The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Viva Emptiness
yh, but no smoke with fire tho, right?


What if the smoke turns out to be steam?
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 therefore not guilty means innocent. Your the reason why people kill themselves after false rape allocations, you've made up your mind that they've did it.
Original post by SmashConcept
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.


As I put in my last qualifier, my post is entirely non-evaluative (opposing evaluativeness and facticity here), so I'm not presenting an opinion at all, either my own or anyone else's. All I wanted to point out was that, as far as I see, his reasoning does follow.

If I were to express an opinion, I'm by and large on your side: ideally, bear the risk of a wrongful conviction in mind, but not to the extent that it harms/adversely affects victims of rape(/or, for that matter, any other offence).
Original post by Nolofinwë
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).


In my view, this particular presumption need not be made. Surely a "not guilty" verdict could be equivalent to the statement "there is reasonable doubt that the offence was committed given the evidence available" or, in other words, "there's a reasonable chance that the defendant is innocent given the evidence available". This allows for an identical system to yours as far as outcomes, but involves one less potentially false presumption.
Original post by Nolofinwë
As I put in my last qualifier, my post is entirely non-evaluative (opposing evaluativeness and facticity here), so I'm not presenting an opinion at all, either my own or anyone else's. All I wanted to point out was that, as far as I see, his reasoning does follow.

If I were to express an opinion, I'm by and large on your side: ideally, bear the risk of a wrongful conviction in mind, but not to the extent that it harms/adversely affects victims of rape(/or, for that matter, any other offence).


His reasoning follows only if the "feminist logic" he was evaluating is strictly literal. If it takes into account frequencies, then his equivalence is clearly false.
Original post by MrKmas508
Innocent until proven guilty therefore not guilty means innocent.

This is quite obviously false when you realise that "innocent until proven guilty" is a slightly misleading simplification. "Innocent until proven guilty" means "we will assume innocence until we find evidence pointing to the contrary" which, in turn, means "a 'not guilty' verdict means we have not yet found evidence suggesting guilt". For example, someone could have committed an offence but has concealed the evidence well enough that a conviction cannot be made - in this case, it's fair to say they have not been proven guilty but it is not fair to say that they are innocent.

It's important to realise that courts do not seek to prove/suggest innocence; they establish whether or not we can be very sure of guilt.
(edited 8 years ago)
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.


I think you have raped me.

Now, prove that you're innocent or you should forever be considered a rapist who got away with raping me.

Oh wait, I forgot to stay anonymous even - a privilege enjoys by the plaintiff not you.
Original post by studentro
In my view, this particular presumption need not be made. Surely a "not guilty" verdict could be equivalent to the statement "there is reasonable doubt that the offence was committed given the evidence available" or, in other words, "there's a reasonable chance that the defendant is innocent given the evidence available". This allows for an identical system to yours as far as outcomes, but involves one less potentially false presumption.


It certainly could, it's a viable alternative. All I set out to describe is what we do at present. I know very little about Scots law, but I believe in their system they have/had three outcomes - innocent/not guilty, not proven and guilty. The problem with the 'not proven' outcome is that it leaves the accused in limbo: they're never convicted, but there's always a lingering doubt surrounding them.
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!".


This is a huge generalisation. A better question would be 'Why do SOME feminists'... that would be like me saying that all men are stupid or all women are bad drivers.

Btw... I'm a feminist, and perfectly willing to accept that courts and official statistics can be wrong. Both ways.
Original post by Nolofinwë
It certainly could, it's a viable alternative. All I set out to describe is what we do at present. I know very little about Scots law, but I believe in their system they have/had three outcomes - innocent/not guilty, not proven and guilty. The problem with the 'not proven' outcome is that it leaves the accused in limbo: they're never convicted, but there's always a lingering doubt surrounding them.

Based on what you wrote, it seems to me like our 'not guilty' outcome is simply a relabelling of the Scots' 'not proven' with the additional presumption that 'not proven' suggests innocence. I may well be wrong, though!
Original post by scrotgrot
Because it's rape when the woman decides it is: no more, no less.


If a woman willingly does it with a man, then afterwards regrets it and decides to say it was rape, that makes it true?
Because then the whole narrative of 'men the oppressors, women the oppressed' goes flying out of the window. The mantra of 'innocent until proven guilty' is so far gone these days that it's not even really worth mentioning to these feminists.
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!".


Listen: just because someone was found not guilty does not mean they are innocent. If you know anything about the justice system you'll know that court cases can be thrown out of court for a plethora of reasons, not just because the person charged is innocent.

Yes, there are some false allegations, of course. Nobody is saying there aren't. The comments are completely valid, they are not saying there are no false allegations. They are simply stating that the innocence was not necessarily accurate.

It is very difficult to prove a rape charge and if there is not substantial evidence then the case will be thrown out. It doesn't mean the rape didn't happen (nor does it mean the rape did happen) - it means a solid conclusion couldn't be made.

TL;DR: We cannot prove an allegation is false without substantial proof in the same way we cannot prove an allegation is true without substantial proof.
Can't we all just agree that we can't really say anything about a person's guilt or innocence unless there's been some sort of trial? Even then there can be a lack of certainty - there are appeals, and so on. And ask yourselves why the terms accused and plaintiff, not rapist and victim, are used in the courts. The public, however, seem to prefer the first two terms, despite being in a position of greater ignorance.

The truth is, most accusations never make it to court. There's often not enough evidence for an arrest, let alone a charge. We simply don't know how many are false and how many are true (the stats vary between 1 and 50% depending on the source). But that's why we uphold the same judicial principles to each and every case; because we don't know, and we can't just assume that the accused is guilty, regardless of statistical likelihood. Therefore they must be assumed innocent until proven otherwise. This doesn't mean that we believe they definitely didn't do it; it only means that in the alternative cannot be considered true, so they must be treated as innocent.
Reply 34
Avatar for slade p
slade p
4
Because they are vile,sinister and have an anti male mentality.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SmashConcept
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.


I'm not sure most people do agree with that, and neither are you, but it doesn't matter. What most people think is completely irrelevant and I find the idea of popular attitudes shaping our approach to rape and false rape allegations utterly terrifying.
Original post by MrKmas508
Innocent until proven guilty therefore not guilty means innocent. Your the reason why people kill themselves after false rape allocations, you've made up your mind that they've did it.


Or you could try reading what I said. The way the legal system works you have to prove guilt. Therefore people who aren't found guilty will sometimes have committed a crime. The system is set up to avoid the opposite outcome so they are not equivalent. I personally don't agree with the first statement OP suggested, but the two are NOT the same.

Original post by Little Toy Gun
I think you have raped me.

Now, prove that you're innocent or you should forever be considered a rapist who got away with raping me.

Oh wait, I forgot to stay anonymous even - a privilege enjoys by the plaintiff not you.


Or you could prove I'm guilty... Since, you know, that's the legal system we use in this country. Stop blowing what I said out of proportion. I don't think people found not guilty are actually rapists?! I have not said that once. But OPs original argument was not correct.
Original post by doodle_333
Or you could prove I'm guilty... Since, you know, that's the legal system we use in this country. Stop blowing what I said out of proportion. I don't think people found not guilty are actually rapists?! I have not said that once. But OPs original argument was not correct.


Oh so when it comes to you, it's reverted back to 'innocent before proven guilty' again?

This is what you said: '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.'

By your logic, since I have accused you of raping me, even though I have not proved that it happened, it doesn't mean you're innocent but only that you haven't been proven guilty.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Oh so when it comes to you, it's reverted back to 'innocent before proven guilty' again?

This is what you said: '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.'

By your logic, since I have accused you of raping me, even though I have not proved that it happened, it doesn't mean you're innocent but only that you haven't been proven guilty.


Are you actually capable of reading and comprehending what I wrote?

The way the legal system works is that guilt has to proven. This stops people being constantly convicted for things they didn't do just because they couldn't prove otherwise. Think of this for the example of rape... right now if a woman says a man raped her, it must be proven beyond all doubt that he did... if he says they had consensual sex and she says she didn't consent and there is no other evidence it is impossible to prove he did anything therefore he is not found guilty... if the burden of proof was the other way around the man would automatically get convicted because it was flat out impossible to prove what happened.

What I said was that OPs post was not a proper argument. Because of the burden of proof. If you are found not guilty it means there was not enough evidence to prosecute or something went wrong, that person obviously needs to be treated as if they were innocent but the truth is that we just don't know. If someone is found guilty we can be pretty sure we know as if there was any doubt at all they would not be found guilty. So saying it's common for people who are found not guilty to be guilty is not the same as saying lots of people found guilty are actually innocent.

And yes. If you accuse me of rape, can't prove it and I am found not guilty then I may or may not have done it. Legally innocence has to be assumed so I would be very unhappy to be turned down for a job, fired etc as a result but it is not actual PROOF of innocence.
Original post by doodle_333
Are you actually capable of reading and comprehending what I wrote?

The way the legal system works is that guilt has to proven. This stops people being constantly convicted for things they didn't do just because they couldn't prove otherwise. Think of this for the example of rape... right now if a woman says a man raped her, it must be proven beyond all doubt that he did... if he says they had consensual sex and she says she didn't consent and there is no other evidence it is impossible to prove he did anything therefore he is not found guilty... if the burden of proof was the other way around the man would automatically get convicted because it was flat out impossible to prove what happened.

What I said was that OPs post was not a proper argument. Because of the burden of proof. If you are found not guilty it means there was not enough evidence to prosecute or something went wrong, that person obviously needs to be treated as if they were innocent but the truth is that we just don't know. If someone is found guilty we can be pretty sure we know as if there was any doubt at all they would not be found guilty. So saying it's common for people who are found not guilty to be guilty is not the same as saying lots of people found guilty are actually innocent.

And yes. If you accuse me of rape, can't prove it and I am found not guilty then I may or may not have done it. Legally innocence has to be assumed so I would be very unhappy to be turned down for a job, fired etc as a result but it is not actual PROOF of innocence.


You should ask yourself that question. I'm very capable of comprehending your non-existent argument, but you're struggling with making one.

There's nothing for me to add really: I have accused you of raping, and you should now be forever labeled as someone who may not be innocent. You just haven't been proven guilty yet. No smoke without fire and all.

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you