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
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    The_Captain wrote: »
    An awful lot of guys on this thread seem to make the assumption that in these situations the girl is lying by default.

    I've known a girl who was raped, then later tried to play it down and turn it into a "miscommunication" because she didn't want everyone to see her as a perpetual victim or 'damaged goods' in her own words.

    I havent seen that at all. What most people appear to be saying is that if it can be proved that she was lying then she should suffer the consequences.

    We can hardly just throw someone in prison based on what 1 person said. If there are no consequences then there is nothing preventing more people using it as a method of revenge. Claim he raped you and then once his reputation is ruined you can just walk away.


  • Options
    #63
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Claim he raped you and then once his reputation is ruined you can just walk away.

    How do you propose people get help for their rape if they can't say they were raped?


  • Options
    #64
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    How do you propose people get help for their rape if they can't say they were raped?

    They can say they were raped, it can be investigated by the gardai and the person gets whatever treatment they do with rape victims. If the evidence proves the other person did in fact rape the first they can be prosecuted. If evidence is found that the person is lying then they can be prosecuted for wasting police time and defamation. If evidence for neither is found then they'll have to drop the case.


  • Options
    #65
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    How do you propose people get help for their rape if they can't say they were raped?

    Counsellors demand proof you were raped before they will assist you now do they?


  • Options
    #66
    The_Captain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,376 ✭✭✭The_Captain


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I havent seen that at all. What most people appear to be saying is that if it can be proved that she was lying then she should suffer the consequences.

    We can hardly just throw someone in prison based on what 1 person said. If there are no consequences then there is nothing preventing more people using it as a method of revenge. Claim he raped you and then once his reputation is ruined you can just walk away.

    Your lack of awareness is depressing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    The_Captain wrote: »
    Your lack of awareness is depressing.

    Careful, you are at risk of saying something that might be considered a part of a discussion and pointing out the problems. Its best to just stick with one liners that achieve nothing.


  • Options
    #68
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Counsellors demand proof you were raped before they will assist you now do they?

    And do you really think the only people involved with helping a person who was raped is their counsellor?


  • Options
    #69
    Breffnigolfer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Breffnigolfer


    The_Captain wrote: »
    An awful lot of guys on this thread seem to make the assumption that in these situations the girl is lying by default.
    .............

    That is also the position of a Court of Law. The man is innocent until proven guilty.


  • Options
    #70
    Breffnigolfer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Breffnigolfer


    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.


  • Options
    #71
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    Breffnigolfer wrote: »
    That is also the position of a Court of Law. The man is innocent until proven guilty.

    That's wrong. The courts do not assume anyone is lying or telling the truth. People are allowed give their evidence and they are allowed to be questioned on their evidence. There is no presumption of anyone telling the truth or not telling the truth. In a lot of other legal systems there is an alternative to the not-guilty/guilty axis with an option of "Not Proven."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    And do you really think the only people involved with helping a person who was raped is their counsellor?

    Maybe you can clearly call out what help if not offered to people instead of beating around the bush?


  • Options
    #73
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Maybe you can clearly call out what help if not offered to people instead of beating around the bush?

    Support of friends and family, support of employers and educators, understanding from society, a societal drive to see that people don't get raped, a societal drive to see that sex is treated with due respect and that consent is always given the highest consideration.


  • Options
    #74
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    Support of friends and family, support of employers and educators, understanding from society, a societal drive to see that people don't get raped, a societal drive to see that sex is treated with due respect and that consent is always given the highest consideration.

    Bull****, people can get support without having to prove they were raped.


  • Options
    #75
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Bull****, people can get support without having to prove they were raped.

    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.


  • Options
    #76
    Breffnigolfer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Breffnigolfer


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    That's wrong. The courts do not assume anyone is lying or telling the truth..............

    It's the same thing. You're talking semantics. Evidence is not deemed to be the truth until a verdict is delivered.


  • Options
    #77
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    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.

    They are being threatened with prosecution for making false allegations. Support is still available for people, not sure why you think it isn't.


  • Options
    #78
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    Breffnigolfer wrote: »
    It's the same thing. You're talking semantics. Evidence is not deemed to be the truth until a verdict is delivered.

    Evidence is rarely deemed to be truthful or untruthful, that's why it's generally reported in the newspapers when a judge makes a statement that he feels someone was blatantly lying on the stand. Courts make no verdict on truth, just on the evidence presented.

    runawaybishop wrote: »
    They are being threatened with prosecution for making false allegations. Support is still available for people, not sure why you think it isn't.

    As I've already said, if you follow the thread of what I was talking about, you'll see that I was referring from a proposal that a victim not be allowed identify their rapist unless it's proven in court. I believe I have either quoted the person I was responding to, or responded right after each of their posts so it shouldn't be too difficult to follow this thread.


  • Options
    #79
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    The childish anti men attitude of some of these organisations is absurd. I hope none of them end up having sons.

    A little common sense is needed.


  • Options
    #80
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    As I've already said, if you follow the thread of what I was talking about, you'll see that I was referring from a proposal that a victim not be allowed identify their rapist unless it's proven in court. I believe I have either quoted the person I was responding to, or responded right after each of their posts so it shouldn't be too difficult to follow this thread.

    I don't think you understood what was posted. Publicly identify. This in no way stops anyone getting the support they require, it merely enforces that people are innocent until proven guilty and entitled to their good name.

    The only talk of prosecution was in cases of false allegations. Maybe you should read the thread again.


  • Options
    #81
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    I don't think you understood what was posted. Publicly identify. This in no way stops anyone getting the support they require, it merely enforces that people are innocent until proven guilty and entitled to their good name.

    The only talk of prosecution was in cases of false allegations. Maybe you should read the thread again.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Claim he raped you and then once his reputation is ruined you can just walk away.

    I'm pretty sure this implies that there should be consequences for saying someone raped you.

    There was also talk about €10k fines for people revealing the name of their rapist. That was referring to when a prosecution is being brought but again it has implications for what a person can and can't say in their daily life.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure this implies that there should be consequences for saying someone raped you.

    There was also talk about €10k fines for people revealing the name of their rapist. That was referring to when a prosecution is being brought but again it has implications for what a person can and can't say in their daily life.

    You seem to have it arseways.

    There should be consequences for false accusations of rape. That's what is being said, what is your issue with that?

    As accusations of rape, even when shown to be false, negatively affect the accused they should not be made public unless they are shown to be true. What is your issue with that?


  • Options
    #83
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    This is ridiculous and would stop people from receiving the help they need after a rape unless they can prove in court they were raped.
    Well, it wouldn't. They could still go and seek help, just don't mention the name of the person who raped you.

    But it is a suggestion bordering on ridiculous, which is partly why I mentioned it. Because it's what would be required if accusers were to be guaranteed immunity from prosecution.

    I *do* actually believe that anonymity should be guaranteed before the trial finishes, for both accuser and accused, and not this lop-sided arrangement at present where only the accuser gets to choose.

    But the rest of the stuff is a description of controls that would need to be put in place to allow people to make accusations with immunity.


  • Options
    #84
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure this implies that there should be consequences for saying someone raped you.

    There was also talk about €10k fines for people revealing the name of their rapist. That was referring to when a prosecution is being brought but again it has implications for what a person can and can't say in their daily life.

    I said that's what a person could do if people were free to cry rape when they weren't without any consequences.

    Why would you punish someone who claims they have be raped without evidence?

    It would be nice to say something without people trying to twist it to imply you are anti women or "victim blaiming"


  • Options
    #85
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    You seem to have it arseways.

    There should be consequences for false accusations of rape. That's what is being said, what is your issue with that?

    As accusations of rape, even when shown to be false, negatively affect the accused they should not be made public unless they are shown to be true. What is your issue with that?

    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.


  • Options
    #86
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    seamus wrote: »
    Well, it wouldn't. They could still go and seek help, just don't mention the name of the person who raped you.

    That's why I said "identifying" and not naming. Someone may never mention a specific name, but in giving details of their rape it would be immediately obvious who they're saying raped them is. Stopping people doing this would further hurt the person who has already suffered the huge trauma of being raped.


  • Options
    #87
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,428 ✭✭✭tritium


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    There's no advantage to hiding the victim in other cases - there are huge advantages (for defendants) for hiding the defendant in other cases.

    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


  • Options
    #88
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    That's not quite what the article says though is it? Its part of it but not the full context. It basically says they pursue this too aggressively, then tags on this and a few other items in mitigation.
    ...
    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.


  • Options
    #89
    The_Captain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,376 ✭✭✭The_Captain


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Careful, you are at risk of saying something that might be considered a part of a discussion and pointing out the problems. Its best to just stick with one liners that achieve nothing.

    Fair enough. Realistically, because we don't live in an episode of CSI Miami, it's very difficult to prove that someone is raped. Unfortuantely, the majority of these cases come down to his word against hers, and very often there is a large, very vocal support base for the accused.

    The Ched Evans case is the most obvious one. He was convicted in a court of law of raping a girl, yet there's an awful lot of people calling her a liar. You have idiots in this very thread trying to claim this case is 'difficult'. It's not. She consented to have sex with one man, then another man showed up later and had non-consentual sex with her. She was raped. He was sent to prison for raping her.

    Then there was the guy in Kerry who was caught by a Guard in the act of raping an unconscious woman. The whole town came out to support him and she was shunned and called a liar, eventually being forced to move.

    Rape is a massively psychologically damaging crime, and this combined with the support the accused can get, makes it often very difficult for legitimate victims to come forward. Then there's the fear that the rapist could come back for revenge if she calls the police.

    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.

    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.

    There's so many stories on this thread that are basically "A guy and a girl had sex, she said she was raped but she wasn't so she should be imprisoned for a false accusation"

    In this situation, you can't prove she's lying, so by the very logic defending the accused, she should get off scot free too.

    "Oh, but she later admitted she was lying"
    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

    Long story short, keeping a low sentence on false accusations makes it easier for legitimate victims to come forward and makes it easier for innocent men to get off


  • Options
    #90
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    To anyone arguing that there are "other circumstances or something wrong with the person" accusing another of rape they didn't actually commit. Would you agree with that argument if someone said it about people who raped? "Ohh, he raped her but like he isn't all there mentally at the moment due to things at home and with his friends, so what he did really wasn't his fault like!" No, you wouldn't. It shouldn't be double standards. If you want to make someone's life a living hell then you better be able to suffer the consequences if you are caught out on the lie


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    That's why I said "identifying" and not naming. Someone may never mention a specific name, but in giving details of their rape it would be immediately obvious who they're saying raped them is. Stopping people doing this would further hurt the person who has already suffered the huge trauma of being raped.
    Indeed it would, which is why it would be unreasonable, and consequently why false claims should not be immune from prosecution.


Advertisement