Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

109 women prosecuted for false rape claims in five years, say campaigners

Options
123457

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Ok, the WAR claims made here, were false/misleading, as there were cases of men making false rape claims, prior to these claims:
    KomradeBishop wrote:
    • Men do not suffer the same malicious prosecutions. Even after women victims accused of assault or harassment by a violent partner or ex-partner are found not guilty in court, and the man lied, we never hear of him being prosecuted for making a false allegation or perverting the course of justice.
    • Accused men rarely suffer more than questioning. Women may be blamed for what the accused suffered as a result of a police investigation that was out of the woman’s control. Prosecutions are then brought on that basis.
    That could easily be true - can you find one single case, of a man in the UK (since that's where the organization is based) being prosecuted for making a false rape claim?

    The article related to what tritium posted:
    http://www.cotwa.info/2011/01/man-made-false-rape-claim.html

    I agree that that's a very misleading claim to push, and making it a gendered claim like that, is especially unhelpful - the WAR organization does deserve criticism for many of their claims.


  • Options
    #183
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    Breffnigolfer wrote: »
    The Ched Evans case shows how difficult such a case can be.

    A Lady was drunk, two men were drunk, yet she was deemed fit to consent to have sex with one man but not the other, even though she couldn't remember.

    Really? No wonder the case is being reviewed.


  • Options
    #184
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    How can someone be both a rape victim, and also make a false accusation of being raped? Obviously, they are talking about people being wrongly accused of making false accusations.

    What do you think is the current policy and what do you think WAR are proposing it be changed to? These have to be different in order for them to be campaigning for a change.

    Are you claiming it is currently policy to prosecute and convict people who make an rape allegation that can neither be proven nor disproven? Surely that is more than 20 cases a year.


  • Options
    #185
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    psinno wrote: »
    What do you think is the current policy and what do you think WAR are proposing it be changed to? These have to be different in order for them to be campaigning for a change.

    Are you claiming it is currently policy to prosecute and convict people who make an rape allegation that can neither be proven nor disproven? Surely that is more than 20 cases a year.
    In the UK, that is not policy, but appears to have happened in practice; WAR is campaigning on the basis that it happens - that people have wrongly been prosecuted for making a false claim of rape, when there has been no evidence that they've done that.

    They do however, in a report I've cited a number of times earlier, agree with prosecuting people who have made false claims of rape, where there is evidence.


  • Options
    #186
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    In the UK, that is not policy, but appears to have happened in practice; WAR is campaigning on the basis that it happens - that people have wrongly been prosecuted for making a false claim of rape, when there has been no evidence that they've done that.

    They are campaigning on the basis that 109 women have been prosecuted. They are not campaigning on the basis of how many of those cases have been convicted , even less so how many of those women have been wrongly convicted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,450 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    You're trying to use an event that happened on "November 18 [2014]", to counter a WAR claim made in "February 2011" - you'll have to find an example earlier than Feb 2011, to show their claim was inaccurate.

    Another example of misrepresentation/spin from you - you don't seem to give a toss if your argument fits logically, you just seem to want to point-score.

    WOW


    Way to move the goalposts, Maybe you should just give him the timeline (say November 8th 2012 to December 1st 2012) of when you would like the evidence posted from :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #188
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    psinno wrote: »
    They are campaigning on the basis that 109 women have been prosecuted. They are not campaigning on the basis of how many of those cases have been convicted , even less so how many of those women have been wrongly convicted.
    109 women being prosecuted for false rape allegations, over 5 years, is just one of the very large number of statistical facts they cite - that fact being put as the headline of an article they didn't write, doesn't make it the basis of their campaign.

    It's very easy to take any number of facts they cite, and pretend it is the basis of their campaign, to try and spin/misrepresent them and discredit their campaign.


  • Options
    #189
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    109 women being prosecuted for false rape allegations, over 5 years, is just one of the very large number of statistical facts they cite - that fact being put as the headline of an article they didn't write, doesn't make it the basis of their campaign.

    It isn't a random article. It is an article they have linked to from their homepage and promoted on twitter. They are implicitly endorsing its presentation of their views.

    Can you post a link to where they post how many of the 109 cases they are objecting to?


  • Options
    #190
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    psinno wrote: »
    It isn't a random article. It is an article they have linked to from their homepage and promoted on twitter. They are implicitly endorsing its presentation of their views.

    Can you post a link to where they post how many of the 109 cases they are objecting to?
    Can you post a link proving that the '109 women' stat is the front/basis of their campaign? Of course they're going to link a prominent newspaper article talking about them, on their website.


  • Options
    #191
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Can you post a link proving that the '109 women' stat is the front/basis of their campaign? Of course they're going to link a prominent newspaper article talking about them, on their website.

    Can you post a link to a concise explanation of what the campaign is about?

    Earlier on the thread you claimed what their spokesperson on a radio show said didn't represent their position so I'm pretty sure you are just grasping at straws to defend their position.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    I've provided proof that the spokesperson - who did such a bad trainwreck of an interview, that she just hung up out of annoyance - doesn't represent their views, from this official document from the organization, which contradicts her and shows that the organization does support prosecution for false rape claims:
    KomradeBishop wrote:
    In this document, they say that they support the IACP guidelines, and that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service - I assume), should adopt those IACP guidelines - which state:
    The IACP Guidelines give further guidance on how to handle sexual assault complaints in such a way as to minimize the chances that police will dismiss such complaints as false.
    Label a report as false only if evidence establishes that the assault did not happen.
    A report of sexual assault can only be categorized as false “if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.” This determination can be made “only after a thorough investigation.”

    In short, unless the police have actual evidence that the assault did not happen, they must not label a report as false. An investigation that simply fails to prove that a sexual assault occurred cannot conclude that a report is false but rather results in an unsubstantiated report.

    ...

    1. CPS should adopt the IACP Guidelines and Model Sexual Assault Policy.
    2. CPS should set up a procedure to document that a full and thorough investigation is carried out in each rape case. The policy should state and ensure that no charges of any kind may be brought against a rape complainant without first documenting that a full investigation of the complaint was conducted and that evidence proved that the assault did not happen.
    http://womenagainstrape.net/sites/default/files/final_paper_for_war_9-23.pdf

    You seem to be just looking for something to nitpick at - if you make a claim of your own, back it up - as I do with mine.

    I've also already criticized the organization for presenting misleading stats, so I'm not interested in a general defense of them - but I'll happily pick apart others misrepresentations of the organization.


  • Options
    #193
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I've provided proof that the spokesperson - who did such a bad trainwreck of an interview, that she just hung up out of annoyance - doesn't represent their views, from this official document from the organization, which contradicts her and shows that the organization does support prosecution for false rape claims:


    You seem to be just looking for something to nitpick at - if you make a claim of your own, back it up - as I do with mine.

    I've also already criticized the organization for presenting misleading stats, so I'm not interested in a general defense of them - but I'll happily pick apart others misrepresentations of the organization.

    Seriously, I've already posted a link to a document they presented in evidence to the DPP titled

    'Why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation
    Some reasons why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation of rape or sexual assault. Evidence given to the DPP, February 2011'

    And you're still pointing to one line of a draft advocacy research paper, which I've already pointed out is contradicted by heir own comments on page 4 of the same paper.

    I thought we'd already established that you agreed there were issues with this group- why exactly do you keep going back to the well to defend them?


  • Options
    #194
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I've provided proof that the spokesperson - who did such a bad trainwreck of an interview, that she just hung up out of annoyance - doesn't represent their views, from this official document from the organization, which contradicts her and shows that the organization does support prosecution for false rape claims:

    I put more faith in a spokesperson for the organisation representing their views than a phrase picked from a draft version of a 60 page paper written by people not in the organisation.


  • Options
    #195
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    Seriously, I've already posted a link to a document they presented in evidence to the DPP titled

    'Why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation
    Some reasons why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation of rape or sexual assault. Evidence given to the DPP, February 2011'

    And you're still pointing to one line of a draft advocacy research paper, which I've already pointed out is contradicted by heir own comments on page 4 of the same paper.

    I thought we'd already established that you agreed there were issues with this group- why exactly do you keep going back to the well to defend them?
    Yes and you deliberately left out context from the link, showing that they were discussing allegations of false rape claims, where there is either no evidence of a false claim or the allegation of a false claim turned out to be false.

    That's the core misrepresentation you keep trying to push, every time you post a link.

    The comments on page 4 of the document - which you did not bother trying to quote - actually back up my view, and they even explicitly reference the section, which supports prosecution for false rape claims.

    tritium wrote: »
    I thought we'd already established that you agreed there were issues with this group- why exactly do you keep going back to the well to defend them?
    Just because I also have criticisms of the group, doesn't mean I'm going to ignore posters who just make stuff up to attack the group - it smacks of a continuation of the recent trend on this forum, where people just post misleading/made-up crap, in order to manufacture a controversy for attacking feminism.

    I'm going to dissect/pick-apart and highlight all misrepresentations/fallacies/etc., in stories/links people use to try do that (which is pretty easy as 9/10 times there's something extremely dubious with stories/links people post on such topics) - same way I do when I disagree with feminist posters on something.


  • Options
    #196
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    So there is a page with the headline "Why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation" but you don't think Women Against Rape oppose prosecutions of women accused of making false allegations? If you are right they really need to overhaul their communication strategy.


  • Options
    #197
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,450 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I've provided proof that the spokesperson - who did such a bad trainwreck of an interview, that she just hung up out of annoyance - doesn't represent their views, from this official document from the organization, which contradicts her and shows that the organization does support prosecution for false rape claims:

    Sorry but that's EXACTLY what a spokesperson does for an organization.


  • Options
    #198
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Yes and you deliberately left out context from the link, showing that they were discussing allegations of false rape claims, where there is either no evidence of a false claim or the allegation of a false claim turned out to be false.

    That's the core misrepresentation you keep trying to push, every time you post a link.

    The comments on page 4 of the document - which you did not bother trying to quote - actually back up my view, and they even explicitly reference the section, which supports prosecution for false rape claims.



    Just because I also have criticisms of the group, doesn't mean I'm going to ignore posters who just make stuff up to attack the group - it smacks of a continuation of the recent trend on this forum, where people just post misleading/made-up crap, in order to manufacture a controversy for attacking feminism.

    I'm going to dissect/pick-apart and highlight all misrepresentations/fallacies/etc., in stories/links people use to try do that (which is pretty easy as 9/10 times there's something extremely dubious with stories/links people post on such topics) - same way I do when I disagree with feminist posters on something.

    Are you really that obtuse?

    Let me lay this out cleanly because, willfully or through lack of knowledge you keep going back to the same set of logical fallacies. If I hadn't been down this same exasperating route with you many times before I'd assume you were taking the piss. So:

    A prosecution is ALWAYS on the basis of an allegation

    Guilt is never established in law until the verdict

    Anyone charged with making a false claim enjoys the same presumption of innocence that their alleged rapist enjoyed under the law

    However once a guilty verdict is entered that presumption disappears. At that point they are guilty under the law.

    The use of terms like allegation says nothing about the quality of the evidence. It simply states that there is an allegation that will be subjected to scrutiny. If there are flaws in the evidence then its the job of the defence to raise these. If they fail there are wide ranging appeal procedures, however until a verdict is overturned the person remains guilty. This is as true for any other crime as it is for rape. Within this process guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, and while there can undoubtably be false convictions this standard ensures that more guilty walk free than innocent to down.

    WARs position is that somehow this process unfairly prejudices one small section of the criminal population. Not just the falsely accused BTW but anyone accused of this crime, as is evident from the extensive evidence that has been presented to you.


  • Options
    #199
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    psinno wrote: »
    So there is a page with the headline "Why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation" but you don't think Women Against Rape oppose prosecutions of women accused of making false allegations? If you are right they really need to overhaul their communication strategy.
    Key word is accused - if it said "Why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women for making a false allegation", instead of accused (when the context of the article shows 'accused' is referring to e.g. accusations without proof), that would be a different matter.


  • Options
    #200
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    ...
    The CPS - Crown Prosecution Service - in the UK, explicitly state that prosecutions should not go ahead without evidence, and it is that which WAR is taking issue with (EDIT: as in, taking issue with cases going ahead without evidence).

    Despite this, people have been prosecuted and found guilty without evidence - while still maintaining their innocence - the CPS has even had to investigate this.

    It is no evidence that is the problem.

    WARs position, as stated again here in their document, is for prosecutions with evidence, to go ahead:
    KomradeBishop wrote:
    In this document, they say that they support the IACP guidelines, and that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service - I assume), should adopt those IACP guidelines - which state:
    The IACP Guidelines give further guidance on how to handle sexual assault complaints in such a way as to minimize the chances that police will dismiss such complaints as false.
    Label a report as false only if evidence establishes that the assault did not happen.
    A report of sexual assault can only be categorized as false “if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.” This determination can be made “only after a thorough investigation.”

    In short, unless the police have actual evidence that the assault did not happen, they must not label a report as false. An investigation that simply fails to prove that a sexual assault occurred cannot conclude that a report is false but rather results in an unsubstantiated report.

    ...

    1. CPS should adopt the IACP Guidelines and Model Sexual Assault Policy.
    2. CPS should set up a procedure to document that a full and thorough investigation is carried out in each rape case. The policy should state and ensure that no charges of any kind may be brought against a rape complainant without first documenting that a full investigation of the complaint was conducted and that evidence proved that the assault did not happen.
    http://womenagainstrape.net/sites/default/files/final_paper_for_war_9-23.pdf


  • Options
    #201
    RoboRat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭RoboRat


    I have always said if someone knowingly makes a false claim against another person that could have led to a custodial sentence, they should have to serve the custodial sentence that would have been passed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    The CPS - Crown Prosecution Service - in the UK, explicitly state that prosecutions should not go ahead without evidence, and it is that which WAR is taking issue with.

    Despite this, people have been prosecuted and found guilty without evidence - while still maintaining their innocence - the CPS has even had to investigate this.

    It is no evidence that is the problem.

    WARs position, as stated again here in their document, is for prosecutions with evidence, to go ahead:

    Sorry but can you show me one UK case where someone was prosecuted and convicted without evidence?

    I'm not talking about 'WAR don't think the evidence was strong enough'. I'm not talking about 'there was vulnerability or extenuating circumstance that wasn't given adequate weight in WARs opinion' . I'm not talking about 'we think new evidence or flaws have cone to light since in WARs view'. Can you show me one case where a woman (or man) has been convicted if making a false rape accusation by a jury of their peers on the basis of a prosecution case that offered no evidence.


  • Options
    #203
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The woman pictured in the OP article, is a case where there was no evidence, yet prosecution was going ahead:
    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/07/eleanor-de-freitas-rape-suicide-alive-cps-prosecute-father

    Here is the case of a conviction:
    Page 3 wrote:
    In November 2010, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal against sentence in the case of Ms A, who ultimately pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice on the basis that she had falsely retracted true allegations of rape she had made against her husband. This case underlined the need for police and prosecutors fully to investigate and carefully to consider the circumstances in which an allegedly false claim of rape, sexual assault, or domestic violence is made.
    http://www.webcitation.org/6ItPWbBjp

    That document is from the Crown Prosecution Service itself, and has a lot of content on why this topic has so much complexity and gray areas.


  • Options
    #204
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    The woman pictured in the OP article, is a case where there was no evidence, yet prosecution was going ahead:
    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/07/eleanor-de-freitas-rape-suicide-alive-cps-prosecute-father

    Here is the case of a conviction:

    http://www.webcitation.org/6ItPWbBjp

    That document is from the Crown Prosecution Service itself, and has a lot of content on why this topic has so much complexity and gray areas.

    Defreitas was never convicted. So far we have no idea of the standard of evidence against her. The claims from those in her corner seem to cover a) we don't think there was any evidence - which is somewhat different from there was no evidence and b)she was bipolar and hence vulnerable. A) is something for a jury to consider (strength of the prosecution case, reasonable doubt), b) is largely irrelevant to whether or not she did commit the crime, it only goes to possible mitigating factors, as it would in any criminal case.

    In your second example the evidence was an admission of guilt! You can't really present something more concrete to a jury! More pertinently you'll note that the DPP as a result instigated changes that required all consideration of charges for this tyoe crime to be reviewed by that office (page 5). If you review the details if the case (page 8) its pretty clear that there was indeed a lie, the only question here is whether this is in the narrow band if cases where it may not he in the public interest to prosecute in spite if an obvious offence having occurred.

    Neither supports your assertion of convictions without evidence.



    Tbh I find it a little uncomfortable how easily that report talks about what would essentially be special treatment for one narrow class of criminal. It includes comments such as 'young and vulnerable' and 'victims of some sort of offence, even if not the he one he or she had reported'. That doesn't make it all right I'm afraid- if vulnerability was a shield against prosecution then a very wide number of criminals could plead guilty and walk free. If youth was a defence then men's prisons would largely empty overnight.

    It is telling though that the report was authored by one Alison levitt QC. You've been fond recently of justifying an ad hominem on the basis of everyone should be judged on their wider record. His comfortable are you then with linkage to the QC who was responsible for the farce that was the Michael le Vell case?


  • Options
    #205
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    Defreitas was never convicted. So far we have no idea of the standard of evidence against her. The claims from those in her corner seem to cover a) we don't think there was any evidence - which is somewhat different from there was no evidence and b)she was bipolar and hence vulnerable. A) is something for a jury to consider (strength of the prosecution case, reasonable doubt), b) is largely irrelevant to whether or not she did commit the crime, it only goes to possible mitigating factors, as it would in any criminal case.

    In your second example the evidence was an admission of guilt! You can't really present something more concrete to a jury! More pertinently you'll note that the DPP as a result instigated changes that required all consideration of charges for this tyoe crime to be reviewed by that office (page 5). If you review the details if the case (page 8) its pretty clear that there was indeed a lie, the only question here is whether this is in the narrow band if cases where it may not he in the public interest to prosecute in spite if an obvious offence having occurred.

    Neither supports your assertion of convictions without evidence.
    In my second example, her pleading guilty was not evidence of her making a false rape claim - read it more carefully.

    She was prosecuted for making a false rape claim - prosecution that began when there was no evidence that it was false, solely because she retracted her rape claim - and then, even though the rape claim was true, she was convicted for retracting it (that is what she pled guilty to).
    tritium wrote: »
    It is telling though that the report was authored by one Alison levitt QC. You've been fond recently of justifying an ad hominem on the basis of everyone should be judged on their wider record. His comfortable are you then with linkage to the QC who was responsible for the farce that was the Michael le Vell case?
    An ad-hominem is justified/non-fallacious when used for casting doubt on the credibility of a source or link - not for attacking the actual arguments made within a source/link.

    So work away, if you think a document from the official Crown Prosecution Service in the UK lacks credibility, try to convince people of that. You don't contest anything the document says about 'Ms A's case though, so it doesn't really affect my argument at all.


  • Options
    #206
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Ok so i have just been driving from the airport to the city center and on the radio comes this report about how 109 women in the UK have been convicted for false rape claims. Nothing new there says you sure it obviously happens a lot right?
    False accusation convictions represent less than 1% of actual false allegations.
    The woman from this WAR group was basically saying that because the cases of false allegations are so low (2%) the women shouldn't be charged, When pressed she went further and literally said that because the acquittal rape for men is so high it's ok for some men to have their lives ruined by these false allegations because so many women have their lives ruined by rape :confused:
    These are the same people who argue that women's prisons should be abolished and women should never be sent to prison because women only commit crime because of the pressure on them by men and by a society that men are to blame for.

    And look at the present criminal system. Look at how many women kill their children and husbands and don't go to jail. Female privilege is enormous and getting bigger.


  • Options
    #207
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    You could just ask them on twitter if they support prosecuting,convicting and imprisoning women who make false rape accusations that are provably false beyond a reasonable doubt.


  • Options
    #208
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    In my second example, her pleading guilty was not evidence of her making a false rape claim - read it more carefully.

    She was prosecuted for making a false rape claim - prosecution that began when there was no evidence that it was false, solely because she retracted her rape claim - and then, even though the rape claim was true, she was convicted for retracting it (that is what she pled guilty to).


    An ad-hominem is justified/non-fallacious when used for casting doubt on the credibility of a source or link - not for attacking the actual arguments made within a source/link.

    So work away, if you think a document from the official Crown Prosecution Service in the UK lacks credibility, try to convince people of that. You don't contest anything the document says about 'Ms A's case though, so it doesn't really affect my argument at all.
    I read it very closely thank you-she pleaded guilty. What the hell did you think the courts outcome would be: "are you sure dear. Would you like to go away, have a nice cuppa with a helpful WAR advocate and reconsider?"

    She was prosecuted for a double retraction. Basically she lied she hasn't been raped when she in reality still claims to have been (having previously being accused of lying she had been raped: this BTW (from page 8 point 2) was on the basis she admitted to lying in her statement-no evidence for the first prosecution my ass) There's not. a lot if detail to work out the why and assess if there was public interest in pursuing a prosecution. In some cases you wouldn't in some cases you would - if her lying was to protect a dangerous criminal who later raped someone else then there has to be a degelree of culpability. Notwithstanding that a guilty plea in a court case is probably the most damning demonstration of guilt you can get. Unless you're incapable if telling the truth you have conceded your own guilt to a court of law. If you really want to disallow guilty pleas in court we really have entered the twilight zone


    And you still haven't provided an example





    On the ad hominem, I think it only fair to borrow from your phrase book on other topics- while any arguement should be heard, the credibility of the person making the arguement is clearly affected by their wider stance : that's pretty much your position right?


  • Options
    #209
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    psinno wrote: »
    You could just ask them on twitter if they support prosecuting,convicting and imprisoning women who make false rape accusations that are provably false beyond a reasonable doubt.

    It would be nice if that principle were applied to men in rape trials. It isn't. Refer to the new rules being implemented by the new British prosecutor, where a 'credible narrative' is now the standard and was applied in the Rolf Harris case. No evidence required.


  • Options
    #210
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    I read it very closely thank you-she pleaded guilty. What the hell did you think the courts outcome would be: "are you sure dear. Would you like to go away, have a nice cuppa with a helpful WAR advocate and reconsider?"

    She was prosecuted for a double retraction. Basically she lied she hasn't been raped when she in reality still claims to have been (having previously being accused of lying she had been raped: this BTW (from page 8 point 2) was on the basis she admitted to lying in her statement-no evidence for the first prosecution my ass) There's not. a lot if detail to work out the why and assess if there was public interest in pursuing a prosecution. In some cases you wouldn't in some cases you would - if her lying was to protect a dangerous criminal who later raped someone else then there has to be a degelree of culpability. Notwithstanding that a guilty plea in a court case is probably the most damning demonstration of guilt you can get. Unless you're incapable if telling the truth you have conceded your own guilt to a court of law. If you really want to disallow guilty pleas in court we really have entered the twilight zone


    And you still haven't provided an example
    Again: That is not evidence of making a false rape claim. People being prosecuted solely for retracting a rape claim, when that is not proof of a false claim, is exactly one of the problems that WAR are campaigning on.

    Anyway, it's just the two of us left debating this here, and I'm not really interested in endless wrangling/nitpicking over these details, so will leave it there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Again: That is not evidence of making a false rape claim. People being prosecuted solely for retracting a rape claim, when that is not proof of a false claim, is exactly one of the problems that WAR are campaigning on.

    Anyway, it's just the two of us left debating this here, and I'm not really interested in endless wrangling/nitpicking over these details, so will leave it there.

    Which bit of she admitted to lying is ambiguous in the report- page 8 point 2, i even showed you where to find it! She didn't just retract the claim, when the police continued the prosecution she admitted to lying . A confession! Pure and simple. No evidence my ass


Advertisement