False rape accusation...who would you believe?

(US)
https://thepostmillennial.com/betsy-devos-title-ix-restored-due-process

Betsy Devos restores much-needed due process to American campuses with Title IX reforms

Title IX had not been conceived with the resolution of sexual complaint cases on its radar, and many observers saw the DCL exploitation of it as illegal. But it went down well with feminist groups like the American Association of University Women (AAUW), who were delighted to see “a preponderance of the evidence,” i.e. a 50.1 per cent likelihood of guilt, replace “beyond a reasonable doubt (95 per cent certainty),” the standard in criminal court. The procedures outlined in Dear Colleague made it very difficult for an accused individual to defend himself: he could not see or present evidence, have a lawyer represent him, or confront his accuser, all routine rights in any real court.

University suspended black student for a year because drunk white girl kissed him: lawsuit

She told three different stories – and the last one can be falsified

Long Island University punished a black student for sexual assault despite his white accuser’s constantly changing story and several witnesses who either contradicted or couldn’t corroborate her claims, according to a lawsuit filed last week against the private university in Brookville, New York.

“John Doe” accused LIU of Title IX and Title VI violations, saying “gender bias was a motivating factor” in the “erroneous outcome” of his proceeding and racial bias explains the “differential treatment” he received compared to “Jane Roe.”

https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-suspended-black-student-for-a-year-because-drunk-white-girl-kissed-him-lawsuit/

I wonder will we start seeing such kangaroo court outcomes in Ireland with the push to make colleges safer.

Jane had drunkenly kissed John, “an active and well-respected member of his church,” without his affirmative consent “in front of many witnesses” in a dorm room. (As a football player on LIU’s team, John had also resolved not to drink during the season.) Later that night she panicked that her public behavior could harm her “committed relationship” with another man.

The next day she filed a complaint against John, claiming that the night before he had forced her to perform oral sex on him. He also “pulled” her into another room where he held her down and continued kissing her, Jane claimed. In the final version of her story, she made a factual assertion that could be vetted: John assaulted her behind a “wall” of dressers in the room, which is furnished by LIU.

Jimmy Twotimes wrote: »

Came across an Australian case yesterday where a 17yo girl falsely accused a 15yo boy of raping her in a park. He spent a year in prison before being acquitted.

As far as I could see the girl suffered no punishment for her lies. Wtf?!

Thats the issue I have. Women (who lie about these kinda things) have no fear as they know most likely they will go unpunished and even maintain anonymity

Caquas wrote: »

Link?

Boards won't let me post a link but try googling 'Patrick Waring rape'.

Just found an AMA he did on Reddit. A quick look and he says he was beaten regularly in prison (very quickly the prisoners found out what he 'did') and never received a penny in compensation.

Rape case prosecutors must disregard sext messages
By June Kelly
Home affairs correspondent, BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54594388

"I hope the myth-busting training starts with the CPS lawyers who specialise in rape and serious sexual offences. In my view they are the problem," she says. "I have seen first hand how the CPS strategy is to pull apart a case and play the 'odds' game.

"Their approach is to second guess what a jury will decide. The lawyers are fixated on conviction rates and funding, not on representing victims."

I imagine with all cases, including nonsexual ones conviction probabilities are a factor. Also it is possible that sexual ones have become too politicised and that a lack of successful prosecution becomes a problem for particular individuals or agencies.

The End Violence Against Women coalition and their lawyers at the Centre for Women's Justice are currently involved in legal action over rape prosecutions.

In a case due to be heard early next year, they are mounting a court challenge that will examine rape prosecution policy and practice.

Sarah Green, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: "The new guidance for rape prosecutors is welcome if it enables those who prepare cases for court to predict and reject sexist stereotypes about rape and to really consider the impact of trauma on how rape survivors may present.

Again it seems like pressure might be put to help gain more convictions, while little or no pressure is coming in the opposite direction.

And even if it doesn't result in more convictions, it could result in more people having to face charges of sexual assault, which is very stressful.

iptba wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/rape-victims-to-be-legally-represented-at-trial-if-their-sexual-history-is-examined-1.4392704

In this short piece, the word "victims" is used 16 times. As was mentioned previously, this isn't a neutral term.

Here’s the report and the word “victim” is used throughout even though this is about the trial and pre-trial, not post-conviction.
https://assets.gov.ie/94023/bb7d391d-2198-4f94-a3bf-64fdd2538bf2.pdf

Ultimately, this means more lawyers on the State payroll and lucrative training contracts. I suppose it’s the price the Government is willing to pay. But what about the accused?

What purpose will these lawyers serve? Will they be allowed to examine witnesses? When the jury sees the “victim” has been given lawyers in addition to the prosecutors, how can they acquit?

One stated purpose of these lawyers is to “facilitate” the “victim” in “giving their best evidence" .

It is a major ethical breach for a lawyer to coach a witness about their evidence i.e. tell them what they should say in the witness box. It would seriously undermine the value of the criminal trial (and especially of cross-examination) as a process to reveal the truth or otherwise of the charges.

But of course that’s no longer the aim in sexual charges - getting the conviction rate up is the all-encompassing goal.

And what about excluding exculpatory evidence?

It is acknowledged that in the aftermath of a sexual crime the collection of digital evidence such as evidence from a phone is difficult and stressful. Only where necessary and where evidence is required from the phone or other device to prove or disprove the allegations will such evidence be collected.

Mobile phone evidence is a vital tool in criminal investigations but for sexual cases the Gardai are being given a clear warning - hands off the “victims” phone unless you can show it is “necessary” and it can “prove or disprove the allegations”. Not e.g.a stream of sexting between the parties beforehand or friendly messages afterwards unless the victim says “I consented to the sexual activity we engaged in” or something to that effect, which no one ever says in a text . And all Gardai will get expensive training to rid them of any contrary notions.

Imagine if an official report into say drugs offences tried to restrict digital evidence in this way? The Sunday World would have the Minister’s head on a platter.

Caquas wrote: »

Here’s the report and the word “victim” is used throughout even though this is about the trial and pre-trial, not post-conviction.
https://assets.gov.ie/94023/bb7d391d-2198-4f94-a3bf-64fdd2538bf2.pdf

Ultimately, this means more lawyers on the State payroll and lucrative training contracts. I suppose it’s the price the Government is willing to pay. But what about the accused?

It’s already been established that the victim is the victim of a criminal offence, that’s why they are regarded as a victim. The victim is not on trial, it is the person or persons who are accused of committing a criminal offence are on trial. The accused are still entitled to their rights too.

Caquas wrote: »

What purpose will these lawyers serve? Will they be allowed to examine witnesses? When the jury sees the “victim” has been given lawyers in addition to the prosecutors, how can they acquit?

One stated purpose of these lawyers is to “facilitate” the “victim” in “giving their best evidence" .

The victim isn’t given lawyers in addition to the prosecution, because the prosecution doesn’t represent the victim or victims, they represent the State. Victims will be entitled to separate legal representation in circumstances where the defence would try and introduce the previous sexual history of the victim into evidence, and because victims are appearing as witnesses for the State, it stands to reason that the State should pay for their legal representation.

Caquas wrote: »

And what about excluding exculpatory evidence?


Mobile phone evidence is a vital tool in criminal investigations but for sexual cases the Gardai are being given a clear warning - hands off the “victims” phone unless you can show it is “necessary” and it can “prove or disprove the allegations”. Not e.g.a stream of sexting between the parties beforehand or friendly messages afterwards unless the victim says “I consented to the sexual activity we engaged in” or something to that effect, which no one ever says in a text . And all Gardai will get expensive training to rid them of any contrary notions.

The one paragraph where the word “victim” isn’t used, yet you still imagine it applies only to the victim and not also to the accused.

Caquas wrote: »

Imagine if an official report into say drugs offences tried to restrict digital evidence in this way? The Sunday World would have the Minister’s head on a platter.

Graham O’ Dwyer would be able to tell you all about how digital evidence shouldn’t be permitted to be entered into evidence, no sign of the Sunday World having the Minister’s head on a platter.

optogirl wrote: »

But the fact remains that men are much more likely to be raped themselves than be falsely accused of rape.

What do you base that "fact" on?

I usually don't take much heed of feminist opinion pieces.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the highest victims of rape (may be in the US) are men...but thats in prison. Which is also were the term "rape culture" comes from that feminists stole and somehow applied it to generally in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately a lot of women do lie about these kind of things and in large part they do because they know they will get away with it. As many in the past have done.

Reputation destruction is one of the ways women (generally) display aggression as opposed to men who (generally) display aggression physically.

optogirl wrote: »

Statistics. What else could I possibly base it on?Graffiti on my local pubs loo door?

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-men-are-more-likely-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape

https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-false-rape-allegations-20181011-story.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684

https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html

You are pissing into the wind by stating the fact that men are more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape on this thread.

Alot see this thread as a gender war depite the fact that both men and women can be raped. A false accuser also will always be referred to as a "she" here despite there being no reason why a false accuser of rape cant be male.

Deleted User wrote: »

I always find it interesting that we're to believe women who claim that there are more rapes than are reported, but no similar expectation of belief is extended to males. Or similar.



A false accuser will be referred as "she" because that's the scenario that was introduced originally. If you want to talk about male on male rape, then, say so, and I'm sure someone will discuss it. But I've been reading this thread for a long time, and previously, the issue hadn't been raised. So... raise it (although perhaps you should have done it when there was more than 3 people posting here):rolleyes:

I


The thread is now upwards of 700 posts and predominately made up of the users and the victim is constantly refered to as she even tho the topic has moved on from the original post. I have raised the issue that rape is by no means just a man/women issue and quoted the fact a man is more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape. But it went down like a lead balloon. This thread which is on obviously a very serious subject is presumed by many to be a man/women and sets of a gender war.

Your quote above "I always find it interesting we are to believe women that there are more rapes than reported" is a perfect example. It is not just women who asert that fact, It is pretty much a known/excepted fact that more rapes occur than reported in every demographic.You did not need to word it in away that makes it into a gender war.