nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Timberrrrrrrr

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?

Now here's the bit that had me perplexed, There is a group called WAR Women Against Rape who are tryng to say that women who make false allegations of rape should not be prosecuted!

Don't know who the presenter is (classic hits 4fm) but he was talking about this article in the guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations

Charity accuses authorities in the UK of pursuing cases against rape complainants more aggressively than other countries

On Tuesday, the charity Women Against Rape (War) is taking its campaign to the House of Commons, where some of those who have been jailed for lying about rape allegations will speak out against their treatment by the authorities.

The vast majority of the convictions in the last five years, 98 out of 109, involved prosecutions for perverting the course of justice – which carries a maximum life jail term – rather than the lesser offence of wasting police time, which has a maximum tariff of six months in prison or a fine.

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Timberrrrrrrr

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Uhm OP, they are campaigning against wrongful sentences where people were pressured/co-erced into retracting rape claims, and then prosecuted as 'lying' for that - where they have not actually lied.

Way to take the article out of context, in an inflammatory way...

The spokeswoman for that group stated on the radio that even if a woman makes a false claim of rape against a man and then recants the allegation of her own free will she shouldn't be prosecuted.

runawaybishop

desertcircus wrote: »

Literally every case of a false rape allegation I've seen reported in my life has had the same thing in common: the accuser either has severe mental health issues, or is so genuinely terrified of someone else in her life that the rape accusation seems like the only option. Other, more cynical cases may exist, but I've honestly never seen one reported. On that basis, prosecuting cases of false allegations and pushing for prison time in the bunk of cases is an astronomically stupid decision: it does nothing to dissuade people with mental issues and almost nothing to dissuade people who are genuinely terrified from making such accusations, but it does make it less likely that a person wrongly convicted will ever have that conviction quashed, as the result of the accuser exonerating the convict is jail time for themselves.

Are you for serious? Thats far from the only cases of false allegations. Malicious reports are absolutely part of it.

KomradeBishop

seamus wrote: »

There is actually a relatively useful way of doing this; absolute anonymity.

That is, in any case involving any sexual assault or allegation, the accuser and their victim are guaranteed absolute anonymity by law unless the accused is found guilty, in which case the victim can choose to be named.

Now, clearly people close to both people are going to be aware of the issue, but you can add in additional protections to help mitigate this:

- Discussing/revealing the identity of the accused or the nature of the case can be punished with massive fines (€10k+) or jail time. This goes as much for people talking down the pub as it does to the media
- You could incorporate an equal status act style protection for anyone denied access to services, work or other things on the basis of such rumour and allegation.

If the accused is found not guilty, the accused can choose to be named (along with the "victim"), or the entire court transcript is anonymised to "Defendent", "Plaintiff", "Witness 1", etc. There is no record of the case on the accused's Garda record, and the victim's own garda record just mentions that they had made an allegation of sexual assault which was tested and not proven in court.

Problem with that is, publicly naming the defendant helps other victims of the defendant to come forward.

It also creates a problem with the legal system: If defendants in sexual assault cases can remain anonymous, why not let defendants be anonymous in other high-personal-impact cases, such as accusations of political corruption?

desertcircus

Literally every case of a false rape allegation I've seen reported in my life has had the same thing in common: the accuser either has severe mental health issues, or is so genuinely terrified of someone else in her life that the rape accusation seems like the only option. Other, more cynical cases may exist, but I've honestly never seen one reported. On that basis, prosecuting cases of false allegations and pushing for prison time in the bunk of cases is an astronomically stupid decision: it does nothing to dissuade people with mental issues and almost nothing to dissuade people who are genuinely terrified from making such accusations, but it does make it less likely that a person wrongly convicted will ever have that conviction quashed, as the result of the accuser exonerating the convict is jail time for themselves.

lertsnim

keano_afc wrote: »

There should be a custodial sentence for a false rape allegation.

Absolutely. If someone is willing to lie so they can destroy the life of someone else then they should be thrown into prison for the same amount of time the accused would have gotten.

seamus

There is actually a relatively useful way of doing this; absolute anonymity.

That is, in any case involving any sexual assault or allegation, the accuser and their victim are guaranteed absolute anonymity by law unless the accused is found guilty, in which case the victim can choose to be named.

Now, clearly people close to both people are going to be aware of the issue, but you can add in additional protections to help mitigate this:

- Discussing/revealing the identity of the accused or the nature of the case can be punished with massive fines (€10k+) or jail time. This goes as much for people talking down the pub as it does to the media
- You could incorporate an equal status act style protection for anyone denied access to services, work or other things on the basis of such rumour and allegation.

If the accused is found not guilty, the accused can choose to be named (along with the "victim"), or the entire court transcript is anonymised to "Defendent", "Plaintiff", "Witness 1", etc. There is no record of the case on the accused's Garda record, and the victim's own garda record just mentions that they had made an allegation of sexual assault which was tested and not proven in court.

lazybones32

suicide_circus wrote: »

Pack of loolaas, ignore

It'd be easier to ignore if they weren't presenting their case to the House of Commons. Having an audience who could do something for their 'cause', will only encourage them.

suicide_circus

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Regardless of how credible you view that, that is the basis of what the charity are campaigning on - which is completely different and far more reasonable, to what everyone in the thread is panning them for.

Indeed. Presumably they have evidence that this is happening and will bring it to the appropriate ombudsman

KomradeBishop

suicide_circus wrote: »

So authorities know these women are being coerced into retracting their genuine allegations yet are still pursuing them? That sounds unlikely.

Regardless of how credible you view that, that is the basis of what the charity are campaigning on - which is completely different and far more reasonable, to what everyone in the thread is panning them for.

Timberrrrrrrr

El Weirdo wrote: »

I'm going to hold off on the outrage until I can be sure that you've used "literally" correctly.

Oh i did!

suicide_circus

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Uhm OP, they are campaigning against wrongful sentences where people were pressured/co-erced into retracting rape claims, and then prosecuted as 'lying' for that - where they have not actually lied.

Way to take the article out of context, in an inflammatory way...

So authorities know these women are being coerced into retracting their genuine allegations yet are still pursuing them? That sounds unlikely.

Ficheall

CTYIgirl wrote: »

If someone makes a rape allegation against someone, and it is found to be false - as in before it goes to trial, or the person recants their statement - then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Surely that makes it less likely for someone to retract a false statement, no? Thereby increasing the chance of the accused being unjustly punished..

suicide_circus

The portrayal of women as perpetual victims should be offensive to any feminist worthy of the name.

KomradeBishop

Uhm OP, they are campaigning against wrongful sentences where people were pressured/co-erced into retracting rape claims, and then prosecuted as 'lying' for that - where they have not actually lied.

Way to take the article out of context, in an inflammatory way...

IvySlayer

Women can do no wrong according to the charity

A spokeswoman said: “Cases of perverting the course of justice that involve allegedly false rape allegations are serious but rare. They are usually highly complex and sensitive often involving vulnerable parties, so any decision to charge is extremely carefully considered and not taken lightly.

People who make false accusations of rape are 'vulnerable'

RonanP77

Even if a lad is found innocent it'll always be hanging over him, people will always think he must have done something. There should be very serious consequences for anyone found to be making false allegations of rape.

discus

I disagree with the recant part - what if a real victim is forced to do it under threat?

suicide_circus

Grayson wrote: »

The issue isn't false accusations. The issue is that women are being tried for this when there's little evidence.

Imagine a situation where a woman gets assaulted. She says that X did it. The police investigate but don't have enough evidence to charge.

Now, does that mean that she lied about the assault? Should she be charged with making a false complaint? That's basically what happened to the woman in the story. She made a complaint. There wasn't enough evidence to charge/prosecute. Then the police brought charges against her. She killed herself.

Remember that only a very small percentages of rapes result in convictions. Should all those women who report a rape but don't get a conviction be charged with making a false report?

Obviously not. And likewise if a woman does make a false complaint there should be charges filed. The issue is the line we draw. The group in the article point out that the UK prosecutes far more often for this than any country.

I'd imagine british authorities pursue these women only when there is evidence of malicious intent on their part and not simply when the there isnt enough evidence to bring a charge of rape. It is also entirely possible that the woman in the article took her own life to avoid the consequences of her actions in bringing the false claim.

LoonyLovegood

If someone makes a rape allegation against someone, and it is found to be false - as in before it goes to trial, or the person recants their statement - then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Grayson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Making false allegations about anything is illegal and should remain so.

The issue isn't false accusations. The issue is that women are being tried for this when there's little evidence.

Imagine a situation where a woman gets assaulted. She says that X did it. The police investigate but don't have enough evidence to charge.

Now, does that mean that she lied about the assault? Should she be charged with making a false complaint? That's basically what happened to the woman in the story. She made a complaint. There wasn't enough evidence to charge/prosecute. Then the police brought charges against her. She killed herself.

Remember that only a very small percentages of rapes result in convictions. Should all those women who report a rape but don't get a conviction be charged with making a false report?

Obviously not. And likewise if a woman does make a false complaint there should be charges filed. The issue is the line we draw. The group in the article point out that the UK prosecutes far more often for this than any country.

Wibbs

I can see one side of the logic of this, namely that prosecuting such individuals may put off real victims from reporting for fear of punishment. However in reality I can't see that having so much of an effect. However letting clearcut cases of false accusation get away scot free when it means someone's life is ruined is well out of order.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

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

For a start the rates for false accusations are very much up in the air. It's a very hard thing to measure. If they only measure the examples were it was admitted, you can be sure that such a figure is on the low side. It might be 1% it might be 20%. Who knows(though I would suspect it's below 10% myself). Her "logic" re the acquittal rate as an excuse is beyond idiotic. God forbid thinking that acquittals happen because the evidence is weak or non existent. Sounds like the usual extreme wing of "feminism" guff, whereby men are always to blame and responsible and women are always victims with no agency. Men by virtue of being male are guilty until proven otherwise. It's not so far off "all men are rapists" watered down for public consumption. See the Man up campaign for a sideways example of that.

A Neurotic

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

Yep, this small group of loonies perfectly represent 50% of everyone alive today.

Yep.

Corvo

I think this spokeswoman is seriously disturbed.

anncoates

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

Youranoutofideas.

shruikan2553

I suppose we could get rid of the whole innocent until proven guilty and just make it "that man killed my brother!" and he gets thrown in prison.

Iranoutofideas

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

El Weirdo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

I'm going to hold off on the outrage until I can be sure that you've used "literally" correctly.

suicide_circus

Pack of loolaas, ignore

keano_afc

There should be a custodial sentence for a false rape allegation.

smoking_kills

Does it seriously surprise you?