The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should a woman go to jail for falsely accusing a man of rape?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SmileyVibe
No, not really. Charging them would be okay. Imprisoning them? Just seems unnecessary.
I get rape claims can eff up your life but does a false rape accuser have any place in a prison with thieves, killers, and rapists?

Even if a woman is imprisoned for false accusation it doesn't solve anything, and not a "real" crime. Imprisoning for a month or some weeks would be fine.


I would say it depends on how long it took her to admit she lied amongst other things.
For example if she phoned the police to withdraw the accusations and admitted she was lying before they had even gone round to his place of work and arrested him in front of everyone, then yes, maybe I could see your suggestion of a fine and maybe a community service order would be in order.
On the other hand are you seriously suggesting that somebody that has destroyed a man's life, split his family, cost them their home and sat on her arse while he spent several years in prison, watching his back every day as rapist are despised amongst ordinary prisoners, that she shouldn't have a custodial sentence?
Original post by SmileyVibe
No, not really. Charging them would be okay. Imprisoning them? Just seems unnecessary.
I get rape claims can eff up your life but does a false rape accuser have any place in a prison with thieves, killers, and rapists?

Even if a woman is imprisoned for false accusation it doesn't solve anything, and not a "real" crime. Imprisoning for a month or some weeks would be fine.


What sentence would you impose then? There's no point in charging someone unless you're seeking a sentence.

Well thieves is a broad category. I'd rather some steal some money from me than falsely accuse me of rape.

The aim of prison is to rehabilitate people and make them useful members of society so yes, I'd say there's a point in imprisoning people for lying about being raped.

Why is it not a 'real crime'?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Moura
It's a tricky one because a lot of legitimate rape cases get the not guilty verdict and the man gets away with it... essentially saying the rapist did not commit the crime and the victim is lying.


No it just means they havent proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. A person is presumed innocent until found guilty.



How would you tell the false ones from the true ones? Firstly it would probably be soul destroying for a person who was raped to go through a court case to prove that they were raped... which can be hard to do... then go through another to prove they weren't lying if the rapist was found not guilty... THEN have the possibily of going to jail?


Thats not how it works and that isnt required. The rape victim isn't on trial and will only be charged if there is signifiant evidence they knowingly lied. If you tell the truth, then you have nothing to worry about.


I just think to prosecute people for it you would have to put EVERY person who accused someone of raping them on trial if their accused rapist was found not guilty which is the majority of cases and would be traumatising for the victim even if they were also found not guilty of lying about the rape. I don't even know how that would work with the law... rapist being found not guilty of raping but the victim found not guilty of lying... is that possible?


No, because thats not how it works. Just because a case isnt proven doesnt mean everyone on the prosecution were lying. The only time a woman would ever be investigated is if there was actual proof. It fails because theres not enough evidence and the jury werent convinced.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
With the burden of proof set so high as to when they are lying the convictions would be with practical certainty. Anyone who is convicted under this should be held to the high standards of proof such as in murder trials 'virtual certainty'. We know some people lie about the subject so it is possible to obtain proof..


Its the same burden of proof as any other crime. beyond reasonable doubt.
Original post by SmileyVibe
No, not really. Charging them would be okay. Imprisoning them? Just seems unnecessary.
I get rape claims can eff up your life but does a false rape accuser have any place in a prison with thieves, killers, and rapists?

Even if a woman is imprisoned for false accusation it doesn't solve anything, and not a "real" crime. Imprisoning for a month or some weeks would be fine.


Ofc its a real crime as the person has lied in an attempt to get someone else falsely imprisoned for years. Its also a corruption of the legal process, hence its taken seriously.
is she not to go to jail by law? wtffff
Original post by 999tigger
No it just means they havent proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. A person is presumed innocent until found guilty.




Thats not how it works and that isnt required. The rape victim isn't on trial and will only be charged if there is signifiant evidence they knowingly lied. If you tell the truth, then you have nothing to worry about.



No, because thats not how it works. Just because a case isnt proven doesnt mean everyone on the prosecution were lying. The only time a woman would ever be investigated is if there was actual proof. It fails because theres not enough evidence and the jury werent convinced.

Thank you.

You know sometimes I am utterly gobsmacked at the lack of knowledge on here about how the legal system works.
Original post by caravaggio2
Thank you.

You know sometimes I am utterly gobsmacked at the lack of knowledge on here about how the legal system works.


TBF not everyone knows about the legal system Its good to ask questions.
Perhaps not protecting their right to anonymity is the way to go. I appreciate the importance of victims feeling 'safe' enough to approach the Police but false rape accusations help no one and should be prevented without deterring genuine victims.
Original post by SmileyVibe
No, not really. Charging them would be okay. Imprisoning them? Just seems unnecessary.
I get rape claims can eff up your life but does a false rape accuser have any place in a prison with thieves, killers, and rapists?

Even if a woman is imprisoned for false accusation it doesn't solve anything, and not a "real" crime. Imprisoning for a month or some weeks would be fine.


The point of the justice system isn't simply to remove dangerous people from society. A false accuser of any crime (but especially rape given how dimly we view convicted rapists) has absolutely done something wrong that warrants punishment. Even if you don't believe (like I do) that punishment for wrongdoing is a central part of justice, I trust you will at least think that deterring people from crime is important. So in that sense we need to punish false rape accusers harshly to deter people from committing this heinous crime.
Original post by Aceadria
Perhaps not protecting their right to anonymity is the way to go. I appreciate the importance of victims feeling 'safe' enough to approach the Police but false rape accusations help no one and should be prevented without deterring genuine victims.


In my mind there is no right to anonymity in OPEN justice.
Original post by Aceadria
Perhaps not protecting their right to anonymity is the way to go. I appreciate the importance of victims feeling 'safe' enough to approach the Police but false rape accusations help no one and should be prevented without deterring genuine victims.


No, because that would deter existing victims coming forward. Rape is vastly underreported as it is.

What is argued for is anonymity of the accused, but that's still debated.
Original post by 999tigger
No, because that would deter existing victims coming forward. Rape is vastly underreported as it is.

What is argued for is anonymity of the accused, but that's still debated.


Hardly. Once a case has been 'thrown out' of court, I don't see the morality of protecting the accuser's identity.
Original post by Aceadria
Hardly. Once a case has been 'thrown out' of court, I don't see the morality of protecting the accuser's identity.


As i said it will deter victims from coming forward. Just because rape isnt proven to the standard required, doesnt mean people havent been through a pretty traumatic experience and that they dont have a right to privacy. They arent the ones on trial.
Original post by 999tigger
As i said it will deter victims from coming forward. Just because rape isnt proven to the standard required, doesnt mean people havent been through a pretty traumatic experience and that they dont have a right to privacy. They arent the ones on trial.


Genuine victims are not; false accusers are. Your assumption is that every false rape accuser has had a traumatic experience. What about those who haven't? Should they not face punishments to protect those who are actual victims?
Original post by Aceadria
Genuine victims are not; false accusers are. Your assumption is that every false rape accuser has had a traumatic experience. What about those who haven't? Should they not face punishments to protect those who are actual victims?


Think you are getting confused. Just because a case fails to gain a convoction does not mean the accuser was lying.
Original post by 999tigger
Think you are getting confused. Just because a case fails to gain a convoction does not mean the accuser was lying.


Just because a case fails to gain a conviction does not mean the accuser was not lying. If malice is proven, punishment should be handed out (I'm against prison but not waving their right to anonymity).
Original post by limetang
In my mind there is no right to anonymity in OPEN justice.


But open justice is essentially vigilante justice, in other words not necessarily just at all. True justice can only be done through anonymity where decisions are made based off of actions and evidence rather than names and looks.
To me , it is only a matter of time until the anonymity of the accused in rape and sexual assault case's is reinstated. There have been too many high profile cases never mind the number of unknown people. The CPS being under political pressure to increase the conviction rate for rape has resulted in some very dodgy cases coming to trial.
Rape is an horrendous crime and that is acknowledged by some of the longest prison sentences handed down. The trouble is the very nature of the crime and how society looks on people accused means people who are innocent are shamed for life by the accusation by the no smoke without fire brigade.
Despite the feminist lobby pushing hard in the opposite direction men or women accused should be anonymous until conviction under normal circumstances, and only named on being charged at the request of a judge where they think it necessary. ( Likelihood of serial raping)
If you can prove she intended to lie and it wasn't just a case of pointing out the wrong person by accident, then yes because she could have (and probably has) ruined their life.

Latest