NationStates Jolt Archive

False allegations of rape may make for gripping headlines in the newspapers, but they can also ruin the lives of those men who've been accused despite being innocent.

According to Home Office research, between 3% and 9% of all reports of rape are found to be false. Yet the lives of those men accused are often devastated. Some even commit suicide, so terrible is the stigma of being charged with sexual assault - even if subsequently cleared.

In Jason's case, his neighbour asked to be moved to another flat due to concern about the accused man's proximity to his daughters. For Ben, his apprenticeship as a plumber was terminated and he faced widespread suspicion from people he knew.

"My door became blacklisted," says Ben. "People would rather avoid me than speak to me, they literally took her word. My dad didn't take it too well either. He had doubts in what I was saying so that created problems with my home life.

"It wasn't like I was convicted for it. I think some people still like to disbelieve me. They definitely regard me as the guilty person."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm


The complainant in rape cases is granted total anonymity; no such protection exists for those who they accuse.

When allegations of sexual assault can be so devastating to the accused, who may never clear his name in the eyes of those around him even if acquitted, should the law offer them the same degree of protection that it offers those who make the complaint?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm


The complainant in rape cases is granted total anonymity; no such protection exists for those who they accuse.

When allegations of sexual assault can be so devastating to the accused, who may never clear his name in the eyes of those around him even if acquitted, should the law offer them the same degree of protection that it offers those who make the complaint?

Innocent until proven guilty.
I think the accused should be granted the same anonymity as the victim, until he had a fair trail and was actually found guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.
I think the accused should be granted the same anonymity as the victim, until he had a fair trail and was actually found guilty.

Agreed.

Innocent until proven guilty.
I think the accused should be granted the same anonymity as the victim, until he had a fair trail and was actually found guilty.

But if anonymity is given, you have potential other problems; the issue of open justice, for example. Also, if it is given for rape, then how could it be justified not giving it for other serious crimes?

Plus, there is the fact that other potential victims won't be able to come forward if they don't know who is being charged.

But if anonymity is given, you have potential other problems; the issue of open justice, for example. Also, if it is given for rape, then how could it be justified not giving it for other serious crimes?It can be justified by pointing out that few people get shunned for having been accused as thieves, murderers, or burglars.

But if anonymity is given, you have potential other problems; the issue of open justice, for example. Also, if it is given for rape, then how could it be justified not giving it for other serious crimes?

Plus, there is the fact that other potential victims won't be able to come forward if they don't know who is being charged.

I think it should apply to all instances of legal prosecution of violent crimes. This is the case in Germany, both accuser and accused are always granted anonymity until the case has been decided; you can imagine my shock and horror when I first came to Ireland and found that not only will the names of everyone involved be published, they even will tell you were those people live on the evening news. I regard that as highly dangerous to all involved, and a general parody of justice.
The public is always quick to reach a conclusion without ever bothering to look at all the facts, and they will not easily be convinced of someone's innocence, once they've come to think of them as guilty.

I think publicising names to make more victims come forward is more likely to create more false accusations than to actually make a vicitm who had been silent until then stand up and make an accusation.

It can be justified by pointing out that few people get shunned for having been accused as thieves, murderers, or burglars.

You wouldn't think twice about asking the guy next door to look after your house while you're on holiday if he'd been on trial for a burglary?

You wouldn't think twice about asking the guy next door to look after your house while you're on holiday if he'd been on trial for a burglary?Yeah, but that guy doesn't have an inherent right to watch your house.

this is something that has always bothered me especially on the evening news/tabloids where they also show what the accused look like in a very sinister pose

but of course if we don't get to know who he/she/it is how will we be able to keep the elderly in perpetual fear!?!

I think the accused should be granted the same anonymity as the victim, until he had a fair trail and was actually found guilty.

why should it be handed out if the accused is found guilty?

why should it be handed out if the accused is found guilty?
Probably because they become a sex offender then.

But yes, the accusal of rape automatically makes the supposed rapist an outcast, even if the accusal is frivolous and a lie. The accused in a rape is always guilty, even if not proven guilty, from the second of accusal. I don't recall that being the way other crimes work.

But if anonymity is given, you have potential other problems; the issue of open justice, for example. Also, if it is given for rape, then how could it be justified not giving it for other serious crimes?

Plus, there is the fact that other potential victims won't be able to come forward if they don't know who is being charged.
Maybe it SHOULD be given for other serious crimes.

I think it should apply to all instances of legal prosecution of violent crimes. This is the case in Germany, both accuser and accused are always granted anonymity until the case has been decided; you can imagine my shock and horror when I first came to Ireland and found that not only will the names of everyone involved be published, they even will tell you were those people live on the evening news. I regard that as highly dangerous to all involved, and a general parody of justice.
The public is always quick to reach a conclusion without ever bothering to look at all the facts, and they will not easily be convinced of someone's innocence, once they've come to think of them as guilty.

I think publicising names to make more victims come forward is more likely to create more false accusations than to actually make a vicitm who had been silent until then stand up and make an accusation.
Not to mention that the public doesn't give a small fraction of a damn how much trouble people get in for things they didn't do. I remember in grade 6 when a few people in the class took stuff out of the teacher's purse to make it look like I did it, not one person in the class bothered to say that I didn't, and yet somehow the teacher saw through the whole class's simultaneous lying...

Probably because they become a sex offender then.

:confused:

Not to mention that the public doesn't give a small fraction of a damn how much trouble people get in for things they didn't do. I remember in grade 6 when a few people in the class took stuff out of the teacher's purse to make it look like I did it, not one person in the class bothered to say that I didn't, and yet somehow the teacher saw through the whole class's simultaneous lying...

thats some awful nice candy you have there ;)

why should it be handed out if the accused is found guilty?

I didn't mean that in the sense of being carried to the press and made public. But I believe that in most legal systems, the police are at liberty to disclose the names of convicted offenders. You do have to contact them and ask for a specific case, though.

I'm not at all in favour of informing the general public about the background of anyone who lives in the neighbourhood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm


The complainant in rape cases is granted total anonymity; no such protection exists for those who they accuse.

When allegations of sexual assault can be so devastating to the accused, who may never clear his name in the eyes of those around him even if acquitted, should the law offer them the same degree of protection that it offers those who make the complaint?
I think there should also be a criminal punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape. Of course, you'd need to be pretty sure that the accusation was false before prosecuting it, (if there's enough uncertaintly in an alleged rape case, neither side will be prosecuted, just to emphasize that it's not about "siding with the man" but about the most important human right of all, the benefit of a doubt) but I've heard of cases of false CONVICTIONS of rape being proven wrong (such as with video evidence showing that the sex was consensual) so cases of false rape accusations can be prosecuted.

Many of the same things about rape (the devastation, stigma, and inclinations to suicide) that apply to rape victims also apply to people who have been falsely accused of rape, and maybe having false rape accusations be a crime as well might make people think twice before falsely accusing someone of rape.

:confused:



thats some awful nice candy you have there ;)
Wait... what? What are you talking about?

Many of the same things about rape (the devastation, stigma, and inclinations to suicide) that apply to rape victims also apply to people who have been falsely accused of rape, and maybe having false rape accusations be a crime as well might make people think twice before falsely accusing someone of rape.

iirc the accused can take the case to court and receive compensation which would come under libel

its just that usually people prefer trying to get their lives back to normal

Wait... what? What are you talking about?

I not accusing you of anything, its just that maybe you abused a teachers trust :p

I not accusing you of anything
I never claimed that you accused me of anything, but what the hell were you saying?

I think there should also be a criminal punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape. Of course, you'd need to be pretty sure that the accusation was false before prosecuting it, (if there's enough uncertaintly in an alleged rape case, neither side will be prosecuted, just to emphasize that it's not about "siding with the man" but about the most important human right of all, the benefit of a doubt) but I've heard of cases of false CONVICTIONS of rape being proven wrong (such as with video evidence showing that the sex was consensual) so cases of false rape accusations can be prosecuted.

In the UK, there are a number of criminal criminal charges that can be brought against a false accuser. I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same in Canada. Naturally, as you say, the court needs to be sure the allegation was false. [Add: Perjury is the most common charge.]

why should it be handed out if the accused is found guilty?

Because the alternative is to live in a country where the police come for your neighbour one day... and you never see them again. I know people who've lived in countries where that happened. None of them liked it. [Add: In case you are wondering - Uganda in the 80s, Russia in the 50s, former Yugoslavia in the 90s.]

These issues (right to privacy vs open justice) have been brought up a few times over the years, but Parliament and the High Court have almost always come down on the side of open justice. The only exceptions I can think of are the Sex Offences Act (anonymity for sex offence victims) and the Children and Young Persons Act (anonymity for under 18s giving evidence in court).

and in a similar erosion of the idea of innocent until proven guilty the uk authorities would like to confiscate you're assets before you are even charged with a crime (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266109.stm).

it's all very well saying "suspects found to be "completely innocent" would get their goods back" mrs. smith, but how long do you supose that will take. given the state of the judicial system, not less than several months and possibly even several years down the line and that doesn't include the time before the case is even taken to court. i understand what the proposed measure is supposed to achieve, but really, this is wholly unacceptable.

and in a similar erosion of the idea of innocent until proven guilty the uk authorities would like to confiscate you're assets before you are even charged with a crime (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266109.stm).

it's all very well saying "suspects found to be "completely innocent" would get their goods back" mrs. smith, but how long do you supose that will take. given the state of the judicial system, not less than several months and possibly even several years down the line and that doesn't include the time before the case is even taken to court. i understand what the proposed measure is supposed to achieve, but really, this is wholly unacceptable.

Governments have long been thieving.

My German ancestors had all their assets siezed by the government in WWI and never saw them again.

As many girls accuse people of Rape to absolve their guilt, I think this is a good idea.

Governments have long been thieving.

My German ancestors had all their assets siezed by the government in WWI and never saw them again.

As many girls accuse people of Rape to absolve their guilt, I think this is a good idea.

Many? I think the stats quoted are around 3-5% of all reported rape cases.
Considering that most rape cases still aren't even reported, I daresay you've got a pretty screwed idea of "many".

The potential problem I see with anonymity for the accused is that I would think it would pretty much necessitate removing the option of bail from all of them, since it would be a great deal easier to skip out on your court date if no one knows you have one, if no flags go up when you try to leave the country, and so on. It would pretty quickly make the standard "punishment" for rape "temporary exile to a country of your choice," which hardly seems like an appropriate penalty.

Many? I think the stats quoted are around 3-5% of all reported rape cases.
Considering that most rape cases still aren't even reported, I daresay you've got a pretty screwed idea of "many".

Many as in quantity not majority.

Whilst there is much rape about (I blame the lack of Government subsidised Brothels) there are always those who lie.

For whatever reason.

Presumably the reason why people may feel that someone accused but cleared of rape is not entirely innocent is because they feel that guilty people are not being convicted. Rather than change the law away from the idea that justice should be out in the open, it would be better to look at ways of improving the conviction rate.

Many as in quantity not majority.

Whilst there is much rape about (I blame the lack of Government subsidised Brothels) there are always those who lie.

For whatever reason.


One in four women report being raped at least once in their lives.
Police suspect that only about 1/3 of all rapes are reported.
Of all those reports, between 3-5% lie about having been raped.
You do the maths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm


The complainant in rape cases is granted total anonymity; no such protection exists for those who they accuse.

When allegations of sexual assault can be so devastating to the accused, who may never clear his name in the eyes of those around him even if acquitted, should the law offer them the same degree of protection that it offers those who make the complaint?

No.


In rape convictions, less than 2% are false convictions, which is less than the number of false convictions for murder and almost any other crime. To me that means if you got off on a rap charge, you got lucky, the jury was stacked with men and women who think "she had it coming" or some such nonsense, or your attorny was successful in humiliating the victim by painting her as a slut and the jury bought it.

There is a reason the victims are granted anonymity. Its humiliated and being raped is still stigmatized in our culture and we still like to try and pretend its somehow her fault. Rapists deserve the scorn they get from society, even if they somehow got away with it.

As many girls accuse people of Rape to absolve their guilt, I think this is a good idea.

You are going to have to provide evidence if you make claims like this.

As many girls accuse people of Rape to absolve their guilt, I think this is a good idea.


I call bullshit. Source. Now.

I agree.

And I think women who falsely accuse men of rape should be prosecuted themselves.

Yes, I agree.

And Cabra West, put numbers in there.

60million Britons.

Roughly 30million females.

Thats gotta be a few thousand false accusations, or am I really so bad at maths.

Thats a lot of women.

Who no doubt are proping up the bar on a Friday night near you.

The potential problem I see with anonymity for the accused is that I would think it would pretty much necessitate removing the option of bail from all of them, since it would be a great deal easier to skip out on your court date if no one knows you have one, if no flags go up when you try to leave the country, and so on. It would pretty quickly make the standard "punishment" for rape "temporary exile to a country of your choice," which hardly seems like an appropriate penalty.

Well no, anonymity for the accused would just mean that the press would not be allowed to release their names, similar to the restrictions for releasing the names of under-18s. They would no doubt be flagged in customs/police records, because otherwise that would be silly.

I agree.

And I think women who falsely accuse men of rape should be prosecuted themselves.

I said "many girls", as in a large number (over 100).

I did not say "the Majority of Rape Victims".

Unfortunately it's a distinction that hasn't been appreciated in this thread.

Yes, I agree.

And Cabra West, put numbers in there.

60million Britons.

Roughly 30million females.

Thats gotta be a few thousand false accusations, or am I really so bad at maths.

Thats a lot of women.

Who no doubt are proping up the bar on a Friday night near you.

what is any of that supposed to prove?

Well no, anonymity for the accused would just mean that the press would not be allowed to release their names, similar to the restrictions for releasing the names of under-18s. They would no doubt be flagged in customs/police records, because otherwise that would be silly.

Well, that would certainly help some.

The other issue that occurs to me - it is not uncommon for photos/sketches of accused serious criminals to be put in newspapers and on TV in an attempt to bring those people to justice. Should this be stopped, too? And, if not, how do we reconcile declaring it okay to put someone's picture on the news as a rapist, but not their name?

After witnessing the mess that was the 2006 Duke lacrosse case where the three men falsely accused of rape in where they suffered hardship in their school life as well as their private life, I support Anonymity for those Accused of rape until after the trial.

I think in the United States, people have forgotten the "Innocence until proven Guilty" and now just want to label someone Innoncence or Guilty without all the information. Hell it took Attorney General Roy Cooper to delcare the three men Innocence before anyone took it seriously.

After witnessing the mess that was the 2006 Duke lacrosse case where the three men falsely accused of rape in where they suffered hardship in their school life as well as their private life, I support Anonymity for those Accused of rape until after the trial.

I think in the United States, people have forgotten the "Innocence until proven Guilty" and now just want to label someone Innoncence or Guilty without all the information. Hell it took Attorney General Roy Cooper to delcare the three men Innocence before anyone took it seriously.

Honostly, Im still not convinced they were innocent, but thats just me.

Well the Duke Lacrosse case was mostly the fault of a greedy and corrupt prosecutor looking to monopolize on racial tension. That whole case was very painful to me, as I found myself agreeing with Bill O'Reilly many times.

And for some of the posters earlier, no one is trying to make it look like rape victims "had it coming". Some of us just want to protect the innocent, who sometimes is the accused.

Men have it pretty hard these days. We can be accused of rape with no good evidence at all, we can lose custody battles in court for no reason at all, there are still ridiculous "alimony" laws out there that should have been abolished ages ago, and God help us if we're ever in a courtroom against a woman presided by a female judge.

Men have it pretty hard these days. We can be accused of rape with no good evidence at all, we can lose custody battles in court for no reason at all, there are still ridiculous "alimony" laws out there that should have been abolished ages ago, and God help us if we're ever in a courtroom against a woman presided by a female judge.

Yeah, poor men. It sucks so bad for you that you are somewhat more likely to be accused of rape (and about ten times less likely to be raped), that you are not always expected to be responsible for childcare, and that you have to deal with actual WOMEN in positions of authority (who are all sexist, as I'm sure you can prove).

Poor, poor men.

Well the Duke Lacrosse case was mostly the fault of a greedy and corrupt prosecutor looking to monopolize on racial tension. That whole case was very painful to me, as I found myself agreeing with Bill O'Reilly many times.

And for some of the posters earlier, no one is trying to make it look like rape victims "had it coming". Some of us just want to protect the innocent, who sometimes is the accused.


I agree, and I know someone is going to ask me "But how come you haven't said you support Anonymity for the accuser?"

Let me just go ahead and say that in a rape case both side should be provided with Anonymity. That way the accused will be protected from having his life ruined if found innoncent and the accuser won't get bothered by idiots who thinks "She had it coming".

Both side wins.

It probably is a good idea to give all defendants anonymity in public until the trial is done. The media have a way of making people guilty well before a trial is done.

It probably is a good idea to give all defendants anonymity in public until the trial is done. The media have a way of making people guilty well before a trial is done.

Oh yea, they do it all the time. What I don't get is why when a crime happens, the local paper decides the publish the person's full name, and address! God that's just asking for trouble...

I think there should also be a criminal punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape. Of course, you'd need to be pretty sure that the accusation was false before prosecuting it, (if there's enough uncertaintly in an alleged rape case, neither side will be prosecuted, just to emphasize that it's not about "siding with the man" but about the most important human right of all, the benefit of a doubt) but I've heard of cases of false CONVICTIONS of rape being proven wrong (such as with video evidence showing that the sex was consensual) so cases of false rape accusations can be prosecuted.

Those cases aren't necessarily a matter of false accusation, though. Sometimes it's more a matter of mistaken identity. It is possible for someone to be raped under circumstances in which their memories are rather hazy and they pick the wrong person out of a line-up or something along those lines. And, in some cases, the victim is dead.

Unless you've got some incredibly clear evidence that the person was intentionally bringing a false charge, that's not going to be an easy conviction to get. Not to mention the fact that, IIRC, false police reports, etc. are already a crime.

It probably is a good idea to give all defendants anonymity in public until the trial is done. The media have a way of making people guilty well before a trial is done.

The one problem with that is that court rooms are generally open access, with public galleries.

You know, the whole justice has to be seen thing.

Oh yea, they do it all the time. What I don't get is why when a crime happens, the local paper decides the publish the person's full name, and address!

Why? So as to obtain absolute privilege (or qualified privilege if the information has come from police or the CPS) under the Defamation Act.

In layman's terms: If you're going to defame somebody, you have to make it totally clear who is being accused. Otherwise you could be sued by literally hundreds of people.

What we have to always bear in mind is that an accusation is not proof of a crime. Therefore by trying the innocent in a public forum such as the local newspaper before a jury has determined the facts is putting the cart before the horse.

I have no problem with the public knowing an accusation has been made. However, until it is adjuducated, the names involved and the circumstances should not be in the public arena. Nor should it be available to anyone but legitimate investigators and court officials for the purpose of dispensing justice.

Until a finding is indeed found, there is nothing. Furthermore, when a defendant is found guilty and has served their sentence, society should not be permitted to hold it against them. If you constantly attempt to meat out additional or vigilante justice after the debt to society is paid, you encourage the individual to commit additional crimes. You have to allow them the right to move on or they will take a different road. The road you intend them to take.

The justice system is basically corrupt and is done in the media long before a trial to taint the jury pool. Further justice is also mediated by financial ability. If you remove the money and the media, you will get a lot more justice. The judge is not constantly wondering about what the public thinks and is more likely to do their job. Judge Ito was a prime example.

And for some of the posters earlier, no one is trying to make it look like rape victims "had it coming". Some of us just want to protect the innocent, who sometimes is the accused.

Actually, it's a common tactic in rape cases to do just that. They ask what the victim was wearing. They paint the victim as a slut. They say the victim led the rapist on. All of these are designed to suggest that the victim "had it coming" and that it wasn't the rapist's fault at all.

Men have it pretty hard these days. We can be accused of rape with no good evidence at all, we can lose custody battles in court for no reason at all, there are still ridiculous "alimony" laws out there that should have been abolished ages ago, and God help us if we're ever in a courtroom against a woman presided by a female judge.

You can be accused of anything with no good evidence at all. The chance that it will go to trial is slim, though.

And as for losing custody battles, the last statistics simply don't bear that up. Do you have any that do?

Alimony can be paid to men or women.

And I love the presumption that all female judges are sexist. That's nice.

Actually, it's a common tactic in rape cases to do just that. They ask what the victim was wearing. They paint the victim as a slut. They say the victim led the rapist on. All of these are designed to suggest that the victim "had it coming" and that it wasn't the rapist's fault at all.

Used to happen, but not any more. (Not in the UK, at least. Might be different in other countries.) A defence lawyer who tried to do that would soon have the judge telling him to stop it. Immediately.

Used to happen, but not any more. (Not in the UK, at least. Might be different in other countries.) A defence lawyer who tried to do that would soon have the judge telling him to stop it. Immediately.



In the US it is still the tactic for the defense to use. Sexual history is dug up, etc. In fact, IL is one of the only states where the law specifically says "Manner of dress does not indicated consent".


In most other states, coinicidentally the most common being the south, "she was dressed like a slut and had it coming to her" is a very common defense still.

I have no problem with the public knowing an accusation has been made. However, until it is adjuducated, the names involved and the circumstances should not be in the public arena. Nor should it be available to anyone but legitimate investigators and court officials for the purpose of dispensing justice.

And how do you propose this would be done while keeping the court's proceedings visible and open to scrutiny?

Used to happen, but not any more. (Not in the UK, at least. Might be different in other countries.) A defence lawyer who tried to do that would soon have the judge telling him to stop it. Immediately.

It generally isn't done completely out in the open. They make it relevant by having the accused claim that the sex was consensual. Then, to try and prove consent, they talk about what the victim was wearing, how the victim acted at the bar/party/etc., or the promiscuity of the victim to try and try and convince the jury that the victim is lying.

In the US it is still the tactic for the defense to use. Sexual history is dug up, etc. In fact, IL is one of the only states where the law specifically says "Manner of dress does not indicated consent".

Really? How crap. Do you need the judge's permission to bring this stuff up, or is it just automatically allowed?

Rapists deserve the scorn they get from society, even if they somehow got away with it.Funny how that exact rationale is what causes problems for the falsely accused...
The one problem with that is that court rooms are generally open access, with public galleries.

You know, the whole justice has to be seen thing.That's criminal. Do judges not have the power to bar public attendance in certain cases (such as emotionally trying ones, as would be the case with rape)?
Yeah, poor men. It sucks so bad for you that you are somewhat more likely to be accused of rape (and about ten times less likely to be raped), that you are not always expected to be responsible for childcare, and that you have to deal with actual WOMEN in positions of authority (who are all sexist, as I'm sure you can prove).

Poor, poor men.Well, in return it's nearly impssible to convict a woman of raping a man, even in the very few cases that it does happen...


Peoples, this seriously isn't an issue about men vs. women and who has it better. Being falsely accused of rape is likely to destroy your life, if you don't manage to humiliate the prosecuter on national televesion as with the Duke Lacrosse case.

Well, in return it's nearly impssible to convict a woman of raping a man, even in the very few cases that it does happen...

Part of this has to do with idiotic laws that require that the rapist penetrate the victim.

Well, that and the idiotic conception of men as never being unwilling.

Peoples, this seriously isn't an issue about men vs. women and who has it better. Being falsely accused of rape is likely to destroy your life, if you don't manage to humiliate the prosecuter on national televesion as with the Duke Lacrosse case.

Indeed. I think the point that people are trying to make is that there are far more actual victims out there who don't see justice than falsely accused. This doesn't make things any better for the falsely accused, but any measures taken that make it even harder for a victim to see justice done are probably not the right way to go...

It generally isn't done completely out in the open. They make it relevant by having the accused claim that the sex was consensual. Then, to try and prove consent, they talk about what the victim was wearing, how the victim acted at the bar/party/etc., or the promiscuity of the victim to try and try and convince the jury that the victim is lying.

Well... it's a legitimate tactic to try to convince the jury that the victim is lying. (Unless you are claiming mistaken identity, it's the only possible tactic.) And their behaviour towards the accused could be crucial evidence. But manner of dress and past behaviour? Not good.

I love reading these statistics, because of how it is impossible for anyone to have legitimately tabulated them. "One third of women are raped and three quarters of them never tell anyone" Really? Since they don't tell anyone, how the hell did you decide they were raped? Did the magic 8-ball tell you how many women never report their rapes?

Another one thats utterly ridiculous: "Only 5% of reported rapes are false." According to who? 5% of reported rapes are found to be utterly false, we can agree on that. But then again, how many false accusations actually lead to convictions that are recorded as legitimate? Its impossible to know! Only the accuser and the accused know what may or may not be true, and the accused will always say hes innocent and the accuser will disagree. If 5% are found to be utterly false, then obviously the actual degree of false convictions is higher, because rape is one of those crimes where the word of your accuser is enough to put you away. Who knows how many people sitting in prison were falsely accused? Definitely not the statistician who is pulling these numbers out of his ass.

I love reading these statistics, because of how it is impossible for anyone to have legitimately tabulated them. "One third of women are raped and three quarters of them never tell anyone" Really? Since they don't tell anyone, how the hell did you decide they were raped? Did the magic 8-ball tell you how many women never report their rapes?

"Never tell anyone" != "never reported"

Meanwhile, you're not really familiar with statistics in general, are you? They are approximations based on what data can and cannot be collected, not actual tabulated numbers. Most of the problems you bitch about are incorporated into the generation of the statistics.

No.


In rape convictions, less than 2% are false convictions, which is less than the number of false convictions for murder and almost any other crime. To me that means if you got off on a rap charge, you got lucky, the jury was stacked with men and women who think "she had it coming" or some such nonsense, or your attorny was successful in humiliating the victim by painting her as a slut and the jury bought it.

There is a reason the victims are granted anonymity. Its humiliated and being raped is still stigmatized in our culture and we still like to try and pretend its somehow her fault. Rapists deserve the scorn they get from society, even if they somehow got away with it.

So, the innocent should be punished for the actions of the guilty?

Presumably the reason why people may feel that someone accused but cleared of rape is not entirely innocent is because they feel that guilty people are not being convicted. Rather than change the law away from the idea that justice should be out in the open, it would be better to look at ways of improving the conviction rate.

If by improving you mean "Hitting closer to the actual number of rapes, regardless if that means convictions go up or down" then yes.

If by improves you mean "Convictions must go up!" then no.

Well said.

Also, remember that If a person must be tried by their equals, then a man accused of Rape should be judged by men who've been in that situation surely? Therefore there shouldn't be a woman in the jury, or a woman judge.

Love to see someone try that though.

They'd be lynched by the female members of the First jury selection.

And be aquitted.

Equals isn't limited to people of your gender with your experience.

I might even be so bold as to say that with that attitude, women are not your equals - they are your superiors.

I love reading these statistics, because of how it is impossible for anyone to have legitimately tabulated them. "One third of women are raped and three quarters of them never tell anyone" Really? Since they don't tell anyone, how the hell did you decide they were raped? Did the magic 8-ball tell you how many women never report their rapes?

Another one thats utterly ridiculous: "Only 5% of reported rapes are false." According to who? 5% of reported rapes are found to be utterly false, we can agree on that. But then again, how many false accusations actually lead to convictions that are recorded as legitimate? Its impossible to know! Only the accuser and the accused know what may or may not be true, and the accused will always say hes innocent and the accuser will disagree. If 5% are found to be utterly false, then obviously the actual degree of false convictions is higher, because rape is one of those crimes where the word of your accuser is enough to put you away. Who knows how many people sitting in prison were falsely accused? Definitely not the statistician who is pulling these numbers out of his ass.

Well said.

Also, remember that If a person must be tried by their equals, then a man accused of Rape should be judged by men who've been in that situation surely? Therefore there shouldn't be a woman in the jury, or a woman judge.

Love to see someone try that though.

They'd be lynched by the female members of the First jury selection.

And be aquitted.

Well... it's a legitimate tactic to try to convince the jury that the victim is lying. (Unless you are claiming mistaken identity, it's the only possible tactic.) And their behaviour towards the accused could be crucial evidence. But manner of dress and past behaviour? Not good.

*playing devil's advocate*

But how else do you paint an accurate portrait of the accuser's consent? Without some idea of how/when the accuser has consented in the past, how can we determine whether consent was given in this particular case?


Also, remember that If a person must be tried by their equals, then a man accused of Rape should be judged by men who've been in that situation surely? Therefore there shouldn't be a woman in the jury, or a woman judge.

What a ridiculous suggestion.

A person must be tried by a jury of his peers. There is no requirement that those peers have the exact same experiences as him. Your suggestion is no different than the old practice of filling jury with all white people when a white man was on trial for harming a black man.

Interestingly enough, though, I read a book written by a trial defense lawyer. According to him, filling a jury in a rape case with all men is a big no-no. Doing so gives you almost absolute assurance that your client will be convicted. Juries with a decent percentage of men and women seem to be much more likely to find a man non-guilty of rape.

The book was called Indefensible. It's an interesting read.

Equals isn't limited to people of your gender with your experience.

I might even be so bold as to say that with that attitude, women are not your equals - they are your superiors.

Most men would be his superiors as well, given that most men don't share such blatantly sexist views.

Most men would be his superiors as well, given that most men don't share such blatantly sexist views.

Well yes, but if that is indeed his attitude and not just a mind cluster fuck of an epic kind, then it would rather be lost on him, don't you think?

That's criminal. Do judges not have the power to bar public attendance in certain cases (such as emotionally trying ones, as would be the case with rape)?

As far as I'm aware that is the case in the Family Division of the County Court or High Court, but I'm not certain as to whether or not it can be applied to the Crown Court, but I don't think that can be done.

Well, in return it's nearly impssible to convict a woman of raping a man, even in the very few cases that it does happen...

Not even virtually impossible, in the UK. Women are legally incapable of rape.

If by improving you mean "Hitting closer to the actual number of rapes, regardless if that means convictions go up or down" then yes.

I agree, but I'm sure the actual number of rapes is way higher than the actual number of convictions. Where people go wrong is that they assume this is the fault of rampant sexism in our society / justice system / jury rooms. Which it isn't. At least, not entirely.

The fundamental problem is that it's a difficult crime to prove. Even proving that they ever had sex is often next to impossible, and as for proving that she didn't give consent... unless there was an audience, how the hell do you do that? Usually it's simply her word against his, and that's just not enough for a legally safe conviction.

Equals isn't limited to people of your gender with your experience.

I might even be so bold as to say that with that attitude, women are not your equals - they are your superiors.Does UK law say "equals"? I could swear American law says "peers", which is something else entirely.

*playing devil's advocate*

But how else do you paint an accurate portrait of the accuser's consent? Without some idea of how/when the accuser has consented in the past, how can we determine whether consent was given in this particular case?


Good question. But, in law, a case should be judged on its own merits and its own evidence. Just because victim previously consented to have sex with Person A, can't possibly be given as evidence that she must have agreed to have sex with Person B. Otherwise, only a virgin could ever be a rape victim.

Not sexist, just applying an old (and silly) rule out to the letter.

Peers means equals. Surely you wouldn't suggest a Lady or Duchess should be tried by a Jury of coalminers?

Peers means peers. In legalese, it basically means "other citizens". While it would be odd for a Lady or Duchess to be tried by a jury completely comprised of coal miners, I see no reason that they should be explicitly excluded.

Most men would be his superiors as well, given that most men don't share such blatantly sexist views.

Not sexist, just applying an old (and silly) rule out to the letter.

Peers means equals. Surely you wouldn't suggest a Lady or Duchess should be tried by a Jury of coalminers?

Peers means equals.No it doesn't. It means people of equal or similar level in society.

No it doesn't. It means people of equal or similar level in society.

Which, in most modern societies, means every adult of sound mind...

And how do you propose this would be done while keeping the court's proceedings visible and open to scrutiny?

I don't. There should be a review of it after the fact and then when a finding is made it can be publicly scrutinized. Not before or during. We must protect the defendant as well as the accuser from repercussions.

With DNA becoming more common, many of these cases are being overturned. Many innocent people are spending on average 7 years behind bars. Many convictions are tainted by the media and publicity of false accusations.

Laerod, that's dangerously close to splitting hairs.Hey, law's all about splitting hairs and figuring out what which word means. Equal and peer can be used as synonyms, but equal has a whole bunch of other meanings that peer does not.
Dempublicents 1, Every Adult of sound mind doesn't take into account social or geographical situation.Who's splitting hairs now?

Which, in most modern societies, means every adult of sound mind...

So you're saying people of completely different social situation (we'll use the Duchess and the Coal miners again) with no experience of each other's lives, can try each other.(assuming the Duchess brings her friends.)

That is the worst idea I've heard today.

And that takes some doing!

Laerod, that's dangerously close to splitting hairs.

Dempublicents 1, Every Adult of sound mind doesn't take into account social or geographical situation.

So you're saying people of completely different social situation (we'll use the Duchess and the Coal miners again) with no experience of each other's lives, can try each other.(assuming the Duchess brings her friends.)

That is the worst idea I've heard today.

And that takes some doing!

Laerod, that's dangerously close to splitting hairs.

Dempublicents 1, Every Adult of sound mind doesn't take into account social or geographical situation.

Ehm, a duchess and a coal miner are both peers, if it is given that they are citizens of the same country.

Your idea of justice seems very skewed.

So you're saying people of completely different social situation (we'll use the Duchess and the Coal miners again) with no experience of each other's lives, can try each other.(assuming the Duchess brings her friends.)

They aren't "of completely different social situations". I outright reject the idea that a given social status or title makes you "elite" and somehow separate from the rest of society. If you're part of the same society, you're all eligible for a jury pool.

I've never been a coal miner, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't be an active part of a jury in which one was the accuser or accused.

Crime can touch us all.

Dempublicents 1, Every Adult of sound mind doesn't take into account social or geographical situation.

So? Does your guilt/innocence change depending on where you live or how much money you have? Does the impact of rape on you change based on these things? Is your ability to judge the evidence changed by these things?

That's criminal. Do judges not have the power to bar public attendance in certain cases (such as emotionally trying ones, as would be the case with rape)?

(I'm only speaking about UK law, again) Sex offence victims don't have to give evidence in court - they do it by video link from another room. All they can see on their monitor are the faces of the judge and the two barristers.

The judge can have the public gallery cleared. They can't exclude any member of the media (unless said member has published something seriously out of line) but the media are not allowed to identify sex offence victims.

Ehm, a duchess and a coal miner are both peers, if it is given that they are citizens of the same country.

Your idea of justice seems very skewed.

Clearly, rich people with titles should get different justice than blue collar workers.

So you're saying people of completely different social situation (we'll use the Duchess and the Coal miners again) with no experience of each other's lives, can try each other.(assuming the Duchess brings her friends.)

That is the worst idea I've heard today.


It's called trial by jury.

Grrr, you hit a sore point.

It's not Citizens, they live in Republics, it's Subjects. A small but very important difference.

I outright reject the idea that some people should be others' subjects.

However, other than that they are the subject peoples of the same soverign Nation and are breathing humans, what makes them Each other's peers?

(See the trial of Charles I. How can a King be tried by people who aren't Kings, and be deemed his peers?)

Because a king is inherently no better than people who aren't kings.

When I was growing up, sex was not as open as it is today. We lived in the country and most of the puritans and uneducated clung to religiousity as a norm.

So when young girls had sex with young men, children were then produced. It was VERY common for the young woman to claim she had been raped. Obviously if a child was created it was not her intention to have sex.

What this did was create a situation in which young men doing as young men do with young women doing what they do fell into a trap. All was fine if you did not get pregnant but if a pregnancy insued you may be facing rape charges.

These charges were brought on by parental pressure on the young woman. In fact, to protect her sperm donor, often she would name another man to be her rapist. After all, she did not wish to get her boyfriend in trouble so she could continue to see them.

So you have a cycle of lying, brought on by religiouslity enforced through paternal sources. Some of these innocent men went to jail. Some were found innocent and nothing ever happened to the young woman making the charge, nor the parents who forced the issue. Often there was never any admission of guilt by the young woman, or her family, nor apologies made. The young men accused were then shunned and considered outcasts in the enclave. Many were forced to leave just to survive.

So these lies are pretty commonplace by my observation. If fact, many of the woman would simply say they would always blame 'so and so' because he asked her on a date if anything happened.

So it is corrupted. Completely. Morally, ethically, and in every way. Do rapes occur? Yes. Are they as prevavlant as people want to have you believe? No. You have to look at the motivations beforehand and judge it long before bringing charges. The woman must be scrutinized. Society has created the monster and it is a slap in the face to women who are legitimately raped. Too many false accusations. Way to many.

I have heard statistics bandied about but the only ones of any substance are the FBI statistics of reported cases, adjudications, and subsequent overturn of conviction rate. In those numbers, nearly 40% are false. So this 2% number, where it can be substantiated is kind of like exit polling.

Grrr, you hit a sore point.

It's not Citizens, they live in Republics, it's Subjects. A small but very important difference.

However, other than that they are the subject peoples of the same soverign Nation and are breathing humans, what makes them Each other's peers?

(See the trial of Charles I. How can a King be tried by people who aren't Kings, and be deemed his peers?)

You're amusing.

1) A monarch who has not fallen out of favour with their people is generally considered untouchable by the law, in the same manner that a diplomat and a politician is. A monarch who goes around and commits crimes, however, can expect to be forced to abdicate peacefully very soon afterwards, in the same manner that a politician is expected to do the same.

2) They are not subjects. We do not live in a feudal era. There is such a thing known as law.

Ehm, a duchess and a coal miner are both peers, if it is given that they are citizens of the same country.

Your idea of justice seems very skewed.

Grrr, you hit a sore point.

It's not Citizens, they live in Republics, it's Subjects. A small but very important difference.

However, other than that they are the subject peoples of the same soverign Nation and are breathing humans, what makes them Each other's peers?

(See the trial of Charles I. How can a King be tried by people who aren't Kings, and be deemed his peers?)

Because a king is inherently no better than people who aren't kings.

Plus he'd failed in his sworn duty to uphold the law. Therefore, even if you accept the concept of monarchy, he ceased to be king.

The Duchess cannot control the Coalminer because she knows nothing about living as such and Vice versa. It has nothing to do with titles etc.

Of course it has to do with titles, etc. The only difference we can assume between the two is that one has a title and one does not.

Meanwhile, I don't know about a coal miner's day-to-day life either, but I would have no trouble determining whether or not a crime had been committed and whether or not the evidence pointed to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Are you saying that a Duchess somehow has less reasoning ability than me?

The Duchess cannot control the Coalminer because she knows nothing about living as such and Vice versa. It has nothing to do with titles etc. And remember, a Lord can (I think this still applies) choose to be tried in the House of Lords, as they are his peers. (It's in "Kind Hearts and Coronets", always a good film to watch, even for for the flimsiest of reasons)

No to your last Paragraph, bar the last point. How can you judge a situation without knowing the full facts. When will a duchess know what It's like to be on the Breadline? Or the actions such situations lead to.

Then clearly, everyone is innocent, because no one is like anyone else and no one will ever understand the situation a criminal was in. Therefore, all criminals should be declared innocent, because no one can in their right mind declare them guilty [/sarcasm]

Sorry, but no. Feudalism ended a long time ago. A duchess and a coalminer are equal before the law.

Well don't ever be British then, we're all Subjects under the British Crown. And It's better than a President.

Clearly you have never heard of the Divine Right of Kings.

And remember, a King is trained from Birth. No one else is.

Sounds like a slave to me.

That's right - because men are the ones really outdone by in rape.
10% (apparently) of men accused of rape are innocent.
That means 90% are not, right?
And yet in the UK 5% of rape cases result in a conviction.
Yes, the justice system in the UK is biased in rape cases, but it's the victims who are getting the hard time.

Well don't ever be British then, we're all Subjects under the British Crown.

Only by name. The actual law comes from your Parliament.

And It's better than a President.

Why? Because it is supposedly divine mandate?

Clearly you have never heard of the Divine Right of Kings.

I've heard of it. I think it's hogwash.

And remember, a King is trained from Birth. No one else is.

Trained to do what? Eat with the right fork?

Well don't ever be British then, we're all Subjects under the British Crown. And It's better than a President.

Clearly you have never heard of the Divine Right of Kings.

And remember, a King is trained from Birth. No one else is.

You realize naturally that the monarchies in various EU countries are figureheads, right? With less power than most other heads of state right? Their only real function nowadays is diplomacy, as it right well should be (where some of them fare better than others).

When will a duchess know what It's like to be on the Breadline? Or the actions such situations lead to.

If you are saying that a person's situation could force them into what would otherwise be a criminal act, then the law does make some allowances for that. However, they are not matters that the jury would be asked to consider.

They aren't "of completely different social situations". I outright reject the idea that a given social status or title makes you "elite" and somehow separate from the rest of society. If you're part of the same society, you're all eligible for a jury pool.

I've never been a coal miner, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't be an active part of a jury in which one was the accuser or accused.

Crime can touch us all.



So? Does your guilt/innocence change depending on where you live or how much money you have? Does the impact of rape on you change based on these things? Is your ability to judge the evidence changed by these things?


The Duchess cannot control the Coalminer because she knows nothing about living as such and Vice versa. It has nothing to do with titles etc. And remember, a Lord can (I think this still applies) choose to be tried in the House of Lords, as they are his peers. (It's in "Kind Hearts and Coronets", always a good film to watch, even for for the flimsiest of reasons)

No to your last Paragraph, bar the last point. How can you judge a situation without knowing the full facts. When will a duchess know what It's like to be on the Breadline? Or the actions such situations lead to.

That's right - because men are the ones really outdone by in rape.
10% (apparently) of men accused of rape are innocent.
That means 90% are not, right?
And yet in the UK 5% of rape cases result in a conviction.
Yes, the justice system in the UK is biased in rape cases, but not towards men!

The data you just listed would indicate that it is biased towards men and against women.

Clearly you have never heard of the Divine Right of Kings.


Are you serious? It's been centuries since that was part of UK law.

(I'm only speaking about UK law, again) Sex offence victims don't have to give evidence in court - they do it by video link from another room. All they can see on their monitor are the faces of the judge and the two barristers.

The judge can have the public gallery cleared. They can't exclude any member of the media (unless said member has published something seriously out of line) but the media are not allowed to identify sex offence victims.Yeah, that's not too different from Germany, where judges can have the trial occur without public attendance. Video recordings are universally banned during trials, and the media can only record before and after a trial's session. Also, the identity of the accused must be concealed (either by pixellation or other means) if neither permission are obtained or if the trial isn't of exceptional interest to the public.

I outright reject the idea that some people should be others' subjects.



Because a king is inherently no better than people who aren't kings.

Well don't ever be British then, we're all Subjects under the British Crown. And It's better than a President.

Clearly you have never heard of the Divine Right of Kings.

And remember, a King is trained from Birth. No one else is.

You're about as amusing as being run over by a Blackpool tram.

1) Charles I commited no Crime, except to oppose Parliament. God Help us if that's worthy of death in people's eyes still.

2) No constitutional change was ever made. The British people are still in law Subject peoples.

Charles encouraged civil war. Twice.

He's lucky he got away with his life the first time.

You're about as amusing as being run over by a Blackpool tram.

1) Charles I commited no Crime, except to oppose Parliament. God Help us if that's worthy of death in people's eyes still.

2) No constitutional change was ever made. The British people are still in law Subject peoples.

"Look, if I said I was an Emperor because some moistened bitch lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"

Sounds exciting to have self proclaimed royalty running around exempt from the laws of your country.

You're amusing.

1) A monarch who has not fallen out of favour with their people is generally considered untouchable by the law, in the same manner that a diplomat and a politician is. A monarch who goes around and commits crimes, however, can expect to be forced to abdicate peacefully very soon afterwards, in the same manner that a politician is expected to do the same.

2) They are not subjects. We do not live in a feudal era. There is such a thing known as law.


You're about as amusing as being run over by a Blackpool tram.

1) Charles I commited no Crime, except to oppose Parliament. God Help us if that's worthy of death in people's eyes still.

2) No constitutional change was ever made. The British people are still in law Subject peoples.

So when young girls had sex with young men, children were then produced. It was VERY common for the young woman to claim she had been raped. *snip*

So it is corrupted. Completely. Morally, ethically, and in every way. Do rapes occur? Yes. Are they as prevavlant as people want to have you believe? No. You have to look at the motivations beforehand and judge it long before bringing charges. The woman must be scrutinized. Society has created the monster and it is a slap in the face to women who are legitimately raped. Too many false accusations. Way to many.

I have heard statistics bandied about but the only ones of any substance are the FBI statistics of reported cases, adjudications, and subsequent overturn of conviction rate. In those numbers, nearly 40% are false. So this 2% number, where it can be substantiated is kind of like exit polling.

Utter bullshit through-and-through.

I'd love to see you source your alleged FBI statistic that 40% of reported rapes are false.

Views like yours are part of the problem. You are perpetuating rape myths. You are spreading lies that protect and coddle rapists. Shame on you.

BTW, in the U.S., only one in 100 victims of forcible rape sees her attacker sent to prison, according to a report released in June 1993 by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. See Staff of Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 103d Cong., The Response to Rape: Detours on the Road to Equal Justice III (Comm. Print 1993).

Utter bullshit through-and-through.

I'd love to see you source your alleged FBI statistic that 40% of reported rapes are false.

Views like your are part of the problem. You are perpetuating rape myths. You are spreading lies that protect and coddle rapists. Shame on you.

BTW, in the U.S., only one in 100 victims of forcible rape sees her attacker sent to prison, according to a report released in June 1993 by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. See Staff of Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 103d Cong., The Response to Rape: Detours on the Road to Equal Justice III (Comm. Print 1993).

Yes the facts do seem to get in the way of your view. Unfortunately in your view, everyone accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent and then only conditionally.

2) No constitutional change was ever made.

Guess again. The major change came with the revolution of 1688. The monarch no longer has absolute power.

Yes the facts do seem to get in the way of your view.

As I already challenged, feel free to prove these alleged "facts."

EDIT: According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf)(pdf), eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded.” Note that unfounded doesn't mean the woman made it up/was lying.

Unfortunately in your view, everyone accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent and then only conditionally.

Cute. That isn't even close to my view. But if you are claiming that conviction rate is the only evidence of rape actually having occurred you don't seem to understand our system of justice, which does in fact weigh heavily against convictions.

Of course it has to do with titles, etc. The only difference we can assume between the two is that one has a title and one does not.

Meanwhile, I don't know about a coal miner's day-to-day life either, but I would have no trouble determining whether or not a crime had been committed and whether or not the evidence pointed to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Are you saying that a Duchess somehow has less reasoning ability than me?

You Personally or You as in a collective representation of humanity?

You realize naturally that the monarchies in various EU countries are figureheads, right? With less power than most other heads of state right? Their only real function nowadays is diplomacy, as it right well should be (where some of them fare better than others).

The British Queen still has a hell of a lot of Power, though she doesn't use it (once bitten...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukeburyshire
Well don't ever be British then, we're all Subjects under the British Crown.

Only by name. The actual law comes from your Parliament.


Quote:
And It's better than a President.

Why? Because it is supposedly divine mandate?


Quote:
Clearly you have never heard of the Divine Right of Kings.

I've heard of it. I think it's hogwash.


Quote:
And remember, a King is trained from Birth. No one else is.

Trained to do what? Eat with the right fork?

Laws in Britain are all Royally approved.

If a President is better because he is elected, how come Bush isn't the best thing since Jesus?

Royals are useful as they do more than politicans ever would. (and live in crumbling buildings, no Politician would).

Hogwash maybe, but the idea it stems from is Sound. (that Royals are chosen by God to be born just so)

If you think Royals do little more than observe the Rules of eticette, then I am appalled. The Queen has to read all state bills, visit places because she's told to, has to go where she's told to despite the fact she's over 80, and she still does a full day at an age when most people are visiting prospective nursing homes. Also she has strenght of Character. The job is supposed to have put her father in an Early Grave and she only retires when she dies, yet she faces it with good grace and dignity.

He was beheaded after a fixed and almost wholly illegal trial. And he encourage Civil war because Parliament was acting up. As It was less democratic than Zimbabwe's parliament, he was actually trying to do us a favour.

Any king who claims divine favour is never doing anyone a favour, except for himself.

edit:Timewarp... back one page!

Guess again. The major change came with the revolution of 1688. The monarch no longer has absolute power.

We're still subjects I meant.

And the Monarch is still immune from prosecution, as it's her courts, and therefore she can't be tried by it.

The British Queen still has a hell of a lot of Power, though she doesn't use it (once bitten...)

And she would be promptly removed if she attempted to abuse her powers.

Charles encouraged civil war. Twice.

He's lucky he got away with his life the first time.

He was beheaded after a fixed and almost wholly illegal trial. And he encourage Civil war because Parliament was acting up. As It was less democratic than Zimbabwe's parliament, he was actually trying to do us a favour.

Divine right means reponsibilities. Don't let Yankee notions of Freedom and Monarchy to cloud your mind.
Good God... A pre-Enlightenment monarchist. That's at least 15 flavors of sad.

Divine right means reponsibilities. Don't let Yankee notions of Freedom and Monarchy to cloud your mind.

Divine right is bloody hogwash that merely served to justify the crimes of various monarchs throughout feudal history.

In your mind abuse seems to be the same as use.

I'd rather have her as ruler than parliament, or has the present content of the House of Commons passed you by?

I don't care about the British parliament.

You seem to have the idea that abuse is use. If a king encourages civil war, I would say that's pretty much abuse.

Any king who claims divine favour is never doing anyone a favour, except for himself.

Divine right means reponsibilities. Don't let Yankee notions of Freedom and Monarchy to cloud your mind.

We're still subjects I meant.


Not really - all of the decisions taken 'by The Crown' are in fact taken by a cabinet minister, usually the PM.

The situation with the UK's constitutional monarchy is a lot more complicated than you seem to appreciate.
And, more importantly, the discussion is very very far off topic.

And she would be promptly removed if she attempted to abuse her powers.

In your mind abuse seems to be the same as use.

I'd rather have her as ruler than parliament, or has the present content of the House of Commons passed you by?

Good God... A pre-Enlightenment monarchist. That's at least 15 flavors of sad.

I count grapefruit as one of them.

I also rather enjoy being mistaken for a yank. It's amusing in the context.

Good God... A pre-Enlightenment monarchist. That's at least 15 flavors of sad.

As for yourself, I shall feign typing pain...

Remember that every nation has families of rulers. E.g the Bhuttos, The Kennedys, the Clintons...

You misread me. Kindly refrain from swearing, ladies might be present and it doesn't help your argument a jot.

I wasn't swearing. Divine right has been quite bloody, in a very literal sense of the word. It is also hogwash, i.e. a lie.

Divine right is an idea which also kept peoples in line for centuries. When people rebel against their God-annointed rulers, bad things happen. Look at Russia after the 1917 revolutions.

There is no such thing as a deity. Therefore, there is no such thing as a ruler appointed by a deity.

Or, to put it another way, anyone can claim having been appointed by a deity. Claiming such doesn't make it such. For proof, take a look at G.W. Bush. That's a person I can only assume you dislike, from your previous statements.

You seem to have few cares. Whether that's good or bad I care not. If A monarch encourages Civil war to protect the people, thats not abuse. Who would the Irish prefer, Cromwell or Charles I?

I have cares, but none that I would like to share with you. Therefore, I do not share them.

If a monarch encourages civil war, for whatever reason, it's abuse.

War is inherently an abuse of pursuing civil means. If he was going to protect the people, he could have done so in many far better ways. He chose a path that was less than glorious and not at all in the best interests of anyone but himself.

Divine right is bloody hogwash that merely served to justify the crimes of various monarchs throughout feudal history.



I don't care about the British parliament.

You seem to have the idea that abuse is use. If a king encourages civil war, I would say that's pretty much abuse.


You misread me. Kindly refrain from swearing, ladies might be present and it doesn't help your argument a jot.

I never said that, that's an inference (I think thats the word.)

Divine right is an idea which also kept peoples in line for centuries. When people rebel against their God-annointed rulers, bad things happen. Look at Russia after the 1917 revolutions.

You seem to have few cares. Whether that's good or bad I care not. If A monarch encourages Civil war to protect the people, thats not abuse. Who would the Irish prefer, Cromwell or Charles I?

Not really - all of the decisions taken 'by The Crown' are in fact taken by a cabinet minister, usually the PM.

The situation with the UK's constitutional monarchy is a lot more complicated than you seem to appreciate.
And, more importantly, the discussion is very very far off topic.

The Queen still has to sign all laws.

Anyway, back on topic, we'd end up with Euroopean style justice without anonimity.

Can one flavour be Republican?

SeathorniaII, to swallow propaganda you don't have to be of the nation that spreads it.

Oh well, since we seem to be having more fun on this topic...

The Queen still has to sign all laws.

Good example - parliament makes the laws; her role in this matter is that of a rubber stamp. She has no choice. I don't dispute your previous point about her important diplomatic role.

So a Civil war to remove a PM that's overruled parliament and has plans to murder anyone who's not a puritan is wrong and abusing power. riiight.


Ah, but the Bible says governments are instituted by God. That must apply to Blair and Bush just as much as it does to the Queen.

You could have used a pleasanter word... after all, not everyone is a soldier.

Neither am I and I am consistently refusing to be drafted.

Don't start the Is-there-a-God-Debate. That'll get us even further from topic.

True.

People appointed by God are born into their positions.

Then, in essence, if I can remove a monarch from their throne, clearly they weren't appointed by any divine entity, given that I could remove them.

So Charles couldn't have been appointed by a deity.

So a Civil war to remove a PM that's overruled parliament and has plans to murder anyone who's not a puritan is wrong and abusing power. riiight.

Cromwell had an Army. Other ways of oposing him: Nil.

Did Cromwell actually start a war?

Charles I was the aggressor. For this reason, he was in the wrong...

...I shall now twist that into this thread: The accuser is the aggressor. This is one of the reasons we have an innocent until proven guilty perception. It makes no sense to place a stigma upon innocent people and therefore, the anonymity of the accused and accuser should be respected until such time a verdict is declared.

I wasn't swearing. Divine right has been quite bloody, in a very literal sense of the word. It is also hogwash, i.e. a lie.



There is no such thing as a deity. Therefore, there is no such thing as a ruler appointed by a deity.

Or, to put it another way, anyone can claim having been appointed by a deity. Claiming such doesn't make it such. For proof, take a look at G.W. Bush. That's a person I can only assume you dislike, from your previous statements.



I have cares, but none that I would like to share with you. Therefore, I do not share them.

If a monarch encourages civil war, for whatever reason, it's abuse.

War is inherently an abuse of pursuing civil means. If he was going to protect the people, he could have done so in many far better ways. He chose a path that was less than glorious and not at all in the best interests of anyone but himself.

You could have used a pleasanter word... after all, not everyone is a soldier.

Don't start the Is-there-a-God-Debate. That'll get us even further from topic.

People appointed by God are born into their positions.

So a Civil war to remove a PM that's overruled parliament and has plans to murder anyone who's not a puritan is wrong and abusing power. riiight.

Cromwell had an Army. Other ways of oposing him: Nil.

You Personally or You as in a collective representation of humanity?

Either.

Laws in Britain are all Royally approved.

Again, a matter of figurehead status. From what I can tell, laws passed by both the Commons and the Lords are automatically granted Royal Assent.

If a President is better because he is elected, how come Bush isn't the best thing since Jesus?

Because he is a human being, and not a good human being for the job. Luckily, we aren't stuck with him for his whole lifetime just because he happened to be born into a "special" family.

Royals are useful as they do more than politicans ever would. (and live in crumbling buildings, no Politician would).

Do they? What has Prince Charles done for you lately?

Hogwash maybe, but the idea it stems from is Sound. (that Royals are chosen by God to be born just so)

Yeah, that's the hogwash part. Monarchs are human beings, just like the rest of us. They are not inherently any more able to run a government than anyone else.

If you think Royals do little more than observe the Rules of eticette, then I am appalled. The Queen has to read all state bills, visit places because she's told to, has to go where she's told to despite the fact she's over 80, and she still does a full day at an age when most people are visiting prospective nursing homes. Also she has strenght of Character. The job is supposed to have put her father in an Early Grave and she only retires when she dies, yet she faces it with good grace and dignity.

She has to go where she's told to? So she's not in charge, then?

The current queen has acted as a great diplomat. Does that mean that all monarchs have done so? Does that mean that the person who will succeed her will do so?

And do you really believe she has managed all of this simply because she carries the genes of a previous monarch?

As for yourself, I shall feign typing pain...

Remember that every nation has families of rulers. E.g the Bhuttos, The Kennedys, the Clintons...Name some for Germany. Also, name some Presidents named Kennedy.

Don't start the Is-there-a-God-Debate. That'll get us even further from topic.Don't make any statements that are based on the assumption that there is or isn't a God, like the following, if you're unwilling to prove said deity's existence:

People appointed by God are born into their positions.

Neither am I and I am consistently refusing to be drafted.



True.



Then, in essence, if I can remove a monarch from their throne, clearly they weren't appointed by any divine entity, given that I could remove them.

So Charles couldn't have been appointed by a deity.



Did Cromwell actually start a war?

Charles I was the aggressor. For this reason, he was in the wrong...

...I shall now twist that into this thread: The accuser is the aggressor. This is one of the reasons we have an innocent until proven guilty perception. It makes no sense to place a stigma upon innocent people and therefore, the anonymity of the accused and accuser should be respected until such time a verdict is declared.

So you're a conchie? Then why swear. That's coarse behaviour only acceptable from those risking life and limb for their nation.

If You remove a Monarch, that's free will acting, not God.

Cromwell V.Ireland.

Cromwell V. parts of his army.

Your point back on this thread however is admirable.

Either.



Again, a matter of figurehead status. From what I can tell, laws passed by both the Commons and the Lords are automatically granted Royal Assent.



Because he is a human being, and not a good human being for the job. Luckily, we aren't stuck with him for his whole lifetime just because he happened to be born into a "special" family.



Do they? What has Prince Charles done for you lately?



Yeah, that's the hogwash part. Monarchs are human beings, just like the rest of us. They are not inherently any more able to run a government than anyone else.



She has to go where she's told to? So she's not in charge, then?

The current queen has acted as a great diplomat. Does that mean that all monarchs have done so? Does that mean that the person who will succeed her will do so?

And do you really believe she has managed all of this simply because she carries the genes of a previous monarch?


Well, with you personally I think the Duchess would be more important, and should have more legal right.

Against people I'd say the people.

Just 'cos I've got fatigue from all this arguing.

Prince Charles has kept parts of the countryside safe.

Monarchs are trained all their lives and know what to do. Therefore they know more about their job than a politican.

She follows her Diary, which is mostly made for her.

Genetically I'd say her sucessor will probably do well.

Well, she carries the genes of nearly all Britain's successful monarchs ever (Tudors being the main exception).

The Hohenzollerns.:p

Nope, I know little about American presidents before I was born.

Also, I'm sure that whole family's in US politics.What exactly do the Hohenzoller rule nowadays? What do the Habsburgs rule nowadays? What do the Charlemagnes or the Caesars rule nowadays? Why would they be relevant?

Also, being in politics does not a ruler make. Being in a position to rule would, and the Kennedys had John, and that's it. Governorship is another form of rule, but that would only count for individual states, not the country as a whole.

So you're a conchie? Then why swear. That's coarse behaviour only acceptable from those risking life and limb for their nation.

I did not swear. If you are unfamiliar with the English language, I suggest getting language courses. I distinctly remember saying that it was, and I quote, "bloody hogwash".

It is bloody because it quite literally was so. Divine right was used as an excuse to justify wars. It also led to some bloody uprisings that caused the deaths of monarchs that were a very far cry from being as diplomatic and skilled as either the current British or Danish monarchs are.

It is hogwash because it is a lie, quite simply. There is no such thing as "divine right".

And no, I am not a conscientious objector. I have merely secured that I am not eligible to be drafted by performing something useful. In this particular instance, I am a student. I will, unfortunately, be eligible again after finishing my studies, but we'll see if they still even have military service by then.

If You remove a Monarch, that's free will acting, not God.

But if any god put him there, then clearly they'd have an interest in keeping him there. If they do not influence the outcome, then the monarch has no divine right. If the monarch chose to leave, that would be free will. If they influence the outcome in favour of those opposing a monarch, then the monarch certainly does not have divine right.

Don't make any statements that are based on the assumption that there is or isn't a God, like the following, if you're unwilling to prove said deity's existence:

I will, but not here.

Any way, assumption is what all judgements on others are based on, the assumption they're like you at the core.

Name some for Germany. Also, name some Presidents named Kennedy.

The Hohenzollerns.:p

Nope, I know little about American presidents before I was born.

Also, I'm sure that whole family's in US politics.

Well, with you personally I think the Duchess would be more important, and should have more legal right.

Well, there you go then. You think some people are automatically more important than others.

When you catch up to the 21st century, let me know.

Why not say Blood-soaked?

I choose my words carefully. Were I to have meant blood-soaked, I would have said blood-soaked. I even elaborated, stating that when I said bloody, I meant it literally. It was bloody.

Would you fight? I suspect not. I would, were I not ineligible for service.

No, I would not fight in any conventional war. They have an uncanny tendency to be unjustified and filled on both sides by people who think the other side is wrong, despite both being in the exact same position.

Also, how convenient.

God doen't interfere too much. Then people are let alone and don't become useless babies reliant on God.

Again, how convenient.

I did not swear. If you are unfamiliar with the English language, I suggest getting language courses. I distinctly remember saying that it was, and I quote, "bloody hogwash".

It is bloody because it quite literally was so. Divine right was used as an excuse to justify wars. It also led to some bloody uprisings that caused the deaths of monarchs that were a very far cry from being as diplomatic and skilled as either the current British or Danish monarchs are.

It is hogwash because it is a lie, quite simply. There is no such thing as "divine right".

And no, I am not a conscientious objector. I have merely secured that I am not eligible to be drafted by performing something useful. In this particular instance, I am a student. I will, unfortunately, be eligible again after finishing my studies, but we'll see if they still even have military service by then.



But if any god put him there, then clearly they'd have an interest in keeping him there. If they do not influence the outcome, then the monarch has no divine right. If the monarch chose to leave, that would be free will. If they influence the outcome in favour of those opposing a monarch, then the monarch certainly does not have divine right.

Why not say Blood-soaked?

Would you fight? I suspect not. I would, were I not ineligible for service.

God doen't interfere too much. Then people are let alone and don't become useless babies reliant on God.

Well, there you go then. You think some people are automatically more important than others.

When you catch up to the 21st century, let me know.

That was a cheap shot at you.

I'm in this century. Are you in this society?

All dynasties fall. Remeber that Germany hasn't been reunited that long (not that it should be. Now Prussia's been abolished I see no reason to continue something thought up to increase a dead state's power).Now point out a dynasty that currently rules Germany, the US, or another country with a representative head of state and/or government.

What exactly do the Hohenzoller rule nowadays? What do the Habsburgs rule nowadays? What do the Charlemagnes or the Caesars rule nowadays? Why would they be relevant?

Also, being in politics does not a ruler make. Being in a position to rule would, and the Kennedys had John, and that's it. Governorship is another form of rule, but that would only count for individual states, not the country as a whole.

All dynasties fall. Remeber that Germany hasn't been reunited that long (not that it should be. Now Prussia's been abolished I see no reason to continue something thought up to increase a dead state's power).

So you'd let your country be invaded. If I could fight, I would. I'd certainly assit the War effort any way I could.

I wouldn't let any country be invaded. There was a reason why I used the word "conventional" before war.

Incidentally, I also reject the notion of countries, but on a pragmatic level I accept their existence.

I would only fight to maintain status quo. That precludes me from being in any sort of armed force. Anything else is better done through politics and diplomacy.

Ask the Economist, or an Encyclopaedia.

I'm actually trying to get on with something.

Can we ever get back on topic??????????

It's buried under two pages on posting debris, so... I doubt it.

I choose my words carefully. Were I to have meant blood-soaked, I would have said blood-soaked. I even elaborated, stating that when I said bloody, I meant it literally. It was bloody.



No, I would not fight in any conventional war. They have an uncanny tendency to be unjustified and filled on both sides by people who think the other side is wrong, despite both being in the exact same position.

Also, how convenient.



Again, how convenient.

Same thing in my book.

So you'd let your country be invaded. If I could fight, I would. I'd certainly assit the War effort any way I could.

Try to remember Bender as God in Futurama. Strange a Cartoon made a very valid point (not).

Now point out a dynasty that currently rules Germany, the US, or another country with a representative head of state and/or government.

Ask the Economist, or an Encyclopaedia.

I'm actually trying to get on with something.

Can we ever get back on topic??????????

That was a cheap shot at you.

Flaming, are we?

I'm in this century. Are you in this society?

If you were in this century, you wouldn't think that people are more important or have more rights than others simply because they were born that way. That's an idea that most people rejected last century.

Those that are left are generally referred to as "bigots" and draw their world-view from days long since over.

Ask the Economist, or an Encyclopaedia.

I'm actually trying to get on with something.

Can we ever get back on topic??????????You made the claim, so don't come whining when someone asks you to back it up.

I wouldn't let any country be invaded. There was a reason why I used the word "conventional" before war.

Incidentally, I also reject the notion of countries, but on a pragmatic level I accept their existence.

I would only fight to maintain status quo. That precludes me from being in any sort of armed force. Anything else is better done through politics and diplomacy.

So would you have fought in the Conventional WWII?

I would, had been able to.

I believe in Fewer Countries and lots of Empires.

It's buried under two pages on posting debris, so... I doubt it.

Damn Damn Damn Damn.

*gets reminded of "Grown accustomed to her face" and starts singing*

Flaming, are we?



If you were in this century, you wouldn't think that people are more important or have more rights than others simply because they were born that way. That's an idea that most people rejected last century.

Those that are left are generally referred to as "bigots" and draw their world-view from days long since over.

Who said the Duchess was born so?

If she earns her title she is superior.

Who's Flaming now?

And remember, History repeats itself.

You made the claim, so don't come whining when someone asks you to back it up.

You assume I ever back up my statements. I only do so when they are really wrong.

You assume I ever back up my statements. I only do so when they are really wrong.Oh, no. I require you support your statements.

You assume I ever back up my statements. I only do so when they are really wrong.
Surely it makes more sense to back up your statements when they're right and not to when they're wrong - and hope you get away with it - ?

You are not my Soverign appointed by God. Therefore I am not answerable to you.
Surely there are more...graceful ways to concede a point?

You are not my Soverign appointed by God. Therefore I am not answerable to you.Yeah, but don't be surprised if I treat you like a loony now that you've gone out of your way to prove it ;)

Oh, no. I require you support your statements.

You are not my Soverign appointed by God. Therefore I am not answerable to you.

And if you're going to get your knickers in such a twist I shall laugh.

(Yes, I am V. Tired)

(Damn Earthquake)

Surely there are more...graceful ways to concede a point?

Probably. I'm tired and have a GCSE tomorrow, give me a break!

Why do things sensibly? That way lies madness.

Yeah, but don't be surprised if I treat you like a loony now that you've gone out of your way to prove it ;)

Don't be surprised if I tut, say, meh, probably a dole taker with no prospects given that you spend a lot of time here arguing.

What's wrong with being a loony? It's better than a communist.

Probably. I'm tired and have a GCSE tomorrow, give me a break!

Why do things sensibly? That way lies madness.
1) Then what the hell are you doing here? Either cram or rest (depending on preference), but don't waste your time here. Seriously.

2)If you want to debate properly, and to persuade people that you're right, then that's not the way to do it.

I have always *strongly* felt anonymity in both directions should exist until the accused is actually found guilty. This should exist in all cases, even in cases when children are involved...or perhaps especially when children are involved.

Of course, if children are involved, the accused should be required to take a voluntary leave of absence from his/her job if it involves children, and barred from going near children until after the court case is decided...but plastering their picture and name across the media can be ruinous if they're innocent. It simply should not be allowed.

If they're found guilty, by all means plaster their information across the headlines...but the media often condemns people long before the trial.

1) Then what the hell are you doing here? Either cram or rest (depending on preference), but don't waste your time here. Seriously.

2)If you want to debate properly, and to persuade people that you're right, then that's not the way to do it.

Meh, I've been multitasking.

I know. I started well. I'm loosing it now though.

Wait till tomorrow.

Oh, agreed. But as someone who's actually been assaulted, I tend to get a little snippy when I hear people whining about how men have it oh-so-very-much worse than women in this context. (And the "female judges always side with women, because (apparently) female judges are all corrupt and incompetent simply by virtue of having a vagina" nonsense was icing on the WTF-cake...)It is a sensitive issue with plenty insensitive people making arguments.

Well, in return it's nearly impssible to convict a woman of raping a man, even in the very few cases that it does happen...


Peoples, this seriously isn't an issue about men vs. women and who has it better. Being falsely accused of rape is likely to destroy your life, if you don't manage to humiliate the prosecuter on national televesion as with the Duke Lacrosse case.

Oh, agreed. But as someone who's actually been assaulted, I tend to get a little snippy when I hear people whining about how men have it oh-so-very-much worse than women in this context. (And the "female judges always side with women, because (apparently) female judges are all corrupt and incompetent simply by virtue of having a vagina" nonsense was icing on the WTF-cake...)

One in four women report being raped at least once in their lives.
Police suspect that only about 1/3 of all rapes are reported.
Of all those reports, between 3-5% lie about having been raped.
You do the maths.
What is the evidence of the unreported rapes? Just asking.

Oh, agreed. But as someone who's actually been assaulted, I tend to get a little snippy when I hear people whining about how men have it oh-so-very-much worse than women in this context. (And the "female judges always side with women, because (apparently) female judges are all corrupt and incompetent simply by virtue of having a vagina" nonsense was icing on the WTF-cake...)

Just because you are raped does not give the public the right to rape you again. The press should only be allowed to report what you release to them. The trial should be held privately and when the decision is made it is over. No interviews, no "Can I get your reaction to", no "I heard you slept with 50 men" questions.

What is the evidence of the unreported rapes? Just asking.

Well personal experience. You try to convince them to go forward but they choose not to. Their choice.

However if they go forward, they need to accuse the right person. Not someone they wish to get their revenge upon. I have known a lot of women who make it up as they go. They rely on the fact that if you cry, most men believe about anything you tell them.

EDIT: If there were consequences for accusing someone unjustly, there would be a whole lot less false accusations.

Dr. Kanin's report is very very telling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=www.sexcriminals.com%2Flibrary%2Fdoc-1002-1.doc&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt&u=www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1002-1.doc&d=OR3pfxIeOXni&icp=1&.intl=us

Closer to 50% in most cases there is a false complaint. These are just the ones recanted!

What is the evidence of the unreported rapes? Just asking.

Studies have been carried out in which women are anonymously asked questions about sexual assault and their response to it.

I think the press should just stay away from the courts. Keep them public, but closed to the press.

This is the case in Germany, both accuser and accused are always granted anonymity until the case has been decided; you can imagine my shock and horror when I first came to Ireland and found that not only will the names of everyone involved be published, they even will tell you were those people live on the evening news.thumbs up to Germany.

I think the press should just stay away from the courts. Keep them public, but closed to the press.

I am inclined to agree. America, at least, has seen it's share of publicized court cases that have turned into an absolute circus.

The only problem I see with keeping a rape suspects name private though is that rape cases are extremely hard to prove. With a name out there, you get more victims. With more victims you get a better chance for a conviction. Without that you get a he said/she said kind of problem. A family member of mine was a victim of a violent assault. She reported it but won't go to trial. She's too terrified. To essentially be assaulted all over again. To be one person being essentially accused of being a slut over a period of how long? To make it worse, it was two men so now it becomes a he said he said/she said kind of thing. With their names being shouted on the news, perhaps more young women would come forward and she wouldn't have to face those monsters alone and she would be able to overcome her fear.

While I do understand that there are falsely accused people out there, the need to get justice for real victims out ways everything else. Rape victims already have to deal with feelings of such shame and terror and to make them go through it again alone is a horrible thing.

I am inclined to agree. America, at least, has seen it's share of publicized court cases that have turned into an absolute circus.

The only problem I see with keeping a rape suspects name private though is that rape cases are extremely hard to prove. With a name out there, you get more victims. With more victims you get a better chance for a conviction. Without that you get a he said/she said kind of problem. A family member of mine was a victim of a violent assault. She reported it but won't go to trial. She's too terrified. To essentially be assaulted all over again. To be one person being essentially accused of being a slut over a period of how long? To make it worse, it was two men so now it becomes a he said he said/she said kind of thing. With their names being shouted on the news, perhaps more young women would come forward and she wouldn't have to face those monsters alone and she would be able to overcome her fear.

While I do understand that there are falsely accused people out there, the need to get justice for real victims out ways everything else. Rape victims already have to deal with feelings of such shame and terror and to make them go through it again alone is a horrible thing.

Police protection should be made available, in the event that she is retaliated against.

The innocent should not have to suffer for the crimes of the guilty. This goes both ways.

I suppose there could be some sort of Witness protection program set up, but it wouldn't solve the problem of the accused's family at all. It could also be a way for a person to use the system if they actually did commit the crime and got away with it, all suspicion would be lost in their new setting.

I don't really think there's an easy or clean fix to this problem, except perhaps more education on what rape is and its consequences, to both sexes.

While I do understand that there are falsely accused people out there, the need to get justice for real victims out ways everything else. Rape victims already have to deal with feelings of such shame and terror and to make them go through it again alone is a horrible thing.

By creating more real victims from innocent people? The court of public opinion has harsh sentences and a low proof requirement.

I don't really think there's an easy or clean fix to this problem, except perhaps more education on what rape is and its consequences, to both sexes.

Have you ever read this book called The Morning After?
In the book, she talks about how the statististic that 1 in 4 women have been raped is grossly innacurate. Instead of asking women if they've been raped, they had women fill out a survey asking questions such as "Have you ever had sex when you didn't want to?" or "Have you ever had sex while intoxicated?" A yes to either means you've been raped. It's such crap. If that was true, I'm a rapist and I've been raped. But really, I haven't.

I really don't have much of an opinion on the actually issue of the thread, I just wanted to mention that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm


The complainant in rape cases is granted total anonymity; no such protection exists for those who they accuse.

When allegations of sexual assault can be so devastating to the accused, who may never clear his name in the eyes of those around him even if acquitted, should the law offer them the same degree of protection that it offers those who make the complaint?
What other crimes are protected by anonymity of the accused? Not many that I know of ...

Why should a rape accusation be any different? I mean you cant tell me that an accusation of rape is any more of a stigmata then being accused of lets say murder or pedophillia

I agree.

Anonymity should be given to not only people accused of rape, but also of all crimes. When appearing in court, the accused should be made to wear a full body robe that covers his or her face, and use a voice distorter, so that the jury cannot be biased towards or against the accused.

This also insured that, should the accused be found not guilty, he or she can return to normal life.

Take the OJ case; even though he was found innocient, the general public believes so strongly that he was guilty, that, when OJ found himself arrested in that robbery case, Even the Judges where handing down bail that simply doesn't fit the crime, or treating him as if he had been found guilty of murder and this was another charge to a criminal.

Now, if the jury and court themselves had no idea who was being charged with these crimes, the whole thing could have gone a lot smoother.

the need to get justice for real victims out ways everything else.No it does not.

I am with Germany (and the other innocent-until-proven-Guilty Countries) on this one.

What other crimes are protected by anonymity of the accused? Not many that I know of ...

Why should a rape accusation be any different? I mean you cant tell me that an accusation of rape is any more of a stigmata then being accused of lets say murder or pedophillia
Worse than murder not as bad as pedophilia - which is part of a various number of crimes, including rape.

Sexual offenses are far harder on the accused than other crimes.

Innocent until proven guilty.
I think the accused should be granted the same anonymity as the victim, until he had a fair trail and was actually found guilty.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I agree as well, on the other hand...

I think there should also be a criminal punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape.

And I think women who falsely accuse men of rape should be prosecuted themselves.

Entirely disagreed.

It's hard enough to get a conviction for rape without placing some sort of punishment on the accuser in the event of a loss in court. There are already enough barriers for someone to take a rape case to court.

If the accused has anonymity, which I agree with, I see no reason to place a punishment on false accusations.

Worse than murder not as bad as pedophilia - which is part of a various number of crimes, including rape.

Sexual offenses are far harder on the accused than other crimes.

True but what about child porn which really is not under the rape category?

There are just all sorts of questions

Should it just be sexual crimes?
How do you relatively rank and quantify harm?
What is the threshold where harm to reputation deserves anonymity?

I guess for the most with my personnel view I would not mind granting anonymity to any crime where the accused is jailed before and during trial.

The reason for this being that the accused does not pose a threat to the public at that point. Though I am sure we can find all sorts of examples where I would prefer to have an informed public even though no charges are upheld

I agree as well, on the other hand...





Entirely disagreed.

It's hard enough to get a conviction for rape without placing some sort of punishment on the accuser in the event of a loss in court. There are already enough barriers for someone to take a rape case to court.

If the accused has anonymity, which I agree with, I see no reason to place a punishment on false accusations.
Which is why I already said they'd have to be pretty sure the accusation was false before prosecuting it.

Which is why I already said they'd have to be pretty sure the accusation was false before prosecuting it.

Yeah but with all the other factors that make it an insanely low report rate of rape is it really for the greater good to add another reason and another fear on their plate?

Specially like proposed there are other ways to remove the potential weight of trial by media?

Stop raping.

Seriously, this wouldn't be an issue if there weren't any rapists.

Which is why I already said they'd have to be pretty sure the accusation was false before prosecuting it.

Knowingly filing a false police report is already a crime.

Libel/slander is already considered a reasonable basis for lawsuits.

What possible reason is there to make "falsely accusing someone of rape" a new criminal charge unto itself other than discouraging victims from coming forward?

Knowingly filing a false police report is already a crime.

Libel/slander is already considered a reasonable basis for lawsuits.

Some things are classified as hate crimes?
What possible reason is there to make "falsely accusing someone of rape" a new criminal charge unto itself other than discouraging victims from coming forward?
Discouraging liars from lying about rape I would assume. Even if that isn't the case, we all know statistics don't lie. So the more people that don't come forward about rape, the lower the rate of rape and the safer our society is.

Stop raping.

Seriously, this wouldn't be an issue if there weren't any rapists.

*instates the Church of Brotherhood from my IC nation who immidiatly begin lyching ALL suspected sex offenders in order to cleanse evil spirits*

We need more cops in order to stop rape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pNTrYd-4FQ&feature=related) :p

I think the press should just stay away from the courts. Keep them public, but closed to the press.

Brilliant. So it's legal to attend court but it's illegal to discuss what happened there with anyone, ever. Don't worry about trifling little things like freedom of speech or open justice - I'm sure every single member of the voting public can spare the endless hours it takes to cover a court case from start to finish.

I think we should ban airline pilots from flying planes, since they seem to have this problem with crashing them. In fact, let's be on the safe side - ban all humans from flying aircraft. From now on, hippopotamuses will fly our planes. Come on, when have you ever heard about a hippo crashing a plane? Never.

Contrary to the depressingly popular myth, false reports in rape cases are NOT common. Indeed, false rape reports aren't any more common than false reports of other types of crimes.

Sadly, only about one in five rapes actually is reported to the police.

In cases where a rape victim does go to the police, there's only about a 60% chance that a suspect will be identified, and only about a 30% chance that the suspect will be charged. In only about one quarter of cases will the criminal prosecution service decide to actually prosecute. Less than half of the individuals arrested for rape will be convicted. Of those who are convicted of rape, about one quarter will serve no jail or prison time at all. Another quarter will be sentenced to local jail terms, which means they will spend less than 11 months behind bars.

Something people also need to remember is that it's quite possible to have false arrests or convictions even if the victim isn't making a false report. In cases of stranger rape, it's quite possible for the victim to be unable to correctly identify her attacker. That doesn't mean there was no rape, or that she intentionally lied about what happened. After all, if DNA evidence in a murder case ends up clearing the person who was initially accused, that doesn't mean that there was no murder. If a witness incorrectly identifies a suspect, that doesn't mean there was no crime committed. It means that witnesses are human and sometimes make mistakes.

It's a typical and all too repeated situation... You even see it here amongst our NSG brethren... When someone is accused of rape or any other various sex crime, the person is immediately considered guilty... To hell with our rally cry of "innocent until proven guilty"... Though this is by no means the absolute stance of people... Some of us are quick to point out that merely because they have been charged, or merely because someone accused them of a crime, that they should be treated as innocent until such a time as a judge or jury has pronounced a guilty verdict upon their head at the conclusion of a court case... "Innocent until proven guilty" is not good enough for the media, or the mindless lap-dogs that try to pass themselves off as "humans" as they lap up the media's drivel over the reported accusations...

If the court is not capable of finding an innocent person guilty, then the media and the populace at large will be right there to ensure that that the person is treated as a criminal for the rest of their lives for daring to be not guilty of a crime such as rape...

Knowingly filing a false police report is already a crime.

Libel/slander is already considered a reasonable basis for lawsuits.

What possible reason is there to make "falsely accusing someone of rape" a new criminal charge unto itself other than discouraging victims from coming forward?Yeah, creating a new thing is nonsense. Over here, if you falsely accuse someone (knowingly), and they get taken into custody, that constitutes the same criminal offense as if you had locked them up in a shed, which you are liable to stand trial for.

What ever happened to Purjery laws?

What ever happened to Purjery laws?

They went out of style with the definition of the word "is".

Knowingly filing a false police report is already a crime.

Libel/slander is already considered a reasonable basis for lawsuits.

What possible reason is there to make "falsely accusing someone of rape" a new criminal charge unto itself other than discouraging victims from coming forward?

Because society keeps the accuser behind a veil of secrecy, and will not prosecute them when they discover the accusation to be a lie out of misplaced fear that it will discourage future 'victims' from coming forward.

They feel that encouraging people to come forward as victims that maybe some small percentage actually are. Another classic example of "If it helps one person" it is somehow worth it.

However what we are discussing here is the freedom of innocent men, and as we all know, men are the root of all evil so if a few 'innocents' go to jail, it is perfectly alright to the feminist.

It's a typical and all too repeated situation... You even see it here amongst our NSG brethren... When someone is accused of rape or any other various sex crime, the person is immediately considered guilty...

I guess it's all a matter of personal perspective, because I usually see the overwhelming majority of people being MORE critical of rape claims than just about any other accusations.


To hell with our rally cry of "innocent until proven guilty"... Though this is by no means the absolute stance of people... Some of us are quick to point out that merely because they have been charged, or merely because someone accused them of a crime, that they should be treated as innocent until such a time as a judge or jury has pronounced a guilty verdict upon their head at the conclusion of a court case... "Innocent until proven guilty" is not good enough for the media, or the mindless lap-dogs that try to pass themselves off as "humans" as they lap up the media's drivel over the reported accusations...

While I certainly agree that the media loves to whip up public outrage surrounding rape allegations, I think they are just as fast (if not faster) to whip up outrage directed at the victim. The media will dwell endlessly on how young and available a victim was, or on how she was a bad naughty girl out partying, or how she'd been drinking and flirting, and on and on and on.

In other words, the media leaps to convict both the accused AND the accuser, in my experience.


If the court is not capable of finding an innocent person guilty, then the media and the populace at large will be right there to ensure that that the person is treated as a criminal for the rest of their lives for daring to be not guilty of a crime such as rape...
The sad reality of our world is that the majority of rapists will never be convicted. I certainly don't use criminal conviction as my only standard for judging who is and is not a rapist, because I personally know of two rapists who were never convicted of anything.

Whether or not the public should "convict" individuals who have not been found guilty in a criminal court is debatable. And what about individuals like OJ Simpson, who were found Not Guilty in criminal court but then were later held responsible for the same crime in a civil court? Is he half-innocent?

However what we are discussing here is the freedom of innocent men, and as we all know, men are the root of all evil so if a few 'innocents' go to jail, it is perfectly alright to the feminist.
The combination of your screen name and your MRA trolling is giving me giggle fits. Keep up the good work!

The combination of your screen name and your MRA trolling is giving me giggle fits. Keep up the good work!

Ah but you proceed from a false assumption. Keep up the good work!

Because society keeps the accuser behind a veil of secrecy, and will not prosecute them when they discover the accusation to be a lie out of misplaced fear that it will discourage future 'victims' from coming forward.

This is, with all due respect, a complete load of crap. Please, show us some evidence of this epidemic of ebil wimminz fabricating rape charges and never facing any consequences. Heck, show us evidence of even ONE such case.

Oh, and putting "victims" in quotes while addressing someone who already mentioned having been assaulted? Classy. Real classy.

They feel that encouraging people to come forward as victims that maybe some small percentage actually are. Another classic example of "If it helps one person" it is somehow worth it.

Haha, yeah, "maybe some small percentage" of women who claim to have been raped actually were. Because, you know, being raped is so cool and fun that everyone wants to do it!

However what we are discussing here is the freedom of innocent men, and as we all know, men are the root of all evil so if a few 'innocents' go to jail, it is perfectly alright to the feminist.

This is so utterly silly that it doesn't warrant any response beyond laughter.

What ever happened to Purjery laws?

Nothing happened to them. Perjury is one of the charges a person could face if they made a false allegation of rape. Or any other crime.

Because society keeps the accuser behind a veil of secrecy, and will not prosecute them when they discover the accusation to be a lie out of misplaced fear that it will discourage future 'victims' from coming forward.

They feel that encouraging people to come forward as victims that maybe some small percentage actually are. Another classic example of "If it helps one person" it is somehow worth it.

However what we are discussing here is the freedom of innocent men, and as we all know, men are the root of all evil so if a few 'innocents' go to jail, it is perfectly alright to the feminist.

Isn't stereotyping fun?

Seriously, though. I can't think of a single case where people were accused of rape and were actually innocent, and the first player to say "Duke lacrosse" or "Kobe Bryant" loses - nothing but two cases of rich playboys getting away with vile crimes because they have money.

At this point in time, the risk of a male being falsely accused of rape on purpose is so small it's not even worth worrying about.

Isn't stereotyping fun?

Seriously, though. I can't think of a single case where people were accused of rape and were actually innocent, and the first player to say "Duke lacrosse" or "Kobe Bryant" loses - nothing but two cases of rich playboys getting away with vile crimes because they have money.

At this point in time, the risk of a male being falsely accused of rape on purpose is so small it's not even worth worrying about.

There've been some fairly famous ones here recently this one for example (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6258299.stm)

But I think anonymity should be there for all defendants and complainants, makes common sense really to protect people until the outcome is known. The rate of conviction in cases that go to court in the UK (the conviction rate people often mention generally refers to the % of all cases reported to the police) is about 50%. So in half of all UK rape court cases the defendants are found not guilty.

Rape is always going to be harder to prosecute due to the nature of it, since proving that there was no consent to an event that took place is harder than proving an event took place as with burglary/murder/etc

This is, with all due respect, a complete load of crap. Please, show us some evidence of this epidemic of ebil wimminz fabricating rape charges and never facing any consequences. Heck, show us evidence of even ONE such case.

I never said all women were evil. You are quite the embellisher. Google is your friend.

Just because you do not wish it to be true is not evidence it is false. Further if you wish to be taken seriously, I suggest you minimize your child speak.

Oh, and putting "victims" in quotes while addressing someone who already mentioned having been assaulted? Classy. Real classy.

If you are unable to distinguish who I was referring to in the quote, you might consider another thread. Obviously, I had a point you missed.

Haha, yeah, "maybe some small percentage" of women who claim to have been raped actually were. Because, you know, being raped is so cool and fun that everyone wants to do it!

Rape is not about sex, it is about power. As to enjoyment, some may enjoy it but it is not appropriate for this thread. There has been a few studies on the matter and they break down into distinct categories as to why some women fabricate rape charges.

- Revenge
- Attention
- Providing an alibi

As to other dispositions, these lies and false accusations overshadow the process. Rarely if ever a woman may be prosecuted for false charges. However I have yet to hear of any cases. I am assuming someone, somewhere successfully brought charges against some false accuser. However you wont hear much about it.

This is in the same category with CPS charges. People who file false allegations of child abuse never are prosecuted, nor even identified.

The Constitution guarantees the right to face your accuser. Seems to get lost in the shuffle after dragging people's names through the mud first and then recanting or admitting it was a lie afterward.

The court of public opinion does not read the retratction on page 86b under the obituaries. They only remember page 1 headlines.

This is so utterly silly that it doesn't warrant any response beyond laughter.

Laugh it up then. It seems to help your disposition.

Yeah, but that guy doesn't have an inherent right to watch your house.

But the accused rapists have no inherent right to have you come socialize with them or patronize their business. The issue is still the same.

Rape is always going to be harder to prosecute due to the nature of it, since proving that there was no consent to an event that took place is harder than proving an event took place as with burglary/murder/etc
Isn't that kind of weird, though?

If somebody claims their wallet was stolen, and then the police find the wallet on somebody else, the general assumption was that the victim did not consent to have his wallet taken and therefore the person with the wallet stole it. That's the theory we run with unless there's specific evidence establishing that the accuser DID consent to have his wallet taken.

[Which leads to a fun hypothetical...let's try swapping the laws such that it is assumed an individual did NOT consent to sex unless it can be proven otherwise! It'd sure make people more careful about who they choose to fuck!]

But the accused rapists have no inherent right to have you come socialize with them or patronize their business. The issue is still the same.

True. Here is another example of the court of public opinion.

http://www.harrysnews.com/tgfalselyaccusedofrape.htm

Here is a couple articles of interest:

http://www.americandaily.com/article/5075
http://fathersforlife.org/fv/false_abuse_allegations.htm

Dr. Kanin's report is very very telling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=www.sexcriminals.com%2Flibrary%2Fdoc-1002-1.doc&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt&u=www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1002-1.doc&d=OR3pfxIeOXni&icp=1&.intl=us

Closer to 50% in most cases there is a false complaint. These are just the ones recanted!

Ah, yes, the Kanin research. Which is most persuasive if we ignore what the study itself said about drawing conclusions about rape allegations in general:

Most problematic is the question of the generalizability of these findings from a single police agency handling a relatively small number of cases. Certainly, our intent is not to suggest that the 41% incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural variables that might be influencing such behavior and which could be responsible for wide variations among cities. .... In view of these factors, perhaps the most prudent summary statement that is appropriate from these data is that false rape accusations are not uncommon.

Add to that some oddities in Kanin's numbers. For example, large percentages of the "false" rape allegations in question didn't involve an actual accusation of rape against an identified rapist. (See the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Findings and first sentence of the 13th paragraph of the Findings). Moreoever, all of Kanin's "false" allegations are weeded out duirng the very early stages of investigation. None involved a charge of rape being formally brought, let alone a hearing, trial, or conviction.

There are lots of reasons to question Kanin's methodology and his results have not been confirmed by other research.

Kanin's anomolous results stand in stark contrast to other sources, such as the FBI's statistics that uniformly show a much lower rate of false accusations.

I know it is comfortable for you to believe Kanin's numbers at face value and to make unwarranted extrapolations because it fits with your ideology. Facts are stubborn things, however.

P.S. I love the way you rounded 41% up to 50%, way to show your objectivity!

I never said all women were evil. You are quite the embellisher. Google is your friend.

And I don't believe I accused you of saying such. I did, however, challenge you to provide some evidence for your assertion, but apparently that was too difficult for you.

Just because you do not wish it to be true is not evidence it is false. Further if you wish to be taken seriously, I suggest you minimize your child speak.

And just because you wish it to be true is not evidence that it is true. And, yeah, I'm not thinking I'm the one people aren't going to take seriously, here.


If you are unable to distinguish who I was referring to in the quote, you might consider another thread. Obviously, I had a point you missed.

The point certainly seemed to be that many or most people who claim to have been raped are not real "victims," given that you went out of your way to suggest that "maybe" some rape allegations are true, and put "victims" in scare-quotes. And, no, I'm not going to go away and stop arguing about an issue that is understandably rather important to me just because you don't feel like thinking before you type.


Rape is not about sex, it is about power. As to enjoyment, some may enjoy it but it is not appropriate for this thread.

...did you seriously just say "some women enjoy being raped"? Seriously? Good grief.

There has been a few studies on the matter and they break down into distinct categories as to why some women fabricate rape charges.

- Revenge
- Attention
- Providing an alibi

As to other dispositions, these lies and false accusations overshadow the process. Rarely if ever a woman may be prosecuted for false charges. However I have yet to hear of any cases. I am assuming someone, somewhere successfully brought charges against some false accuser. However you wont hear much about it.

And how many cases have you heard of where there was proof the alleged victim lied and she faced no consequences? I already challenged you to name even one - funny how you ignored that, eh?

Laugh it up then. It seems to help your disposition.

Well, I could have suggested that people like you are the reason I was too terrified to file charges against the guy who assaulted me, but laughing seemed like a kinder response.

Isn't that kind of weird, though?

If somebody claims their wallet was stolen, and then the police find the wallet on somebody else, the general assumption was that the victim did not consent to have his wallet taken and therefore the person with the wallet stole it. That's the theory we run with unless there's specific evidence establishing that the accuser DID consent to have his wallet taken.

[Which leads to a fun hypothetical...let's try swapping the laws such that it is assumed an individual did NOT consent to sex unless it can be proven otherwise! It'd sure make people more careful about who they choose to fuck!]

Depends on circumstances really. If you put in a wallet situation, if I woke up after a night out and someone I know has my wallet and says 'you gave it to me', I'd believe them, and if it came to court I certainly wouldn't consider it beyond reasonable doubt.

Where there's stranger rape and a person you don't know and have no reason to give your wallet to has your wallet then the assumption is that they stole it. And that's carried through to rape commonly.

Rape commonly comes with large amounts of alcohol being consumed and when you're only witness was definitely intoxicated at the time (plus the noted tendency of raped women to be poor witnesses link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6314445.stm)) then reasonable doubt is going to come in a lot.

But the accused rapists have no inherent right to have you come socialize with them or patronize their business. The issue is still the same.
Are you saying that everyone who's been to court, even those who've been found not guilty, should be treated as if they were to some extent guilty?

Seriously, though. I can't think of a single case where people were accused of rape and were actually innocent, and the first player to say "Duke lacrosse" or "Kobe Bryant" loses - nothing but two cases of rich playboys getting away with vile crimes because they have money.

Oh, please. This is just sad. Only the most ridiculously stubborn of people would still claim that the Duke College players were guilty. The evidence is overwhelmingly in their favour.

..."Duke lacrosse" or "Kobe Bryant" loses - nothing but two cases of rich playboys getting away with vile crimes because they have money.i see.

And I don't believe I accused you of saying such. I did, however, challenge you to provide some evidence for your assertion, but apparently that was too difficult for you.

Since you choose to be an armchair quarterback, here is at least one...

http://www.falserape.net/manifest_injustice.html

To be fair, I did find one incident that the accuser actually was sentenced to 90 days.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/11/10/122323/17

Have you ever read this book called The Morning After?
In the book, she talks about how the statististic that 1 in 4 women have been raped is grossly innacurate. Instead of asking women if they've been raped, they had women fill out a survey asking questions such as "Have you ever had sex when you didn't want to?" or "Have you ever had sex while intoxicated?" A yes to either means you've been raped. It's such crap. If that was true, I'm a rapist and I've been raped. But really, I haven't.

I really don't have much of an opinion on the actually issue of the thread, I just wanted to mention that.

And that isn't rape (the bolded part), how? Lack of consent constitutes rape, does it not?

Since you choose to be an armchair quarterback, here is at least one...

http://www.falserape.net/manifest_injustice.html

Hahaha. That's the best, most unbiased source you could find?

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

I guess it's all a matter of personal perspective, because I usually see the overwhelming majority of people being MORE critical of rape claims than just about any other accusations.


While I certainly agree that the media loves to whip up public outrage surrounding rape allegations, I think they are just as fast (if not faster) to whip up outrage directed at the victim. The media will dwell endlessly on how young and available a victim was, or on how she was a bad naughty girl out partying, or how she'd been drinking and flirting, and on and on and on.

In other words, the media leaps to convict both the accused AND the accuser, in my experience.


The sad reality of our world is that the majority of rapists will never be convicted. I certainly don't use criminal conviction as my only standard for judging who is and is not a rapist, because I personally know of two rapists who were never convicted of anything.

Whether or not the public should "convict" individuals who have not been found guilty in a criminal court is debatable. And what about individuals like OJ Simpson, who were found Not Guilty in criminal court but then were later held responsible for the same crime in a civil court? Is he half-innocent?

Civil court is never about innocence or guilt, it's about liability due to an act....

If the public should convict a person who has not been found guilty of a crime is NOT debatable.... The public has no right to pronounce conviction upon people, that's WHY we have courts...

Depends on circumstances really. If you put in a wallet situation, if I woke up after a night out and someone I know has my wallet and says 'you gave it to me', I'd believe them, and if it came to court I certainly wouldn't consider it beyond reasonable doubt.

Where there's stranger rape and a person you don't know and have no reason to give your wallet to has your wallet then the assumption is that they stole it. And that's carried through to rape commonly.

Given that a rapist is far more likely to be known to the victim, I'd say that's a pretty stupid assumption to carry through.


Rape commonly comes with large amounts of alcohol being consumed and when you're only witness was definitely intoxicated at the time (plus the noted tendency of raped women to be poor witnesses link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6314445.stm)) then reasonable doubt is going to come in a lot.

You're missing the point of my hypothetical. The default assumption would be that there was NO consent, unless the accused could prove otherwise. The fact that the victim was intoxicated wouldn't provide "reasonable doubt" in that case, because it wouldn't remotely help the accused prove that his victim knowingly consented to sex.

Civil court is never about innocence or guilt, it's about liability due to an act....

Yes, and if somebody is found liable for the rape of another person, why should I weight that less than a criminal conviction?


If the public should convict a person who has not been found guilty of a crime is NOT debatable.... The public has no right to pronounce conviction upon people, that's WHY we have courts...
*Eyeroll*

Obviously the public can't actually LEGALLY convict somebody. I was talking about how we each have the ability and the right to "convict" a criminal in our own minds.

It's amazing to hear people insisting that everybody must blindly accept court rulings as infallible. If a court says somebody is Not Guilty, well, that MUST be true! Courts can't ever make mistakes! Well, unless they're falsely convicting some poor man who was accused of rape by a lying slut bent on revenge. In that case the courts are wrong and we all should know that the real victim is men who are accused of rape.

Hahaha. That's the best, most unbiased source you could find?

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
Like I said before, he's just an MRA troll. There seriously is no point in talking at them.

Knowingly filing a false police report is already a crime.

Libel/slander is already considered a reasonable basis for lawsuits.

What possible reason is there to make "falsely accusing someone of rape" a new criminal charge unto itself other than discouraging victims from coming forward?
So why wasn't I taught that in school?

So why wasn't I taught that in school?

Where I grew up, pretty much anybody reporting any type of crime would be given the same line (delivered in a monotone by a desk jockey who obviously had to recite it a million times a day):

"Filing a false police report is punishable under [State law, section, paragraph, etc] by up to one year in jail and a $2500 fine. Do you wish to proceed with your report?"

I found out about this during an on-going battle with our neighbors over some truly spectacular noise ordinance violations.

Where I grew up, pretty much anybody reporting any type of crime would be given the same line (delivered in a monotone by a desk jockey who obviously had to recite it a million times a day):

"Filing a false police report is punishable under [State law, section, paragraph, etc] by up to one year in jail and a $2500 fine. Do you wish to proceed with your report?"

I found out about this during an on-going battle with our neighbors over some truly spectacular noise ordinance violations.
That still didn't answer my question.

That still didn't answer my question.How are we supposed to know why your school or your attention span or your hearing is teh suck?

That still didn't answer my question.

Because you went to a crappy school or you weren't paying attention.

And that isn't rape (the bolded part), how? Lack of consent constitutes rape, does it not?

The question doesn't ask about consent. It's perfectly possible to consent to sex without wanting or desiring to have sex.

Rape is not about sex, it is about power.

What does this mean? I see it, or similar, bandied about by people professing to have some insight as to what rape is but I find it such a pop-culture reference that it really devalues the wide range of rape scenarios that occur. If anything, it shows a very shallow understanding, the idea that rapists are living in their mother's basements plotting revenge against insidious women.

It's about frustration, it's about anger, it's about jealousy, it's about insecurity, it's about punishment, it's about ego, it's about disrespect, it's about cultural beliefs, it's about simple desire, it's about believing you have a right to something because 'she led me on'.

It's very much to do with sex.

It's about so many things that to throw out such a statement as if it has any value as some sort of rebuttal blows any credibility you have.

In fact, it speaks very much to the narrow view you hold on the subject and hence your opinions - that men are, in any way, victims in most cases of rape claims.

It speak to the 'she deserved it' crowd of opinion.

Don't they have different standards of evidence?
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that criminal trials use the "reasonable doubt" standard, while civil trials are more likely to use "preponderance of the evidence," which (I think) basically means that the average person weighing all of the evidence would consider the charges more likely true than not.

I don't know anything about the standards for what may and may not be admitted as evidence in each type of trial, though.

Yes, and if somebody is found liable for the rape of another person, why should I weight that less than a criminal conviction?

Don't they have different standards of evidence?

Guilty until proven innocent then?

Well, I was thinking closer to what we have in place for murder, and I realize I was unclear about that.

In the case of a homicide, you don't see the defense arguing that the victim consented to be shot in the face or something. It is assumed that a victim did not consent to be killed. The accused is not trying to prove that no murder occurred, but that THEY did not commit the murder.

What I'm suggesting would be basically an application of that standard to rape. Right now, the focus tends toward proving that no rape occurred in the first place, often by directly attacking the victim herself/himself. (It wasn't rape because look how she was dressed! It wasn't rape because he was her boyfriend/husband! It wasn't rape because she deserved it, being out so late and alone! etc.)

What I'm suggesting is that, instead of expecting the victim to prove that the sex was non-consensual, the legal assumption would be that sex is non-consensual by default.

There would not be any debate as to whether or not a rape occurred, in other words, it would simply be a matter of establishing whether or not the accused is the person who committed the rape.


What is often the case in rape cases the jury is offered two conflicting views of events with little evidence to distinguish between the two. That cannot be seen as justifying conviction and jail sentance in my eyes.
Which is where the hypothetical comes in. Instead of saying, "Well, he says it was consensual sex, but she says it was rape, so I guess we break even," the assumption would be, "Well, he can't establish that she consented, so it was rape."

EDIT: I revised for (hopefully) improved clarity.

Given that a rapist is far more likely to be known to the victim, I'd say that's a pretty stupid assumption to carry through.

You're missing the point of my hypothetical. The default assumption would be that there was NO consent, unless the accused could prove otherwise. The fact that the victim was intoxicated wouldn't provide "reasonable doubt" in that case, because it wouldn't remotely help the accused prove that his victim knowingly consented to sex.

Guilty until proven innocent then?

What is often the case in rape cases the jury is offered two conflicting views of events with little evidence to distinguish between the two. That cannot be seen as justifying conviction and jail sentance in my eyes.

Oh, please. This is just sad. Only the most ridiculously stubborn of people would still claim that the Duke College players were guilty. The evidence is overwhelmingly in their favour.

A bunch of bullshit is more like it. How can you really expect someone to remember a bunch of details when they're being gang-raped? Of course the story's going to change. And so what if she had bipolar disorder? Are we now saying it's OK to rape people who have mental illnesses? Give me a fucking break. Even if there wasn't actual rape, those players are guilty as sin of so many other things that it's a complete miscarriage of justice that they're allowed to see the light of day, let alone have the public feel sorry for the spoiled little rich boys.

I would agree with the stance, in this case, that rape should be prosecuted as a "guilty until proven innocent" case. Innocent until proven guilty clearly isn't working.

Even if there wasn't actual rape, those players are guilty as sin of so many other things that it's a complete miscarriage of justice that they're allowed to see the light of day, let alone have the public feel sorry for the spoiled little rich boys.
Sounds like you have more of a problem with the fact that they're rich white guys than the fact that they were found not guilty of rape.

I would agree with the stance, in this case, that rape should be prosecuted as a "guilty until proven innocent" case. Innocent until proven guilty clearly isn't working.

You raped me. Prove otherwise.

You raped me. Prove otherwise.
Well, first it would have to be established that sex occurred. (Like how you're expected to establish that somebody is dead before you can pursue a homicide charge.) If you could establish that you and the accused had sex, then under this hypothetical it would be assumed to be non-consensual sex unless it could be established otherwise. If he claimed it was consensual but you insisted it wasn't, his claim would automatically be the one that would require supporting evidence.

Well, I was thinking closer to what we have in place for murder, and I realize I was unclear about that.

In the case of an obvious homicide (like the victim was choked into unconsciousness then shot in the back or something), the fact that a homicide occurred is not debated. The accused is not trying to prove that no murder occurred, but that THEY did not commit the murder.

What I'm suggesting would be basically an application of that standard to rape. Right now, the focus tends toward proving that no rape occurred in the first place, often by directly attacking the victim herself/himself. (It wasn't rape because look how she was dressed! It wasn't rape because he was her boyfriend/husband! It wasn't rape because she deserved it, being out so late and alone! etc.)

What I'm suggesting is that, instead of expecting the victim to prove that the sex was non-consensual, the legal assumption would be that sex is non-consensual by default.

There would not be any debate as to whether or not a rape occurred, in other words, it would simply be a matter of establishing whether or not the accused is the person who committed the rape.
But it's still fundamentally different to rape, since you can't consent to your own murder. Whether rape occurred or it was consensual is the central important issue being tested by the court.


Which is where the hypothetical comes in. Instead of saying, "Well, he says it was consensual sex, but she says it was rape, so I guess we break even," the assumption would be, "Well, he can't establish that she consented, so it was rape."
Thereby everyone accused of rape could file an accusation of rape against the other person (if the UK ever admits men can get raped) and you could have two people convicted of simultaneously raping each other.

But it's still fundamentally different to rape, since you can't consent to your own murder.

Yes, you can. It is simply assumed that you didn't, unless there is evidence to the contrary.


Whether rape occurred or it was consensual is the central important issue being tested by the court.

And I'm saying it wouldn't be, in this hypothetical. Instead, the fact that a rape occurred would not be up for debate. The only issue (legally) would be establishing that the accused was the person who committed the rape.


Thereby everyone accused of rape could file an accusation of rape against the other person (if the UK ever admits men can get raped) and you could have two people convicted of simultaneously raping each other.
In cases of assault we frequently have both parties claiming that the other person started it. Hasn't caused the justice system to explode yet, as far as I know.

Yes, you can. It is simply assumed that you didn't, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

In the UK you cannot legally consent to your own murder.


And I'm saying it wouldn't be, in this hypothetical. Instead, the fact that a rape occurred would not be up for debate.

Then there's no trial at all. A woman could hypothetically walk in say 'this guy raped me', dna swab tests performed, intercourse shown to have taken place therefore he is guilty of rape. You can't just ignore the possibility that the sex was consensual because the woman says it wasn't.



In cases of assault we frequently have both parties claiming that the other person started it. Hasn't caused the justice system to explode yet, as far as I know.

That's because it's not ridiculous to convict two parties of being guilty of assault in the same incident. And we don't have the assumption that they're guilty.

In the UK you cannot legally consent to your own murder.In Germany, you can't either, because then it wouldn't be murder, or even manslaughter for that matter. It would constitute "killing on demand".

In the UK you cannot legally consent to your own murder.


Well you can - but the person who murders you cannot use the fact that you agreed to them murdering you as a defence.

In the UK you cannot legally consent to your own murder.

This gets into the whole "assisted suicide" thing, really.

I think it's pretty obvious that a person could consent to be murdered. After all, murder is simply the unlawful killing of a human being, and as long as assisted suicide is illegal that would mean it is a murder that a person has consented to.


Then there's no trial at all. A woman could hypothetically walk in say 'this guy raped me', dna swab tests performed, intercourse shown to have taken place therefore he is guilty of rape.

Right now, a homicide victim is found, there's DNA evidence at the scene, a murder clearly took place...and we still have a trial.

Why would the presence of an obvious crime, and evidence to support indicting a particular individual, magically remove the need for a trial?


You can't just ignore the possibility that the sex was consensual because the woman says it wasn't.

The possibility would not be ignored. It would simply be assumed that it was non-consensual sex unless there was evidence to the contrary.


That's because it's not ridiculous to convict two parties of being guilty of assault in the same incident.

So it's not ridiculous to convict two parties of being guilty of non-sexual assault, but it's ridiculous to convict two parties of being guilty of sexual assault?


And we don't have the assumption that they're guilty.
You wouldn't in this hypothetical case, either.

Remember, the only new assumption in this hypothetical is that A RAPE HAS TAKEN PLACE. Whether or not the accused committed the rape would be just as up for debate as it currently is.

A bunch of bullshit is more like it. How can you really expect someone to remember a bunch of details when they're being gang-raped? Of course the story's going to change. And so what if she had bipolar disorder? Are we now saying it's OK to rape people who have mental illnesses? Give me a fucking break. Even if there wasn't actual rape, those players are guilty as sin of so many other things that it's a complete miscarriage of justice that they're allowed to see the light of day, let alone have the public feel sorry for the spoiled little rich boys.

I would agree with the stance, in this case, that rape should be prosecuted as a "guilty until proven innocent" case. Innocent until proven guilty clearly isn't working.
Then I hope you get falsely convicted of rape.

The benefit of a doubt is the most important human right of all. Without it, you have no other rights. "Innocent until proven guilty" should never be compromised.

If a rape accusation can be proven false rather than merely mistaken, the penalty should be the same as what would be inflicted on the would-be victim.

It should also be a serious offense to discriminate against someone based on charges which were dropped or for which he was acquitted.

I am fully in favor of the identities of alleged rapists being kept secret unless they're convicted, for the same reason as I am in favor of the identities of victims being held in the same confidence.

Rape is a crime for which the jury of public opinion sentences a great stigma, often to both the villain and the victim. The principle of presumption of innocence is injured by the hasty and illegitimate verdicts of that jury.

I think it's pretty obvious that a person could consent to be murdered. After all, murder is simply the unlawful killing of a human being, and as long as assisted suicide is illegal that would mean it is a murder that a person has consented to.No, that's manslaughter. Murder is an illegal killing of a human being with the added requirement of malice aforethought.

No, that's manslaughter. Murder is an illegal killing of a human being with the added requirement of malice aforethought.
Ah, forgive me for the confusion:

I was using the dictionary definition rather than the legal one. Which, in the case of this discussion, is needlessly confuddling. My bad.

Regardless, I still don't see any particular reason why it would be impossible for a person to consent to be murdered (even if the murderer does so with malice aforethought).

Regardless, I still don't see any particular reason why it would be impossible for a person to consent to be murdered (even if the murderer does so with malice aforethought).Depends on the legal framework, of course. In Germany, murder is determined by one or more criteria. The only one I can seriously think of that would turn "killing on demand" (which is similar to assisted suicide) into murder are the criteria of extreme brutality and endangerment of others.

This gets into the whole "assisted suicide" thing, really.

I think it's pretty obvious that a person could consent to be murdered. After all, murder is simply the unlawful killing of a human being, and as long as assisted suicide is illegal that would mean it is a murder that a person has consented to.
Beyond the various complicated legal technicalities, it comes down to 'if someone allows/asks/etc you to kill them, you've still committed a crime. That is not the case in rape since it would be consensual sex.


Right now, a homicide victim is found, there's DNA evidence at the scene, a murder clearly took place...and we still have a trial.

See above. In order to prove murder you need to prove someone killed someone; whether they consented or not is immaterial. Rape has the extra possibility that someone who had sex with someone did so in a consensual non-criminal way. They're not comparable.

You're presuming that a crime was committed based on no actual evidence other than a person's testimony. And putting that testimony above the one of the person who says it was consensual. One person's evidence does not automatically outweigh anothers.


Why would the presence of an obvious crime, and evidence to support indicting a particular individual, magically remove the need for a trial?

Because rape is NOT an obvious crime. A person who has been killed clearly and indisputably. indicates that a crime's been committed. A person who's had sex does not.


The possibility would not be ignored. It would simply be assumed that it was non-consensual sex unless there was evidence to the contrary.

By presuming that a rape has occurred you're ruling out the possibility that the sex was consensual. In order to convict you need to prove a crime was committed and that a certain person committed that crime. You can't just presume a crime was committed without evidence.


So it's not ridiculous to convict two parties of being guilty of non-sexual assault, but it's ridiculous to convict two parties of being guilty of sexual assault?
No. If two people have a fight then they're assaulting each other.

It's ridiculous that the courts could effectively rule 'both of you forced the other to have sex with you against both of your wills'.


You wouldn't in this hypothetical case, either.

Remember, the only new assumption in this hypothetical is that A RAPE HAS TAKEN PLACE. Whether or not the accused committed the rape would be just as up for debate as it currently is.
But it generally isn't. It is generally accepted by both sides that sex took place. You can't just say 'sex took place therefore we're assuming it was rape'. The identity of the person involved is rarely an issue in rape. The nature of the act they committed is the key issue, you can't just bypass the central point of the case.

I dont think very many people here know what is involved in a rape investigation, and then what happens at a rape trial.


Look it up. Then, after you look it up, tell me if you know any woman who would be willing to go through all that just because they regret consenting to sex or for revenge. If you still think a woman would, you dont understand the female psyche at all.


Saying you were raped to your friends to smear someone's reputation is completelly different from going to court over it. One might be used for revenge on an ex boyfriend. The other would never be, simply for the procedures involved.

Beyond the various complicated legal technicalities, it comes down to 'if someone allows/asks/etc you to kill them, you've still committed a crime. That is not the case in rape since it would be consensual sex.

Well, again, this is an area of debate. And kind of a big tangent. There are people who believe that it should NOT be a crime for you to kill somebody who consents to be killed. The fact that our laws currently hold it to be a crime doesn't necessarily mean the laws should be that way.


See above. In order to prove murder you need to prove someone killed someone; whether they consented or not is immaterial. Rape has the extra possibility that someone who had sex with someone did so in a consensual non-criminal way. They're not comparable.

Again, whether or not those laws are just is a matter of debate. The existence of one set of (possibly) unjust laws does not make an argument for additional unjust laws, right?


You're presuming that a crime was committed based on no actual evidence other than a person's testimony.

Incorrect. Please read through my posts.


And putting that testimony above the one of the person who says it was consensual. One person's evidence does not automatically outweigh anothers.

Incorrect. Again, the DEFAULT ASSUMPTION would be that the sex was non-consensual. No testimony required to establish that.

Just like how our current system does not require that we have witness testimony proving that the deceased did not consent to be stabbed 14 times in the back before the stabbing is ruled to be a homicide.


Because rape is NOT an obvious crime.

Sure it is. If you've had sex with a non-consenting party, it's obvious to me that you've committed a crime.


A person who has been killed clearly and indisputably. indicates that a crime's been committed. A person who's had sex does not.

Sex would not be a crime. Non-consensual sex would be.


By presuming that a rape has occurred you're ruling out the possibility that the sex was consensual.

No, you're not. Again, the default assumption would be that the sex was non-consensual. This would not preclude the admission of evidence that the sex WAS consensual.


In order to convict you need to prove a crime was committed and that a certain person committed that crime. You can't just presume a crime was committed without evidence.

You wouldn't be presuming that a crime was committed without evidence.


No. If two people have a fight then they're assaulting each other.

It's ridiculous that the courts could effectively rule 'both of you forced the other to have sex with you against both of your wills'.

Why?


But it generally isn't. It is generally accepted by both sides that sex took place. You can't just say 'sex took place therefore we're assuming it was rape'.

Why not?


The identity of the person involved is rarely an issue in rape.

If only this were remotely true, in any way shape or form. :(


The nature of the act they committed is the key issue, you can't just bypass the central point of the case.
You wouldn't be, in this hypothetical.

I see what you're getting at in a sense. But in doing so, I'm forced to imagine an enforced contract scenario where people legally register with each other before sex occurs to deal with the false accusations. Although that's not necessarily a bad way to go, the bureaucracy seems like it'd be very hard to regulate, and it would be quite a serious blow to personal liberties.
Or you could simply ensure that there are "witnesses" to the consent.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of making sure that my partner is deafening our neighbors with his cries of "Yes, yes, Dear Sweet Merciful God, YES!" for the entire length of our sexual congress.

And I'm saying it wouldn't be, in this hypothetical. Instead, the fact that a rape occurred would not be up for debate. The only issue (legally) would be establishing that the accused was the person who committed the rape.
I see what you're getting at in a sense. But in doing so, I'm forced to imagine an enforced contract scenario where people legally register with each other before sex occurs to deal with the false accusations. Although that's not necessarily a bad way to go, the bureaucracy seems like it'd be very hard to regulate, and it would be quite a serious blow to personal liberties.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of making sure that my partner is deafening our neighbors with his cries of "Yes, yes, Dear Sweet Merciful God, YES!" for the entire length of our sexual congress.



:eek:

I want to clarify something, before this line of discussion goes further:

The hypothetical I tossed out is an idea I'm playing around with. I'm arguing it because I think it's an interesting notion and I want to see where it goes. I am not sure what I think of it yet. I am not doing this to annoy anybody or to be a jerk. I'm honestly curious about where it will lead.

Please do not assume that I actually endorse putting this hypothetical into practice right now! I don't want to be in the middle of some future discussion and have somebody hold this thread up as proof that I think all sex should be assumed to be non-consensual. :P

I want to clarify something, before this line of discussion goes further:

The hypothetical I tossed out is an idea I'm playing around with. I'm arguing it because I think it's an interesting notion and I want to see where it goes. I am not sure what I think of it yet. I am not doing this to annoy anybody or to be a jerk. I'm honestly curious about where it will lead.

Please do not assume that I actually endorse putting this hypothetical into practice right now! I don't want to be in the middle of some future discussion and have somebody hold this thread up as proof that I think all sex should be assumed to be non-consensual. :P




Oh no, Im sorry. It doesnt work like that. Next discussion youre involved in, even if I agree with you, Im going to jump in and say "Well you hate sex and think people should be thrown in jail for having it!"

;):p

Oh no, Im sorry. It doesnt work like that. Next discussion youre involved in, even if I agree with you, Im going to jump in and say "Well you hate sex and think people should be thrown in jail for having it!"


;):p
Hah!

Actually, being an "out" feminist, I get that accusation all the time. If I say, "You know, a whole lot of porno is really exploitative and shitty for the porn stars," there'll inevitably be some yahoo who waltzes in and accuses me of wanting to ban all pornography. Which will come as quite a shock to my hard drive...

Hah!

Actually, being an "out" feminist, I get that accusation all the time. If I say, "You know, a whole lot of porno is really exploitative and shitty for the porn stars," there'll inevitably be some yahoo who waltzes in and accuses me of wanting to ban all pornography. Which will come as quite a shock to my hard drive...

Because we all know femanisits are super prude and moral authoritarians.


No matter how stupid I know people are, when people make huge leaps in logic it still makes me die a bit inside.

Hah!

Actually, being an "out" feminist, I get that accusation all the time. If I say, "You know, a whole lot of porno is really exploitative and shitty for the porn stars," there'll inevitably be some yahoo who waltzes in and accuses me of wanting to ban all pornography. Which will come as quite a shock to my hard drive...Oh, no! Hard-drives are sensitive to that and it could cause damage! :eek: