Should False Accusation Of Rape Carry a Sentence?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by celloel
Also I should probably point out that if someone definitely admits to lying (the only way to know for sure if they're lying - the way the court system works, innocence = lack of evidence, not innocence) then they can and do go to jail. It's illegal to falsely accuse someone of a crime. But hey! Who cares for facts here right?!
Lack of evidence in the eyes of the court is innocence,. Innocent till proven guilty.
Original post by quinn f
I feel like you're not listening? People accusing someone of rape should be given the benefit of the doubt and be believed unless with reasonable doubt. There are so few cases of false rape allegations (see 2%).
What you are describing is the exact flaw with convicting rapists. If they say they didn't do it, who's to say they're not telling the truth that they didn't, if there's no hard proof that they did. It's foul and it's exactly why people accusing someone of rape should be given the benefit of the doubt. This fear of not being believed is exactly why rape victims don't come forward. Which is why there is so often no physical evidence - because of fear; they don't come forward. It's a paradox.
...
What you are describing is the exact flaw with convicting rapists. If they say they didn't do it, who's to say they're not telling the truth that they didn't, if there's no hard proof that they did. It's foul and it's exactly why people accusing someone of rape should be given the benefit of the doubt. This fear of not being believed is exactly why rape victims don't come forward. Which is why there is so often no physical evidence - because of fear; they don't come forward. It's a paradox.
...
Can you clarify what you mean when you say that rape victims ought to be given the benefit of the doubt? It seems you are proposing abandoning the entire principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' purely on the basis that it is unlikely they are lying.
Original post by p3ssimist
I can have my own views babe. Only 2% of rape allegations are actually false. Why should 98% of the people brave enough to take their case to the police have the fear they may be convicted for the sake of the 2%?
It's already hard enough for these victims. Too many of them already suffer in silence instead of going to the authorities. We don't need more being silenced leading to more dirty rapists walking freely among us.
They'll be forced to go to trial where the jury will decide if they were lying or telling the truth about what is likely to be the worst moment of their life.
It's already hard enough for these victims. Too many of them already suffer in silence instead of going to the authorities. We don't need more being silenced leading to more dirty rapists walking freely among us.
They'll be forced to go to trial where the jury will decide if they were lying or telling the truth about what is likely to be the worst moment of their life.
Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator.
Some sources have different facts but the conclusion is that, acquittal rates for rape are very low. This is down to 2 factors, the lack of evidence by the CPS (The CPS are often left looking abit stupid in court in these cases), most of the time they are relying on the plea of the defendant otherwise they are just wasting state money.
This is not to say that 94% of cases are false its just saying that 94% of cases have little to no evidence that the rape even occurred, which could well be down to the girl lying or down to the poor case handling by the police. Regardless it shows that 94% of the "convicted" rapists are not guilty (you cant even call them rapist as in the eyes of the law they have done no such thing)
Which takes me to the other point which is, if 94% of cases are resulting in the "Not guilty" verdict this means the CPS are not proving the guilt BEYOND reasonable doubt. Again this could suggest they have no evidence to prove the guilt or the girl was lying.
If only 6% of cases result in conviction; that means 94 people out of a 100 have their lives ruined for something they are found NOT GUILTY of. Now you can sit here and tell me that the rape happened and it might will have done, but the fact is in Court and in the eyes of the law it did not occur.
So 2% of them being false is not even the issue, the issue is that 94% of them are technically such weak cases that they lead to the not guilty verdict.
Before i get attacked by the storm of feminists: I am NOT at all suggesting that 94% of the "victims" lied at all, all im saying is that they had no evidence to suggest it did, and we CANNOT just be convicting people (they are people lets not refer to them as "rapists" if they found NOT GUILTY) just on the basis of what the victim says.
Original post by TSRFT8
Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator.Some sources have different facts but the conclusion is that, acquittal rates for rape are very low. This is down to 2 factors, the lack of evidence by the CPS (The CPS are often left looking abit stupid in court in these cases), most of the time they are relying on the plea of the defendant otherwise they are just wasting state money.This is not to say that 94% of cases are false its just saying that 94% of cases have little to no evidence that the rape even occurred, which could well be down to the girl lying or down to the poor case handling by the police. Regardless it shows that 94% of the "convicted" rapists are not guilty (you cant even call them rapist as in the eyes of the law they have done no such thing)Which takes me to the other point which is, if 94% of cases are resulting in the "Not guilty" verdict this means the CPS are not proving the guilt BEYOND reasonable doubt. Again this could suggest they have no evidence to prove the guilt or the girl was lying.If only 6% of cases result in conviction; that means 94 people out of a 100 have their lives ruined for something they are found NOT GUILTY of. Now you can sit here and tell me that the rape happened and it might will have done, but the fact is in Court and in the eyes of the law it did not occur. So 2% of them being false is not even the issue, the issue is that 94% of them are technically such weak cases that they lead to the not guilty verdict. Before i get attacked by the storm of feminists: I am NOT at all suggesting that 94% of the "victims" lied at all, all im saying is that they had no evidence to suggest it did, and we CANNOT just be convicting people (they are people lets not refer to them as "rapists" if they found NOT GUILTY) just on the basis of what the victim says.
I see your point. But how do we differenciate between the liars and the victims with weak cases?
Subjecting the 94% of people (a majority of whom are actual victims) to a trial where there will be debates and accusations about whether one of the worst experience of their lives actually happened is horrifying.
One 'solution' is to keep the person accused of the crime anonymous unless they are convicted. This seems more reasonably than outright punishing the accusers.
Additionally, the offence is "perverting the course of justice" already exists and is used to punish some of the accusers who outright lied about being raped.
Original post by p3ssimist
I see your point. But how do we differenciate between the liars and the victims with weak cases?
Subjecting the 94% of people (a majority of whom are actual victims) to a trial where there will be debates and accusations about whether one of the worst experience of their lives actually happened is horrifying.
One 'solution' is to keep the person accused of the crime anonymous unless they are convicted. This seems more reasonably than outright punishing the accusers.
Additionally, the offence is "perverting the course of justice" already exists and is used to punish some of the accusers who outright lied about being raped.
Subjecting the 94% of people (a majority of whom are actual victims) to a trial where there will be debates and accusations about whether one of the worst experience of their lives actually happened is horrifying.
One 'solution' is to keep the person accused of the crime anonymous unless they are convicted. This seems more reasonably than outright punishing the accusers.
Additionally, the offence is "perverting the course of justice" already exists and is used to punish some of the accusers who outright lied about being raped.
What do you suppose should be done then? Not talk about evidence as the ' 'victim' may not like it and just suppose someone is telling the truth without evidence?
Original post by p3ssimist
I see your point. But how do we differenciate between the liars and the victims with weak cases?
Subjecting the 94% of people (a majority of whom are actual victims) to a trial where there will be debates and accusations about whether one of the worst experience of their lives actually happened is horrifying.
One 'solution' is to keep the person accused of the crime anonymous unless they are convicted. This seems more reasonably than outright punishing the accusers.
Additionally, the offence is "perverting the course of justice" already exists and is used to punish some of the accusers who outright lied about being raped.
Subjecting the 94% of people (a majority of whom are actual victims) to a trial where there will be debates and accusations about whether one of the worst experience of their lives actually happened is horrifying.
One 'solution' is to keep the person accused of the crime anonymous unless they are convicted. This seems more reasonably than outright punishing the accusers.
Additionally, the offence is "perverting the course of justice" already exists and is used to punish some of the accusers who outright lied about being raped.
1) My OP is more to do with punishing those are CAUGHT literally lying, not prosecute the person just because their case was dropped or weak (other people on this thread have taken this approach)
2) Well then they either dont report it or they HAVE to go through the process im sorry but some of the comments about "Believing the victim regardless" are absolutely some of the stupidest things i have ever heard. This trial required the CPS to prove guilt whether the person likes it or not, and i dont think you can say that a high number of 94% of cases the rape did happen as clearly it did not if there was no evidence to suggest it did. It might well have done but in the eyes of the law it did not and that is the bottom line. I think the stigma surrounding rape "victims" is worrying as they cant be seen as "victims" just "accusers" until the defendant is actually proven guilty. As before the trial you are already saying the guy did it. Also the amount of people who use the word "rapist" (Durham University Rapist Appears in Court) hang on how the hell is he a rapist if he has not even been found guilty.
3) I agree with the anonymity it seems that crying "rape" is excusable for having your identities protected but being accused falsely or not does not matter, bit pathetic. In the case of the Durham student his name, age and university, course and everything was published - Again found not guilty, however his life is ruined.
4) You are correct, but that law applies throughout for a large proportion of offences, its sentence is also widely varying. I suggest we have a law created just for those found lying of the offence of rape and they can be punished more accordingly.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Ano123
What do you suppose should be done then? Not talk about evidence as the ' 'victim' may not like it and just suppose someone is telling the truth without evidence?
I did suggest something.
Original post by TSRFT8
1) My OP is more to do with punishing those are CAUGHT literally lying, not prosecute the person just because their case was dropped or weak (other people on this thread have taken this approach) 2) Well then they either dont report it or they HAVE to go through the process im sorry but some of the comments about "Believing the victim regardless" are absolutely some of the stupidest things i have ever heard. This trial required the CPS to prove guilt whether the person likes it or not, and i dont think you can say that a high number of 94% of cases the rape did happen as clearly it did not if there was no evidence to suggest it did. It might well have done but in the eyes of the law it did not and that is the bottom line. I think the stigma surrounding rape "victims" is worrying as they cant be seen as "victims" just "accusers" until the defendant is actually proven guilty. As before the trial you are already saying the guy did it. Also the amount of people who use the word "rapist" (Durham University Rapist Appears in Court) hang on how the hell is he a rapist if he has not even been found guilty. 3) I agree with the anonymity it seems that crying "rape" is excusable for having your identities protected but being accused falsely or not does not matter, bit pathetic. In the case of the Durham student his name, age and university, course and everything was published - Again found not guilty, however his life is ruined. 4) You are correct, but that law applies throughout for a large proportion of offences, its sentence is also widely varying. I suggest we have a law created just for those found lying of the offence of rape and they can be punished more accordingly.
Those found lying already have an offence. Look into "perverting the course of justice." I actually recently read about a case where a woman was jailed for over a year for lying about being raped by her boyfriend.
And I never said that we should believe the victim regardless and I also do not agree with assuming the accused is guilty of the crime or calling him a rapist until he is convicted.
If in your opinion, it is more important to avenge those accused of rape than protecting those actually raped, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
And lastly, it seems as though you are not as educated in this area. Most actual rapists are acquitted because rape is difficult to prove in court as a protection for the defence (to prevent innocents going to jail). Thus, a high number of the 94% acquitted are actually rapists (albeit not all of them are criminals).
Making the identity of the accused unknown will go a long way to preseve his reputation. I don't see why the accuser needs to be punished especially as only 2% of allegation are proved to be false.
Original post by p3ssimist
And lastly, it seems as though you are not as educated in this area. Most actual rapists are acquitted because rape is difficult to prove in court as a protection for the defence (to prevent innocents going to jail). Thus, a high number of the 94% acquitted are actually rapists (albeit not all of them are criminals).
Making the identity of the accused unknown will go a long way to preseve his reputation. I don't see why the accuser needs to be punished especially as only 2% of allegation are proved to be false.
Making the identity of the accused unknown will go a long way to preseve his reputation. I don't see why the accuser needs to be punished especially as only 2% of allegation are proved to be false.
In the way the trial works the CPS have to prove GUILT, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. If the person has been proven innocent then he DID NOT do it in the eyes of the law, you can spurt out whatever you like but the evidence did not carry the substantial burden of proof to convict.
You are concluding that someone who has been proven innocent is guilty just because you said so or because the accuser said so even though there is no evidence or weak evidence to suggest they did.
Also how keeping the identity of the suspected person going to punish the accuser, please explain
Original post by p3ssimist
Only 2% of rape allegations are actually false. Why should 98% of the people brave enough to take their case to the police have the fear they may be convicted for the sake of the 2%?
There's no single known percentage for false rape accusations. Depending on the study or law enforcement agency, percentages range from 1% to more than 50%. The commonly cited 2% figure (from the US) originated from a departmental investigation in New York conducted decades ago. Whereas the FBI, for instance, puts the figure at 8%.
Regardless, these are only instances were fabrication was discovered, yet most cases are unknowns, resulting in neither the proof of rape nor the proof of fabrication. It would be just as wrong for the same reason to say most accusations are false because most do not result in a guilty verdict.
I understand the rationale, but I think you need to define carefully what would constitute a false rape claim.
For sake of illustration, the most extreme position would be criminalising any claim which doesn't lead to a conviction, which would probably wipe out the chance of anyone ever reporting a rape.
For sake of illustration, the most extreme position would be criminalising any claim which doesn't lead to a conviction, which would probably wipe out the chance of anyone ever reporting a rape.
Original post by TSRFT8
But not having this as punishment is allowing girls to ruin lives of boys simply through jealousy and regret.
Also i think your point relates to the minority - I struggle to see why an "actual victim" would be scared of being accused of lying?
Also i think your point relates to the minority - I struggle to see why an "actual victim" would be scared of being accused of lying?
It is a little counterintuitive, but most rape victims have serious reservations about coming forward about it. Even though a rape victim is completely in the right, having been raped still feels shameful and embarrassing, according to many victims. Rape is thought to be seriously underreported already.
Call me naïve but I was gobsmacked that it took so long for the authorities to gaol the woman, posted about on page 1, guilty of doing this 11 times.
A question for everyone saying women shouldn't get sent down for this, what do you think should happen where a man has served a partial or full sentence?
8 yrs inside count for nothing?
Lets be honest its only going to come to light if the woman has an attack of conscience and confesses or other undeniable evidence is discovered.
A question for everyone saying women shouldn't get sent down for this, what do you think should happen where a man has served a partial or full sentence?
8 yrs inside count for nothing?
Lets be honest its only going to come to light if the woman has an attack of conscience and confesses or other undeniable evidence is discovered.
Original post by celloel
The majority of sexual assaulters/rapists do not go to jail. Lack of evidence does not = innocence.
I see what you're trying to say, but they are innocent until proven guilty, it's a human right. So yes, a lack of evidence does technically mean they are innocent.
Mimimum 25 years with no parole.
Original post by celloel
How do we tell the difference between someone who falsely accused a person and someone who got found innocent because of lack of evidence? We can't - almost impossible to do so. An innocence verdict in court does not always equal innocence.. just lack of evidence.
Doing so would prevent victims from coming forward even more because of accusations that they're lying and the potential that if they lost the court case they could go to jail. Not progressive or helpful.
If someone actively admits to lying, then for sure they should be prosecuted.
Doing so would prevent victims from coming forward even more because of accusations that they're lying and the potential that if they lost the court case they could go to jail. Not progressive or helpful.
If someone actively admits to lying, then for sure they should be prosecuted.
Why do people say this whenever this point comes up? If someone makes s genuine complaint about a rape they'll have nothing to worry about. The prosecution would have to prove the claim was falsified, the defendant in the rape case is not proof
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by celloel
Also I should probably point out that if someone definitely admits to lying (the only way to know for sure if they're lying - the way the court system works, innocence = lack of evidence, not innocence) then they can and do go to jail. It's illegal to falsely accuse someone of a crime. But hey! Who cares for facts here right?!
That's wrong, lack of evidence doesn't mean innocent, it means not guilty. 'Innocent' isn't really a thing in English law because the burden is to prove guilt
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by simbasdragon
The prosecution rate for rape is horrendously low, 96% of rapists will not see a day in jail. Let's not make it any harder for victims to speak out.
The rate is low because there is no evidence that the crime even occurred. We cannot just start prosecuting just because some girl said she was raped and shed a few tears this is not how the legal system works you cant just say something and expect people to believe you.
How have you come to the conclusion that ALL of the 96% are "Rapists" correct me if im wrong, if someone has been proven not guilty how can they be said to be a rapist when in the eyes of the law that person did not commit the crime.
I believe that there should be serious repercussions for people who do make false allegations (for example, being sued for defamation), although I worry that if sentences were implemented, then it would prevent victims from wanting to come forward even more. Imagine if a victim is wrongly sentenced for a rape that did actually happen to them. Also without evidence, rape is an extremely difficult crime to make serious judgements about, with plenty of grey areas depending upon how much evidence is provided. In any case, it's tricky.
Original post by WhimsicalSloth
I believe that there should be serious repercussions for people who do make false allegations (for example, being sued for defamation), although I worry that if sentences were implemented, then it would prevent victims from wanting to come forward even more. Imagine if a victim is wrongly sentenced for a rape that did actually happen to them. Also without evidence, rape is an extremely difficult crime to make serious judgements about, with plenty of grey areas depending upon how much evidence is provided. In any case, it's tricky.
Again, i dont think anyone on this thread has said that we should throw any and every girl in jail just because their case led to no convictions. I think it should a punishable offence and the punishment should be imprisonment, HOWEVER only if the defence can PROVE that the girl in the case lied.
I dont think you could press charges for lying on the basis that the case fell through BUT if the defence can prove BEYOND REASONABLE doubt that the girls intention was to purposely harm the other party and damage their reputation then the sentence should be the same as the one that COULD have been received had the defendant been found guilty.
I dont see how this could lead to victims being scared, as anyone who was infact raped has nothing to worry about.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 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 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 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 ?
