Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should False Accusation Of Rape Carry a Sentence? Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, of course
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This is quite difficult. I feel it should be criminalised, but at the same time, I'm sure there are cases where there is simply no satisfactory evidence, despite the fact a rape occurred, and it would be rather intimidating to rape victims if they could be called out simply due to this. You could say only allow such charges to be brought if there is a water-tight alibi or clear inconsistencies I guess. I dunno, my knowledge of the law is weak.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    This is quite difficult. I feel it should be criminalised, but at the same time, I'm sure there are cases where there is simply no satisfactory evidence, despite the fact a rape occurred, and it would be rather intimidating to rape victims if they could be called out simply due to this. You could say only allow such charges to be brought if there is a water-tight alibi or clear inconsistencies I guess. I dunno, my knowledge of the law is weak.
    True. But apparently you can already get done for false acc, says 999tigger here. But I'm sure women have not reported rape way before that. It's probably because they accept some accountability like they were drunk or went to his house sober or something like that and then got sexually assaulted and might feel the rape would humiliate them in court and for nowt. But false acc is false acc. If 999tigger is right that you get charged for it then let's cue him to pull up one of the cases where this happened and see why this happened. So we can know when it is likely or what deems something false acc. It can't just be lack of evidence even though that happens across the board that people get arrested for lack of evidence proving what they said, or lack of witnesses corroborating.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    My point is the thread is buit on a false premise, so there is little room for discussion.
    Ask a diffeent question.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...threesome.html

    She got two and a half years.

    I agree with it, it should carry a prison sentence. The question is how long. And that is difficult. It's not always that straightforward (imagine the woman comes out with the truth way before a possible trial of the accused, should that be a sentence at all and if surely not as long as someone who goes all the way to trial where it comes to light she is lying).

    Anyway, bottom line is yes, of course, it has to be punished by prison.
    Perverting the course of justice can carry a maximum life jail term.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with putting a sentence on something verbal is that it can be easily misinterpreted and also easily reversed. Not to mention implications with freedom of speech. I would certainly say accusing someone of rape is an awful crime and SHOULD CARRY A SENTENCE. But only if they accused someone under oath so they can get accused of perjury. Otherwise they could say they were just joking once found out to be lying, or that they were just saying it figuratively:

    Example; Ali: "I was playing tennis with Bob and he raped me". Obviously using language in this way is beyond terrible if someone is using such a serious word as a metaphor, but people do say things like it. Who should be accused? What if a friend of Ali filed a lawsuit against Bob after overhearing this and took it out of context, should Ali be sentenced for saying Bob raped them? Or what if Ali said it seriously, only to say they were joking when found out to be lying later, or claimed they thought the word only meant to lose/be beaten/dominated etc, nothing physical, a lot of blurry line, but absolutely a topic worth discussing seriously.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    To answer the OP, it already does but according to this study: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...05/hors293.pdf there is "an overestimation of the of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors" which obviously would make the issue of punishment tricky. It would often be hard to tell what is personal prejudice combined with a lack of evidence, and what is actual proof of someone falsifying a claim.

    (Original post by 0to100)
    lmao yea that's what I was getting at with the underage girls who still get with the adult, I've heard they can also be arrested
    Minors cannot legally give consent. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ences/consent/
    A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law, (Archbold 2004, 20-152).Consent should be carefully considered when deciding not only what offence to charge but also whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. Sometimes consent is given, or appears to be given, but the law does not treat it as effective consent.The law does not allow a person's consent to sexual activity to have effect in the following situations:
    • *where the person giving consent did not understand what was happing and so could not give informed consent, for example in the case of a child or someone suffering from a severe mental disability;
    • *where the person giving consent was under the relevant age of consent.
    These two situations are different. In the first, the apparent consent is not treated as real consent because the person consenting did not understand enough to give real consent. This is a question of fact. In the second, consent is real as a matter of fact but the law does not allow it to count.Where the victim has consented in fact but not in law alternative offences may be appropriate. Examples include incest or unlawful sexual intercourse (in the case of a female victim) or, where consensual intercourse with a male under the age of consent, the offence of buggery.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    My point is the thread is buit on a false premise, so there is little room for discussion.
    Ask a diffeent question.
    Lol nice copout to saying false acc is already prosecuted but you don't even want to bother providing the class with an example?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RachaelBee)
    To answer the OP, it already does but according to this study: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...05/hors293.pdf there is "an overestimation of the of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors" which obviously would make the issue of punishment tricky. It would often be hard to tell what is personal prejudice combined with a lack of evidence, and what is actual proof of someone falsifying a claim.



    Minors cannot legally give consent. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ences/consent/
    A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law, (Archbold 2004, 20-152).Consent should be carefully considered when deciding not only what offence to charge but also whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. Sometimes consent is given, or appears to be given, but the law does not treat it as effective consent.The law does not allow a person's consent to sexual activity to have effect in the following situations:
    • *where the person giving consent did not understand what was happing and so could not give informed consent, for example in the case of a child or someone suffering from a severe mental disability;
    • *where the person giving consent was under the relevant age of consent.
    These two situations are different. In the first, the apparent consent is not treated as real consent because the person consenting did not understand enough to give real consent. This is a question of fact. In the second, consent is real as a matter of fact but the law does not allow it to count.Where the victim has consented in fact but not in law alternative offences may be appropriate. Examples include incest or unlawful sexual intercourse (in the case of a female victim) or, where consensual intercourse with a male under the age of consent, the offence of buggery.
    I'm on about like underage teenagers. Who do understand. Not like child molesting. I said it was like these chatrooms where she meets the guy and gets raped, it will add leniency on his part if she knew his age.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quinn f)
    Okay, different question for you then: how would you prove someone has falsely accused a person of rape?
    The victim should ALWAYS be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rape.
    How has the person become a "victim" when the offender has not even been proven guilty?

    You realise that the CPS have to prove guilt? The offender does not prove innocence.

    So your question is irrelevant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    How has the person become a "victim" when the offender has not even been proven guilty?

    You realise that the CPS have to prove guilt? The offender does not prove innocence.

    So your question is irrelevant.
    A victim of rape. You know, someone who has been raped. That's what they are. A victim. Because they did not ask for it. (See definition of 'rape'). Just because people may not believe that they are a victim of rape does not mean it didn't happen - you don't need to prove it for it to be true. It's like that stupid saying 'if a tree in a forest hits the floor but nobody is around to hear it does it still make a sound?' because yes of course it does the sound waves are still produced, whether or not you're around to hear it.
    Hence the offender is either guilty or not - whether the law recognises them as such or not. The victim should always be believed, as I have already said, only 2% of reported rapes are false claims.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Lmao. That is what leads to false acc happening.
    And then you have to prove this. But again it brings us back to the female. is she willing to report straight away? Is she hiding something?
    Thing is though, false accusations rarely happen. Again, as I've already said, only 2% of rape allegations are false. That's a whole 98% of rapes reported that actually really were rapes. What leads to false accusations happening is spite. What more frequently occurs is the victim not being believed (see above 98% of rape allegations are true) and so only 16% of rapists are prosecuted.

    So, as already stated, the victim is almost never "hiding something". The reason victims don't come forward right away is because of fear of people like you not believing them. And, I don't know, maybe something to do with the trauma of just being raped

    Lastly can I just point out that males can also be raped.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quinn f)
    A victim of rape. You know, someone who has been raped. That's what they are. A victim. Because they did not ask for it. (See definition of 'rape'. Just because people may not believe that they are a victim of rape does not mean it didn't happen - you don't need to prove it for it to be true. It's like that stupid saying 'if a tree in a forest hits the floor but nobody is around to hear it does it still make a sound?' because yes of course it does the sound waves are still produced, whether or not you're around to hear it.
    Hence the offender is either guilty or not - whether the law recognises them as such or not. The victim should always be believed, as I have already said, only 2% of reported rapes are false claims.
    But you are assuming everyone who accuses someone of rape has actually been raped? If someone accuses but has not been raped are they also a victim?

    Well you need to prove it for the defendant to be held liable for the offence... Im not asking you for statistics im telling you the law. Which is that the prosecution HAVE to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and if they do not then the defendant is innocent no matter what YOU or anyone says. Why should the "victim" be believed as what constitutes a victim? By your definition if person A accuses person B of rape then person A should be believed regardless. What a fair way to decide guilt
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, because those whores need to be stopped from ****ing up an innocents life. It will be a deterrent for those lying sluts.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    I'm on about like underage teenagers. Who do understand. Not like child molesting. I said it was like these chatrooms where she meets the guy and gets raped, it will add leniency on his part if she knew his age.
    The law (which I quoted) specifies 16 as the age, you have also highlighted and referred to the WRONG PART of the law. My post stated that a lack of understanding referred to the FIRST situation:
    • *where the person giving consent did not understand what was happing and so could not give informed consent, for example in the case of a child or someone suffering from a severe mental disability;
    It specifies that where a person consents but is under the actual age of consent (ie in situations you are referring to):

    In the second, consent is real as a matter of fact but the law does not allow it to count. Where the victim has consented in fact but not in law alternative offences may be appropriate eg unlawful sexual intercourse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think if prosecution merely fails to prove the case, there should be nothing done. However, if proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the 'victim' intentionally and with ill will accused someone of the offence, it should be compulsory for a judge to sentence V to the same punishment as D would have received had the case went through.
    People do go to jail for such crimes, however for not long enough time. Somewhere in the news I have seen a woman who ruined over 15 innocent lives got off with 8 months in prison.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by p3ssimist)
    No.

    I agree it's disgusting to falsely accuse someone of rape but I think punishing them would open up the possibility of actual victims being too scared to report rape for fear of being sentenced for a false allegation.

    I feel that actual victims should not be inhibited in any way from going to the police.
    Oh piss off. I genuinely hope someone falses accuses you, your life gets ruined then they turn around 30 years later and say whopps I was lying.

    I can't fathom how ANYONE could think like you do. Jesus christ.

    You people need to realize that being proven to be a false accuser and having a case dropped due to lack of evidence isn't the same thing. If the person is proved to be straight lying in the court of law then they can go straight to jail with very harsh sentences.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by p3ssimist)

    The reason why actual victims might be scared of being accused of lying is because rape is hard to prove. Too many rapists get acquitted of rape because of lack of evidence.

    What happens when a genuine victim does not have enough evidence and so the rapist goes free? Is the rapist allowed to turn the case around now and say that as he was acquitted that must mean the girl was lying? Will the victim be sentenced?
    Unless some sort of case can be made against them, it's highly unlikely they'll find themselves in any trouble. Failing to prove a rape happened can't be and has never been, to my knowledge, used as evidence of lying. Accusers very rarely face any consequences, lying or otherwise.

    And let's not also forget the accuser is entitled to anonymity. Even if she (or he) fails to prove anything, no-one, other than the court and the police, knows who they are. There's little to no effect on their reputation. For the accused, however, their name is out there from the beginning.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    But you are assuming everyone who accuses someone of rape has actually been raped? If someone accuses but has not been raped are they also a victim?

    Well you need to prove it for the defendant to be held liable for the offence... Im not asking you for statistics im telling you the law. Which is that the prosecution HAVE to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and if they do not then the defendant is innocent no matter what YOU or anyone says. Why should the "victim" be believed as what constitutes a victim? By your definition if person A accuses person B of rape then person A should be believed regardless. What a fair way to decide guilt
    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.

    All I'm saying is that the issue with a sentence for false accusations it that, because you can't prove that the rapist did it so often of the time (see above para), what is to stop every case with no hard physical evidence resulting in the victim being wrongly sentenced. The statistics I have already listed on this thread show that it is much, much more likely for an accused rapist to be an actual rapist than for the victim to be lying. So start sentencing people accusing someone of rape and rapists will start walking free even more than they already do (see 16%), so rape victims will stop coming forward. And rapists will just carry on. And with no consequences rape would just happen more frequently
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 09876543211)
    I think if prosecution merely fails to prove the case, there should be nothing done. However, if proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the 'victim' intentionally and with ill will accused someone of the offence, it should be compulsory for a judge to sentence V to the same punishment as D would have received had the case went through.
    People do go to jail for such crimes, however for not long enough time. Somewhere in the news I have seen a woman who ruined over 15 innocent lives got off with 8 months in prison.
    Completely agree. If prosecution fails to prove an accused's guilt, it does not mean they are not guilty - but I completely agree that intentionally falsely accusing someone of rape is disgusting and, in the small amount of times it does happens, should be punished.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.