Groom cleared of raping his bride on their wedding night
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Silver Arrow
In response to yesterday's thread
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139074/Groom-cleared-raping-bride-wedding-night-allegations-trouble.html
It turns out the wench made up those allegations just to get him into trouble. How do you all feel now?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139074/Groom-cleared-raping-bride-wedding-night-allegations-trouble.html
It turns out the wench made up those allegations just to get him into trouble. How do you all feel now?
I thought something was fishy at the time, but decided not to post in the other thread because it hadn't gone through the courts and the only material wasn't too detailed. Basically, it took her two whole years from the first rape to decide to break away, when probably the most damaging rape was the first.
Original post by de_monies
What a bitch, if true. She should deserve the same punishment as a rapist would get. False allegations of rape are very serious and can destroy a person's life. It's only fair that the same happens to her.
That being said, I don't know why they were together. They're clearly dysfunctional
That being said, I don't know why they were together. They're clearly dysfunctional
I think that would be fair enough. Let's also not forget that lies mean true victims are viewed with more suspicion (rightly, if lies are more prevalent, but it need not be that way).
Original post by Snagprophet
I wonder why she hasn't been charged with harassment and false rape claims yet. Oh yeah, sexism towards men.
She won't be charged unless she admits to falsely accusing her husband of rape or if there is evidence showing her story not adding up. At this moment in time there simply isn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the rapes.
Original post by Ape Gone Insane
Key word being 'reasonable'. I don't think it has ever been 100%. Beyond all reasonable doubt is not the same thing as beyond all shadow of a doubt.
That's true but this is a concern that needs to be addressed on a wider level in how we approached rape cases, I think.
That's true but this is a concern that needs to be addressed on a wider level in how we approached rape cases, I think.
The whole foundation of our legal system is built on the reasoning that it would be preferable for 99 guilty men to walk free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned. Which i agree with but obviously this ends in low conviction rates for rape cases because often the only evidence is one person's statement that they didnt give consent.
People mistakenly thinking that an 'innocent' verdict means that the person reporting the rape was lieing are not helping the problem. This man may very well be one of the 99 guilty men we allow to go free to ensure we never inadvertently imprison an innocent man.
Original post by Snagprophet
Or it didn't happen.
Yes, that could also be the case, but from we are all sitting here on the interwebs (with almost none of the details, i.e. none of us were there in court, and none of us were there when the alleged incidents took place) I don't understand why people are now somehow certain that the allegations were malicious and made up.
So much facepalm in this thread. Seriously, university, and potential ****ING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS?!
Almost ALL accused rapists are acquitted in court. Why do you think that is? They are not all innocent, but they are non the less found so. Why could this be?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by de_monies
In all fairness, I thought that would be the case. It's a very sexist part of the law. If you make fake rape allegations, and are proven without a doubt to have made those allegations, then you deserve to go in to prison for the same amount of time that the other party would have gone in for, if convicted
EDIT: To the feminists, I'd argue the same if a man falsely accused someone of rape, though man on man rape seems to be rarer
EDIT: To the feminists, I'd argue the same if a man falsely accused someone of rape, though man on man rape seems to be rarer
If they arrested her for false claims and lieing under oath she would be aquitted for the same reason her husband was. There isn't enough evidence. Actually there isn't any evidence, so it wouldn't even make it to court.
Don't get me wrong, people who falsely accuse others of rape are despicable but how do you prove they are lieing?
Original post by Anna150
The whole foundation of our legal system is built on the reasoning that it would be preferable for 99 guilty men to walk free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned. Which i agree with but obviously this ends in low conviction rates for rape cases because often the only evidence is one person's statement that they didnt give consent.
People mistakenly thinking that an 'innocent' verdict means that the person reporting the rape was lieing are not helping the problem. This man may very well be one of the 99 guilty men we allow to go free to ensure we never inadvertently imprison an innocent man.
People mistakenly thinking that an 'innocent' verdict means that the person reporting the rape was lieing are not helping the problem. This man may very well be one of the 99 guilty men we allow to go free to ensure we never inadvertently imprison an innocent man.
What should it be for low conviction rate crimes? You could argue that for more serious crimes (i.e. where the sentence is greater) the burden of proof should be higher, and since it's usually consent rather than whether or not something happened that is in question (as opposed to murder where there's either a dead body with blood everywhere or there isn't), a low conviction rate makes sense. I can't find too many details about other conviction rates, but apparently 60% of rapes that make it to the courts end up in a conviction which is higher than some other violent crimes, and the ~6% figure from arrests is about half that of terror convictions, which isn't too bad considering that although terrorism is probably stopped when still mostly in the suspects' heads, there will be some material evidence.
Original post by Hopple
What should it be for low conviction rate crimes? You could argue that for more serious crimes (i.e. where the sentence is greater) the burden of proof should be higher, and since it's usually consent rather than whether or not something happened that is in question (as opposed to murder where there's either a dead body with blood everywhere or there isn't), a low conviction rate makes sense. I can't find too many details about other conviction rates, but apparently 60% of rapes that make it to the courts end up in a conviction which is higher than some other violent crimes, and the ~6% figure from arrests is about half that of terror convictions, which isn't too bad considering that although terrorism is probably stopped when still mostly in the suspects' heads, there will be some material evidence.
I wouldn't never say "Rape conviction rates should be higher". They are what they are. I don't have any solution on how to improve it. It's just annoying seeing everyone jump on the "What a lieing bitch" bandwagon. It's really simple
If the Jury thought the Wife was telling the truth the verdict would have been Guilty
If the Jury thought the Husband was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent
If the Jury could not tell either way who was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent
An innocent verdict doesn't mean she was lieing. If in a murder case it was CERTAIN that either defendant A or defendant B killed the victim and it couldn't possibly have been anyone else, they still both could walk away 'innocent' if there wasn't enough evidence to definitive say who is telling the truth and who is lieing. Yet in that case they would be allowing them to walk free knowing full well that ONE of them comitted murder.
(edited 11 years ago)
1 Hour Ago: 3rd May 2012 23:02
MrJim
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 66
Re: Husband raped wife on wedding night after she declined him sex
I don't know how anyone could hurt someone they love just to get sex quicker. I've been with girls who say no and mean yes though, and come back with me, pretend to not want sex and then end up in bed with me and after I kind of lay down, they'll say "HEY, I DO ACTUALLY WANT SEX, DON'T FALL ASLEEP! JIIIIIM!". I'm not implying this is the case here though. Just saying.
More or less predicted.
MrJim
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 66
Re: Husband raped wife on wedding night after she declined him sex
I don't know how anyone could hurt someone they love just to get sex quicker. I've been with girls who say no and mean yes though, and come back with me, pretend to not want sex and then end up in bed with me and after I kind of lay down, they'll say "HEY, I DO ACTUALLY WANT SEX, DON'T FALL ASLEEP! JIIIIIM!". I'm not implying this is the case here though. Just saying.
More or less predicted.
Original post by Anna150
I wouldn't never say "Rape conviction rates should be higher". They are what they are. I don't have any solution on how to improve it. It's just annoying seeing everyone jump on the "What a lieing bitch" bandwagon. It's really simple
If the Jury thought the Wife was telling the truth the verdict would have been Guilty
If the Jury thought the Husband was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent
If the Jury could not tell either way who was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent
An innocent verdict doesn't mean she was lieing. If in a murder case it was CERTAIN that either defendant A or defendant B killed the victim and it couldn't possibly have been anyone else, they still both could walk away 'innocent' if there wasn't enough evidence to definitive say who is telling the truth and who is lieing. Yet in that case they would be allowing them to walk free knowing full well that ONE of them comitted murder.
If the Jury thought the Wife was telling the truth the verdict would have been Guilty
If the Jury thought the Husband was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent
If the Jury could not tell either way who was telling the truth the verdict would have been Innocent
An innocent verdict doesn't mean she was lieing. If in a murder case it was CERTAIN that either defendant A or defendant B killed the victim and it couldn't possibly have been anyone else, they still both could walk away 'innocent' if there wasn't enough evidence to definitive say who is telling the truth and who is lieing. Yet in that case they would be allowing them to walk free knowing full well that ONE of them comitted murder.
Should it be improved? Do you know what the rates for murder, gbh and kidnapping are? I don't know what they are, but from the links I posted it doesn't seem out of line with other crimes
If it turned out that conviction rates for murder were 5%, would you think the 6% for rape was still in need of an increase? Or both were?I see what you mean about calling the woman a liar, but I suppose at least now we have all the information we're going to get about the case rather than a list of allegations. Would you want a trial held to determine if she was lying? I think that would be fair, but then there is pressure from various groups to not do anything that might discourage rape victims from coming forwards. If she was telling the truth, then one of the biggest issues (apart from letting her attacker go free) is why she decided to wait two years to report it. Perhaps you see that as fishy as well, that she didn't run immediately after the wedding night rape, or after she'd been raped after giving birth.
Original post by Hopple
Should it be improved? Do you know what the rates for murder, gbh and kidnapping are? I don't know what they are, but from the links I posted it doesn't seem out of line with other crimes If it turned out that conviction rates for murder were 5%, would you think the 6% for rape was still in need of an increase? Or both were?
I see what you mean about calling the woman a liar, but I suppose at least now we have all the information we're going to get about the case rather than a list of allegations. Would you want a trial held to determine if she was lying? I think that would be fair, but then there is pressure from various groups to not do anything that might discourage rape victims from coming forwards. If she was telling the truth, then one of the biggest issues (apart from letting her attacker go free) is why she decided to wait two years to report it. Perhaps you see that as fishy as well, that she didn't run immediately after the wedding night rape, or after she'd been raped after giving birth.
If it turned out that conviction rates for murder were 5%, would you think the 6% for rape was still in need of an increase? Or both were?I see what you mean about calling the woman a liar, but I suppose at least now we have all the information we're going to get about the case rather than a list of allegations. Would you want a trial held to determine if she was lying? I think that would be fair, but then there is pressure from various groups to not do anything that might discourage rape victims from coming forwards. If she was telling the truth, then one of the biggest issues (apart from letting her attacker go free) is why she decided to wait two years to report it. Perhaps you see that as fishy as well, that she didn't run immediately after the wedding night rape, or after she'd been raped after giving birth.
I think the outcome was the right one. There wasn't enough evidence to convict the husband. My issue is with the public reaction to it. If there was actual evidence to suggest she was lying (eg. sending texts admitting it) then yes i'd want a trial. Otherwise, whether or not you think it's fair, it would be pointless because they'd never find her guilty anyway.
Original post by Anna150
I think the outcome was the right one. There wasn't enough evidence to convict the husband. My issue is with the public reaction to it. If there was actual evidence to suggest she was lying (eg. sending texts admitting it) then yes i'd want a trial. Otherwise, whether or not you think it's fair, it would be pointless because they'd never find her guilty anyway.
You could say that her allegations should never had been taken to trial either, on that basis
The article says the jury decided in under an hour.Original post by Ape Gone Insane
Nah, because a jury which is placed there to judge him in the administration of justice and has seen all the evidence - found him not guilty
That doesn't mean it didn't happen. The article itself states that little discussion was had, with our average rate of convictions for rape as low as it is, our society's general mistrust of women alleging rape and how difficult it is to prove that a rape occurred doesn't suggest to me that the findings of the jury represent objective truth. I'm not saying that it did happen, but the trial and the defendant testimony prove little to my mind.
The case being dismissed doesn't necessarily mean that she was lying, simply that there was not enough evidence to determine if she was telling the truth. In many cases where women have been proved to be lying, they receive jail sentences. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/17/woman-jailed-false-rape-claim
Even if he was guilty it's very difficult to prove. Why did she stay with him if he raped her multiple times? And were there times in between the rapes where they had sex which she consented to. Much harder to prove if there was indeed both consensual sex and rape during marriage. And it took her two years for her to report the rape.
Remember reading the article before. If he was guilty I hope he's punished, but reading it, it was always apparent that there's a good chance the guy's innocent. As it's very hard to prove given the circumstances.
Think this is probably the right decision. I do not know whether the man is guilty or not, but given such a high percentage chance the guy is actually not guilty, rather he be found not guilty. I'd rather set a guilty person free than imprison an innocent person. But that's just my view on the matter, some might disagree.
Remember reading the article before. If he was guilty I hope he's punished, but reading it, it was always apparent that there's a good chance the guy's innocent. As it's very hard to prove given the circumstances.
Think this is probably the right decision. I do not know whether the man is guilty or not, but given such a high percentage chance the guy is actually not guilty, rather he be found not guilty. I'd rather set a guilty person free than imprison an innocent person. But that's just my view on the matter, some might disagree.
The man, aged in his mid 30s, was found not guilty of five counts of rape by a jury at Exeter Crown Court after less than an hour of deliberation.
Seems like he made a very compelling case.
Anyway this should highlight the need for our media to be restricted in what they can report on in trials like this, if this guys name and photo were published he would have faced severe punishment despite being found not-guilty and i can imagine this has been the case for a number of people. Honestly our rape shield law should be extended to the accused party as well up until the completion of the trial and its continuation depending on the result.
Seems like he made a very compelling case.
Anyway this should highlight the need for our media to be restricted in what they can report on in trials like this, if this guys name and photo were published he would have faced severe punishment despite being found not-guilty and i can imagine this has been the case for a number of people. Honestly our rape shield law should be extended to the accused party as well up until the completion of the trial and its continuation depending on the result.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Evangelica
The case being dismissed doesn't necessarily mean that she was lying, simply that there was not enough evidence to determine if she was telling the truth. In many cases where women have been proved to be lying, they receive jail sentences. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/17/woman-jailed-false-rape-claim
It's interesting to see her sentence though. Just two years. Whilst if her former boyfriend was falsely accused, he would have got longer than that most likely. In fact lying to put an innocent man in prison might be even a worse crime.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Darth Stewie
Anyway this should highlight the need for our media to be restricted in what they can report on in trials like this, if this guys name and photo were published he would have faced severe punishment despite being found not-guilty and i can imagine this has been the case for a number of people. Honestly our rape shield law should be extended to the accused party as well up until the completion of the trial and its continuation depending on the result.
Anyway this should highlight the need for our media to be restricted in what they can report on in trials like this, if this guys name and photo were published he would have faced severe punishment despite being found not-guilty and i can imagine this has been the case for a number of people. Honestly our rape shield law should be extended to the accused party as well up until the completion of the trial and its continuation depending on the result.
Agreed, because people are so very stupid in their self righteousness and are quick to vilify people. Either the defendant for being a 'rapist that got away with it' or the accuser for being a 'lying bitch'. Both labels could stick and haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Reminds me of the Paediatrician who was driven out of her home by an angry mob
Original post by MrHappy_J
acquitted=/= innocent.
Convicted =/= guilty
Original post by Multitalented me
Convicted =/= guilty
I never implied that but in all honesty I don't think she was lying.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Make it More Wedding-ey !!
- MAFSUK 2023 Chat
- Christianity paper on may 15
- Muslim sisters advice please
- Is QMUL scary to live in?
- Essay Love and relationships .
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Best friend completely turned on me and now my worst enemy, but can’t get over us
- I reported my old teacher for sexual abuse and I don’t know how to feel about it.
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- Crying on my birthday party
- roleplay
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- i’m cheating i need advice
- Married At First Sight Australia 2024
- Dating cousin’s girlfriend’s brother
- Please help
- Art + technology
- Did my teacher just say something really offensive?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
