Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Why should it even matter if a man raped her or not?

    DO YOU CLAP EVEN CLAP KNOW HOW HARD IT CLAP IS FOR WOMEN TO MAKE CLAP RAPE ALLEGATIONS?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    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).
    Again you are getting confused. the rape victim is a witness, they arent on trial. If you want to find malice and punish them you would need a seperate trial. Until then, never mind not being on trual they are innocent till proven guilty, just like everyone else. Your scenario is verging into fantasy. Go and look how the procedure works.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Is there anyone that actually disagrees with false rape acussers being jailed? I've never actually encountered one yet this debate drags on for ages (usually because of people going off topic)

    Who genuinely thinks falsely accusing someone of rape should go unpunished if they're shown to have lied?

    At least the rape anonymity thing has legitimate benifits and disadvantages. But what could possibly be a disadvantage to agreeing with OPs question?
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by elliemayxo)
    Just seen it on facebook and thought it would be a good idea to ask on here.
    No, because it would stop women from wanting to come forward when they have been raped. Essentially every rape case would result in a conviction - if the defendant is found guilty they go to jail, if they are found innocent the accuser goes to jail.

    I think it's sick for anyone to falsely accuse anyone of rape and agree something needs to be done, but it's not as clear cut as this.

    Also it's not only women that can be raped.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Again you are getting confused. the rape victim is a witness, they arent on trial. If you want to find malice and punish them you would need a seperate trial. Until then, never mind not being on trual they are innocent till proven guilty, just like everyone else. Your scenario is verging into fantasy. Go and look how the procedure works.
    This is not a discussion on procedure but morality. The former stems from the latter.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This is not a discussion on procedure but morality. The former stems from the latter.
    You are failing to answer the points made. Ive already told you why rape witnesses deserve their privacy, but you dont apparea to eb advancing any reasons forward why they dont. What i find offensive is the fact that you equate a failed trial with the woman being a liar.

    You would see the fallacy of that if you understood how a rape trial worked both procedurally and in law.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    You are failing to answer the points made. Ive already told you why rape witnesses deserve their privacy, but you dont apparea to eb advancing any reasons forward why they dont. What i find offensive is the fact that you equate a failed trial with the woman being a liar.

    You would see the fallacy of that if you understood how a rape trial worked both procedurally and in law.
    As I mentioned in my previous post, we are discussing the morality of false rape accusers; not procedure. I will not address a point that has no relevance to my line of argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that many genuine rape victims would not come forward for fear they were branded a liar. Proving that she (or he) was lying would be nearly impossible so many victims would end up prosecuted due to lack of evidence of the rape.I do think women who falsely accuse men of rape are disgusting but I think jailing them would do more harm then good.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    As I mentioned in my previous post, we are discussing the morality of false rape accusers; not procedure. I will not address a point that has no relevance to my line of argument.
    Actually the thread was onto the issues raised by Moura and that i responded to in 226. If you dont know and are incapable of making your own points then not a lot I can do about it for you. The fact you arent interested in how rape is treated in a trial or what the law is, restricts you from appreciating the complexity amd how the moral issues are handled. Will just have to agree to disagree as its quite pointless discussing the issue with you.

    Oh and ftaod as ive posted before, then yes a woman should clearly be tried and if found guilty, she should get a prison sentence for giving false testimony and atptcoj.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    If there is evidence that the woman lied, rather than just a case of the man not being jailed for rape due to lack of evidence then yes I do think the woman should be punished legally.
    Well thats exactly how the legal system works (something I find feminist campaigners dont understand when they run the whole "50% of rapists go free" shenanigans).

    You will not be sentenced unless your guilt can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, in a large % of rape cases this guilt can not be proven due to lack of evidence so the defendant goes free.

    It already goes the other way, there is a charge named Perverting the course of Justice, which is exactly what is proposed in the OP (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...se_of_justice/). And in cases of this the court must be sure without a shadow of a doubt that evidence was fabricated or in other ways perverted.

    However I do believe that in instances of perverting the course of justice during a rape case or other extremely serious accusation that the sentence should be increased from 3 years to 5-7 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And you couldn't really draw the line at rape accusations, what about people who have falsely accused someone of theft, violence etc. I know that if I had been a victim I would rather suffer in silence than risk being jailed myself.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yes but will never happen
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Actually the thread was onto the issues raised by Moura and that i responded to in 226. If you dont know and are incapable of making your own points then not a lot I can do about it for you. The fact you arent interested in how rape is treated in a trial or what the law is, restricts you from appreciating the complexity amd how the moral issues are handled. Will just have to agree to disagree as its quite pointless discussing the issue with you.
    I was not responding to you, 999tigger. You replied to my comment with how the argument lacked any procedural feasibility, which in itself is irrelevant seeing as my reply discussed the morality of the issue. It's fine that you don't want to distinguish between the two, but please don't make personal attacks on someone who wants to.

    For someone who seems to be knowledgeable on the subject it's a shame that you needed to resort to such immature replies. It would have been nice to have a proper discussion with you.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kalclash)
    No, because it would stop women from wanting to come forward when they have been raped. Essentially every rape case would result in a conviction - if the defendant is found guilty they go to jail, if they are found innocent the accuser goes to jail.

    I think it's sick for anyone to falsely accuse anyone of rape and agree something needs to be done, but it's not as clear cut as this.

    Also it's not only women that can be raped.

    It actually wouldn't. Not being able to prove that rape occurred is not the same as proving the girl was lying. There would have to be a lot of evidence for the prosecutor to push for this.

    So yes: I think it should, and in the case where it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt(Such as with the accusations against the Duke lacrosse team), the woman should face jail.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Its the same burden of proof as any other crime. beyond reasonable doubt.
    Some 'crimes' such as tort law are balance of probability, some are beyond reasonable doubt often referred to as the 'virtual certainty principle'. Murder has a higher criterion attached to it due to the severity of sentence. I am simply suggesting we be 100% sure rather than incarcerating people on the basis of 'eh more than likely'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AImee1993)
    The problem is that many genuine rape victims would not come forward for fear they were branded a liar. Proving that she (or he) was lying would be nearly impossible so many victims would end up prosecuted due to lack of evidence of the rape.I do think women who falsely accuse men of rape are disgusting but I think jailing them would do more harm then good.
    If a man knowingly falsely accused a woman of sexual assault to be malicious and even some score and she lost her job, her home, her family, her reputation and was locked away for 7 or 10 years where she was in fear of being beaten up or worse on a daily basis, are you saying that you wouldn't want him gaoled?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes because its the man would go to jail for like 5 years and get a criminal record for something for which he did not do.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.