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
False rape accusation...who would you believe?
Options
Comments
-
jimwallace197 wrote: »Very naive, there is unfortunately a growing contingent of women that know if they make a false accusation against a man, it can be hugely damaging to his mental health, his family, his job/business amongst other things & with the extremely low conviction rate of false accusations of this type, there is nothing for them to lose.
Can you link to the stats for the growing number of reports and the low conviction rate?0 -
SNIP.0
-
Silentcorner wrote: »Unfortunately this topic is a can of worms that no one wishes to open, but we are dealing with one of the most serious crimes on the statue book, due process, and the implications of false allegations.
These all need to be discussed rationally as cases are going to come upon us thick and fast over the next few years, no one should be shamed out of expressing an opinion on it, it is too important a topic.
Victims of rape can feel rightly aggrieved by the conviction rate of sexual assault/rape.
People can also feel rightly aggrieved by the fact that boys can be convicted of statutory rape and a girl can't, or that we do not even have a crime on the statue books for making up a false rape allegation, which can destroy a man's marriage/life/relationship with his kids.
I don't have the answers, do you think our society has the ability to discuss this or do you think we should hand control to some other entity like The Church or The UN?
In discussing these issues rationally, I think it’s just as important that we stick to the facts as opposed to just what appears to be some people making it up as they go along. Boys in this country can not be convicted of statutory rape, as no such offence has existed in Irish law since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional. What is also a fact is that we actually do have an offence on the statute books that makes false allegations a criminal offence, and it’s not libel, or defamation, it’s the offence of perverting the course of justice. The offence applies equally to both men and women and can carry a maximum sentence of five years upon conviction here, or up to 10 years in the UK. It is not the equivalent of the criminal offence of rape which is a completely separate offence and can carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or life imprisonment if convicted of rape under section 4. Aggravated sexual assault is an offence which women can be charged with, which also carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Women can also be charged with rape under common law.Silentcorner wrote: »Regarding how rare false allegations are, they are a lot more common than you think, I'm sure we all have anecdotal accounts that back up our respective opinions, but we should all be looking at the Title IX kangaroo court system (in place since 2011 in the US on a huge number of US campuses) for data but it is extremely hard to find...
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
I saw an online account, I have not being able to find it since, but the amount of cases that were dismissed by even this system was over 50%.
These courts have removed due process to accused men, they are being legally challenged all over the US at this stage....horrifying doesn't even begin to describe it!
The data isn’t all that hard to find, nor are false allegations of rape any more common than anyone thinks they are. The data isn’t hard to find, it’s just difficult to quantify as depending upon where you choose your sources, statistics vary anywhere between 2% and 40%. 40% of allegations of rape are false? I suppose anyone can choose what they wish to believe. The onus of course is still upon anyone claiming the figures are that high to provide evidence of their claims, and the facts are that their evidence could only best be described as a laughable contortion of statistical data.
I also don’t think we should be looking at Title IX cases in the US as the legislation refers to equality in education and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, in spite of the Atlantic’s version of events which clearly leads to a misunderstanding of Title IX legislation and it’s aims -
Title IX and Sex Discrimination
The reason I wouldn’t suggest anyone in Ireland start fretting about Title IX is because apart from the fact that it would be completely irrational to even entertain such an argument, Title IX legislation only applies within the education system in the US, and judgements made by Educational Administrators have no standing in Criminal Law. They’re closer to the equivalent of civil cases, and even then, as of 2017, Trump being Trump has rolled back on much of what the Obama Administration sought to do -
The Trump administration has made changes to guidelines that were implemented during the Obama administration. These changes shift the determination of sexual assault from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which is typically used for civil cases in which serious allegations are made (as opposed to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases). On September 22, 2017, US Secretary of Education Secretary Betsy Devos rescinded the Obama-era guidelines which had prodded colleges and universities to more aggressively investigate campus sexual assaults.
Title IX, Wikipedia
I’m all for having a rational discussion of the issues involved, and to that end I’d be wary of getting our collective knickers in a bunch, fuelling paranoia and suspicion, playing the victim and essentially becoming all of the things you claim to be rallying against.0 -
LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »My first reaction is to believe the woman as rape is a very strong word but if you take into account how vile modern western females are then you would start to question if she is being honest.
I do enjoy it when popular handsome men get accused though, I loved watching that rugby news saga last year, they looked like such wan**rs too. As a virgin man who women would never touch I don't have any sympathy for handsome men when they get accused. As Elliot Rodger once said "They deserve it simply for the crime of living a better life than me".
I will probably get banned for saying this but I have no sympathy for a women either if she was a victim. Those date rape cases, it is not like you were snatched and pulled into a bush, you willingly went into a handsome thugs bedroom whereas a nice gentle guy like me rots in loneliness.
What a disgusting post. Both a person this is falsely accused of rape and a person who has been raped are victims and will have to live with the horrible consequences of their assailants actions for the rest of their lives. Something no person deserves under any circumstances. You on the other hand have every opportunity to remove yourself from your loneliness (unlike someonewwho cannot remove themselves from the circumstances of being a victim), if you choose to wallow in that and enjoy someone else's unimaginable suffering, then perhaps you're not as nice as you think you are and there's a reason you're alone.0 -
LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »
I will probably get banned for saying this but I have no sympathy for a women either if she was a victim. Those date rape cases, it is not like you were snatched and pulled into a bush, you willingly went into a handsome thugs bedroom whereas a nice gentle guy like me rots in loneliness.
The first part of this paragraph and the last part are completely contradictory.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure why you are saying this?One eyed Jack wrote: »In discussing these issues rationally, I think it’s just as important that we stick to the facts as opposed to just what appears to be some people making it up as they go along. Boys in this country can not be convicted of statutory rape, as no such offence has existed in Irish law since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional.Mar 5th 2016
16-year-old faces charge for having consensual sex with girl the same age as him
A CO KILDARE district judge is voicing ‘serious concerns’ for a 16-year-old boy in State care who is facing statutory rape charges after having consensual sex with a female the same age as him.
https://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/
https://spunout.ie/life/article/what-is-consent
What does Irish law say about consent?
In Ireland the legal age of consent to sex is 17.
Consensual sex with anyone under the age of 17 may be legally referred to as statutory rape. What this means is, even if the person has consented to sex themselves, their consent is not considered legally valid because they are underage.
Sentences
The maximum sentence for having sex with someone over the age of 15, but under the age of 17, is five years. It is ten years if the person is in a position of authority i.e. a relative, teacher, sports trainer. If a person can prove that they believed the victim was over the age of 17, however, the court may view this situation differently. Asserting that the person consented to sex is absolutely not considered a valid defence.
Currently, women under the age of 17 cannot be prosecuted for having sex with someone under the age of 17.
It is illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of 15 years of age. It is considered a criminal offence under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006. The maximum sentence for this is life imprisonment. If a person can prove that they believed the person was over the age of 15 however, the court may view this situation differently.
Once you are over the age of 17, you are legally able to have sex with anyone you want, even someone much older than you.0 -
Yeah, as a man I used to think like this.
But then I had a look at the impact of rape accusations on peoples' lives. And you know, it's not actually the world-ending thing that we traditionally tell ourselves it is.
It is no doubt humiliating and deeply upsetting. Mentally difficult and all the rest.
But it's far from life-destroying. Look at the Belfast rape trial. Paddy Jackson is now back playing rugby professionally and earning a great wage. And that wasn't even a false rape allegation. So even when a plausible rape allegation is made, someone's life isn't destroyed. Paddy Jackson's career was "disrupted" by it, and that's about it. Whatever reputational damage has been suffered, is small and short-lived...
Not a great example to prove your point. Jackson went from being the first choice out-half in Ulster - his hometown team. He was second choice, behind the close to retiring Jonny Sexton, for the National team.
He missed a full year of what is already a short career (although he was fully paid by Ulster). He now plays for London Irish and is unlikely to play for Ireland again.
We would probably need an actuarial scientist to calculate his career financial losses...but a pleb like me would put it at 7 figures.
Quite an outcome for someone who has been found not guilty of rape. The British system is nuts, the defendants should not be named.0 -
I'm not sure why you are saying this?
https://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/
https://spunout.ie/life/article/what-is-consent
I’m saying there is no such offence as statutory rape in Irish law and there hasn’t been since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional, because that is a fact -
Statutory rape law ruled unconstitutional
(and not just because if the journal or spunout were printed media, I still wouldn’t wipe my arse with them)0 -
LoughNeagh2017 wrote:My first reaction is to believe the woman as rape is a very strong word but if you take into account how vile modern western females are then you would start to question if she is being honest.
Mate, please get some help. This rest of this post which I haven't quoted is further alienating yourself from conversation.
Between this post and others on different topics l, I'm genuinely concerned.
Look after yourself.0 -
What is this law then?One eyed Jack wrote: »
I’m saying there is no such offence as statutory rape in Irish law and there hasn’t been since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional, because that is a fact -
Statutory rape law ruled unconstitutional
(and not just because if the journal or spunout were printed media, I still wouldn’t wipe my arse with them)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17
It looks very much like a statutory rape law.0 -
Advertisement
-
What is this law then?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17
It looks very much like a statutory rape law.
No it doesn’t? Because what constituted the statutory offence of rape before 2006 is that the person was immediately criminalised for the act, there was no defence, and that’s why it was ruled unconstitutional.
The defences to an allegation of the criminal offence of rape are listed right there in subsections 3, 4, 5 and 8. The 2006 Act was introduced pretty quickly precisely as a result of the case I linked to above. The 2017 Act only expands on what was already in the 2006 Act in Sections 2 and 3 -
Defilement of child under 15 years of age.
Defilement of child under the age of 17 years.
Whoever wrote that piece for spunout clearly doesn’t understand what the term ‘statutory offence’ means in the context of Irish law when they publish this shìte -
What does Irish law say about consent?
In Ireland the legal age of consent to sex is 17.
Consensual sex with anyone under the age of 17 may be legally referred to as statutory rape. What this means is, even if the person has consented to sex themselves, their consent is not considered legally valid because they are underage.
No it may not be legally referred to as statutory rape because there is no such offence in Irish law.
And as for that journal article, well at least a different journalist was only slightly more accurate in reporting that the boy was charged with rape (as opposed to the other journalist taking liberties with the facts and suggesting that the boy was facing ‘statutory rape charges’. No he wasn’t, because there is no such offence in Irish law). The more accurate update is here -
16-year-old charged with raping a girl the same age as him granted bail
The teenager has been charged with two counts of rape – which allegedly occurred in February last year.
I can only surmise that the author of the first article was influenced by American legal dramas she may have been exposed to on tv. I’m the sort of immature person that would giggle at an irony like that, only under the circumstances it’s so facepalm inducingly stupid that it’s just unfortunate that there is such confusion and nonsense being put about by the media and the likes of spunout who purport to educate teenagers about relationships and sex education. They can’t even get the basic facts right themselves! It’s just incredibly frustrating to see nonsense like that being expected to be taken seriously.0 -
Speaking of false accusations. About a year ago after a well known local man died in a traffic accident a person I work with who basically lives for malicious gossip came into work and ran around telling everyone that it wasn't an accident and he killed himself because he was a pedophile and someone found a load of pictures of underage girls on his phone
A couple of days later the same individual came into work and said oh actually he wasn't a pedophile after all but his son in law is the pedophile and he killed himself because he fell out with his daughter because she didn't believe the accusations about her husband
Obviously a dead man cant defend himself
What really annoyed me about this is the same individual who loves spreading malicious rumors about people and is very active on social media has a grand uncle who was actually arrested for abusing his little grandson. His grand uncle was found dead the morning after he was released by the guards presumably a suicide
This guy goes around telling everyone his grand uncle was this wonderful person who wouldn't hurt a fly and his family have no idea why he took his own life he also takes every chance he gets to put down his cousin the victim at every opportunity telling everyone about his addiction problems and issues with the guards
I'm convinced he does all this purely for attention and it works because most of the people I work with lap up his BS even though he is constantly shown to be lying0 -
Are you saying that because people could not offer a defence before 2006, it was a statutory rape law, but because they can now it isn't a statutory rape law?One eyed Jack wrote: »
No it doesn’t? Because what constituted the statutory offence of rape before 2006 is that the person was immediately criminalised for the act, there was no defence, and that’s why it was ruled unconstitutional.What is this law then?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17
It looks very much like a statutory rape law.
The defences to an allegation of the criminal offence of rape are listed right there in subsections 3, 4, 5 and 8. The 2006 Act was introduced pretty quickly precisely as a result of the case I linked to above. The 2017 Act only expands on what was already in the 2006 Act in Sections 2 and 3 -
Defilement of child under 15 years of age.
Defilement of child under the age of 17 years.
I have no legal expertise, but it wasn't my understanding that that was required before something could be called a statutory rape law.0 -
Are you saying that because people could not offer a defence before 2006, it was a statutory rape law, but because they can now it isn't a statutory rape law?
I have no legal expertise, but it wasn't my understanding that that was required before something could be called a statutory rape law.
No, I’m saying exactly what it says in the article I linked to which is that before 2006, the legislation criminalised a person who had sexual intercourse with a person who was under the age of 15. It was a statute, introduced by legislation in 1935, which classified those circumstances as rape. There was no defence to an allegation of rape in those circumstances before 2006, it was considered a strict liability offence, which is why those circumstances were commonly referred to as ‘statutory rape’ -
The Supreme Court has unanimously declared unconstitutional the law under which any man is automatically guilty of a crime if he has sex with a girl under 15.
The court made its decision on several grounds, including the failure to allow the defence that a genuine mistake had been made about a girl's age.
The reasons the Supreme Court gave for it’s ruling are also in the article I posted earlier -
The Supreme Court agreed that the section offered absolutely no defence once the act of sexual intercourse was established.
Mr Justice Hardiman said that once a man has sex with a girl whom he honestly believes to be over the relevant age, a mentally innocent person is criminalised.
To criminalise in such a serious way a person who is mentally innocent inflicts a grave injury on that person's dignity and sense of worth, he said.
He said the right of an accused not to be convicted of a true criminal offence in the absence of intent was done away with by this Act.
But the court said today's decision does not prevent the Oireachtas from enacting different legitimate laws to discourage sex with very young girls.
Which led to the 2006 Act being rushed through the Oireachtas in order to address the issue, in order to avoid this sort of thing from happening -
When, on May 30th, the High Court released a 41-year-old man, “Mr A”, who had been convicted for having sex with a 12- year-old girl, the government decided to rush emergency legislation through the Dáil.
Looking back at the CC case0 -
I'm still confused, I'm afraid.One eyed Jack wrote: »
No, I’m saying exactly what it says in the article I linked to which is that before 2006, the legislation criminalised a person who had sexual intercourse with a person who was under the age of 15. It was a statute, introduced by legislation in 1935, which classified those circumstances as rape. There was no defence to an allegation of rape in those circumstances before 2006, it was considered a strict liability offence, which is why those circumstances were commonly referred to as ‘statutory rape’ -Are you saying that because people could not offer a defence before 2006, it was a statutory rape law, but because they can now it isn't a statutory rape law?
I have no legal expertise, but it wasn't my understanding that that was required before something could be called a statutory rape law.
When I posted:
You said:What is this law then?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17
It looks very much like a statutory rape law.One eyed Jack wrote: »No it doesn’t? Because what constituted the statutory offence of rape before 2006 is that the person was immediately criminalised for the act, there was no defence, and that’s why it was ruled unconstitutional.
Is it still your contention that the 2017 legislation and similar legislation that existed between 2006 and 2017 are not statutory rape-type laws?0 -
I'm still confused, I'm afraid.
...
Is it still your contention that the 2017 legislation and similar legislation that existed between 2006 and 2017 are not statutory rape-type laws?
It has always been my contention that what was commonly referred to as the offence of ‘statutory rape’ has not existed in Irish law since 2006, because the offence of rape has not been a strict liability offence since 2006.
Before 2006 a man who had sexual intercourse with a minor was automatically criminalised, no defence existed in legislation - sexual intercourse with a minor was a strict liability offence of rape. This was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and in 2006, legislation which allowed for a defence to a charge of rape in those circumstances was introduced by the 2006 Act.
If that’s what you mean by ‘statutory rape-type laws’, then I will at this stage simply refer you back to what I posted earlier -One eyed Jack wrote: »I suppose anyone can choose what they wish to believe.
Christ I need a drink after that :pac:0 -
This seems to be true based on the way you define statutory rape, which I'm not sure is the same way a lot of other people use the term, but there is a specific offence "sexual act with child under 17 years of age" and those under 17 can be convicted of it.One eyed Jack wrote: »Silentcorner wrote: »People can also feel rightly aggrieved by the fact that boys can be convicted of statutory rape and a girl can't
In discussing these issues rationally, I think it’s just as important that we stick to the facts as opposed to just what appears to be some people making it up as they go along. Boys in this country can not be convicted of statutory rape, as no such offence has existed in Irish law since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional.0 -
I noticed the comment section on the Cyprus case in the Daily Mail (surprise, surprise) was full of support for the girl. It seems the admins were filtering what comments could go through.
I tried posting, 'what if she WAS lying? ' a couple of times and it never appeared.0 -
I noticed the comment section on the Cyprus case in the Daily Mail (surprise, surprise) was full of support for the girl. It seems the admins were filtering what comments could go through.
I tried posting, 'what if she WAS lying? ' a couple of times and it never appeared.
Courts are only right when they convict men dont you know....0 -
thecityguy wrote: »Speaking of false accusations. About a year ago after a well known local man died in a traffic accident a person I work with who basically lives for malicious gossip came into work and ran around telling everyone that it wasn't an accident and he killed himself because he was a pedophile and someone found a load of pictures of underage girls on his phone
A couple of days later the same individual came into work and said oh actually he wasn't a pedophile after all but his son in law is the pedophile and he killed himself because he fell out with his daughter because she didn't believe the accusations about her husband
Obviously a dead man cant defend himself
What really annoyed me about this is the same individual who loves spreading malicious rumors about people and is very active on social media has a grand uncle who was actually arrested for abusing his little grandson. His grand uncle was found dead the morning after he was released by the guards presumably a suicide
This guy goes around telling everyone his grand uncle was this wonderful person who wouldn't hurt a fly and his family have no idea why he took his own life he also takes every chance he gets to put down his cousin the victim at every opportunity telling everyone about his addiction problems and issues with the guards
I'm convinced he does all this purely for attention and it works because most of the people I work with lap up his BS even though he is constantly shown to be lying
Call him out so0 -
Advertisement
-
Jesus some of the posts here are horrible.
I know being accused of rape is a terrible thing to happen to someone but to compare it to actually being raped is bordering on insane.
As I said I know false accusations are very wrong but people on this thread are making it sound like they are happening everyday in this country and I'd be surprised if there are 5 a year. Its still wrong but its not the epidemic it's made to be here. Now I know there are a lot of cases where there is a dispute of facts by both parties, usually involving alcohol, but that's not a false acquisation, big difference.
I'm a man and far from a feminist but some of the attitudes here are horrible and I'm going generalise and take a guess here that most of the posters making these comments are single men lacking the social skills to talk to women without coming across creepy, driving the women away and giving them a hatred of women. There, I said it.0 -
Jesus some of the posts here are horrible.
I know being accused of rape is a terrible thing to happen to someone but to compare it to actually being raped is bordering on insane.
As I said I know false accusations are very wrong but people on this thread are making it sound like they are happening everyday in this country and I'd be surprised if there are 5 a year. Its still wrong but its not the epidemic it's made to be here. Now I know there are a lot of cases where there is a dispute of facts by both parties, usually involving alcohol, but that's not a false acquisation, big difference.
I'm a man and far from a feminist but some of the attitudes here are horrible and I'm going generalise and take a guess here that most of the posters making these comments are single men lacking the social skills to talk to women without coming across creepy, driving the women away and giving them a hatred of women. There, I said it.
How is it insane though?
How about we generalise and assume that all men are potential rapists...you can see why more and more men don't give a f##k anymore about generalisations made about men!!
Comparing a false accusation of rape to a situation where a man drags a woman down an alley and rapes her is insane.
But most rapes do not occur like that...we are now entering an era where having sex with a drunk women, can be interpreted as rape as she was too drunk to consent. If a woman wakes up and feels she was misled or influenced to have sex she has it in her control to accuse a man of one of the most serious crimes on the statute books.
Now, in that case, is comparing a false accusation to that kind of rape insane?
Because this issue is too important to have the likes of you shame men for having an opinion that you are uncomfortable with...0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »having sex with a drunk women, can be interpreted as rape as she was too drunk to consent. .
Can be interpreted as rape? I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted, as, like you state above, she was too drunk to consent.0 -
bubblypop wrote:Can be interpreted as rape? I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted, as, like you state above, she was too drunk to consent.
So a man should never have sex with a woman who is over, say, the drink drive limit as it is rape?
Ok so.0 -
Can be interpreted as rape? I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted, as, like you state above, she was too drunk to consent.
How is a man supposed to know if she is drunk...what is drunk, what if she has only had two drinks but three lines of coke...you can see the problem right?
We are not talking about a woman who is passed out here!0 -
Ironicname wrote: »So a man should never have sex with a woman who is over, say, the drink drive limit as it is rape?
Ok so.
He said, the woman was too drunk to consent. So no ambiguity there?0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »How is a man supposed to know if she is drunk...what is drunk, what if she has only had two drinks but three lines of coke...you can see the problem right?
We are not talking about a woman who is passed out here!
You said in your post that the woman was too drunk to consent.
So, there is no doubt in that case, right?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Silentcorner wrote: »So you are going to ignore the two questions you have been asked?
No, I posted a reply to your post. In it, you started the woman ' was too drunk to consent "0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement