in a rape case, all the difficulties that are inherent in any criminal investigation are magnified a thousand times.

Son, have you ever seen a rape investigation unfold? Obviously not. I have, from both sides. One of my close friends as an undergrad was accused, and one of my students while I was in grad school was a victim, and in both cases, in the end, factors outside the chain of evidence were what had the most effect on the outcome of the case--which in both cases resulted in no charges being filed. My friend was innocent, and my student was raped, and I have no doubts about either case in my mind.

In the first case, the girl recanted when her story fell apart, but the charges stayed up for six weeks afterward because the parents had pull with the cops--they were only dropped because the prosecutor said he wasn't going to try the case.

With my student, she woke up in a fraternity house with no clothes on, with no memory of what had happened, with drugs in her bloodstream and with physical evidence of sexual assault--no charges because she couldn't give a positive ID, even though they had DNA. The guys in the house refused to give up a name, and the DA wasn't willing to push it. The university actually suggested that she leave and go to another school rather than stir up trouble.

If this were a perfect world, then your argument would hold water, but this isn't a perfect world, and in a rape case, all the difficulties that are inherent in any criminal investigation are magnified a thousand times.

1. Yes I have seen a rape case tried. I saw no point in bringing unproveable "I also know this from seeing" it type statements into this. I know that what I wrote above is fact.

2. The first case you report is unusual (and I never said false reports couldn't happen, I said they were very rare).

3. The fact that the case was dropped at prosecuation stage proves my point. Assuming the report was false (can you prove an example of how you "know" it was false?), you saw that it never got passed the prosecution stage, despite some dodgy goings-on with the cops.

So like I said, it comes down to the amount of evidence, masses of it (see first post) and thus there is very little opportunity for false reports to even result in a charge, let alone a conviction or prosecution.

1. Yes I have seen a rape case tried. I saw no point in bringing unproveable "I also know this from seeing" it type statements into this. I know that what I wrote above is fact.

2. The first case you report is unusual (and I never said false reports couldn't happen, I said they were very rare).

3. The fact that the case was dropped at prosecuation stage proves my point. Assuming the report was false (can you prove an example of how you "know" it was false?), you saw that it never got passed the prosecution stage, despite some dodgy goings-on with the cops.

So like I said, it comes down to the amount of evidence, masses of it (see first post) and thus there is very little opportunity for false reports to even result in a charge, let alone a conviction or prosecution.
I just reread my comment and realized it sounded condescending--my apologies for that. It was not my intent.

As to your comment, however, I do think you've being a bit naive in that you're really underestimating the pressure outside groups, including parents, bring to bear on the system in a rape case, from both sides. And that pressure results in both false charges being brought and rapists walking without being charged in the first place. And the saddest part is that there's no easy solution to this problem--it's the very nature of the crime that makes it so difficult to deal with.

And that pressure results in both false charges being brought and rapists walking without being charged in the first place.

Not to mention the widely held viewpoint that a woman is somehow responsible for it if she gets raped - whether it is the fact that she is sexually active, the clothing she was wearing, whether or not she lives alone, etc., etc.....


As for the original topic, I really can't bring much to bear on it. I don't know how many false rapes are reported, although I am sure that more false accusations are made outside of the criminal justice system than are actually reported to the authorities. What I do know is this: any amount is too many.

Unlike most crimes, rape is damn near impossible to prove, because there are very rarely witnesses. Usually it is the accuser and the accused - and they are the only ones that know the details of what happened. Even with physical evidence, the accused can claim that it was consentual, and it jumps right back to the word of one person vs. the other. Add to that the fact that many victims are too traumatized to head directly to the hospital for the collection of evidence (and very often don't report the crime at all) and you have a situation where the vast majority of rapists are going to go completely unpunished.

Because of the lack of witnesses, there are two reasons that false accusations of rape are particularly harmful (as opposed to false accusations of other crimes). First of all, it's going to ruin the reputation of the accused - whether convicted or not. Unless the accuser comes right out and states that it was made up (and maybe even then), the accused is always going to have that stigma. No one trusts the justice system 100%, and many will believe the accuser. Second of all, it harms every genuine rape victim out there. There are rape cases that end up having very, very little physical evidence and the testimony of both people (as well as character witnesses) become a huge part of the investigation and any trial that results. The defense is already going to be trying to portray the victim as a liar - and those that actually bring false rape cases simply give them more ammunition. Such cases stick in the minds of jurors, and will have a very disproportionate effect.

I just reread my comment and realized it sounded condescending--my apologies for that. It was not my intent.

As to your comment, however, I do think you've being a bit naive in that you're really underestimating the pressure outside groups, including parents, bring to bear on the system in a rape case, from both sides. And that pressure results in both false charges being brought and rapists walking without being charged in the first place. And the saddest part is that there's no easy solution to this problem--it's the very nature of the crime that makes it so difficult to deal with.

I was wrong not to make it clear that I realise outside groups can have pressure. They can have enourmous pressure, I agree. But outside groups (who are not people directly involved with the case such as lawyers) can not sit in the interview room, relay the details of an attack (false or genuine), relay the details again to the prosecutors, relay the details again to the jury, decide whether there's enough evidence for the report to be almost certainly true, pass that evidence onto someone else who also has to make such a decision, or change the sexist attitudes prevalent in members of the jury. The case is weighted in favour of the criminal (I'd hoped I wouldn't have to say that as I don't want to discourage reports, but needs must and it's plastered all over the internet anyway) so it's almost impossible for a "guilty" verdict to be an incorrect one, and nearly as difficult, or as difficult, to even get a prosecution launched AFTER the officers have decided there's enough evidence for the case to be passed on, AFTER a charge has been made. It is so difficult to get a real rape case into court, a false one stands virtually no chance, or no chance, which is a contributing factor to why false reports ARE VERY LOW.

I agree there's no easy solution, but it doesn't mean nothing can be done. Attitudes to slavery were changed, attitudes to rape in marriage were changed to some extent... attitudes to rape and its victims can be changed, and hopefully rape will lose all it's stigma and other negative results to enough of an extent that this kind of discussion will become as rare as a discussion about false reports of car theft.

The only evidence you have in a rape case is the testimony of witnesses(usually only the accuser and the accused), and the physical evidence of a sexual act. Sometimes there is other evidence, drugs used to subdue the victim, evidence of a struggle(on both the victim and the crimescene), and character testimony. If the accused had no witnesses to his whereabouts at the time of the rape, and the sexual act actually occurrs, it isn't that difficult to fabricate the rest of the evidence. On the other hand it's almost impossible to prove rape if you don't have physical evidence that it was something more than consensual sex.

If you lay the burden of proof upon the victim, you're going to have many rapes go unpunished. If you lay it upon the accused you're going to have many innocent men going to prison.

The only evidence you have in a rape case is the testimony of witnesses(usually only the accuser and the accused), and the physical evidence of a sexual act. Sometimes there is other evidence, drugs used to subdue the victim, evidence of a struggle(on both the victim and the crimescene), and character testimony. If the accused had no witnesses to his whereabouts at the time of the rape, and the sexual act actually occurrs, it isn't that difficult to fabricate the rest of the evidence. On the other hand it's almost impossible to prove rape if you don't have physical evidence that it was something more than consensual sex.

If you lay the burden of proof upon the victim, you're going to have many rapes go unpunished. If you lay it upon the accused you're going to have many innocent men going to prison.

I suggest you find a way to be involved in a rape case. The evidence is not just what you suggested - cases with that kind of evidence don't even get prosecuted. There has to be much more (DNA etc) - enough to satisfy the police that the report is true, enough to satisfy the prosecutors that the report is true, and enough to persuade the judge not to throw out the case (forgot to mention that bit) and enough to persuade the jury to convict despite sexist attitudes.

You've contradicted yourself by saying that the only evidence needed is "blah blah blah" then saying that if there isn't physical evidence then it's almost impossible to prove a rape. The burden of proof IS currently on the victim, who is treated less favourably then the accused - for example, the victim's sexual history (totally irrelevant) can be dragged up, but the accused's sexual history can't. The burden of proof in other crimes (including violent ones) is currently on the accused, and that hasn't resulted in "many innocent men going to prison".

The burden of proof IS currently on the victim, who is treated less favourably then the accused - for example, the victim's sexual history (totally irrelevant) can be dragged up, but the accused's sexual history can't.

However the victims name isn't given out while the accuseds' is.

I suggest you find a way to be involved in a rape case. The evidence is not just what you suggested - cases with that kind of evidence don't even get prosecuted. There has to be much more (DNA etc) - enough to satisfy the police that the report is true, enough to satisfy the prosecutors that the report is true, and enough to persuade the judge not to throw out the case (forgot to mention that bit) and enough to persuade the jury to convict despite sexist attitudes.

You've contradicted yourself by saying that the only evidence needed is "blah blah blah" then saying that if there isn't physical evidence then it's almost impossible to prove a rape. The burden of proof IS currently on the victim, who is treated less favourably then the accused - for example, the victim's sexual history (totally irrelevant) can be dragged up, but the accused's sexual history can't. The burden of proof in other crimes (including violent ones) is currently on the accused, and that hasn't resulted in "many innocent men going to prison".
I think the issue is that both sides aren't exactly reading what the other is saying. Multiland et al are saying that there are very few TRIALS that are tossed for being false (2%), while everyone else says that there are high levels of false accusations, which is an entirely different thing. Multiland states that the likelyhood of a false accusation making it to trial is very slim (nearly nonexistant), while others point out that the large numbers of accusations themselves causes a problem for everyone.

Oh, and the burden of proof is always upon the state. Never the accused.

And not to mention:
Everyone expects the defendent to deny it and so give little weight to that.
Not that many people expect the plaintiff to make up a story about what she and the defendent were doing the night of July 16th(or whatever).
Thus less weight is given to the defendent's testimony (by the jury, at least).
EDIT: Didn't expect someone to post before I did. Ignore it for purposes of reading this.

However the victims name isn't given out while the accuseds' is.

Well if you consider not having your name given out whilst having your sexual history dragged up, having to relive every single detail of the rape, and basically being treated like a lying piece of sh*it as "being treated more favourably" than the defendant, then yes the victim is being treated far more favourably.

The victim's name is hidden because of the stigma - such as being accused of lying, being accused of asking for it, feeling ashamed (even though the victim has done nothing wrong), etc etc etc. and the defendat's name is allowed to be published because of the crap way in which victims are treated by society, so that those who had not previously came forward would be more likely to - and you know why more people are wanted to come forward in a single case?... because of what I said above - the amounts of evidence required, and the sexist attitudes of jury members that mean conviction rates are very low and so are false reports.

CSW officially the burden of proof may be "upon the state", but in reality that is not the case. Ask a victim who has been through a rape trial. They are made to feel like they are on trial, they have to prove everything. The prosecutors (when they are decent ones) simply try to help them a bit.

And to put things bluntly, you are talking out of your arse anyway CSW - you say "everyone else says that there are high levels of false accusations" when in actual fact many people know that in fact the level of false accusations are very low, as can be checked by either contacing a rape crisis organisation or doing a simple internet search. You do not know everyone, and you are just making stupid assumptions based on biased opinion. Thus, you are talking bollocks. Not a very academic way of me saying that to you, but true.

Well if you consider not having your name given out whilst having your sexual history dragged up, having to relive every single detail of the rape, and basically being treated like a lying piece of sh*it as "being treated more favourably" than the defendant, then yes the victim is being treated far more favourably.

The victim's name is hidden because of the stigma - such as being accused of lying, being accused of asking for it, feeling ashamed (even though the victim has done nothing wrong), etc etc etc. and the defendat's name is allowed to be published because of the crap way in which victims are treated by society, so that those who had not previously came forward would be more likely to - and you know why more people are wanted to come forward in a single case?... because of what I said above - the amounts of evidence required, and the sexist attitudes of jury members that mean conviction rates are very low and so are false reports.

I don't advocate giving out the accusers' name, I advocate protecting the accuseds' name.

As has been pointed out, even a withdrawn complaint can cause massive damage to a persons reputation.

I suggest you find a way to be involved in a rape case. The evidence is not just what you suggested - cases with that kind of evidence don't even get prosecuted. There has to be much more (DNA etc) - enough to satisfy the police that the report is true, enough to satisfy the prosecutors that the report is true, and enough to persuade the judge not to throw out the case (forgot to mention that bit) and enough to persuade the jury to convict despite sexist attitudes.

If DNA were necessary, then a rapist who used a condom could never be tried. However, quite a few such cases have been prosecuted. There was a rather famous case several years ago in which a defendent tried to claim that a victim had consented because, when she realized she couldn't get away from him, she begged him to at least use a condom, and then claimed to have AIDS to get him to do so.

The burden of proof IS currently on the victim, who is treated less favourably then the accused - for example, the victim's sexual history (totally irrelevant) can be dragged up, but the accused's sexual history can't. The burden of proof in other crimes (including violent ones) is currently on the accused, and that hasn't resulted in "many innocent men going to prison".

This is patently incorrect (in the US at least). The burden of proof, in any crime, is always on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. Said defendant is considered to be, "innocent until proven guilty."


Thus less weight is given to the defendent's testimony (by the jury, at least).

You can't really make a blanket statement like that. That often comes down to how the case is presented. If the defendent is considered to be a "fine, upstanding citizen" while the accuser can easily be portrayed as a "slut" or "gold-digger", etc., then the jury is highly likely to value the defendant's testimony more.

I don't advocate giving out the accusers' name, I advocate protecting the accuseds' name.

So would I, if the system was fair. As it is, the reason the accused's name is given out is so that as many people as possible come forwards so that there is as much evidence as possible, which proves my point about loads of evidence.

As has been pointed out, even a withdrawn complaint can cause massive damage to a persons reputation.

And it can cause massive damage to the victim's, as can a real report, which is why attitudes needs to be changed.


If DNA were necessary, then a rapist who used a condom could never be tried. However, quite a few such cases have been prosecuted. There was a rather famous case several years ago in which a defendent tried to claim that a victim had consented because, when she realized she couldn't get away from him, she begged him to at least use a condom, and then claimed to have AIDS to get him to do so.

Even with a condom, there is other DNA evidence. Look up “DNA”. In addition, I gave DNA as a possible example. There are other ways of getting a lot of evidence, such as getting the accused to contradict their self, marks on the victim, etc. The fact remains a lot of evidence is needed. Ask any barrister.


This is patently incorrect (in the US at least). The burden of proof, in any crime, is always on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. Said defendant is considered to be, "innocent until proven guilty."

In the UK, the burden of proof is technically “on the defendant”, but alongside the “innocent until proven guilty” statement – however, it’s the victim who has to prove their self innocent of lying in reality, rather than the prosecution proving the defendant guilty of rape. In the UK, the reality is that the victim is made to feel like they are on trial – same in USA.


Posted by Sheni:
Thus less weight is given to the defendent's testimony (by the jury, at least).

with this response:

You can't really make a blanket statement like that. That often comes down to how the case is presented. If the defendent is considered to be a "fine, upstanding citizen" while the accuser can easily be portrayed as a "slut" or "gold-digger", etc., then the jury is highly likely to value the defendant's testimony more.

agreed. which proves several of my above points.

Well if you consider not having your name given out whilst having your sexual history dragged up, having to relive every single detail of the rape, and basically being treated like a lying piece of sh*it as "being treated more favourably" than the defendant, then yes the victim is being treated far more favourably.

The victim's name is hidden because of the stigma - such as being accused of lying, being accused of asking for it, feeling ashamed (even though the victim has done nothing wrong), etc etc etc. and the defendat's name is allowed to be published because of the crap way in which victims are treated by society, so that those who had not previously came forward would be more likely to - and you know why more people are wanted to come forward in a single case?... because of what I said above - the amounts of evidence required, and the sexist attitudes of jury members that mean conviction rates are very low and so are false reports.

CSW officially the burden of proof may be "upon the state", but in reality that is not the case. Ask a victim who has been through a rape trial. They are made to feel like they are on trial, they have to prove everything. The prosecutors (when they are decent ones) simply try to help them a bit.

And to put things bluntly, you are talking out of your arse anyway CSW - you say "everyone else says that there are high levels of false accusations" when in actual fact many people know that in fact the level of false accusations are very low, as can be checked by either contacing a rape crisis organisation or doing a simple internet search. You do not know everyone, and you are just making stupid assumptions based on biased opinion. Thus, you are talking bollocks. Not a very academic way of me saying that to you, but true.
in this thread lol. I was trying to settle this stupid argument that seems to have both sides yelling at a wall over a misunderstanding. Both sides are correct, and neither with yield.

Even with a condom, there is other DNA evidence. Look up “DNA”.

There *can* be other evidence. If the victim still has a pubic hair from the rapist, that can be typed. If the victim scratched at her attacker, DNA evidence can be taken from that. However, the only DNA evidence that is absolutely conclusive as to sexual activity is semen - which may or may not still be viable when she reaches the hospital.

There are other ways of getting a lot of evidence, such as getting the accused to contradict their self, marks on the victim, etc. The fact remains a lot of evidence is needed. Ask any barrister.

Of course a lot of evidence is needed for proof, but many cases go to prosecution without much evidence - which helps account for the low percentages of rapists actually convicted of their crimes.

In the UK, the burden of proof is technically “on the defendant”, but alongside the “innocent until proven guilty” statement

Those two things are logical contradictions of one another. If the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, then there is no need for the burden of proof to be on the defendant. The burden of proof would be on the person who has to prove something - the prosecutor.

– however, it’s the victim who has to prove their self innocent of lying in reality, rather than the prosecution proving the defendant guilty of rape.

Unfortunately, this is partially a product of the fact that rape rarely has witnesses, and thus can never really be done away with. It generally has a victim, and an attacker. Without witnesses, a lot is going to come down to the testimony of both people involved - and how much the jury trusts them.

In the UK, the reality is that the victim is made to feel like they are on trial – same in USA.

Indeed, and I think we can all agree that this is a problem - one that is only made worse by the false accusations that do occur.

While I do not know the statistics, I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. I have personally seen 7 cases of what happens with a rape accusation.

One of them was of a girl who was raped, but did not report it and the only people who ever knew were a couple of her closest friends. We tried to get her to go to the police but she refused to even discuss it. Her way of dealing with it was to just try to pretend it never happened.

One was of a girl who was raped but lacked sufficient evidence for a conviction. This was one of those ‘date rape’ situations where it is rather murky for a jury to decide if it was consensual or not. I personally believe they just had too much to drink at a party, so he wasn’t thinking clearly (he would never have done it sober) and she was unable to fend off his advances (she would have kicked his ass if she were sober), but because they were dating and she made a comment to some of her friends that she was looking forward to having sex with him, the jury rightly said they couldn’t convict. Not that I believe it wasn’t rape, just that if the jury has no way of being sure, they should err on the side of the accused.

3 of them were cases where the girl was bitter about something (hell hath no fury…) and accused a guy of rape as a way of lashing out. These had little merit and never went to trial, but it utterly demolished the reputations of the guys targeted. Three completely innocent guys had their lives ruined because the women were being bitchy, while the women never suffered any repercussions.

One was where a guy got raped (yes, it does happen), but was too ashamed to come forward. He figured it wasn’t worth it.

The last one was of an innocent man, wrongly convicted. She was the town bicycle who was dating a guy who was somehow clueless (denial is a powerful thing). Eventually she was caught, and it happened to be with my friend. The way she escaped having to deal with admitting to her boyfriend that she has been sleeping around was to tell him she was raped. Unfortunately in my area, the typical attitude is that the cops and prosecutors have to protect the vulnerable womenfolk from any man who might sully their reputation. The cops leaned on him hard and treated him like absolute shit. The prosecutor likewise did everything he could, including bending the rules past the point of credulity (and the judge, being a good god fearing gentleman who’s duty was to protect the womenfolk, would let him get away with anything), and the public defender would hardly lift a finger to prevent it – the attitude of everyone (yes, even the public defender) is that when a woman is crying on the stands she can do no wrong. While the law might say he is innocent until proven guilty, they just assumed he was guilty and conducted the trial that way. Unfortunately, he could see the writing on the wall and knew he would be convicted so after months of psychological pressure from everyone (even those supposed to be on his side) he finally caved and plea-bargained for a lesser sentence, which eliminates the possibility of an appeal.

While my personal experiences in no way represents all instances of rape accusations, I find it laughable that you say false accusations are incredibly rare and that cases of innocent men being harmed by them is non-existent.

False rape accusations are made all the time. In most cases it only takes the accusation to ruin the man’s life. Just because false convictions are somewhat rare (though they do happen), in no way allows you to say that accusations are exceedingly rare and harmless.

And there are many sources that do agree with me, like the FBI.

But forget about a statistics war for a moment and look at what I wrote. Look at the phases a report has to go through. And use an open mind to consider, based on EVERY ASPECT OF THAT, how likely it is that a false report coule even result in a charge, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Naturally, the answer is very unlikely to extremely unlikely (or perhaps even to almost impossible).

Look, you're even contradicting yourself. You're saying the number of reports made are very low, then explain that the number of reports that actually result in charges, prosecution or conviction is low. That they don't pan out does not mean they are not made.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt
http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/03/cov_10news.html
http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf#search=%22FBI%20percentage%20of%20false%20accusations%20of%20rape%22
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/09/ng.01.html

These sites all peg both the Department of Justice and the FBI's statistics at between 6 and 8 percent false accusations of rape. Some souces are much higher (25% or above) and I would discount them; any source saying "The FBI says only 2%" I find suspect as all the sources I've listed above say it's significantly higher.

Originally Posted by Multiland
Even with a condom, there is other DNA evidence. Look up “DNA”.

Dempublicents1:
There *can* be other evidence. If the victim still has a pubic hair from the rapist, that can be typed. If the victim scratched at her attacker, DNA evidence can be taken from that. However, the only DNA evidence that is absolutely conclusive as to sexual activity is semen - which may or may not still be viable when she reaches the hospital.
The only DNA evidence that is totally conclusive may be semen, but if the defendant claims the “sex” was “consensual”, yet there are marks consistent with a fight such as scratches etc, then it’s reasonable to believe he is lying. If the defendant claims the rape never took place and that sex never took place, then any other DNA evidence is conclusive. Hence the reason that police advice is not only not to shower, but not to get rid of your clothes until the police have assessed the victim.
Multiland:
There are other ways of getting a lot of evidence, such as getting the accused to contradict their self, marks on the victim, etc. The fact remains a lot of evidence is needed. Ask any barrister.

Dempublicents1:
Of course a lot of evidence is needed for proof, but many cases go to prosecution without much evidence - which helps account for the low percentages of rapists actually convicted of their crimes.
You are either seriously naïve, a liar, or ignorant. Look at the papers. If you don’t want to believe the papers, ask the prosecutors (the CPS in the UK). Rape cases with little evidence virtually NEVER go to trial. The low convictions are due to sexist attitudes, and the fact that cases don’t go to trial unless there is a lot of evidence. Don’t believe me? Next time you pass a lawyer’s premises, go in and ask.
Multiland:
In the UK, the burden of proof is technically “on the defendant”, but alongside the “innocent until proven guilty” statement

Dempublicents1:
Those two things are logical contradictions of one another. If the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, then there is no need for the burden of proof to be on the defendant. The burden of proof would be on the person who has to prove something - the prosecutor.
They are contradictions of each other yes, which proves how f*cked up the system is. Historically, despite the official line being “innocent until proven guilty”, the defendant has had to prove their self innocent during the trial, as the prosecution try to prove they are guilty. But in a rape case, the victim has to prove their self innocent of lying. It is the victims who feel as though they are on trial, which is obviously wrong. http://www.survive.org.uk/index1.html#trial
Multiland:
– however, it’s the victim who has to prove their self innocent of lying in reality, rather than the prosecution proving the defendant guilty of rape.

Dempublicents1:
Unfortunately, this is partially a product of the fact that rape rarely has witnesses, and thus can never really be done away with. It generally has a victim, and an attacker. Without witnesses, a lot is going to come down to the testimony of both people involved - and how much the jury trusts them.
There are no witnesses in a lot of other cases not involving rape. It is then down to the jury to decide who is lying. There shouldn’t be different rules for rape cases than all other cases. But in a rape case, a lot of evidence is required before the police will even charge a suspect, let alone before the prosecutors decide whether to go ahead. Thus, if a person actually ends up in court charged with rape, it is almost certainly a fact that they committed that crime (based on the amounts of evidence, the fact that the police won’t even charge without loads of evidence, the fact that the prosecutors won’t prosecute without loads of evidence, etc etc etc) and if they are convicted then it is virtually impossible, perhaps even impossible, for the conviction to be wrong.
Multiland:
In the UK, the reality is that the victim is made to feel like they are on trial – same in USA.

Dempublicents1:

Indeed, and I think we can all agree that this is a problem - one that is only made worse by the false accusations that do occur.

Yes it is made worse when false accusations occur, but that doesn’t change the fact that false accusations are rare. The FBI haven’t replied to me yet on the exact figure, but I’ll post the e-mail here when they do to back up my previously-posted evidence further.

-----------------------------------------

While I do not know the statistics, I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. I have personally seen 7 cases of what happens with a rape accusation.

I would like to know how you were able to be involved in SEVEN cases, considering the fact only relatives or friends are usually allowed due to confidentiality/privacy issues. I personally think you have made up that statement to support your views, possibly sexist ones, evidenced by the way you referred to a woman as the “town bicycle” further in your post (would you have referred to a man in the same way under the same circumstances?). But I shall respond anyway to the cases relevant to this thread.


One was of a girl who was raped but lacked sufficient evidence for a conviction. This was one of those ‘date rape’ situations where it is rather murky for a jury to decide if it was consensual or not. I personally believe they just had too much to drink at a party, so he wasn’t thinking clearly (he would never have done it sober) and she was unable to fend off his advances (she would have kicked his ass if she were sober), but because they were dating and she made a comment to some of her friends that she was looking forward to having sex with him, the jury rightly said they couldn’t convict. Not that I believe it wasn’t rape, just that if the jury has no way of being sure, they should err on the side of the accused.

1. This helps proves my point that without loads of evidence, a jury will not convict.

2. I want to make it clear I’m not being totally biased here. I understand that the jury can not convict if they have reasonable doubt – however, in rape cases, convictions are not made unless there is total, or almost total certainty – even with UNreasonable doubt (such as sexist attitudes like “she asked for it” etc*), cases do not result in convictions… they only result in convictions where there is loads of evidence, so much evidence that is enough to overwhelm even the sexist attitudes present in a rape trial… so much evidence in fact that the police AND the prosecutors were positive the defendant was guilty and that the prosecutors were positive the case would result in a conviction despite sexist attitudes towards the woman from jury members and defence lawyers… so that if a person is even charge, it is extremely likely he did it, and if a person is being prosecuted, it is almost a certainty, or even a certainty, that he did it.

3. (a) The “I was too drunk to stop myself being violent to another person is a load of crap… if you drink depressed, you get more depressed, if you drink happy, you get more happy, and if you drink with violent thoughts, you get more violent – BUT violence doesn’t suddenly appear in your mind when you’ve had a drink unless you were already considering it. http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/myths.html (do CTRL and F and type “drunk” then hit enter twice).

(b)for him to have done something that required as careful planning as to wait until she was alone, force himself into her, and prevent her screaming for help, I seriously doubt it was a spontaneous “mistake”.

(c) Whilst I understand why, in this particular case, a jury decided they couldn’t convict, there is a major difference between sex and rape. She may indeed have been willing to have sex with him and looking forward to it… but NOT looking forward to being forced into a violation of her body where she was unable to have any control over the situation (unlike in consensual sex).



3 of them were cases where the girl was bitter about something (hell hath no fury…) and accused a guy of rape as a way of lashing out. These had little merit and never went to trial, but it utterly demolished the reputations of the guys targeted. Three completely innocent guys had their lives ruined because the women were being bitchy, while the women never suffered any repercussions.

Perhaps then a suspect’s info in a rape case should not be given out until they have been charged. I’ve already sufficiently explained the reasons why their info NEEDS to be given out after they’ve been charged. But what you have wrote here proves my point – the cases never went to trial, as there wasn’t enough evidence, as rape case don’t go to trial unless there is so much evidence that it is almost impossible, if not impossible, for the suspect to actually be innocent.

The last one was of an innocent man, wrongly convicted. She was the town bicycle who was dating a guy who was somehow clueless (denial is a powerful thing). Eventually she was caught, and it happened to be with my friend. The way she escaped having to deal with admitting to her boyfriend that she has been sleeping around was to tell him she was raped. Unfortunately in my area, the typical attitude is that the cops and prosecutors have to protect the vulnerable womenfolk from any man who might sully their reputation. The cops leaned on him hard and treated him like absolute shit. The prosecutor likewise did everything he could, including bending the rules past the point of credulity (and the judge, being a good god fearing gentleman who’s duty was to protect the womenfolk, would let him get away with anything), and the public defender would hardly lift a finger to prevent it – the attitude of everyone (yes, even the public defender) is that when a woman is crying on the stands she can do no wrong. While the law might say he is innocent until proven guilty, they just assumed he was guilty and conducted the trial that way. Unfortunately, he could see the writing on the wall and knew he would be convicted so after months of psychological pressure from everyone (even those supposed to be on his side) he finally caved and plea-bargained for a lesser sentence, which eliminates the possibility of an appeal.

This type of case (if it happened, see first response to you) is extremely rare. Plus the guy had a crap lawyer, and I would have asked for a different one if I didn’t like him, especially when I could be sentenced for something so vile and be locked up for so long. And, not that I’m saying he’s actually guilty or anything, but I find it very suspicious when an innocent man, accused of such a vile crime as rape, knowing he could be locked for a long time and have his reputation destroyed, decides to plead guilty. I’m pretty certain most innocent men would claim innocence to and beyond their death.

While my personal experiences in no way represents all instances of rape accusations,…

You’re right. They don’t.

I find it laughable that you say false accusations are incredibly rare and that cases of innocent men being harmed by them is non-existent.

And I find it a great shame that attitudes such as this exist, when false accusations are very rare, as evidence by police statistics (where they keep statistics specific to rape), the FBI, and various other sources.

False rape accusations are made all the time. In most cases it only takes the accusation to ruin the man’s life.

This is a blatant lie. Considering everything I said above about the way a woman is treated and what she has to go through when she makes a complaint of rape, false rape accusations are NOT made “all the time”, and ARE very rare.

Just because false convictions are somewhat rare (though they do happen), in no way allows you to say that accusations are exceedingly rare and harmless.

And this is wrong / a lie. False convictions are virtually non-existent (if not non-existent) due to what I’ve previously stated which I’m not going to keep repeating to ignorant people who just want to push their own inaccurate views. And I never said that false accusations were harmless – they are VERY harmful (in the RARE instances that they happen), as they encourage attitudes like yours, helping more people to WRONGLY believe that false accusations happen a lot.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Multiland:
Originally Posted by Multiland
And there are many sources that do agree with me, like the FBI.

But forget about a statistics war for a moment and look at what I wrote. Look at the phases a report has to go through. And use an open mind to consider, based on EVERY ASPECT OF THAT, how likely it is that a false report coule even result in a charge, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Naturally, the answer is very unlikely to extremely unlikely (or perhaps even to almost impossible).

Katganistan:
Look, you're even contradicting yourself. You're saying the number of reports made are very low, then explain that the number of reports that actually result in charges, prosecution or conviction is low. That they don't pan out does not mean they are not made.


I didn’t say that reports of rape are low, I said that false reports are rare. I said that the number of reports that result in conviction is low, and that a charge/prosecution isn’t even likely unless there’s loads of evidence. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. I didn’t contradict myself. In any case, the low conviction rates are relevant to the percentage reported, (there are varying statistics, but each one puts the rate of convictions much lower than the amount of cases charged or prosecuted, see this http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/3.html)



These sites all peg both the Department of Justice and the FBI's statistics at between 6 and 8 percent false accusations of rape. Some souces are much higher (25% or above) and I would discount them; any source saying "The FBI says only 2%" I find suspect as all the sources I've listed above say it's significantly higher.



As I said, I’ve e-mail the FBI. I could grab a string of biased sources if I wanted. Fox News has, when referring to anything to do with rape, frequently referred to trials, the justice system, and rape with bias towards suspects. It also, on that article, refers to anyone who supports the 2% figure as a “politically correct feminist” yet doesn’t refer to the people who support a higher figure in any bad way (perceived or actual bad way), such as “sexist men”. Plus I could go grab a media link if I wanted that says Fox News is talking crap. Your sites say over 2%. The ones I looked at say 2% (a frequently cited figure). I am not only going to back up myself even further via the FBI when they reply (as I'm sure the figure I posted will be supported further by them personally), I am also going to do some non-internet research on Monday and SCAN what I find into the computer so you can see it is genuine.


Story from a survivor (!!MAY TRIGGER FLASHBACKS!!): http://www.survive.org.uk/rape.html (Note that the story was written quite some time ago and the legal definition of rape (in the UK) is now different)

And there are many sources that do agree with me, like the FBI.

But forget about a statistics war for a moment and look at what I wrote. Look at the phases a report has to go through. And use an open mind to consider, based on EVERY ASPECT OF THAT, how likely it is that a false report coule even result in a charge, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Naturally, the answer is very unlikely to extremely unlikely (or perhaps even to almost impossible).

Your firgures are self-contradictory, so I simply will not agree with you.

false-rape accusations cannot be admitantly 1-2% and "impossible" at the same time. ANY admitted percentage greater than 0 automatically makes false results a possibility (even if unlikey).... "almost impossible" is a term a sophist will use to sway the emotion of his hearers, while trying to make their own facts look and sound "good"; possibility/impossibility are absolutes, there is no "almost impossible"..... "almost impossible" == possible, by any standards, since it self admits that there is in fact a possiblity.

False accusations are very common.

Trials based on false accusations are quite rare.


Unfortunately all it takes is the accusation to destroy a man's reputation.

Not only that, but the defendant has no ability to defend themselves against an accusation. All "proof" is on the "victims"'s side and even the remotest semblance of evidence can be used easily by the accuser because in case of rape a "he" said "she" said highly favors the "she."

Theoretically, in court, a jury does not expect a defendant to "prove" his innocence. That would imply that the defendant was required to prove a negative. In court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accuser - the defendant may remain silent if the supposed proof sounds obsequious.

The only DNA evidence that is totally conclusive may be semen, but if the defendant claims the “sex” was “consensual”, yet there are marks consistent with a fight such as scratches etc, then it’s reasonable to believe he is lying.

Depends. What if rough sex was the norm for them? What if he claims that it was?

Because of the lack of witnesses, there is *always* a way to cast doubt on the story.

If the defendant claims the rape never took place and that sex never took place, then any other DNA evidence is conclusive. Hence the reason that police advice is not only not to shower, but not to get rid of your clothes until the police have assessed the victim.

Indeed. But many women are in shock and aren't really thinking about that. Many don't report it for weeks or months afterwards (if at all).

You are either seriously naïve, a liar, or ignorant.

Not at all. First of all, the UK does not encompass the entirety of the world. I'm in the US, actually. And rape cases here sometimes do go to trial, even if the report of the rape wasn't made for years afterwards. There certainly isn't much physical evidence to be gained at that point. It is less common that such cases actually reach trial, but they do.


Historically, despite the official line being “innocent until proven guilty”, the defendant has had to prove their self innocent during the trial, as the prosecution try to prove they are guilty. But in a rape case, the victim has to prove their self innocent of lying.[/quote]

Proving yourself to be truthful, in this case, is the exact same thing as proving the defendant to be guilty. There is no way around it.

It is the victims who feel as though they are on trial, which is obviously wrong.

Indeed. But they don't feel like they are on trial because they have to show proof that they aren't lying. They feel this way because their entire sexual history is often brought into it. Their character is attacked. They are told that, just by being sexually active, they obviously wanted it. And so on...

The idea of having to demonstrate that your story is true is going to be a part of any prosecution.

There are no witnesses in a lot of other cases not involving rape.

Yes, but rape is pretty the only crime in which a total lack of witnesses is found in the majority of cases. It nearly always occurs when the victim and rapist are completely alone.

And, in any case where there are no witnesses, prosecution is very difficult.

There shouldn’t be different rules for rape cases than all other cases. But in a rape case, a lot of evidence is required before the police will even charge a suspect, let alone before the prosecutors decide whether to go ahead.

And this is different from other crimes, how? Generally, in any crime, quite a bit of evidence is needed before charges are filed, or prosecutors decide to go on.

Thus, if a person actually ends up in court charged with rape, it is almost certainly a fact that they committed that crime (based on the amounts of evidence, the fact that the police won’t even charge without loads of evidence, the fact that the prosecutors won’t prosecute without loads of evidence, etc etc etc) and if they are convicted then it is virtually impossible, perhaps even impossible, for the conviction to be wrong.

It is never impossible for the conviction to be wrong. The human element in the system ensures that wrong convictions (and wrong innocent verdicts) will be reached.

Yes it is made worse when false accusations occur, but that doesn’t change the fact that false accusations are rare. The FBI haven’t replied to me yet on the exact figure, but I’ll post the e-mail here when they do to back up my previously-posted evidence further.

The problem is that even one false accusation causes a problem for every victim. In something that, in the end, often boils down to "he said/she said," a person who brings a false charge has committed a particularly heinous crime.

And I never said that false accusations were harmless – they are VERY harmful (in the RARE instances that they happen), as they encourage attitudes like yours, helping more people to WRONGLY believe that false accusations happen a lot.

Exactly.

I am going to go out on a limb and take a guess that you have been raped.
While it is tragic and I am sorry that you had to experience such a thing, you need to stop projecting your own event on everything. Not all men are rapists. Just because someone is a male does not mean he sees all women as sluts who deserve it. Simply because someone dared to question your accusation does not mean that every accusation is true and anyone questioning is just a sexist bastard who is trying to deny that there is such a thing as rape.

I would like to know how you were able to be involved in SEVEN cases, considering the fact only relatives or friends are usually allowed due to confidentiality/privacy issues. I personally think you have made up that statement to support your views, possibly sexist ones, evidenced by the way you referred to a woman as the “town bicycle” further in your post (would you have referred to a man in the same way under the same circumstances?). But I shall respond anyway to the cases relevant to this thread.

Unfortunately rape accusations are not all that rare where I come from, so knowing people involved in rape cases is not that uncommon. So you claim that where you live only those intimately involved in a case ever hear about it? While none of my relatives have been involved in a rape case, it may surprise you that some people (myself included) do tend to have friends. Calling someone sexist simply because they do not ascribe to your 'all men are evil rapists' view shows your severe bias.

I referred to that particular woman as the 'town bicycle' because she deserves such a pejorative term, not because she was a female that enjoyed sex. I happen to think that everyone should enjoy sex and have as much as they want to; when you are supposedly in a monogamous relationship, sleep with everyone you can, and when caught accuse people of rape, then you deserve a pejorative term. If I knew a guy that behaved in such a way, I would refer to him in terms just as derogatory.

1. This helps proves my point that without loads of evidence, a jury will not convict.
And this is exactly the way it should be – nobody should be convicted of rape without plenty of evidence.

2. I want to make it clear I’m not being totally biased here. I understand that the jury can not convict if they have reasonable doubt – however, in rape cases, convictions are not made unless there is total, or almost total certainty – even with UNreasonable doubt (such as sexist attitudes like “she asked for it” etc*), cases do not result in convictions… they only result in convictions where there is loads of evidence, so much evidence that is enough to overwhelm even the sexist attitudes present in a rape trial… so much evidence in fact that the police AND the prosecutors were positive the defendant was guilty and that the prosecutors were positive the case would result in a conviction despite sexist attitudes towards the woman from jury members and defence lawyers… so that if a person is even charge, it is extremely likely he did it, and if a person is being prosecuted, it is almost a certainty, or even a certainty, that he did it. I doubt that all juries have the attitude that ‘she asked for it’. Your view that everyone in the world is highly sexist is horrifically biased. Honestly, I hope that prosecutors only attempt a conviction of people they think are guilty – I would be appalled at any system where those involved just randomly ruin peoples’ lives based on nothing more than vague rumors, even more so if they actively try to ruin the lives of people they believe to be innocent. You cannot simply assume all men are rapists and should be put on trial any time they look in the general direction of a woman.

3. (a) The “I was too drunk to stop myself being violent to another person is a load of crap… if you drink depressed, you get more depressed, if you drink happy, you get more happy, and if you drink with violent thoughts, you get more violent – BUT violence doesn’t suddenly appear in your mind when you’ve had a drink unless you were already considering it. http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/myths.html (do CTRL and F and type “drunk” then hit enter twice).
(b)for him to have done something that required as careful planning as to wait until she was alone, force himself into her, and prevent her screaming for help, I seriously doubt it was a spontaneous “mistake”.
I never said, nor do I believe, that being drunk excuses one from the culpability for one’s actions. I never said the incident was violent, you are making that assumption with no indication of that at all. You are also assuming that he planned to get her alone and rape her. It was never planned, nor did she try to scream for help. You are projecting your own experience of having been raped onto every case – not all situations are like that. She was passive in this situation, he took the position of not objecting was consent (which I do not agree with), she did not struggle or scream (which was in her own testimony).

Perhaps then a suspect’s info in a rape case should not be given out until they have been charged. I’ve already sufficiently explained the reasons why their info NEEDS to be given out after they’ve been charged. But what you have wrote here proves my point – the cases never went to trial, as there wasn’t enough evidence, as rape case don’t go to trial unless there is so much evidence that it is almost impossible, if not impossible, for the suspect to actually be innocent.
The criminal justice system in the US is public. If someone is arrested, their names are published along with the charge against them. It usually takes some evidence that the crime has been committed before an arrest warrant is issued, but that all depends on the judge – some of whom are willing to sign a warrant on nothing more than the accusation.
When a woman makes a public accusation, it tarnishes the reputation of the accused, regardless of any validity of the accusation or the slightest particle of evidence. One does not need a conviction to ruin a man’s life, and it does not take a conviction for a woman to publicly accuse someone (and in the interest of not discouraging actual victims of rape, women who make even the most ludicrous accusations are protected from punitive action for false claims).

This type of case (if it happened, see first response to you) is extremely rare. Plus the guy had a crap lawyer, and I would have asked for a different one if I didn’t like him, especially when I could be sentenced for something so vile and be locked up for so long. And, not that I’m saying he’s actually guilty or anything, but I find it very suspicious when an innocent man, accused of such a vile crime as rape, knowing he could be locked for a long time and have his reputation destroyed, decides to plead guilty. I’m pretty certain most innocent men would claim innocence to and beyond their death.
Rare does not mean non-existent nor does it mean impossible.
Yes, he had a crap lawyer. He was not a highly educated man, and thus was not fully aware of all his means of defending himself. Most people, when under constant psychological assault for a couple months (especially when the one supposedly on their side is in on it), tend not to be thinking all that clearly. His defense lawyer said that it was a foregone conclusion that he was going to be convicted (despite the total lack of evidence), then he was offered the choice of 15 years or 5 years, but he was going to do time either way. In that situation, it is entirely reasonable for an innocent man to plea bargain. He should not have done it, but the situation did not entirely lend itself to putting him in a calm logical mindset.

False accusations do happen, and false convictions are made. This is a fact. Your supposition that they are ‘nearly impossible’ is a load of BS – not to mention your inclusion of ‘nearly’ shows that, at least on some level, you admit to the possibility that some innocent men are wrongly convicted.

You need to seek counseling for your experiences – do not assume all accusations are true simply because you are bitter.

Originally Posted by Multiland
And there are many sources that do agree with me, like the FBI.

But forget about a statistics war for a moment and look at what I wrote. Look at the phases a report has to go through. And use an open mind to consider, based on EVERY ASPECT OF THAT, how likely it is that a false report coule even result in a charge, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Naturally, the answer is very unlikely to extremely unlikely (or perhaps even to almost impossible).

Tekania:
Your firgures are self-contradictory, so I simply will not agree with you.

false-rape accusations cannot be admitantly 1-2% and "impossible" at the same time. ANY admitted percentage greater than 0 automatically makes false results a possibility (even if unlikey).... "almost impossible" is a term a sophist will use to sway the emotion of his hearers, while trying to make their own facts look and sound "good"; possibility/impossibility are absolutes, there is no "almost impossible"..... "almost impossible" == possible, by any standards, since it self admits that there is in fact a possiblity.

My figures are not self-contradictory. I said false ACCUSATIONS represent 1-2% of REPORTS but that due to the system, CHARGES/PROSECUTIONS as a result of such reports are extremely unlikely or almost impossible.

The fact remains false accusations are very rare
__________________

Khadgar:
False accusations are very common.

Trials based on false accusations are quite rare.


Unfortunately all it takes is the accusation to destroy a man's reputation.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back this up – it is just your ill-informed or uninformed opinion.

The fact remains that false accusations are very rare and trials based on false accusations are extremely unlikely, if not almost impossible

Deep Kimchi:

Theoretically, in court, a jury does not expect a defendant to "prove" his innocence. That would imply that the defendant was required to prove a negative. In court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accuser - the defendant may remain silent if the supposed proof sounds obsequious.

I stand corrected on this, but in the UK, if a defendant doesn’t “defend” their self (eg says nothing throughout), a jury can convict based on that, as far as I’m aware.

However, the rest of what I said still stands (such as the fact that in a rape trial, the victim is made to feel as though THEY are on trial, as instead of the prosecution just being allowed to try to prove the defendant guilty, they take on a kind of “double role” where they also have to play defence for the victim who must prove that he/she is not lying), backed up by the evidence.

------------------------

Originally Posted by Multiland
The only DNA evidence that is totally conclusive may be semen, but if the defendant claims the “sex” was “consensual”, yet there are marks consistent with a fight such as scratches etc, then it’s reasonable to believe he is lying.

Dempublicents1:
Depends. What if rough sex was the norm for them? What if he claims that it was?


Well if he admits that he’s never had sex with her before, then it’s not exactly going to be “the norm” is it? For example, where the two did not know each other (and yes, I do know that in the majority of cases the victim knows their attacker – and has, prior to the violence, trusted them). *finds it strange people would want to be so violent to people who they are supposed to be friends with – and yes it is about violence and/or power, rapists have been interviewed over this, look it up yourself as that’s a different “debate *
Plus there are other types of DNA evidence that may contradict the attacker’s story.

Because of the lack of witnesses, there is *always* a way to cast doubt on the story.

Which is one reason LOADS of evidence is collected before even the police will charge, let alone hand the case to the prosecutors for them to see the evidence and be satisfied that there’s enough evidence before they will prosecute.

Multiland:
If the defendant claims the rape never took place and that sex never took place, then any other DNA evidence is conclusive. Hence the reason that police advice is not only not to shower, but not to get rid of your clothes until the police have assessed the victim.

Dempublicents1:
Indeed. But many women are in shock and aren't really thinking about that. Many don't report it for weeks or months afterwards (if at all).

True (though the scene of the crime can still be checked in such a case). I’m actually glad you said this, as it helps highlight the fact that just because a woman hasn’t reported a rape for a long time (including years), it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Multiland:
You are either seriously naïve, a liar, or ignorant.

Entropic Creation:
Not at all. First of all, the UK does not encompass the entirety of the world. I'm in the US, actually. And rape cases here sometimes do go to trial, even if the report of the rape wasn't made for years afterwards. There certainly isn't much physical evidence to be gained at that point. It is less common that such cases actually reach trial, but they do.

Correct, the UK doesn’t encompass the entirety of the world. But in the original post, I was righting in response to wrong information believed by people in the UK and the USA. I am referring to UK, USA, and Australia rape laws. I can not truthfully speak for other countries, such as those in the “undeveloped world”.
Just because a rape case wasn’t reported for years doesn’t mean there is no evidence. Even if no DNA, alibis can be proved to be false, rapists can be made to contradict themselves, etc. And the amount that do reach trial after such a long time are rare, and there still has to be loads of evidence.
The fact remains that false accusations are rare, and trials based on false accusations are extremely rare, if not almost impossible

Multiland:
Historically, despite the official line being “innocent until proven guilty”, the defendant has had to prove their self innocent during the trial, as the prosecution try to prove they are guilty. But in a rape case, the victim has to prove their self innocent of lying.

Dempublicents1:
Proving yourself to be truthful, in this case, is the exact same thing as proving the defendant to be guilty. There is no way around it.

No it isn’t. You can prove the defendant guilty based on the evidence without attacking the victim’s reputation, and this is how other trials work. In rape trials, defence lawyers are allowed to bring up loads of irrelevant details of THE VICTIM’S past, yet the same is not done to the defendant. The onus, as has been previously stated, is on the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty, NOT on the victim to prove their self innocent (of lying/twisting the truth/etc).

Multiland:
It is the victims who feel as though they are on trial, which is obviously wrong.

Dempublicents1:
Indeed. But they don't feel like they are on trial because they have to show proof that they aren't lying. They feel this way because their entire sexual history is often brought into it. Their character is attacked. They are told that, just by being sexually active, they obviously wanted it. And so on...

That’s just part of it, and is totally irrelevant to the case (I’m not saying what you said is irrelevant, I’m saying bringing that stuff (which, of course, has nothing to do with the specific case) into it is irrelevant to the case. After all, when someone has their money robbed, the prosecution don’t start going on about how the defendant (let’s assume they are Christian) liked to give money to people so must have agreed to let the thief have the money now do they??
The victim still has to prove their self innocent, instead of the prosecution simply having to prove the defendant guilty (totally different from other crimes).

Multiland:
There are no witnesses in a lot of other cases not involving rape.

Dempublicents1:
Yes, but rape is pretty the only crime in which a total lack of witnesses is found in the majority of cases. It nearly always occurs when the victim and rapist are completely alone.

And, in any case where there are no witnesses, prosecution is very difficult.

But the difference is, other cases still get prosecuted without witnesses even if there is not a lot of other evidence, as the jury are trusted to be able tell if the defendant is lying based on not just what little evidence there may be, but on the way they answer the questions or on them contradicting their self in court, or on false alibis etc. In a rape case, there has to be loads of evidence before the case will go to trial (in fact before a charge will even be made). It should not be one rule for rape cases and a different rule for every other type of case.

Multiland:
There shouldn’t be different rules for rape cases than all other cases. But in a rape case, a lot of evidence is required before the police will even charge a suspect, let alone before the prosecutors decide whether to go ahead.

Dempublicents1:
And this is different from other crimes, how? Generally, in any crime, quite a bit of evidence is needed before charges are filed, or prosecutors decide to go on.

See above. The amount of evidence required in a rape case is more than is required in other cases.
If you don’t believe me, why don’t you just got ask a lawyer tomorrow morning? Same suggestion to everyone else.

Multiland:
Thus, if a person actually ends up in court charged with rape, it is almost certainly a fact that they committed that crime (based on the amounts of evidence, the fact that the police won’t even charge without loads of evidence, the fact that the prosecutors won’t prosecute without loads of evidence, etc etc etc) and if they are convicted then it is virtually impossible, perhaps even impossible, for the conviction to be wrong.

Dempublicents1:
It is never impossible for the conviction to be wrong. The human element in the system ensures that wrong convictions (and wrong innocent verdicts) will be reached.


I did say PERHAPS impossible, and I still think it may be in such cases, but, based on all the factors posted above, it is certainly virtually impossible for a conviction of rape to be wrong

Multiland:
Yes it is made worse when false accusations occur, but that doesn’t change the fact that false accusations are rare. The FBI haven’t replied to me yet on the exact figure, but I’ll post the e-mail here when they do to back up my previously-posted evidence further.

Dempublicents1:
The problem is that even one false accusation causes a problem for every victim. In something that, in the end, often boils down to "he said/she said," a person who brings a false charge has committed a particularly heinous crime.

1. Yes even one false accusation causes a problem for victims (for example by encouraging the INACCURATE view that false accusations are rare).
2. It virtually never boils down to “he said/she said”, as, as I stated before, loads of evidence is required before a trial will be brought (or even before a charge will be made).
The fact remains that false accusations are very rare (I may have put “rare” instead of very rare somewhere above but meant very rare, as I have consistently stated).
Multiland:
And I never said that false accusations were harmless – they are VERY harmful (in the RARE instances that they happen), as they encourage attitudes like yours, helping more people to WRONGLY believe that false accusations happen a lot.
Dempublicents1:
Exactly.

You’ve just agreed that the belief that false accusations happen a lot is wrong. Well done.

The fact remains that false accusations are very rare

-----------------------


Entropic Creation:
I am going to go out on a limb and take a guess that you have been raped.
While it is tragic and I am sorry that you had to experience such a thing, you need to stop projecting your own event on everything. Not all men are rapists. Just because someone is a male does not mean he sees all women as sluts who deserve it. Simply because someone dared to question your accusation does not mean that every accusation is true and anyone questioning is just a sexist bastard who is trying to deny that there is such a thing as rape.

You really are going out on a limb. Statistically, being a male, I have quite a low chance of being raped (though rapes of males have happened of course). If anyone tried to rape me, they’d have a challenge since I grew up exposed to high levels of violence and learned to defend myself, supplemented with Martial Arts training in later years. I have not been raped.
I never said all males see women as sluts, but based on the amount of males who refer to them as such, I’d take a wild guess that it’s quite a lot of men who do.
As for the rest of what you wrote above, I posted evidence referring to what I said. Simple as.

:
Originally Posted by Multiland
I would like to know how you were able to be involved in SEVEN cases, considering the fact only relatives or friends are usually allowed due to confidentiality/privacy issues. I personally think you have made up that statement to support your views, possibly sexist ones, evidenced by the way you referred to a woman as the “town bicycle” further in your post (would you have referred to a man in the same way under the same circumstances?). But I shall respond anyway to the cases relevant to this thread.

EC:
Unfortunately rape accusations are not all that rare where I come from, so knowing people involved in rape cases is not that uncommon. So you claim that where you live only those intimately involved in a case ever hear about it? While none of my relatives have been involved in a rape case, it may surprise you that some people (myself included) do tend to have friends. Calling someone sexist simply because they do not ascribe to your 'all men are evil rapists' view shows your severe bias.

And where exactly do you come from? If UK, USA, or Australia, false reports are rare, which means you are lying (again?).
Of course I know people have friends. I’m sure you do too. I still think you’re a liar, and I find it strange, based on your general attitude in your earlier post, that you would have been told by the victims of SEVEN cases the explicit details of each case. I said your views were POSSIBLY sexist, and I said that based on the way you wrote what you wrote, not based on the fact that, it would now appear, you are male.

I referred to that particular woman as the 'town bicycle' because she deserves such a pejorative term, not because she was a female that enjoyed sex. I happen to think that everyone should enjoy sex and have as much as they want to; when you are supposedly in a monogamous relationship, sleep with everyone you can, and when caught accuse people of rape, then you deserve a pejorative term. If I knew a guy that behaved in such a way, I would refer to him in terms just as derogatory.

Well isn’t it nice to know you treat both males and females equally disrespectfully? As I suggested anyway, I find it strange that a man accused of such a vile crime would not get rid of a crap lawyer (and replace that lawyer) and plead innocence until death, if really innocent.

Multiland:
1. This helps proves my point that without loads of evidence, a jury will not convict.

Entropic Creation:
And this is exactly the way it should be – nobody should be convicted of rape without plenty of evidence.

But the amount required makes convictions WAY more difficult than in other types of cases, as the amount needed is A LOT more than in other cases. A jury is only supposed to fail to convict based on REASONABLE DOUBT, not based on there not been LOADS of evidence despite the evidence that is available being conclusive enough.

Multiland:
2. I want to make it clear I’m not being totally biased here. I understand that the jury can not convict if they have reasonable doubt – however, in rape cases, convictions are not made unless there is total, or almost total certainty – even with UNreasonable doubt (such as sexist attitudes like “she asked for it” etc*), cases do not result in convictions… they only result in convictions where there is loads of evidence, so much evidence that is enough to overwhelm even the sexist attitudes present in a rape trial… so much evidence in fact that the police AND the prosecutors were positive the defendant was guilty and that the prosecutors were positive the case would result in a conviction despite sexist attitudes towards the woman from jury members and defence lawyers… so that if a person is even charge, it is extremely likely he did it, and if a person is being prosecuted, it is almost a certainty, or even a certainty, that he did it.

Entropic Creation:
I doubt that all juries have the attitude that ‘she asked for it’. Your view that everyone in the world is highly sexist is horrifically biased.

I doubt that all juries hold that view too. But, unfortunately, as can be testified to by many victims (not to mention many websites such as http://www.survive.org.uk and http://www.rapecrisis.co.uk) , many do hold that view.
I do not have the view that everyone in the world is horrifically sexist. But discuss a few rape cases with friends, ensuring they know the details as the media has reported them. You are likely to find incredible sexism. There was also recently a survey carried out by Amnesty that showed a third of the people interviewed believed that rape was acceptable in some circumstances. There is horrific sexism where rape cases (and rape its self) are concerned.

Honestly, I hope that prosecutors only attempt a conviction of people they think are guilty – I would be appalled at any system where those involved just randomly ruin peoples’ lives based on nothing more than vague rumors, even more so if they actively try to ruin the lives of people they believe to be innocent. You cannot simply assume all men are rapists and should be put on trial any time they look in the general direction of a woman.

I don’t want prosecutors to convince juries to convict innocent people either. I was involved in a theatre performance last year based on miscarriages of justice (specifically about innocent people being wrongly convicted), which used facts, so I’ve seen details of the horrors of being wrongly convicted. But in any case except rape, the decision not to convict is based on REASONABLE DOUBT, not on there not being LOADS of evidence. In rape cases, the opposite is true. One defence lawyer has even publicly stated (I’ve been looking for the link but haven’t found it yet, it’s on BBC website somewhere) that he liked rape cases because they are easy to defend as the trials are so much in favour of the defendant, much more so than any other type of case he has defended.

Multiland:
3. (a) The “I was too drunk to stop myself being violent to another person is a load of crap… if you drink depressed, you get more depressed, if you drink happy, you get more happy, and if you drink with violent thoughts, you get more violent – BUT violence doesn’t suddenly appear in your mind when you’ve had a drink unless you were already considering it. http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/myths.html (do CTRL and F and type “drunk” then hit enter twice).
(b)for him to have done something that required as careful planning as to wait until she was alone, force himself into her, and prevent her screaming for help, I seriously doubt it was a spontaneous “mistake”.

EC:
I never said, nor do I believe, that being drunk excuses one from the culpability for one’s actions. I never said the incident was violent, you are making that assumption with no indication of that at all. You are also assuming that he planned to get her alone and rape her. It was never planned, nor did she try to scream for help. You are projecting your own experience of having been raped onto every case – not all situations are like that. She was passive in this situation, he took the position of not objecting was consent (which I do not agree with), she did not struggle or scream (which was in her own testimony).

1. Rape IS an act of violence, but that’s a whole different debate which has been discussed at MASSIVE length on this forum previously (do a search for it). It has also been discussed on http://www.salfordstudents.com, but I’m not sure if the thread is still there.

2. Rapes are usually planned.

3. For him to have carried out the act, unless he suddenly grabbed her off the dancefloor and raped her in front of everyone, it had to be planned to some extent (even if that was “just” to the extent that he planned on where to do it or on how to stop her screaming if she tried to).

4. I have not been raped. It is YOU who is making unfounded assumptions… you seem to think that just because I want to defend rights of people (victims and defendants) and that in this thread it is specific to rape accusations, I must be a woman who has been raped by a man. This further evidences your apparent sexism. And no, not all rapes are planned – but the majority are.

5. You are right that not objecting does not equal consent. She could well have been in shock.

6. The fact she didn’t scream, for whatever reason, is totally irrelevant, as she may have been in shock.

Multiland:
Perhaps then a suspect’s info in a rape case should not be given out until they have been charged. I’ve already sufficiently explained the reasons why their info NEEDS to be given out after they’ve been charged. But what you have wrote here proves my point – the cases never went to trial, as there wasn’t enough evidence, as rape case don’t go to trial unless there is so much evidence that it is almost impossible, if not impossible, for the suspect to actually be innocent.

Entropic Creation:
The criminal justice system in the US is public. If someone is arrested, their names are published along with the charge against them. It usually takes some evidence that the crime has been committed before an arrest warrant is issued, but that all depends on the judge – some of whom are willing to sign a warrant on nothing more than the accusation.
When a woman makes a public accusation, it tarnishes the reputation of the accused, regardless of any validity of the accusation or the slightest particle of evidence. One does not need a conviction to ruin a man’s life, and it does not take a conviction for a woman to publicly accuse someone (and in the interest of not discouraging actual victims of rape, women who make even the most ludicrous accusations are protected from punitive action for false claims).

1. The US justice system is too public in my opinion. For example, in the Michael Jackson case not that long ago, it was announced publicly that he’d been accused of sexually abusing the guy who’s name I can’t spell, Mcauley whoever. It’s not very likely, considering the stigma (which should not exist, as the victim has done nothing wrong) surrounding sexual abuse, that the guy is going to admit to millions of people that he was sexually abused. His name should have been kept private.

2. If police began to charge based on a little less than the ridiculous amounts of evidence they have to collect in rape cases (if there wasn’t enough, prosecutors could easily decide to prosecute), then I would agree that the suspect’s info should not be given out until they are charged (it would still have to be given out after the charge to encourage more victims to come forwards). If the government(s) paid for awareness campaigns and the system was improved, I would be all for the suspect’s name being hidden until conviction, or at least prosecution. As it stands though, the system is almost entirely in favour of the defendant, making it very difficult to get a conviction without LOADS of evidence, so as many people as possible are needed to come forward.

3. I’m not saying it doesn’t, but if a person is arrested AND RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE, I fail to see how, in any case (rape or not), it tarnishes their reputation, as it suggests to the public that the police believe (at least for the time being) that the person is are not guilty.

Multiland:
This type of case (if it happened, see first response to you) is extremely rare. Plus the guy had a crap lawyer, and I would have asked for a different one if I didn’t like him, especially when I could be sentenced for something so vile and be locked up for so long. And, not that I’m saying he’s actually guilty or anything, but I find it very suspicious when an innocent man, accused of such a vile crime as rape, knowing he could be locked for a long time and have his reputation destroyed, decides to plead guilty. I’m pretty certain most innocent men would claim innocence to and beyond their death.

Entropic Creation:
Rare does not mean non-existent nor does it mean impossible.

True. It doesn’t. But it does mean RARE.

Entropic Creation:
Yes, he had a crap lawyer. He was not a highly educated man, and thus was not fully aware of all his means of defending himself. Most people, when under constant psychological assault for a couple months (especially when the one supposedly on their side is in on it), tend not to be thinking all that clearly……..

But even an uneducated man knows whether they are innocent. There were many black people accused of stuff in the days of segregation, and in that period they had a much lower standard of education than white people (due to white people being treated better), but those accused continued to claim innocence right past conviction, standing by their name and their honour. I don’t see why someone, educated or not, would want to have their name and honour tarnished with the conviction of rape (which could result in their family being attacked, as all too often people believe bad things of a whole family based on the actions of one family member).

Entropic Creation:

False accusations do happen, and false convictions are made.

Yes they do. But as evidenced, they are very rare.

Entropic Creation:

…on some level, you admit to the possibility that some innocent men are wrongly convicted.

Perhaps. But it’s virtually impossible (if I said nearly, I meant virtually, as I have previously stated).

You need to seek counseling for your experiences – do not assume all accusations are true simply because you are bitter.

You need to stop making up stuff about me, stop being sexist, and stop lying. Have a nice day.

The fact remains that false accusations of rape are very rare