Are some feminists trying to make men guilty until proven innocent in rape trials?

Scroll to see replies

Well if you were falsely accused of rape and sent to prison no one would no you were falsely acussed would they? Feminists can't just make up statistics and expect to be taken seriously.

The article uses statistics based on how many men are actually accused of rape. Not just those who have been proved falsely accused of rape.

Reply 21

AperfectBalance

Original post by epage

https://www.buzzfeed.com/charlesclymer/5-things-more-likely-to-happen-to-you-than-being-f-fmeu

Men are 82,000x more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape.
And 11x more likely to be killed by a comet or asteroid.

Did you know that every 1 second 4 billion women are raped and 500 Black people die in America due to cop shootings.

Reply 22

username2303857

Original post by EdwardBarfield9

It's awful for male rape victims. Most are not taken seriously and have no place to go.
There was this mens shelter that kept getting refused funding but the owner tried to keep it going with his own money. Eventually stuff happened that meant the owner had the shut the shelter and he killed himself.

Exactly - if mens rights activists or meninists whatever you want to call them stopped simply arguing with feminists and actually helped male victims of rape, men of colour, LGBT men, etc. then I think they would be taken a bit more seriously.

Reply 23

username2303857

Original post by AperfectBalance

Did you know that every 1 second 4 billion women are raped and 500 Black people die in America due to cop shootings.

Haha. Hilarious. But unless you are a celebrity, or extremely rich, you are unlikely to be falsely accused of rape.

Reply 24

Angry Bird

they are filth stay away from them and becareful

Reply 25

AperfectBalance

Original post by epage

Haha. Hilarious. But unless you are a celebrity, or extremely rich, you are unlikely to be falsely accused of rape.

Just because a false rape claim was not in the news does not mean it did not happen.

Reply 26

unprinted

Original post by Underscore__

The SOA 2003 is complete mess anyway as is most of the legal precedent that it's spawned.

Crap.

The focus needs to be on defining consent, fixing s.75 and 76

So, how would you define consent? What's wrong with "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice"?

For those who don't spend their lives obsessing about such things..

s.75 says that if you are proved to have used or threatened immediate violence against someone, you have unlawfully detained someone, they're asleep or otherwise unconscious, you know someone's disability means they can't communicate with you, or someone has drugged them... then it's not necessary to prove that they didn't consent, or you didn't have a reasonable belief in their consent, but up to you to show that you did.

So, does your version of "fixing" that mean that you can beat someone up until they consent and go 'Well, they did say "yes"'? Or stick your penis in someone you don't know who's passed out and go 'Well, they didn't say "no"'?

s.76 says that if you are proved to intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of, for example, sticking your penis in them, or proved to have intentionally deceived them by impersonating a person known personally to them, then you can't say you thought they consented.

So for the first, the classic example has you as a music teacher telling a gullible teenage girl that sticking your penis in her will improve her singing. She consented to that, but how is that not rape? In other assaults, does your version of "fixing" it mean that you would be able to go around lying that you're a doctor and need to do a vaginal exam?

For the second, any non-virgin knows that you don't just consent to the physical act, your consent involves who it is with. If you have been actively deceived about that, it has made any purported consent irrelevant for well over a century before this Act.

Reply 27

unprinted

Original post by anarchism101

I don't see how any of these articles suggest any alteration to the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle?

They don't.

Reply 28

username2763536

Original post by epage

Haha. Hilarious. But unless you are a celebrity, or extremely rich, you are unlikely to be falsely accused of rape.

Really? Because girls never lie do they.They are obviously perfect angels who tell the truth all the time. Feminists like to twist statistics.Take for example the non existent pay gap. Or the alleged claim that one in 3 women experience sexual assault on campuses.Thats just BS. How about those 4 boys a while back at the royal agricultural university I think it was.They were kicked out of university even though they were later found innocent.They were just students not celebrities.

Reply 29

username2303857

Original post by Robby2312

The number of false rape accusations does in no way compare to the number of victims or rape each year.

Reply 30

the bear

you only have to read this to realize what a nightmare innocent people can find themselves in:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9894588/Compulsive-liar-jailed-after-11-false-rape-claims-in-decade.html

Reply 31

DarthRoar

Original post by epage

The number of false rape accusations does in no way compare to the number of victims or rape each year.

The stats say that 4-6% of these claims are false. However, this is only when the accuser admits that the accusation is a fabrication. 35-40% of these cases cannot proceed in court due to a lack of evidence. This portion likely contains many false claims that cannot be attributed, as there was no admission that the claim was false.

Reply 32

username2303857

Original post by DarthRoar

It is almost impossible to estimate the true percentage of false rape reports.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false

(From link) "You cannot treat "percentage of reports that were found to be false by investigators" as "percentage of reports that were actually false." Some women may simply have recanted to disengage from the system. Some police officers may decide a case was false when it wasn't. "

Reply 33

unprinted

Original post by Robby2312

Take for example the non existent pay gap.

Stop digging.

Reply 34

Underscore__

Original post by unprinted

So, how would you define consent? What's wrong with "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice"?

Capacity is vague and relatively inconsistent, it needs to be fixed by statute.

Original post by unprinted

For those who don't spend their lives obsessing about such things..

Sorry for worrying about something related to my job, I'll focus on more important things...

Original post by unprinted

s.75 says that if you are proved to have used or threatened immediate violence against someone, you have unlawfully detained someone, they're asleep or otherwise unconscious, you know someone's disability means they can't communicate with you, or someone has drugged them... then it's not necessary to prove that they didn't consent, or you didn't have a reasonable belief in their consent, but up to you to show that you did.

So, does your version of "fixing" that mean that you can beat someone up until they consent and go 'Well, they did say "yes"'? Or stick your penis in someone you don't know who's passed out and go 'Well, they didn't say "no"'?

Not sure why you think I would be saying that...the problem with s.75 is that the complainant being asleep is a rebuttable presumption. It's also ridiculous to presume guilt when the complainant is involuntarily intoxicated by a unrelated third party.

Original post by unprinted

s.76 says that if you are proved to intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of, for example, sticking your penis in them, or proved to have intentionally deceived them by impersonating a person known personally to them, then you can't say you thought they consented.

So for the first, the classic example has you as a music teacher telling a gullible teenage girl that sticking your penis in her will improve her singing. She consented to that, but how is that not rape? In other assaults, does your version of "fixing" it mean that you would be able to go around lying that you're a doctor and need to do a vaginal exam?

No, that clause is pretty fair however there should be a caveat that the complainant had to reasonably believe what the defendant claimed.

Original post by unprinted

For the second, any non-virgin knows that you don't just consent to the physical act, your consent involves who it is with. If you have been actively deceived about that, it has made any purported consent irrelevant for well over a century before this Act.

Again this should have to be reasonable.

I can keep going with problems if you like? You ignored my point about making rape gender neutral, the test on belief in consent is essentially an objective test which is at odds with the rest of the criminal law.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 35

unprinted

Original post by Underscore__

Capacity is vague and relatively inconsistent, it needs to be fixed by statute.

In what sense is it not? What specific change would you like?

Sorry for worrying about something related to my job

That aside was for other readers. Clearly it's something you think is very, very important.

Not sure why you think I would be saying that...the problem with s.75 is that the complainant being asleep is a rebuttable presumption.

Why's that a problem? My partner knows that they can do various things to me when I'm asleep - it will wake me up in the nicest way.

It's also ridiculous to presume guilt when the complainant is involuntarily intoxicated by a unrelated third party

Not if you are proved to know they're incapacitated. If you know that, what does it matter if you didn't actually give them it? It's also clearly there to stop rapists going 'Well, yes, I knew someone had given them something, but you can't prove it was me.'

No, that clause is pretty fair however there should be a caveat that the complainant had to reasonably believe what the defendant claimed.

It's rarely used - apart from the classic 1920s(? it's around then, but I'm away from my library) music teacher, the only big 'nature of the act' prosecution I can think of was the recent 'I'm a boy, honest' one that was recently at the Court of Appeal. Certainly in the latter case, the complainant gave such evidence,

Again this should have to be reasonable.

Given the nature

I can keep going with problems if you like?

Do, but it'd be good to have some actual alternative drafts.

You ignored my point about making rape gender neutral

I missed that it was you. In terms of the complainant, it is of course.

In terms of the accused, sexual penetration has always been seen as a particularly abhorrent crime. Penetrating someone with something other than a penis is 'assault by penetration', with the same maximum penalty, and women can be guilty of that.

the test on belief in consent is essentially an objective test which is at odds with the rest of the criminal law.

Without going back to the situation where any belief in consent, no matter how unreasonable, was a defence, I can't see how else it could be done effectively.

Reply 36

username1723547

Original post by epage

This is why I often push for a move towards egalitarianism - there's no focus on one gender, so ideally there's less clashes and more unity.

Reply 37

Retired_Messiah

Two of the articles you link mention stopping brining up a woman's sexual history, which is good imo as it's not really relevant. If I was a girl, had consensual sex with a few blokes and then one bloke forced himself upon me it does not stand to reason that the one bloke didn't actually force himself upon me just because I was with some other fellas the same night.

The other one says this:

Victims raped by strangers will have their identities protected from their attackers under a move to change the law on sexual assaults.

This seems a bit confusing to me, I'm not sure how police would manage to give the alleged victim's identity away anyway when it's not really relevant to the investigation given that... you know, they're a stranger?

"Gavin, did you rape Mary?"
"who tf is Mary?"
"...whoops"

like rlly

None of these articles even mention innocent until proven guilty. There are some feminists I've seen on sites like tumblr and such that seem to advocate always blaming accused men in the situation (a few even saying that women cannot rape and such like), but what OP has mentioned is totally irrelevant and 2 out of 3 of the articles seem pretty good.

For some noice contextual information, Ched Evans who is mentioned in two of the articles wasn't actually accused by the woman alleged to be the victim. #FunFact

Original post by epage

Given that the article there opens with the 1 in 4 stat that has been debunked multiple times by everybody ever I'm not particularly confident in the other statistics they give.

Besides, if you read it the stat about false rape accusations "is estimated" which isn't great. At all.

Reply 38

unprinted

Original post by Retired_Messiah

For some noice contextual information, Ched Evans who is mentioned in two of the articles wasn't actually accused by the woman alleged to be the victim.

Yep, even Evans' lawyers accept that she was so out of it, she didn't remember what had happened when she came to in the morning, having pissed herself at some point during the night.

She went to the police because she didn't know what had happened to her handbag. The police discovered who had booked the room, and asked both McDonald and Evans. They went 'Yeah, I shagged her..' with Evans adding 'No, I didn't ask..' and McDonald saying he didn't ask her if Evans could 'join in' either. The case against them was based on what they said.

Reply 39

Retired_Messiah

Original post by unprinted

Yeah that's what I read. Not sure what defence you can bring when she was totally out of it and Evans apparently admitted to not even speaking to her at any point. I'd be interested in trying to find a transcript sometime to find out how he got out of that one. Even if he didn't rape the girl he sure as hell dug a big hole for himself.