Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    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'.
    You are mixing up burden of proof in the civil system which is balance of probability. Tort is civil, its not a crime.

    Beyond reasonable doubt is the burden of proof for crimes, because its the criminla system.

    Perverting the course of justice is a crime hence it has the criminal burden of proof. So your suggestion is what happens.

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p...v_allegations/

    Just seen this story about a trainee barrister jailed for the crime.
    3.5 years and she deserved it imo.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...se-rape-claims
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawliettt)
    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?
    Really?
    I've lost count of how many times I've seen feminists on line say it. I've seen female MPs say it, I've seen representatives of WAR and Fawcett Society say it. Apparently they are more to be pitied and need help not punishment.
    As for automatically charging accusers if they lose, I don't know why we are even discussing it as it will never happen and quite rightly, as has been stated as it will only deter genuine victims of coming forward.
    It is a ludicrous suggestion on par with the clown up thread suggesting that all men accused should be held guilty until proved innocent.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yes if it is evident that she lied.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helloworld_95)
    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.
    Not at all. Open justice is vital because we need to be able to see that the justice system is working properly, that can't be done if it occurs behind closed doors with names and other key facts obscured. It helps prevent a miscarriage of justice from taking place because people are able to clearly see when a court has done something wrong.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Not at all. Open justice is vital because we need to be able to see that the justice system is working properly, that can't be done if it occurs behind closed doors with names and other key facts obscured. It helps prevent a miscarriage of justice from taking place because people are able to clearly see when a court has done something wrong.
    I see no reason why hiding names would hinder this.

    Regardless, any rational individual recognizes the problems with the court of public opinion (which is always so well informed and fair-minded...).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Really?
    I've lost count of how many times I've seen feminists on line say it. I've seen female MPs say it, I've seen representatives of WAR and Fawcett .
    Really? I've genuinely never seen it said. Are you sure they weren't talking about something else? Even in this thread, disagreements are about something semi related (e.g innocent until proven guilty or rape definitions). I haven't said anything about automatic charging. I'm talking soley bout jailing if the woman is proved to be lying. There's no one who disagrees with this yet this thread had gone on for 14 pages lol.


    I'm trying to think of a legitimate flaw but i can't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    yes - at least to the same extent as an actual rapist, because her crime would be to make a man go to jail for x years, so naturally, an eye for an eye
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    You are mixing up burden of proof in the civil system which is balance of probability. Tort is civil, its not a crime.

    Beyond reasonable doubt is the burden of proof for crimes, because its the criminla system.

    Perverting the course of justice is a crime hence it has the criminal burden of proof. So your suggestion is what happens.

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p...v_allegations/

    Just seen this story about a trainee barrister jailed for the crime.
    3.5 years and she deserved it imo.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...se-rape-claims
    I'm simplifying. Its in law, there is civil statute. The definition of a crime is to breach statute. Its all semantics in any case.

    Yes I'm aware beyond reasonable doubt is the criminal version i was being pedantic because why not.

    Perverting the course of justice is a seperate statutory offence, it does not inflict the maximum penalty of the crime for which one is being falsely accused ie life for false murder accusations, five years for false ABH/GBH w/out intent etc etc which is what I'd suggest. If someone is prepared to restrict someone else's freedom to the level of their accusation, they should sacrifice their own freedom in the same degree. Even an unsuccessful allegation of rape or paedophilia ruins the accused persons life.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I'm simplifying. Its in law, there is civil statute. The definition of a crime is to breach statute. Its all semantics in any case.

    Yes I'm aware beyond reasonable doubt is the criminal version i was being pedantic because why not.

    Perverting the course of justice is a seperate statutory offence, it does not inflict the maximum penalty of the crime for which one is being falsely accused ie life for false murder accusations, five years for false ABH/GBH w/out intent etc etc which is what I'd suggest. If someone is prepared to restrict someone else's freedom to the level of their accusation, they should sacrifice their own freedom in the same degree. Even an unsuccessful allegation of rape or paedophilia ruins the accused persons life.

    Honestly you dont need to explain burdens of proof to me.
    Perverting the course of justice is a criminal offence.

    Ofc it doesnt inflict the crime for which they might have falsely accused someone else of because thats not the crime thats being commited. Its the crime they will charge under. Bonkers thinking by you.

    Ive already linked you to what the CPS charge people with and it explains how and why.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    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.
    Imprisonment for a couple weeks or months or a payment of I don't know is a punishment. What do you think is a fit length of years for a false rape accuser?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Honestly you dont need to explain burdens of proof to me.
    Perverting the course of justice is a criminal offence.

    Ofc it doesnt inflict the crime for which they might have falsely accused someone else of because thats not the crime thats being commited. Its the crime they will charge under. Bonkers thinking by you.

    Ive already linked you to what the CPS charge people with and it explains how and why.

    How is it bonkers?

    (a) Just because the CPS says a thing doesn't make it right, i understand their reasoning I disagree with it.
    (b) Yes except for I am arguing for a change to the law, not an enactment of what already exists as I do not think it appropriately deals with the issue. 3.5 years for an accusation which can ruin a persons life is not a lot, you'd get more for slapping someone, losing control of your car and hitting someone, or improperly implementing health and safety regulations. With such socially charged crimes there does not need to be a conviction for the effect to be felt.
    (c) In a liberal society, we recognise that freedom is ours until it infringes on that of others (more or less, there is some nuance but that is the basis). In this vein, it is reasonable to suggest those who would inflict a deprivation of freedom upon others willingly and in all likelihood maliciously should suffer the same deprivation as they intended to inflict. The principle of justice at its most simplistic form is to give people what they deserve for their actions, a sort of power enforced karma (albeit massively imperfect), to be 'just'. It makes sense therefore in instances such as false accusations to sentence the person to the level of deprivation they have caused, this is the reason for murder possessing a life sentence whereas ABH does not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elliemayxo)
    Just seen it on facebook and thought it would be a good idea to ask on here.
    Yes, but you would have to prove that she's lying beyond a reasonable doubt and not based on a lack of evidence of said rape actually happening.
    Offline

    20
    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.
    (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.
    That's completely wrong as someone else has already explained


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    Without question, yes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If a woman has lied about being raped, it should be deemed perjurious. Depending on the damage the woman has caused to the victim's reputation and liberty, an adequate punishment should be given.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    Imprisonment for a couple weeks or months or a payment of I don't know is a punishment. What do you think is a fit length of years for a false rape accuser?
    Equivalent punishment to what a rapist would get seems fair.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    17
    It's a very complicated issue!Did they at least find out why she lied?There must be a reason for her to lie like that.It is a serious matter though....

    I think she should pay a fine.I don't think she should go to jail for lying.YES,it might have ruined the innocent man's life but sooner or later the police would have found out she was lying.Therefore I think the most suitable way to deal with this situation is by making her pay a fine of £1000,towards the guy and his family.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tamil fever)
    It's a very complicated issue!Did they at least find out why she lied?There must be a reason for her to lie like that.It is a serious matter though....

    I think she should pay a fine.I don't think she should go to jail for lying.YES,it might have ruined the innocent man's life but sooner or later the police would have found out she was lying.Therefore I think the most suitable way to deal with this situation is by making her pay a fine of £1000,towards the guy and his family.
    One of my best mates at Uni was accused of rape a few years ago. He went on a night out, met a girl, had a few drinks, went back to hers and had sex. She later went to the police and said that she'd been raped.

    Why did she do it? She had a boyfriend, he found out she'd come home with another guy and instead of admitting that she shagged another bloke she told him that she just wanted to hang out but he raped her.

    She later got cold feet and withdrew the accusations, however if you google his name the first half dozen results are all articles about how he was accused for rape. The first result about how the accusations were withdrawn isn't until page 3. He's been fired from jobs because colleagues have seen stories about the allegations and management have decided to let him go as a result, he's been dumped by girlfriends because friends of theirs have sent them a story about the rape allegations, he's had landlords refuse to rent to him because they did their own background check and saw the allegations and decided he wasn't somebody they wanted to rent to. In short, he's suffered a lot because of these allegations.

    Now sure, the fact that she withdrew the allegations doesn't prove that she made them up, she could have just got cold feet and decided she didn't want to go through with it. However I've seen texts that she sent him the next morning, things along the lines of "had a great time last night, love to do it again some time" and various other things which clearly show that she wasn't raped. You know what the police did when he showed them these texts after the accusations were made? Nothing, they flat out ignored them.

    The fact of the matter is that the system at the moment makes it far too easy for somebody to make false rape allegations that effectively ruin an innocent persons life and get away with it, the system needs to be changed and there needs to be a real punishment in place.

    Now I'm not saying that if a woman accuses a man of rape and he's found not guilty that she should be punished, of course not. I'm saying that in the same way that the man has to be found guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt" in order to be sentenced, the woman should have to be found guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt" of making false accusations of rape, however if it is proven that she made them up then she should face the same sentence that the accused male would receive if he were found guilty of her rape.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Tamil, the secret to good trolling is to get close to the line without crossing it. You just did a run up and a Greg Rutherford beating long jump over it.😱

    Democrat, that's an interesting post.
    I think asking how many is fine as numbers of false claims are very much up for debate . I've seen as low as feminists flatly refusing to admit even1% and most claiming a max of 2%, while I've seen ex police officers and MRAs claim 40 or 50%.
    I guess the truth is somewhere in between, so ask how many but don't ask why on earth would they do it
    as they done it for some of the most ludicrous petty reasons imaginable.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.