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
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    If you read the thread you'll see my point was that this will be made very difficult if they're threatened with prosecution for identifying their rapist.

    But they're not. The only people arguing that victims will be prosecuted are certain groups with a particular agenda. Essentially they're saying that the victims in this type of case are acceptable collateral damage. Its simple, if you do make a provable false accusation ( and the DPP would need to believe there was a reasonable prospect of proving this) then you should be prosecuted. If there's mental illness then the courts have the discretion to send an offender for treatment rather than prison.


  • Options
    #93
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    I think I've been very clear in what I've been saying. That forbidding people from identifying who raped them is very dangerous and would have serious consequences for the huge amount of people who have been raped.

    I wasn't aware that anyone was seeking anonymity for people convicted of rape.

    Accused however, with no assessment of evidence, is a very different position


  • Options
    #94
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    What advantages exactly? If the only value to naming a still presumed innocent accused is to fish for more complaints I don't see how anonymity in other cases is an issue.

    Equally the major reasoning of not naming the accuser is to protect them. Why the UK doesn't extend this to the accused as is done here (and theres limited appetite to change) is beyond me
    Any court cases revolving around political/business corruption, for example, could be effectively kept secret (or a huge amount of information about the case kept secret), to protect the identity of the defendant.

    That would have an enormously dangerous potential for abuse, and can be used as a means of keeping important information in the public interest, out of public access.


  • Options
    #95
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    tritium wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that anyone was seeking anonymity for people convicted of rape.

    Accused however, with no assessment of evidence, is a very different position

    Are you in favour of stopping rape victims from identifying their rapist unless their rapist has be convicted of the rape?


  • Options
    #96
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    No, the article is very clear:
    "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."

    It's not tacked-on at all.

    Wow, could you have been more selective? You take the quote from the CPS source who has to be quite careful with language (of course any crime is alleged till proven) and still managed to miss this bit:
    “Such cases can only be brought where the prosecution can prove that the original rape allegation was false and the relatively few cases that are brought should not dissuade any potential victim from coming forward to report an assault.”

    Not to mention the following from earlier;
    But Prof Claire Ferguson, a forensic criminologist from the University of New England in New South Wales, Australia, said it was not the norm to prosecute women for false allegations and that only those in the most egregious cases were charged, often where the accused man had spent time in custody.

    “There have been cases in Australia where people have been accused, then nothing ever happens to the accuser, even though the police believe the report is indeed false.

    A relatively one side article from the guardian and you still have to quote selectively! Really!

    Sorry but any credibility you had is well and truly shot!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    Idiots like this only get a voice and attention given to it nowadays because of how easily and quickly information spreads on the internet. I can't imagine anyone actually entertaining notions like that if it came up in conversation.


  • Options
    #98
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,975 ✭✭✭✭Kintarō Hattori


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Pack of loolaas, ignore

    That's the thing though, you can't ignore people like this. To some people ignoring them is almost akin to saying that you agree/support them because you haven't voiced any objection.

    The worst thing you can do with these people is not take them to task.


  • Options
    #99
    Cathy.C
    Closed Accounts Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Cathy.C


    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.

    Ah, you must have taken one of the main routes past Whitehall.

    Next time go the back roads and come out by Ballymun.


  • Options
    #100
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    Wow, could you have been more selective? You take the quote from the CPS source who has to be quite careful with language (of course any crime is alleged till proven) and still managed to miss this bit:


    Not to mention the following from earlier;


    A relatively one side article from the guardian and you still have to quote selectively! Really!

    Sorry but any credibility you had is well and truly shot!
    Hyperbole on your part, does not make the quotes you've provided, back your case any better - and instead harms your own credibility, as it is obvious you are trying to use hyperbole to smear.

    The quote I provided, was to show that the article is about 'alleged false rape claims' - you have provided nothing that shows it is about 'false rape claims' in general.


  • Options
    #101
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    The article says "False rape claims". As my limited understanding of British law in these scenarios is, maybe one for a legal eagle to weigh in on, is that to be found guilty, there would have had to have been evidence to the contrary or it was beyond reasonable doubt. My understanding is that if it could not be proved one way or the other, then the Judge would have thrown out the false rape allegation and it would not be included in these numbers.

    The article says no data is collected on the number of reported rapes that are claimed to be false. Nor does it go into how the courts proceeded to get to that point, was it an offshoot of a rape trial where incontrovertible evidence was found disproving the claim or was the accused rapist successful in having the case taken.

    If someone is guilty then by all means, they should be identified, if the DPP has reasonable evidence (for them to decide, not Joe Public) then in the interests of the investigation they can reveal the identity for investigative purposes etc. But having the ability to cry rape without even the threat that if proved you are telling untruths would lead to punishment seems odd.

    A better story would the Taxi driver who picked me up one night, and it came up on the Radio about an assault on a girl in a taxi. I can't remember the details but it got us talking and he pointed to his camera. At 5 o'clock in the morning, the gardai came to his house and arrested him in front of his wife as a claim had been made against him by someone.

    He called his wife and got the gardai to retrieve the footage from his camera. It was clear in the video that the girl was drunk and offered him "payment", he refused, cash only, at which point she tried to run and fell. The taxi driver never got out of the car at the time as he thought better of trying to rumble the fare out of her and just left it. He is perpetually glad to this day, as the footage just shows him in the car driving off. If he had gotten out of the car, there would have been doubt on his version of the story. To cut a long story short, the girl was never arrested or charged for her stupidity, luckily the taxi man had the camera or as we all know, guilty or innocent it would follow him forever.

    I am in full favour of those who are guilty of rape being strung up in the town square and left to rot, cold and alone, but by no stretch are those who are found beyond a shadow of a doubt to be lying about such a heinous crime, should be allowed walk scott free.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    CramCycle wrote: »
    The article says "False rape claims".
    ...But having the ability to cry rape without even the threat that if proved you are telling untruths would lead to punishment seems odd.
    The article does not actually show that this is what is being sought...if you go check the 'WAR' charity website directly as well (the group being discussed in the article), there is no indication that this is what they are after either.

    Instead, they seem to be focusing on allegations of false rape claims.


  • Options
    #103
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Hyperbole on your part, does not make the quotes you've provided, back your case any better - and instead harms your own credibility, as it is obvious you are trying to use hyperbole to smear.

    The quote I provided, was to show that the article is about 'alleged false rape claims' - you have provided nothing that shows it is about 'false rape claims' in general.
    Will you stop, you're just getting ridiculous! From the report
    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.

    Note that's *convictions* not allegations.

    Their speakers to the commons are women who have been *convicted* of this offence. Their basically bringing up some criminals to tell parliament how unfair it wasbto hold them to account for their crime

    (Interestingly the report seems to use prosecution and conviction interchangeably though it clearly states thisnos the number of convictions)


  • Options
    #104
    Holsten
    Registered Users Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Holsten


    Anyone accused of any crime should be offered anonymity.

    That solves this problem.


  • Options
    #105
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,451 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cathy.C wrote: »
    Ah, you must have taken one of the main routes past Whitehall.

    Next time go the back roads and come out by Ballymun.

    Easier for me to to go down Malahide road.


  • Options
    #106
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    Holsten wrote: »
    Anyone accused of any crime should be offered anonymity.

    That solves this problem.


    Especially preventing papers from publishing articles about cases like these until a person is convicted.


  • Options
    #107
    Venus In Furs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭Venus In Furs


    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?
    I don't know to be honest. I know it happens, but whether it happens a lot that a woman will go to the police say a particular man raped her when he didn't... that I genuinely don't know.
    Although doing such a ****ed up, sick thing once is too much.


  • Options
    #108
    qt3.14
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭qt3.14


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Pack of loolaas, ignore

    You can't unfortunately. Both here and in the UK legislation is often enacted based on who shouts the loudest.


  • Options
    #109
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    Will you stop, you're just getting ridiculous! From the report



    Note that's *convictions* not allegations.

    Their speakers to the commons are women who have been *convicted* of this offence. Their basically bringing up some criminals to tell parliament how unfair it wasbto hold them to account for their crime

    (Interestingly the report seems to use prosecution and conviction interchangeably though it clearly states thisnos the number of convictions)
    You're deliberately being obtuse now, as it is exactly that people have been convicted for 'alleged false rape claims', that is the focus of this - people are stating that they have been pressured/co-erced into retracting their claims of rape (when they still maintain that it happened), and that this was then used to prosecute them.

    Here is a different article of the same story, which gives much better framing:
    Lisa Longstaff, of WAR, said: “We want it known that some of these cases are miscarriages of justice. There are a number of cases we have taken on where the women are still maintaining their innocence even after they’ve been convicted.

    “We’re working with them to get their convictions overturned. It’s been a long haul.”

    She explained that a number of these women were pressed by the police to retract their rape allegations, and said this was “a very widespread phenomenon.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11267565/Rape-claims-109-women-prosecuted-for-false-allegations-over-five-years.html

    There is also this, from the same article:
    WAR's campaign comes as the Director of Public Prosecutions investigates the decision to charge Eleanor de Freitas, a 23-year-old with bipolar disorder, with making a false rape claim.

    The "vulnerable" young woman took her own life in April, days before she was due to stand trial for perverting the course of justice.

    DPP Alison Saunders is personally investigating why the CPS decided to press charges, despite being told by police that there was no evidence that de Freitas had lied.

    That shows that this is a legitimate problem - people are being prosecuted for making false claims, when there is no evidence that the claim is a lie.


    Massively different story, to what everyone in this thread is talking about - where people are assuming (because of some posters - in my view deliberately - putting a misleading spin on the story), that it is about frivolous/false rape claims, when it is about valid rape claims being turned around and leading to prosecution of rape victims.


  • Options
    #110
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    You're deliberately being obtuse now, as it is exactly that people have been convicted for 'alleged false rape claims', that is the focus of this - people are stating that they have been pressured/co-erced into retracting their claims of rape (when they still maintain that it happened), and that this was then used to prosecute them.

    Here is a different article of the same story, which gives much better framing:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11267565/Rape-claims-109-women-prosecuted-for-false-allegations-over-five-years.html

    There is also this, from the same article:


    That shows that this is a legitimate problem - people are being prosecuted for making false claims, when there is no evidence that the claim is a lie.


    Massively different story, to what everyone in this thread is talking about - where people are assuming (because of some posters - in my view deliberately - putting a misleading spin on the story), that it is about frivolous/false rape claims, when it is about valid rape claims being turned around and leading to prosecution of rape victims.

    I'm not the one being obtuse here.

    Once there is conviction there is no *alleged*. Their is guilt in the eyes of the law. If there's an allegation of a miscarriage of justice then that is the only alleged thing here. I'm assuming you also consider Ched Evans to be an alleged rapist.


    Nice quote you picked to start btw-some of these cases are miscarriages of justice! That's nice, I guess we don't have to worry about the ones that aren't miscarriages of justice then, we'll just let WAR tell is how to treat them.


  • Options
    #111
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    Spinachliver wrote: »
    How do you know there was no evidence that it was a lie? Because a WAR spokesperson said so?

    "despite being told by police that there was no evidence that de Freitas had lied"

    It's right there in the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11267565/Rape-claims-109-women-prosecuted-for-false-allegations-over-five-years.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    "despite being told by police that there was no evidence that de Freitas had lied"

    It's right there in the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11267565/Rape-claims-109-women-prosecuted-for-false-allegations-over-five-years.html

    Given its an active enquiry I'd be slow to prejudge. Generally cases are only taken where there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Its quite disturbing how there's a dual campaign going on here though- the we think she didn't do it, but even if she did she was vulnerable so that's ok


  • Options
    #113
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    I'm not the one being obtuse here.

    Once there is conviction there is no *alleged*. Their is guilt in the eyes of the law. If there's an allegation of a miscarriage of justice then that is the only alleged thing here. I'm assuming you also consider Ched Evans to be an alleged rapist.


    Nice quote you picked to start btw-some of these cases are miscarriages of justice! That's nice, I guess we don't have to worry about the ones that aren't miscarriages of justice then, we'll just let WAR tell is how to treat them.
    Conviction doesn't turn an allegation into solid proof - which is exactly why there is a campaign trying highlight miscarriage of justice here.

    Regardless of whether or not you think the idea of a miscarriage of justice is credible or not, that is what they are campaigning on - and that alone, changes the whole context of the story this thread is based upon.

    This entire thread is based upon a misrepresentation of their campaign - a misrepresentation you're trying to perpetuate.


  • Options
    #114
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    Given its an active enquiry I'd be slow to prejudge. Generally cases are only taken where there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Its quite disturbing how there's a dual campaign going on here though- the we think she didn't do it, but even if she did she was vulnerable so that's ok
    Yea you're not slow to prejudge the entire campaign though are you - only slow to prejudge where it doesn't back the misrepresentation you're trying to push.


  • Options
    #115
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    The_Captain wrote: »
    Standing up in court and admitting that you were raped, subjecting yourself to physical examinations and having to defend yourself against cross-examination can be a very traumatising scenario.
    If you add the fear that a woman could end up with jail time if she can't prove she was raped, all you'll do is make legitimate victims terrified to come forward.
    But this is a completely irrational fear that could easily be explained away.
    Legitimate victims would have nothing to worry about in this regard.
    What kind of situation are you thinking of when you say women who are proved to make false accusations should be jailed? Something nice and easy where she was actually in Majorca on the night she claims she was assaulted in Dublin?
    It doesn't work like that.
    Any case that I've heard about where there was a successful conviction for making a false rape claim, was based on irrefutable evidence, eg. phone records, CCTV footage.
    If you make it so a woman making a false accusation will be imprisoned if she admits she was lying, all you'll do is create a situation where they never admit that they are lying, making innocent men more likely to go to jail when falsely accused
    You have to weight this against the deterrent that sending people who make false rape accusations to prison would create.
    In a just society people who make false accusations need to be punished.


  • Options
    #116
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Conviction doesn't turn an allegation into solid proof - which is exactly why there is a campaign trying highlight miscarriage of justice here.

    Regardless of whether or not you think the idea of a miscarriage of justice is credible or not, that is what they are campaigning on - and that alone, changes the whole context of the story this thread is based upon.

    This entire thread is based upon a misrepresentation of their campaign - a misrepresentation you're trying to perpetuate.

    I have in three separate posts demonstrated with quotes from the article itself how:

    1. The WAR representative themselves have conceded that they only believe some cases may be unsafe

    2. The CPS position that a case will only be brought when there is clear evidence of a case of false allegation

    3. The women WAR are highlighting have been convicted to a beyond reasonable doubt standard of this crime- they are guilty, not alleged as you keep wanting to spin

    Not even WAR themselves are spnning the nonsense you're trying to spin here- from the opening lines of the article
    campaigners who are calling for an end to what they claim is the aggressive pursuit of such cases.

    And
    A US law professor, who will be speaking at the Commons, said the UK’s stance on false allegations is more aggressive than in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Prof Lisa Avalos, of the University of Arkansas, said false allegations in the US were dealt with as a misdemeanour offence, not a felony –

    No amount of distortion on your part changes any of the above. You can your standard approach of nitpicking on semantics as much as you like, the simple fact is you're wrong here and that is brutally apparent to me, you and anyone else who's read the article


  • Options
    #117
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Radio interview is up:
    http://classichits.ie/category/podcasts/

    The woman in the radio interview the OP heard, did dig herself into a hole and refuse to acknowledge the validity of prosecuting people who make maliciously false accusations of rape.

    That's inexcusable - though I'm going to give benefit of the doubt to the organization, that she's just an incredibly poor spokesperson; was a very poor interview on her part.


  • Options
    #118
    batnolan
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭batnolan


    Prosecution should only be available against those who deliberately and maliciously make a false rape allegation.

    Likewise if a genuine case goes to a court of law and they find the perpetrator not guilty for whatever reason, should the perpetrator be allowed too launch a case against the victim? I don't think so.

    Anonymity until proven guilty of rape or proven guilty of making a deliberate and malicious false rape allegation is fair however.


  • Options
    #119
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    I have in three separate posts demonstrated with quotes from the article itself how:

    1. The WAR representative themselves have conceded that they only believe some cases may be unsafe

    2. The CPS position that a case will only be brought when there is clear evidence of a case of false allegation

    3. The women WAR are highlighting have been convicted to a beyond reasonable doubt standard of this crime- they are guilty, not alleged as you keep wanting to spin

    Not even WAR themselves are spnning the nonsense you're trying to spin here- from the opening lines of the article



    And



    No amount of distortion on your part changes any of the above. You can your standard approach of nitpicking on semantics as much as you like, the simple fact is you're wrong here and that is brutally apparent to me, you and anyone else who's read the article
    There is already direct evidence that '2' is false, because CPS is investigating an instance where that was breached.

    In '3' there, the CPS investigation above, gives enough credence to the idea, that there may have been wrongful prosecution of such cases - this is what the group is campaigning for, from what I can see, and they have people who have been prosecuted, maintaining the claim that their claim was truthful.

    In your article quote "campaigners who are calling for an end to what they claim is the aggressive pursuit of such cases" - that doesn't show what you claim: The 'aggressive pursuit' that they're referring to, can easily apply solely to the alleged miscarriage of justice.


    If Fiona's views (the person in the radio interview), turn out to be a true representation of the organizations views though (that was a piss poor interview on her part, so I'm going to give the wider organization benefit of the doubt on this one) - if that turns out to be true, grand, I'd agree that advocating non-prosecution of false-rape-claim offenders is reprehensible.


  • Options
    #120
    Don Kedick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 778 ✭✭✭Don Kedick


    It's a tricky one because you don't want to stop women coming forward and reporting their assault if they're frightened they wont be believed and then have the possibility of a trial against them which would make the agony far worse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Hoboo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    batnolan wrote: »

    Likewise if a genuine case goes to a court of law and they find the perpetrator not guilty for whatever reason, should the perpetrator be allowed too launch a case against the victim? I don't think so.

    Where's the justice and equity in that?

    If they're found not guilty they haven't perpetrated anything. They are innocent, or certainly have found to be.

    Why shouldn't they be allowed present evidence to attempt to prove the original case and claim was false?


Advertisement