The Student Room Group

False Rape Accusations... A new law needed?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by WBZ144
And actual rape victims have become conniving liars who ruined an innocent man's life in the eyes of many, it goes both way. Adding a potential criminal conviction on top would just be disastrous.


You couls use that same argument to say that we shouldnt convict rapists either, as they might be innocent.

The attitude towards potential rapists and potential false accusers is different. For one, denying the rape is expected from a real rapist.

Not to mention youve completly missed the point about denying victims justice.
(edited 8 years ago)
Wait what do you think should happen?

How would you prove someone is lying?
Original post by ComputerMaths97
Too many times lately we're seeing the lack of evidence required in order to ruin a persons life if someone accuses them of rape... And it needs to be taken more seriously. It's as bad as the witchcraft stuff you learn about in school, where if you're accused, that's the end of it. Are we seriously moving backwards??

No idea how to do this stuff, but someone tell me how to start a poll in this thread.

If anyone knows of a petition on introducing a law on it, please let me know!

Discuss though, want to see if everyone else is in agreement.

EDIT: Just found THREE petitions about it, all rejected because "It's not clear what you're asking us to do" from the Government. What?!?


Damn right it needs to change.

Firstly, anonymity until found guilty needs to be a legal right. Until a person is found guilty of a crime their name cannot be released and doing so is an offence.

Secondly, anybody who is found to have made a false rape accusation should be given the same sentence that the person they have accused would receive if they were guilty of rape.

I should point out that I don't mean everybody who makes a rape accusation that doesn't result in a conviction should be jailed, I know that there are plenty of genuine rapes that occur and are taken to the police but do not end up in a conviction due to lack of evidence. I'm referring to incidents where the accusation is completely fabricated clear evidence that proves it to be fake.
Reply 83
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
Well no, because the law would probably do more to give innocent people justice than it would to deter genuine rape victims from testifying. And even with that, honestly if you give me two people, one a rapist and one not, and give me the choice of both of them being imprisoned, for rape, so that the social discrimination element you mention is there too, or neither, I'm probably going to opt with neither. This is based on looking at the net suffering caused to innocent individuals. There is a possibility that the rapist will commit a similar crime, but this is a possibility; it is on the other hand definite that if I imprison them both that the innocent one will suffer greatly, not just in terms of having to go to prison but by being ostracised from their family and friends and likely having nowhere to turn if and when they get out. So I probably would say giving innocent people justice trumps making sure all victims come forward.


According to RAINN (Rape, abuse and incest national network) 68% of rapes go unreported and 98% of rapists wont spend a day in jail or prison compare that to the 1.5-10%(the actual number is considered a 'dark number', but for most crimes it is 2%) of unfounded or false accusations I would say protecting victims' confidence to speak up is far more important.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by EllieO
According to RAINN (Rape, abuse and incest national network) 68% of rapes go unreported and 98% of rapists wont spend a day in jail or prison compare that to the 1.5-10%(the actual number is considered a 'dark number', but for most crimes it is 2%) of unfounded or false accusations I would say protecting victims' confidence to speak up is far more important.


Yeah a company with the word rape in their name would tell you these very high statistics :lol:

Now I would like to point out THE BIGGEST flaw with this data.

If someone is considered a rapist - why did they not get put in jail? What type of person fills this "98%"? I'm assuming it means of ones that go to trial, therefore assuming they're all rapists, therefore wrong.

And how do they know 68% of rapes go unreported? If they're unreported how do they know they happened.

Oh yeah, estimations. Fabricated, to help support an agenda.

Once again, people making up statistics. Reminds me of feminism.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by greatguy124
Wait what do you think should happen?

How would you prove someone is lying?


Say for example they "victim" said it happened at a certain place at a certain time, and it was proven that the "rapist" was somewhere else at that time.

However, it's very tough to prove they were not raped, which I why I think it's a very good law to bring in - to just punish the extreme examples where someone is completely talking out their arse.
Reply 86
Original post by EllieO
According to RAINN (Rape, abuse and incest national network) 68% of rapes go unreported and 98% of rapists wont spend a day in jail or prison compare that to the 1.5-10%(the actual number is considered a 'dark number', but for most crimes it is 2%) of unfounded or false accusations I would say protecting victims' confidence to speak up is far more important.


I would question how such stats can be obtained. We can almost never know that somebody is a rapist; we can only really claim that those who were convicted of rape are rapists (of course even then there are exceptions) so I presume this is based on accusations vs convictions, accounting for a certain proportion of false claims. How can they possibly say how many rapes went unreported, given that these rapes should not be known about by definition of unreported? If it means just reports to the police, then do all women report to RAINN, or is this based on surveys? Sorry for the somewhat accusatory/pedantic tone, but it really does puzzle me.
But even taking this at face value, we don't know why 68% didn't report. Maybe many of them feel that nothing could be done, because, in many cases, nothing can be done. That is the necessary evil that comes with a system of innocent until proven guilty; if there is no physical evidence of rape, then it is often merely one person's word against another's. So the positive influence of protecting confidence to speak up is doubtful, while the positive influence of deterring would-be false accusers is more apparent, as an accusation alone can destroy someone, while it is relatively unlikely that someone will be convicted of rape even if they are a rapist.
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
I would question how such stats can be obtained. We can almost never know that somebody is a rapist; we can only really claim that those who were convicted of rape are rapists (of course even then there are exceptions) so I presume this is based on accusations vs convictions, accounting for a certain proportion of false claims. How can they possibly say how many rapes went unreported, given that these rapes should not be known about by definition of unreported? If it means just reports to the police, then do all women report to RAINN, or is this based on surveys? Sorry for the somewhat accusatory/pedantic tone, but it really does puzzle me.
But even taking this at face value, we don't know why 68% didn't report. Maybe many of them feel that nothing could be done, because, in many cases, nothing can be done. That is the necessary evil that comes with a system of innocent until proven guilty; if there is no physical evidence of rape, then it is often merely one person's word against another's. So the positive influence of protecting confidence to speak up is doubtful, while the positive influence of deterring would-be false accusers is more apparent, as an accusation alone can destroy someone, while it is relatively unlikely that someone will be convicted of rape even if they are a rapist.


Thank you for saying what I also pointed out, just in a much more elaborate way :biggrin: PRSOM
Original post by EllieO
According to RAINN (Rape, abuse and incest national network) 68% of rapes go unreported and 98% of rapists wont spend a day in jail or prison compare that to the 1.5-10%(the actual number is considered a 'dark number', but for most crimes it is 2%) of unfounded or false accusations I would say protecting victims' confidence to speak up is far more important.


Also you lied about the statistics, I just looked online.

Nice one.

EDIT:
https://rainn.org/statistics

Says "68% of sexual assaults" which includes rape, as well as any sort of physical touching against someones will (which tends to also include just normal gender-on-another-gender violence)
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
How can they possibly say how many rapes went unreported, given that these rapes should not be known about by definition of unreported? If it means just reports to the police, then do all women report to RAINN, or is this based on surveys? Sorry for the


Yeah it's on a national survey:

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
Reference is called: Justice Department, National Crime Victimization Survey: 2008-2012

So up to 8 years ago, not just about rape (about all sexual assault) and on a survey.

.... I think my work here is done.
Original post by Farm_Ecology
You couls use that same argument to say that we shouldnt convict rapists either, as they might be innocent.

The attitude towards potential rapists and potential false accusers is different. For one, denying the rape is expected from a real rapist.

Not to mention youve completly missed the point about denying victims justice.


You cannot compare the two because a law like the one proposed would stop victims of rape from reporting it. Convicting rapists will....stop some of them from raping.

Rape victims not only have to deal with the aftermath of a rape but also the social stigma after reporting it. Does the rapist get punished for both or just the crime of rape? Do you think it would also be just to punish a rapist for accusing a victim of lying about being raped?
Original post by WBZ144
You cannot compare the two because a law like the one proposed would stop victims of rape from reporting it. Convicting rapists will....stop some of them from raping.


Original post by WBZ144
Rape victims not only have to deal with the aftermath of a rape but also the social stigma after reporting it.


And those falsely accused of rape dont have to deal with social stigma? The stigma for being a rapist is far worse than being a false accuser. Society, in general, is very supportive towards rape victims: a good example being yourself who is supporting denying victims justice in support of them.

Original post by WBZ144
Does the rapist get punished for both or just the crime of rape? Do you think it would also be just to punish a rapist for accusing a victim of lying about being raped?


Again, another difference. If someone is accused of rape, they will normally respond by denying it (thus implying the accuser is a liar). Denying the crime is part of the trial process, but yes anyone convicted of a crime will normally be given a longer sentence if they denied the crime that confessed.
The accusation is the evidence and therein lies the problem with rape, paedophilia and sexual offenses in general. People's lives are ruined even if they get acquitted in court by the stigma.

Personally I think whatever sentence would be received for the offense should be given to any person who knowingly falsely accuses. Then again I'm mental because I think forced to penetrate should also count as rape so what do I know

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Alexion
I think that it's more easily curable than the world thinking you're scum...


I imagine you would think differently if you were actually raped.
Original post by keturah
I imagine you would think differently if you were actually raped.


I doubt it.
Original post by Alexion
I doubt it.


So you don't think self harming and attempting suicide is a big deal? I have a male friend who was raped and ever since he's suffered from depression, which he's been hospitalised for.
How about being too scared to have sex again? For a lot of people who are raped, they never get over it.
I agree that being falsely accused of rape could also effect someone's life in a huge way, it is a disgusting thing for someone to do, but I think you're way too dismissive of the long term effects of rape on a person.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by keturah
So you don't think self harming and attempting suicide is a big deal? I have a male friend who was raped and ever since he's suffered from depression, which he's been hospitalised for.
How about being too scared to have sex again? For a lot of people who are raped they never get over it.
I agree that being falsely accused of rape could also effect someone's life in a huge way, it is a disgusting thing for someone to do, but I think you're way too dismissive of the long term effects of rape on a person.


I think that this is a topic which is going to be viewed differently depending on who's read what, who's talked to who, who's experienced what.

I'm not dismissing the effects of rape, just that from the few situations I've had a slight connection to, the effects of a false rape accusation can last longer and do more damage.
Reply 97
I have read all the thread, I won't express an opinion yet, but I have one question: can anyone provide evidence of one case in which a rapist has been convicted without any actual proof he had committed the crime?

I understand there is a separate issue (i.e. the social stigma associated with the accusation itself), but people are saying that the burden of the proof is on the accused person - which in itself isn't surprising since we are talking of a crime which is unlikely to happen at the presence of possible witnesses; and unlikely to leave behind any physical proof.
Leaving rape aside, if I went to the police to tell them that I've been robbed, wouldn't they start an investigation even though I don't have anything to prove it?
In the US, there's this guy called Peter Rose who was sentenced to 20 years . After a significant portion of the term ( I forgot the exact figure), DNA became acceptable to the court. A NGO who is a specialist in these cases, got a court order for the DNA evidence analysis. This proved that he was innocent.
Rose was at that time dating the aunt of the victim., a teenager. During the attack, she was grabbed from behind and didn't get a chance to see his face very clearly. Later on it came out that the victim had always maintained that it may or may not be Rose but was bullied by the police detectives to identify Rose.
Poor man! What an ordeal he must have had...
You can google the man's name and read all about it.
Original post by ComputerMaths97
At the moment it's 100x worse than what you're describing. Currently, people can take someone to court for rape, with no fear of punishment - which causes fake allegations.


I would have thought that two seconds with a search engine would find examples of women being charged with, for example, attempting to pervert the course of justice (maximum sentence, life) for making false accusations.

Even if they were not, it's not 'no fear of punishment' that causes approximately one in fifty claims of rape to be false, but basing a policy around that - rather than wondering why so few of the other forty nine result in convictions - does make me wonder what your agenda is.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending