False rape claims

gimmick

Okay, this may be a controversial one, but I would be very interested to hear peoples views, from both male and females, on false rape claims.

The reason I opened this thread is because the Gardai in Cork are currently about to press charges against a girl who said she was sexually assaulted in Cork City last tuesday night. She dropped the allegation the very next day. One plus here, is that she didnt point the finger at anyone, so no ones name is sullied, apart from her own that is.

Now the question I ask is this. If a direct rape allegation is made against someone, and it turns out to be bogus, should the accuser serve a custodial sentense which would reflect that of a rape sentense?

joebhoy1916

should the accuser serve a custodial sentense which would reflect that of a rape sentense?[/QUOTE]

Do you mean by that given the same sentence as someone who
would rape the girl! If so No not me. But if someone pointed the
finger at someone then yeah they should serve a sentence
something like that would ruin a man's life.

Nevyn

Define bogus ?
Not enough hard edievence for the DPP to pursue as they think it is unlikely they will be able to create a case that will result in a prosecution ?
A Victum after being pressursed by friends and family withdraws a complaint ?
A victum seeing how long and horrendus the 2 to 3 years in the run up to a possible court case and all the indignities that go with it decides s/he can't cope with that and instead focuses on becoming a survivour and not a victum.
Just because a claim was detracted does not mean it was false in the first place.


If it is that the report was made with malicous intent then the person can be done for wasting police time and for slander and discrediting the persons char.

Metacortex

Thaedydal wrote:

Define bogus ?
Not enough hard edievence for the DPP to pursue as they think it is unlikely they will be able to create a case that will result in a prosecution ?
A Victum after being pressursed by friends and family withdraws a complaint ?
A victum seeing how long and horrendus the 2 to 3 years in the run up to a possible court case and all the indignities that go with it decides s/he can't cope with that and instead focuses on becoming a survivour and not a victum.
Just because a claim was detracted does not mean it was false in the first place.


If it is that the report was made with malicous intent then the person can be done for wasting police time and for slander and discrediting the persons char.

Exactly, just because someone withdraws an allegation doesn't mean its false, so its a bit murky. It would have to be proved she was lying in the first place.

Obviously if a woman sets out to get a guy in trouble for something he didn't do, then yes, charges should be brought against her.

seamus

Actually, stuff like that does incur some pretty serious penalties, as does accusing someone of peadophilia, drug pushing, etc etc.

As others point out, it's not just a case of getting in trouble when "nothing came of it", but in the situations that you describe, where someone withdraws the allegations the very next day, or the accused has a rocktight alibi ("I was in bed all night sleeping with my girlfriend), to use two examples, the accuser finds themselves in some serious trouble. Quite often you will suffer a custodial sentence, becuase of the ramifications of false accusations.

Afaik, the accused can then pursue for civil damages after the criminal conviction has taken place.

Dirk Gently

It would be very dangerous to impose something like this as it would lead to alot of women not reporting the rape for fear of they themselves being prosecuted if they couldn't prove the case.

In theory I would like to see some kind of system where by women who make up false allegations are jailed for a very long time and put on some kind of sex offenders list but in practice it would be very hard to strike a balance between punishing women who make false statements and making it even harder than it already is for genuine victims to come forward. If a genuine victim thought that her attacker could turn the tables on her if she could not prove his guilt then she would be less likely to report it in the first place and it’s already very hard to get a rape conviction in this country.

Rev Hellfire

clown bag wrote:

If a genuine victim thought that her attacker could turn the tables on her if she could not prove his guilt then she would be less likely to report it in the first place and it’s already very hard to get a rape conviction in this country.

The problem is you must cater for both the rights of the accused and the rights of the accuser. Neither should be given precedence over the other. To be even accused of these crimes can have serious repercussions for people.

And while I know I shouldn't laugh, the following article illustrates it the risks inherent of having such a slurred name.
Article

Karl Hungus

I think false accusations of rape can seriously destroy a persons life, so there definetly has to be repurcussions for the accuser.

Zombrex

gimmick wrote:

Okay, this may be a controversial one, but I would be very interested to hear peoples views, from both male and females, on false rape claims.

The reason I opened this thread is because the Gardai in Cork are currently about to press charges against a girl who said she was sexually assaulted in Cork City last tuesday night. She dropped the allegation the very next day. One plus here, is that she didnt point the finger at anyone, so no ones name is sullied, apart from her own that is.

Now the question I ask is this. If a direct rape allegation is made against someone, and it turns out to be bogus, should the accuser serve a custodial sentense which would reflect that of a rape sentense?

No, he or she should serve the sentence for making a false allegation. Last I remember that was a crime in of itself.

seamus

clown bag wrote:

It would be very dangerous to impose something like this as it would lead to alot of women not reporting the rape for fear of they themselves being prosecuted if they couldn't prove the case.

As pointed out, the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused are equal. This doesn't mean that if you can't prove it, then you are clearly guilty of false accusation - the same "Innocent until proven guilty" ethic applies. A case would still have to be taken to establish that the accuser set out to deceive or failed to properly assert the validity of their accusations before making.

Let's say, for example, that you saw a strange man coming out of someone's house, and you later on heard that the house had been burgled. You would pop down to the cop shop and make the accusation (ok, it's a loose example). Now, it's likely that there may not be enough evidence to convict said person of burglary, but that wouldn't necessarily make you guilty of a false accusation, since you had good solid reason to make the accusation.

In general its really only enforced where there has been a clear malicious attempt to slur someone's name, or a severe negligence in terms of the accusation (e.g. the local busybody claiming that someone is a peadophile because they saw a child go into their house).

The_Minister

seamus wrote:

As pointed out, the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused are equal.

In the justice system the rights of the accused should take precedence, as more damage can be done to his life.

Dave!

If it emerges that the accuser lied, then they should be sentenced yeah, but not if they just can't prove it, cos obviously that's not always possible, and it would prevent people from reporting rapes at all if they could face prosecution themselves.

Caryatnid

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Do you mean by that given the same sentence as someone who
would rape the girl! If so No not me.

Heuh?

Vulpiner

Double post, sorry

Vulpiner

Firespinner wrote:

In the justice system the rights of the accused should take precedence, as more damage can be done to his life.

Damage to the accusers life could have already occurred. Both should have equal rights.

the real ramon

I doubt if many women (or men and children for that matter) make false rape claims to the Gardai. I'd say if the Gardai are fairly sure a person had made a false claim then the case wouldn't even get to the courts, even then I'd say a lot of genuine rape cases don't make it to the courts. If there was very real suspicions of a false rape claim and it was deemed to be malicious then I'd say yes, there should be a prosecution.

I do wonder every time I hear of a rape case if there's not a relatively small number of men commiting date rapes and getting away with it time and again, just like there's people who are continuously involved in other areas of crime. Just a thought

seamus

the real ramon wrote:

I doubt if many women (or men and children for that matter) make false rape claims to the Gardai.

You'd be surprised. There are a good few scumbags out there who'll use the "rape" cry as a way to attack a man for various things. That's not to say it's a majority, far from it.

I'd say if the Gardai are fairly sure a person had made a false claim then the case wouldn't even get to the courts, even then I'd say a lot of genuine rape cases don't make it to the courts.

They don't. The vast majority of rape claims don't make it to court, usually due to a lack of evidence. If you ever hear authorities talking about what to do, they recommend you come in straight away, and without taking a shower. Unfortunately for most rape victims, these are the two things they're least likely to do. Many only come in much later when they're stronger, but most of the evidence is gone.

I do wonder every time I hear of a rape case if there's not a relatively small number of men commiting date rapes and getting away with it time and again, just like there's people who are continuously involved in other areas of crime. Just a thought

Interestingly enough, there has yet to be a verified case of date rape in this country. That's not that some just didn't make the courts - nobody in this country who has reported a rape has ever tested positive for date-rape drugs in their system. The vast majority just get hammered and panic the next day. Whether sex with a severly drunk person is ethical is one question, but it would be tough to argue that it's rape.

Nevyn

Date rape is not about drugs, it is about being out in a socail situation that the person who commits the rape is known to the victum and will have spent the evening with them and even kissed them but did not want to have sex with them and ended up raped.

seamus

Thaedydal wrote:

Date rape is not about drugs, it is about being out in a socail situation that the person who commits the rape is known to the victum and will have spent the evening with them and even kissed them but did not want to have sex with them and ended up raped.

Well to be a bit pedantic Thaed, in modern terms the phrase "date-rape" usually refers to the use of drugs to incapacitate a victim before having sex with them, and not its original usage that you point out

Zombrex

Firespinner wrote:

In the justice system the rights of the accused should take precedence, as more damage can be done to his life.

They do. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty

Our entire justice system is set up so it is very difficult to prove someone is guilty of a crime, as it should be. Its the idea that it is better that a hundred guilty people go free rather than have one innocent person in jail.

Look at a case like that judge who was caught with child porn. Everyone knows he was but he got off on a technicality. As far as the law is concerned he is innocent of the crime, simply because a search warrent was a few minutes out of date.

takola

gimmick wrote:

Okay, this may be a controversial one, but I would be very interested to hear peoples views, from both male and females, on false rape claims.

The reason I opened this thread is because the Gardai in Cork are currently about to press charges against a girl who said she was sexually assaulted in Cork City last tuesday night. She dropped the allegation the very next day. One plus here, is that she didnt point the finger at anyone, so no ones name is sullied, apart from her own that is.

Now the question I ask is this. If a direct rape allegation is made against someone, and it turns out to be bogus, should the accuser serve a custodial sentense which would reflect that of a rape sentense?

The thing that i wonder about is how would it be judged? As everyone has already said someone that drops the charges against their attacker is not saying that the attack never happened. They are merely saying that they cannot cope with the justice system, the long wait to see if they will even prosecute and then if it comes back no prosecution, the humiliation that comes with that! This is such an extremely traumatic thing to go through and after being attacked some people just cannot handle it.
Unless someone comes in and admits the attack never happened how would you know? Of course if the attacker has a rock solid alibi, where he was in someones sights constantly then maybe. But again a false accusation is a crime in itself. Should someone serve a sentence as that of a rape sentence? i'm not sure. I dont think so. Accusing someone of a crime like that is a disgusting thing to do, but if the persons name has been cleared, You are the one being humiliated in the end. that and whatever charges are brought against you should be enough?? As for it being recorded, I'm in two minds about this. What if, after all this they are really raped? Would she be treated fairly? Wouldnt people be likely to say well, she lied before so why should we listen now??

padser

Thaedydal wrote:

Define bogus ?
Not enough hard edievence for the DPP to pursue as they think it is unlikely they will be able to create a case that will result in a prosecution ?
A Victum after being pressursed by friends and family withdraws a complaint ?
A victum seeing how long and horrendus the 2 to 3 years in the run up to a possible court case and all the indignities that go with it decides s/he can't cope with that and instead focuses on becoming a survivour and not a victum.
Just because a claim was detracted does not mean it was false in the first place.


If it is that the report was made with malicous intent then the person can be done for wasting police time and for slander and discrediting the persons char.

The question wasnt about someone who makes a claim that is not purued. THe qestion is about someone who makes a 'false' claim.

At least in theory (and provided it can be proved it is a false claim [made knowingly]) I would give the accuser the custodial sentence of the crime they were accusing had been committed.

Zombrex

padser wrote:

At least in theory (and provided it can be proved it is a false claim [made knowingly]) I would give the accuser the custodial sentence of the crime they were accusing had been committed.

I can see your logic (that the worse the allegations the longer the sentence the person probably would have had to serve if found guilty and therefore the worse the crime of the person making the false report).

But you are kinda ignoring to things. Firstly you get into a situation where the punishment does not fit the crime. Falsly claiming you were raped is not the same as actually raping someone. Claiming someone is a murderer is not the same as actually killing someone. I'm not saying that making a false claim to the police is not serious, but it is not the same as the crimes you describe.

Secondly I assume you think this would act as more of a deterent that the current legislation against false claims. I'm not quite sure why you believe this. Increasing harsh sentencing has never really been show to be a deterent against certain crimes. The reason is clear, people don't think they are going to get caught.

Burning Eclipse

Would an accuser serve a custodial sentence if she specifically pointed the finger at someone. If it was a false rape claim then under tort he can sue for defamation and would be mad not to but if the courts found in his favour would it also lead to a sentence for the accuser, or just punitive damages for the plaintiff??

Nasty_Girl

Does that mean that for every rape case that gets a "not guilty" verdict the victim .. or "alleged victim" goes to jail?

Rape cases are difficult enough to work out as it is.

fly_agaric

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Does that mean that for every rape case that gets a "not guilty" verdict the victim .. or "alleged victim" goes to jail?

Rape cases are difficult enough to work out as it is.

No, I'd say it would/should mean that there could be another case taken and if it were found that the "victim" deliberately and intentionally lied about the rape they would then be punished for that. I suppose things like the "victim's" mental health at the time would also be taken into account.

There could be plenty of reasons for a not-guilty verdict other than malicious false accusations.

Nasty_Girl

Well fair enough,

but rape cases are never that black and white, so it would be very, very difficult to establish that without the use of recorded eveidence or a confession.

I mean, say an x boyfriend of mine (or in fact any guy I know... or don't know) raped me, he could turn around and say he didn't, that it was a one night stand and I was just "getting back" at him because he never called the next day or something?

the thought of this is actually turning my stomach...

Don't get me wrong, anyone who delibritely lies to slander someone (in anyway) deserves to be punished.
Read in a mag about a girl who lied about being raped coz the guy punched her after they'd had sex who went to jail.

Just trying to establish it generally is so murky and hard.
Its a horrible situation.

seamus

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Well fair enough,

but rape cases are never that black and white, so it would be very, very difficult to establish that without the use of recorded eveidence or a confession.

I mean, say an x boyfriend of mine (or in fact any guy I know... or don't know) raped me, he could turn around and say he didn't, that it was a one night stand and I was just "getting back" at him because he never called the next day or something?

the thought of this is actually turning my stomach...

Don't get me wrong, anyone who delibritely lies to slander someone (in anyway) deserves to be punished.
Read in a mag about a girl who lied about being raped coz the guy punched her after they'd had sex who went to jail.

Just trying to establish it generally is so murky and hard.
Its a horrible situation.

The caveat of "beyond a reasonable doubt" will always apply. So if it goes to court, a person would have to prove that the original accuser deliberately fabricated the accusations or that they made them without making sure that the allegations were at least very likely.

The scenario that you mention (man rapes woman, claims she wanted sex), does happen quite often. A lot of the time prosecutions are secured on forensic evidence. Rape leaves a lot of evidence if it's followed up immediately . If you don't follow it up, then it becomes a "my word against yours" situation, which will never secure a prosecution.

Shellie13

This would also undoubtly lead to a rape victim whos lost her (or his) case under goind the added horror of 2 court cases... not enough rapes are reported as it is!!!

It just seeems unlikly to me that anyone would lie about a rape... its a truely horrific experiance going to court alone!

J.R.HARTLEY

Shellie13 wrote:

It just seeems unlikly to me that anyone would lie about a rape... its a truely horrific experiance going to court alone!

unfortunatley as has been proven many times, some sick people do lie about it.
as added previously i'd be thinking that the beyond reasonable doubt point would really scupper the OP's idea, as it's very hard to claim

Nevyn

seamus wrote:

The scenario that you mention (man rapes woman, claims she wanted sex), does happen quite often. A lot of the time prosecutions are secured on forensic evidence. Rape leaves a lot of evidence if it's followed up immediately . If you don't follow it up, then it becomes a "my word against yours" situation, which will never secure a prosecution.

Even in the case where there is physical evidence all it points to is that sex occured,
it is the lack of provible consent that becomes the issue of word agasint word and unless it is aggrevated rape with clearly defined offensive and defensive wounds.

A lot of victums go into shock and/or are so scared that they will be permantly injured/maimed/killed that they don't fight back enough to cause such clear cut injuries.

It is not as simple as saying a case fails to be prosectued by the DPP equals
the allegations being false.