Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why do some people refuse to accept that some rape allegations are false? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Whenever a rape allegation manages to reach the public eye, and is later thrown out of court, or the defendant found not guilty, you always have a plethora of feminists posting

    "Just because he was acquitted/found not guilty doesn't mean it wasn't rape!".


    By their own logic, every time someone is found guilty of rape they should be posting

    "Just because he was found guilty doesn't mean it was rape!".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because it's rape when the woman decides it is: no more, no less.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Because it's rape when the woman decides it is: no more, no less.
    You honestly believe this? I was going to post something that no actual genuine person would think this, but apparent I'm wrong.

    Stupid things like this is what's caused all this "feminist" hate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There is a reluctance among feminists to admit that false accusations DO happen and are a big deal. Your logic doesn't really follow though. You have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime to find them guilty - and rape is notoriously difficult to do this with as it's often one person's word against another with little evidence - so if someone is found guilty there is a lot of evidence for their guilt. If someone is found not guilty then all that means is that we can't be sure what happens or there's one bit of evidence we don't trust, it doesn't mean innocent, it means can't prove guilt.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of feminists seem to be okay with totally throwing "innocent until proven guilty" completely out of the window when it comes to rape allegations.

    Something about fighting "rape culture" I imagine...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    You honestly believe this? I was going to post something that no actual genuine person would think this, but apparent I'm wrong.

    Stupid things like this is what's caused all this "feminist" hate.
    I'm pretty sure what has caused this ''feminist'' hate, is people listening to what some so called ''feminists'' have said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because feminazis gonna feminaziate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    But there is actually some logic in saying '"Just because he was acquitted/found not guilty doesn't mean it wasn't rape!".', like already said, rape is obviously very hard to prove and there will be cases where the rape did occur, but there wasn't enough evidence to convict, that's not denying false rape accusations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Because feelings are more important that the rule of law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doodle_333)
    There is a reluctance among feminists to admit that false accusations DO happen and are a big deal. Your logic doesn't really follow though. You have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime to find them guilty - and rape is notoriously difficult to do this with as it's often one person's word against another with little evidence - so if someone is found guilty there is a lot of evidence for their guilt. If someone is found not guilty then all that means is that we can't be sure what happens or there's one bit of evidence we don't trust, it doesn't mean innocent, it means can't prove guilt.
    'Innocent until proven guilty' is a defining maxim of any civilised justice system. If there is not enough evidence to convict them then the presumption is that they are innocent. To openly throw doubt on their innocence on the facile basis that it can be difficult to prove a rape beyond all reasonable doubt is shabby behaviour, especially when this person has just had their reputation dragged through the mud already and suffered the stress of teetering on the brink of a lengthy prison sentence.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    'Innocent until proven guilty' is a defining maxim of any civilised justice system. If there is not enough evidence to convict them then the presumption is that they are innocent. To openly throw doubt on their innocence on the facile basis that it can be difficult to prove a rape beyond all reasonable doubt is shabby behaviour, especially when this person has just had their reputation dragged through the mud already and suffered the stress of teetering on the brink of a lengthy prison sentence.
    I'm not saying that if someone is found not guilty they should have doubt case on their innocence. I'm simply saying that stating 'just because he was acquitted doesn't mean it wasn't rape' is really not the same as 'he was found guilty but it doesn't mean a rape happened'. Which is completely accurate. I don't agree with the first statement.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    'Innocent until proven guilty' is a defining maxim of any civilised justice system. If there is not enough evidence to convict them then the presumption is that they are innocent. To openly throw doubt on their innocence on the facile basis that it can be difficult to prove a rape beyond all reasonable doubt is shabby behaviour, especially when this person has just had their reputation dragged through the mud already and suffered the stress of teetering on the brink of a lengthy prison sentence.
    yh, but no smoke with fire tho, right?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I particularly dislike how they sometimes bring up low conviction rates for rape, and the particular "conviction rate" they've cited is based on the number of convictions against the number of allegations - some of those allegations will be false, and surely that messes up the "conviction rate"?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    Whenever a rape allegation manages to reach the public eye, and is later thrown out of court, or the defendant found not guilty, you always have a plethora of feminists posting

    "Just because he was acquitted/found not guilty doesn't mean it wasn't rape!".


    By their own logic, every time someone is found guilty of rape they should be posting

    "Just because he was found guilty doesn't mean it was rape!".
    Except that's not even remotely a valid extension of their logic.

    They are probably trying to communicate - some more successfully than others - that "innocent until proven guilty" goes both ways. There are a lot of people on the internet, including (or rather, especially) on this forum who will argue that any dropped case or acquittal means that the alleged victim maliciously lied. In their eyes, she can't have made a mistake, or dropped her case due to peer pressure, or just lacked evidence, or whatever. She immediately becomes LITERALLY WORSE THAN A REAL RAPIST.

    See this thread, with absolutely no details of the case other than that it was dropped, people on the first page are saying the following about a 17 year old girl:

    "He had part of his future in his vision and some selfish cow decided to jeopardise his ambitions
    Such a cowardly thing to do"

    "So is the ***** going to rot in jail or what? Tell me at least something positive comes from this story?"

    "It annoys me ALOT when women do this"

    "i hope her guilt twists her into something miserable"

    "Hope she suffers for what she has done."

    ^innocent until proven guilty
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I particularly dislike how they sometimes bring up low conviction rates for rape, and the particular "conviction rate" they've cited is based on the number of convictions against the number of allegations - some of those allegations will be false, and surely that messes up the "conviction rate"?
    I recall an infographic that did the rounds on social media a year or so ago. It said something along the lines of "only 5% of rapists see prison", or to that effect. But on the infographic it was treating those accused as the other 95%, which was rather dishonest.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Except that's not even remotely a valid extension of their logic.

    They are probably trying to communicate - some more successfully than others - that "innocent until proven guilty" goes both ways. There are a lot of people on the internet, including (or rather, especially) on this forum who will argue that any dropped case or acquittal means that the alleged victim maliciously lied. In their eyes, she can't have made a mistake, or dropped her case due to peer pressure, or just lacked evidence, or whatever. She immediately becomes LITERALLY WORSE THAN A REAL RAPIST.

    See this thread, with absolutely no details of the case other than that it was dropped, people on the first page are saying the following about a 17 year old girl:

    "He had part of his future in his vision and some selfish cow decided to jeopardise his ambitions
    Such a cowardly thing to do"

    "So is the ***** going to rot in jail or what? Tell me at least something positive comes from this story?"

    "It annoys me ALOT when women do this"

    "i hope her guilt twists her into something miserable"

    "Hope she suffers for what she has done."

    ^innocent until proven guilty
    In their defense, the article did state "false accusation" several times, which may well have misled readers that only glanced at it.

    I agree that dropping an allegation doesn't necessarily imply it was false. However, it does make one question why somebody would put a boy through that only to decide 2 weeks later not to stand by their initial allegation.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Story time: A girl at my school developed an unhealthy infatuation with an older guy at my school. This 16 year old told everyone they were dating and when everyone realised this was false she accused him of rape. The two had barely even spoken before. Police where involved and his reputation became tainted. I've never seen an 18 year old guy cry like this. Police were constantly questioning him which disrupted his school work and his parents had become so disgusted by him he was practically disowned.

    Weeks later she couldn't take the questioning anymore and retracted the accusation (which by the way came from NOWHERE. like it was literally conjured up out of thin air.)

    Fortunately his reputation wasn't permanently damaged and everyone loves him again!

    Unfortunately she was barely punished and was temporarily sent to a school for disruptive students, she now goes to a good sixth form.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    In their defense, the article did state "false accusation" several times, which may well have misled readers that only glanced at it.

    I agree that dropping an allegation doesn't necessarily imply it was false. However, it does make one question why somebody would put a boy through that only to decide 2 weeks later not to stand by their initial allegation.
    I suppose so, but I really have no time for people who think that their opinion they formed by glancing at a Daily Mail article needs to be shared online. Maybe I used to be like that, but I don't remember. Now I just can't really comprehend it.

    You can certainly "question" it, but the media/cultural trope of respecting the dead at all costs makes it difficult to fairly discuss all the reasonable possibilities. He was a darling hero who was tragically taken from us and wouldn't have hurt a fly - so let it be written - so we can really only discuss how awful she was.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Except that's not even remotely a valid extension of their logic.
    Technically, his statement is correct as part of the law of evidence. Forgive me if this is a little slow, but it’s worth setting out the reasoning in full.

    We must distinguish (a) the facts/offence – here rape- in law (i.e. the outcome of a legal decision) from (b) the facts/offence in fact (i.e. what really, truly happened). The ideal of any law of evidence is to have a perfect match between (a) and (b), so that the facts as found in the court perfectly and identically resemble what actually happened. However, it is not within (present) human capabilities to achieve this, because we have no fully reliable way of working out what happened in the past.

    Therefore, our law of evidence ((a)) has to try to uncover (b) as best it can, and the way it does so is ‘second-hand’, through witnesses, physical evidence etc. These cannot produce an outcome with absolute certainty because the procedure in the law of evidence is only an attempted, and in practice imperfect, substitute for (b), we instead have to adopt standards of proof: i.e. if you get enough evidence to pass the threshold standard, the facts in law - (a) - will be conclusively presumed to represent the facts in fact - (b).

    The criminal standard is proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Therefore, if the prosecutor cannot prove the facts of the offence in law – (a) – to be so certain that no reasonable person would doubt that they accurately reflect what actually happened – (b) – then the case fails. There was, in law, no offence. That does not necessarily mean, however, that there was no offence in fact/reality. That may or may not have actually occurred. The law is just conclusively presuming that its decision is accurate (and that presumption is a fiction, because it cannot be sure of this). Many people on this thread have agreed with that proposition. Conversely, if the prosecutor does prove the facts of the offence in law – (a) – beyond reasonable doubt, then the law conclusively presumes that the offence occurred. Therefore, in law, there was a rape – (a). That does not necessarily mean, however, that the offence existed in fact – (b). We are only told that it definitely occurred in fact because the facts found in law are conclusively presumed to reflect reality (which, as just explained, is a fictitious presumption, because it cannot always be true). This is why, occasionally, we can get false convictions of innocent parties for any offence.

    Therefore, he is/would be (I’m not going to put words into his mouth) strictly correct to say that, even if rape is found in law ((a)), it does not conclusively demonstrate (with the legal fiction lifted) that it happened in fact ((b)).

    I don’t hereby express an opinion on the wider debate in the thread, or wish to discourage reporting of rape/bring claims into disrepute. I’m just stating the legal situation as it is.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nolofinwë)
    Technically, his statement is correct as part of the law of evidence. Forgive me if this is a little slow, but it’s worth setting out the reasoning in full.

    We must distinguish (a) the facts/offence – here rape- in law (i.e. the outcome of a legal decision) from (b) the facts/offence in fact (i.e. what really, truly happened). The ideal of any law of evidence is to have a perfect match between (a) and (b), so that the facts as found in the court perfectly and identically resemble what actually happened. However, it is not within (present) human capabilities to achieve this, because we have no fully reliable way of working out what happened in the past.

    Therefore, our law of evidence ((a)) has to try to uncover (b) as best it can, and the way it does so is ‘second-hand’, through witnesses, physical evidence etc. These cannot produce an outcome with absolute certainty because the procedure in the law of evidence is only an attempted, and in practice imperfect, substitute for (b), we instead have to adopt standards of proof: i.e. if you get enough evidence to pass the threshold standard, the facts in law - (a) - will be conclusively presumed to represent the facts in fact - (b).

    The criminal standard is proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Therefore, if the prosecutor cannot prove the facts of the offence in law – (a) – to be so certain that no reasonable person would doubt that they accurately reflect what actually happened – (b) – then the case fails. There was, in law, no offence. That does not necessarily mean, however, that there was no offence in fact/reality. That may or may not have actually occurred. The law is just conclusively presuming that its decision is accurate (and that presumption is a fiction, because it cannot be sure of this). Many people on this thread have agreed with that proposition. Conversely, if the prosecutor does prove the facts of the offence in law – (a) – beyond reasonable doubt, then the law conclusively presumes that the offence occurred. Therefore, in law, there was a rape – (a). That does not necessarily mean, however, that the offence existed in fact – (b). We are only told that it definitely occurred in fact because the facts found in law are conclusively presumed to reflect reality (which, as just explained, is a fictitious presumption, because it cannot always be true). This is why, occasionally, we can get false convictions of innocent parties for any offence.

    Therefore, he is/would be (I’m not going to put words into his mouth) strictly correct to say that, even if rape is found in law ((a)), it does not conclusively demonstrate (with the legal fiction lifted) that it happened in fact ((b)).
    False rape convictions certainly happen, which I suppose makes you technically correct, but most laypeople seem to agree that they are so rare as to make them not worth talking about when you discuss the issue in broad strokes. If the legal community has a different opinion to that, feel free to let me know.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.