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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

False rape accusation...who would you believe?

Options
24567…36

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    H3llR4iser wrote: »
    [/B]Also, your "common friend" is a disph1t through and through.

    He was having a bit of craic FFS, he misread the situation with the girl. He didn't even know they had sex!


  • Options
    #33
    H3llR4iser
    Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭H3llR4iser


    professore wrote: »
    He was having a bit of craic FFS, he misread the situation with the girl. He didn't even know they had sex!

    Aaaand, we found the guy :D:D:D

    Jokes aside, that's a weird and misguided way to "have the craic"; One thing is teasing a friend directly ("Ah man, I saw you going home with Karen last night..."), another is spreading pointless gossip.


  • Options
    #34
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    H3llR4iser wrote: »
    Jokes aside, that's a weird and misguided way to "have the craic"; One thing is teasing a friend directly ("Ah man, I saw you going home with Karen last night..."), another is spreading pointless gossip.

    Depends on the context though. If you have a group of people out for an evening, and one leaves early with a member of the opposite sex, it is likely going to be a topic of discussion among the rest of the group. If you don't want that discussion to take place, exercise a bit of discretion.


  • Options
    #35
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Lux23 wrote: »
    We need a legal definition of consent. At the moment an honest belief of consent would be a good defence for an accused, even if the belief is unreasonable, i.e. like that case where the man raped his mother.

    Not sure how much it solves in terms of proof and deniability though. From the linked article the definition being sought by the rape crisis centre is that used in the UK, i.e

    “A person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”

    The cup of tea analogy also seems reasonable, but again does very little in terms of figuring out whether or not consent was given. I take your point that if you have a situation where someone claims rape in a situation where it would be highly unusual for the two people involved to have sex, that context should be taken into account, but for many other cases you're still left with one persons word against another without proof or witnesses.


  • Options
    #36
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Lux23 wrote: »
    We need a legal definition of consent. At the moment an honest belief of consent would be a good defence for an accused, even if the belief is unreasonable, i.e. like that case where the man raped his mother.

    There is a legal definition of consent. It is set out in The People (DPP) v C [2001] 3 IR 345 at 360:

    Consent means voluntary agreement or acquiescence to sexual intercourse by a person of the age of consent with the requisite mental capacity. Knowledge or understanding of the facts material to the act consented to is necessary for the consent to be voluntary or constitute acquiescence.

    What you are suggesting is that we change the mental element of "at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it" to add in "or he believes there is consent but that belief is unreasonable".

    In the case with the guy's mother, the jury simply didn't believe that he genuinely believed that she was consenting. Whether that was because they believed that it was unreasonable to believe that or not we will never know. The point is not that there is a defence of honest but unreasonable belief, the point is that the jury have to assess the reasonableness in order to assess the honesty of the belief, but that doesn't mean that if they find that it was unreasonable they don't have to consider the honesty at all.

    The amount of cases where a jury accept there is an honest but unreasonable belief must be very low, and in those situations it must be asked whether we should punish someone who was mentally innocent on the basis that a jury, looking at the facts in hindsight, wouldn't engage in that activity themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    smacl wrote: »
    Not sure how much it solves in terms of proof and deniability though. From the linked article the definition being sought by the rape crisis centre is that used in the UK, i.e

    “A person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”

    The cup of tea analogy also seems reasonable, but again does very little in terms of figuring out whether or not consent was given. I take your point that if you have a situation where someone claims rape in a situation where it would be highly unusual for the two people involved to have sex, that context should be taken into account, but for many other cases you're still left with one persons word against another without proof or witnesses.

    Yeah, the cup of tea analogy is more of a "Not Being A Rapist, For Dummies" kind of thing and so it falls short in explaining the actual stance of the law in these situations.

    If I offer someone tea and they say "yes please give me tea" and then they drink all the tea in the house am I going to be OK in the eyes of the law if that person subsequently says "I don't remember saying I wanted tea"?

    One of the main points of the Ched Evans case was not that the accuser had given or had not given consent. It was the fact that he had admitted having sex with her but she had said she did not remember anything.

    He says, I had sex with her and she gave consent. She says, I don't remember anything about that evening. He spends a few years in prison.

    How do you prove that someone doesn't remember something? How do you prove that a certain conversation did not take place?

    You could look at a more extreme example. Let's say there is video footage or a man bursting into a room and having sex with a woman while she screams "no". Let's say there is also an email conversation between that man and that woman where they agree that he will burst in and have sex with her while she screams "no" but her safeword is "chicken" and if she says that then he must stop immediately. Maybe later on she deletes the emails and takes the video footage to the police. What can anyone do in that situation?

    The focus for the police appears to simply be "more convictions" but a lot of the time it feels like we are asking innocent men to take one for the team and do a bit of prison time so that we can catch more guilty men.

    I think that's where most people in society set out their stall on this. Would you rather see a guilty man walk free or see an innocent man lose his freedom?

    If we all "listen and believe" 100% of the time then we will be able to catch EVERY rapist who is reported to the police. However this means that some innocent men will be sent away too. The easier it is to make a false accusation without personal consequences the more frequent those accusations will be.

    We'd be bringing in a kind of honour system where we are telling people that any accusation will result in a conviction but please don't make false accusations because that's a bad thing to do. It's like asking people not to kill each other because it's just about the worst thing you could do and then seriously expecting the murder rate to drop to zero. It's not going to happen. People will abuse the system.

    So it comes down how much abuse of the system we will accept.

    If you apply a Marxist lens to this and consider "men" to be the oppressors and "women" to be the oppressed then it follows that you would be OK with punishing "men" so long as it saved "women".

    If you look at things from an individual perspective then you would think well it's not just "some man" going to jail is it? It's my father or my brother or my friend or myself who's doing the time for a crime he didn't commit.

    If there was a group out there who were outraged at the mere suggestion of false accusations then that group would probably be quite dangerous if they ever aquired power.


  • Options
    #38
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Johnathan Tight Ape wrote: »
    You know we might not be all that far away from some formal consent system being created. Sounds mad but the world is getting a little crazier by the day.

    Consent could be captured via app either by a signature or a voice recording. Of course the snag is whether either person is so intoxicated that they cannot consent even if they say so.

    One night stands are extremely risky for lads, completely open to being ruined.

    This system would probably not work as it is wide open to abuse, in my opinion.

    Basically once the contract is signed or the voice recorded then there is no way back. They can't withdraw consent and legally they can't do anything if a person they have just officially consented to refuses to acknowledge withdrawl of that consent.

    I think it's the equivalent to the idea that there is no rape in a marriage.

    Too much room for abuse as far as I am concerned.

    We may well be see in the future that young lads will commit to a "no sex before marriage" type situation so that they are really only having sex with people they feel they can trust to not use it against them in the future.

    I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with the idea that a woman I've just recently met can say "I don't remember a thing" and I might end up in trouble over that. Not worth it.

    Of course this could create a sort of pendulum swing where men would now have the traditional sexual leverage in relationships that once belonged to women. The ladies would have to work hard to earn the trust of the man before he agrees to put out.


  • Options
    #39
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Lux23 wrote: »
    So if I heard a guy was accused by someone and the charges never got anywhere, knowing what I know about our legal system, I would always be wary of him. And really who could blame me?


    The person who is innocent could remind you that you are responsible for your own thoughts. That is of course if they actually cared enough about gossip, rumours and speculation that judged them to be guilty outside of a court of law. When I was falsely accused, there were people so 'wary' of me that I was coming home one night from work and was set upon by a mob looking to "teach me a lesson". What started as a girl trying to gain favour among her peer group by telling them she had slept with me, ended up with her being pressured into accusing me of rape. I knew the case would go nowhere because I had been in work at the time she was suggesting the events had taken place, so I didn't have any worries about being able to prove my innocence in court.

    I didn't entertain speculation, rumours and gossip even among people who were my friends at the time, one of whom even suggested "does she know you're gay?", hell that was the first I'd heard of it either, but their assumption too was based upon what they knew of gay men (I walk with a limp because of a birth defect, not because I had a busy weekend!).

    It didn't however "ruin my life", and the episode didn't ruin the girls life who falsely accused me of rape. We've actually since put the episode behind us and become friends, because I had no interest in seeing her condemned by anyone for her actions either.

    There's always far more to these scenarios and situations in real life than the simplistic scenario laid out by the OP and if anyone were "wary" of me for because I was accused of rape and the case went nowhere, I genuinely wouldn't care that much as that person just wouldn't be worth my time.


  • Options
    #40
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    orubiru wrote: »
    One of the main points of the Ched Evans case was not that the accuser had given or had not given consent. It was the fact that he had admitted having sex with her but she had said she did not remember anything.

    He says, I had sex with her and she gave consent. She says, I don't remember anything about that evening. He spends a few years in prison.

    How do you prove that someone doesn't remember something? How do you prove that a certain conversation did not take place?

    Not quite. He said he had consensual sex with her but didn't speak to her before, during or after. So we know that no conversation took place because of what he said.

    In any event, he was acquitted on retrial.
    You could look at a more extreme example. Let's say there is video footage or a man bursting into a room and having sex with a woman while she screams "no". Let's say there is also an email conversation between that man and that woman where they agree that he will burst in and have sex with her while she screams "no" but her safeword is "chicken" and if she says that then he must stop immediately. Maybe later on she deletes the emails and takes the video footage to the police. What can anyone do in that situation?

    They can give evidence of the agreement and the circumstances and it's down to who the jury believe. Much like every case.

    ...

    If there was a group out there who were outraged at the mere suggestion of false accusations then that group would probably be quite dangerous if they ever aquired power.

    That's why we have jury trials, yes.


  • Options
    #41
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,271 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The person who is innocent could remind you that you are responsible for your own thoughts. That is of course if they actually cared enough about gossip, rumours and speculation that judged them to be guilty outside of a court of law. When I was falsely accused, there were people so 'wary' of me that I was coming home one night from work and was set upon by a mob looking to "teach me a lesson". What started as a girl trying to gain favour among her peer group by telling them she had slept with me, ended up with her being pressured into accusing me of rape. I knew the case would go nowhere because I had been in work at the time she was suggesting the events had taken place, so I didn't have any worries about being able to prove my innocence in court.

    I didn't entertain speculation, rumours and gossip even among people who were my friends at the time, one of whom even suggested "does she know you're gay?", hell that was the first I'd heard of it either, but their assumption too was based upon what they knew of gay men (I walk with a limp because of a birth defect, not because I had a busy weekend!).

    It didn't however "ruin my life", and the episode didn't ruin the girls life who falsely accused me of rape. We've actually since put the episode behind us and become friends, because I had no interest in seeing her condemned by anyone for her actions either.

    There's always far more to these scenarios and situations in real life than the simplistic scenario laid out by the OP and if anyone were "wary" of me for because I was accused of rape and the case went nowhere, I genuinely wouldn't care that much as that person just wouldn't be worth my time.


    You're a very forgiving person when it ended up with you getting a hiding, if someone falsely accused me of rape I'd want to see them charged and no way would I ever end up friends with them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    neonsofa
    Registered Users Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Not quite. He said he had consensual sex with her but didn't speak to her before, during or after. So we know that no conversation took place because of what he said.

    .

    He didn't speak to her but she spoke during the event AFAIK. In such a way that he believed she was giving consent.

    The grey area though is that even if she explicitly said "I give consent", if she was so drunk that she claimed not to rememeber the next day, is that consent null and void due to the fact that she wasn't of "sound mind" or whatever way you want to phrase it? I dont know the law on that. We can have all the contracts in the world but if it was signed by someone when they are drunk, can they actually give informed consent? As it stands like.


  • Options
    #43
    please helpThank YOU
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭please helpThank YOU


    Ben Gadot wrote: »
    It has always sounded like a living nightmare to me.

    I'm never quick to pick up the pitchfork anyway and certainly not quick to abandon someone. I mean if it was me that was falsely accused, I'd like to think that the people I count as friends and as my blood wouldn't rush to judgement of me.

    Anyway, as an aside I've no problem with one night stands but I think blokes could do with being a bit more sensible in that situation and steer clear of anyone that comes across as a mess. Just not worth the potential fall out.
    you are 100 per cent right what you are say . but the sad fact of life in Ireland a lot of people so called friends will kick you when your down and let you down all because of a lie just one lie and your life can be over . but its up to the person who is Wronged to take a new road the people friends who let you down in a time of need are subhuman and Karma what goes around comes around friends who let you down are the same as false rape accusationthe are both as evil to innocent man ./women.


  • Options
    #44
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,873 ✭✭✭iptba


    (From the UK)
    Rape victims to be allowed to give pre-recorded evidence to avoid the trauma of cross-examination

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4328472/Rape-victims-allowed-pre-recorded-evidence.html


  • Options
    #45
    please helpThank YOU
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭please helpThank YOU


    Lux23 wrote: »
    Just because someone is not convicted or even officially charged it doesn't necessarily mean the accusation is false. People jump to this conclusion all too quickly. A criminal conviction requires a high burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and so in the case of a rape where you have to weigh up the stories of two people, it is very hard for a prosecution to piece together a case. And prosecution services won't take cases unless they have a good chance of winning - certainly in Ireland and the UK.

    So if I heard a guy was accused by someone and the charges never got anywhere, knowing what I know about our legal system, I would always be wary of him. And really who could blame me?
    you have no right to Judge anyone who are you to Judge someone.


  • Options
    #46
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,141 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    please helpThank YOU wrote: »
    you have no right to Judge anyone who are you to Judge someone.

    Be more civil when addressing other posters please.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #47
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    please helpThank YOU wrote: »
    you have no right to Judge anyone who are you to Judge someone.

    A citizen in a free country?


  • Options
    #48
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    I think im a big believer in innocent until proven guilty and think that complete anonimity on both sides should be provided until a conviction has been reached.

    If it can be proven that the accuser has completely fabricated the incident , a custodial sentence similar to what the defendant would have received should be issued.

    What people don't seem to corelate is that the false accusations without reprecussions only serve to make judges careful to convict so the conviction rates arent what they should be.

    Sadly we now live in a society where the mud sticks so a false accusation can be made and ruin somebodys life without consequence.


  • Options
    #49
    please helpThank YOU
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭please helpThank YOU


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    I think im a big believer in innocent until proven guilty and think that complete anonimity on both sides should be provided until a conviction has been reached.

    If it can be proven that the accuser has completely fabricated the incident , a custodial sentence similar to what the defendant would have received should be issued.

    What people don't seem to corelate is that the false accusations without reprecussions only serve to make judges careful to convict so the conviction rates arent what they should be.

    Sadly we now live in a society where the mud sticks so a false accusation can be made and ruin somebodys life without consequence.
    people who make false accusation of rape should be Jailed for at least 15 years . named and shamed as this is very evil act to do a innocent human being.


  • Options
    #50
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    please helpThank YOU wrote: »
    people who make false accusation of rape should be Jailed for at least 15 years . named and shamed as this is very evil act to do a innocent human being.

    Ah come on, rapists don't get jailed for 15 years. Total over reaction.


  • Options
    #51
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    pilly wrote: »
    Ah come on, rapists don't get jailed for 15 years. Total over reaction.

    if we started cutting out the false accusations , we could start giving propper 15-20 years to rapists, like they deserve


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    if we started cutting out the false accusations , we could start giving propper 15-20 years to rapists, like they deserve


    They're two completely unrelated offences. A false allegation of rape would be an example of 'perverting the course of justice' which has the possibility in some countries, and depending upon the circumstances of the case, of carrying a life sentence.


  • Options
    #53
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    They're two completely unrelated offences. A false allegation of rape would be an example of 'perverting the course of justice' which has the possibility in some countries, and depending upon the circumstances of the case, of carrying a life sentence.



    true, but we're a country of precedent, if we could start handing out 'perverting the course of justice' in rape cases 15 years, after a few convictions that would become the expectation.

    My point really was though , that the above user had said a rapist doesnt get 15 here, I would be of the opinion that because of false allegations cropping up, judges are hesitant to hand down sentences as above, so a few questionable rape cases get convictions of 2, 3, 5 years and as above, precedent sets that as the standard. If you clean up the false allegations, judges can start handing out 15+ stretches with confidence, it becomes the norm, offenders are more afraid of offending because of the severity, potential re-offenders are locked up longer, false accusers are a lot less likely to accuse,

    end result is more safety for people from being sexually assaulted / raped, more safety for people from being falsely accused and ruining their lives. The only people who come off worse are liars and actual rapists.


  • Options
    #54
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    if we started cutting out the false accusations , we could start giving propper 15-20 years to rapists, like they deserve

    How are you connecting those two things?


  • Options
    #55
    please helpThank YOU
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭please helpThank YOU


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    true, but we're a country of precedent, if we could start handing out 'perverting the course of justice' in rape cases 15 years, after a few convictions that would become the expectation.

    My point really was though , that the above user had said a rapist doesnt get 15 here, I would be of the opinion that because of false allegations cropping up, judges are hesitant to hand down sentences as above, so a few questionable rape cases get convictions of 2, 3, 5 years and as above, precedent sets that as the standard. If you clean up the false allegations, judges can start handing out 15+ stretches with confidence, it becomes the norm, offenders are more afraid of offending because of the severity, potential re-offenders are locked up longer, false accusers are a lot less likely to accuse,

    end result is more safety for people from being sexually assaulted / raped, more safety for people from being falsely accused and ruining their lives. The only people who come off worse are liars and actual rapists.
    I agree 100 per cent in your post. long prison sentence for rapist 15 to 20 years in Jail . and 15 to 20 years in Jail for Men/Women who make false rape accusations long prison sentence for both of the most serious heinous crimes.


  • Options
    #56
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    true, but we're a country of precedent, if we could start handing out 'perverting the course of justice' in rape cases 15 years, after a few convictions that would become the expectation.


    It wouldn't, as they're two completely separate and distinct offences, completely unrelated to one another.

    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    My point really was though , that the above user had said a rapist doesnt get 15 here, I would be of the opinion that because of false allegations cropping up, judges are hesitant to hand down sentences as above, so a few questionable rape cases get convictions of 2, 3, 5 years and as above, precedent sets that as the standard. If you clean up the false allegations, judges can start handing out 15+ stretches with confidence, it becomes the norm, offenders are more afraid of offending because of the severity, potential re-offenders are locked up longer, false accusers are a lot less likely to accuse,


    One has nothing to do with the other. False allegations are so incredibly rare that they aren't just 'popping up'. You hear about one or two in the media only because of how rare they are, just like you'll only ever hear about a handful of cases where a person has been convicted of rape, again because the details of the case usually make for good tabloid fodder. There are quite literally numerous reasons why the maximum sentence for a conviction of rape is never handed down. One of the most obvious ones is simply the cost of incarceration is too great. Judges sentencing decisions are informed by sentencing guidelines, the circumstances of the case, and their own discretion. That's why cases like this, this and this, make headlines. People btw who actually commit rape, they're never afraid of the possibility of a jail sentence, no matter how long it could be, because they never plan on getting caught. Most of the time they're actually banking on the person being too reluctant to make a complaint.

    It should be noted too that just because a person may be found 'not guilty' by a jury, it doesn't at all necessarily follow that the complainants allegation was false. It means the case presented by the prosecution didn't satisfy the conditions of the burden of proof required to prove the allegations against the defendant who always has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecuting someone for perverting the course of justice would require that the prosecution meet the same standard of proof required, because again the defendant would be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    end result is more safety for people from being sexually assaulted / raped, more safety for people from being falsely accused and ruining their lives. The only people who come off worse are liars and actual rapists.


    The end result would be that even more people would be afraid to make a complaint for fear of being convicted of perverting the course of justice, so it would mean the exact opposite of your claim above.


  • Options
    #57
    please helpThank YOU
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭please helpThank YOU


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It wouldn't, as they're two completely separate and distinct offences, completely unrelated to one another.





    One has nothing to do with the other. False allegations are so incredibly rare that they aren't just 'popping up'. You hear about one or two in the media only because of how rare they are, just like you'll only ever hear about a handful of cases where a person has been convicted of rape, again because the details of the case usually make for good tabloid fodder. There are quite literally numerous reasons why the maximum sentence for a conviction of rape is never handed down. One of the most obvious ones is simply the cost of incarceration is too great. Judges sentencing decisions are informed by sentencing guidelines, the circumstances of the case, and their own discretion. That's why cases like this, this and this, make headlines. People btw who actually commit rape, they're never afraid of the possibility of a jail sentence, no matter how long it could be, because they never plan on getting caught. Most of the time they're actually banking on the person being too reluctant to make a complaint.

    It should be noted too that just because a person may be found 'not guilty' by a jury, it doesn't at all necessarily follow that the complainants allegation was false. It means the case presented by the prosecution didn't satisfy the conditions of the burden of proof required to prove the allegations against the defendant who always has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecuting someone for perverting the course of justice would require that the prosecution meet the same standard of proof required, because again the defendant would be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.





    The end result would be that even more people would be afraid to make a complaint for fear of being convicted of perverting the course of justice, so it would mean the exact opposite of your claim above.
    you say in your post that false allegation are so incredibly rare? can you back that up with facts? because I went on the central statistics office web site on recorded crime Offences by Garda division . type of Offences . .and there is not one record on file from the year 2003 to 2016. section 12 of the criminal law act 1976 any person who a knowingly makes a false report or statement. so what that is tell me our any one who looks at this that no person in Ireland has made a complaint to Garda in 13 years that a Man/Women has made false rape accustion. ?


  • Options
    #58
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    please helpThank YOU wrote: »
    you say in your post that false allegation are so incredibly rare? can you back that up with facts? because I went on the central statistics office web site on recorded crime Offences by Garda division . type of Offences . .and there is not one record on file from the year 2003 to 2016. section 12 of the criminal law act 1976 any person who a knowingly makes a false report or statement. so what that is tell me our any one who looks at this that no person in Ireland has made a complaint to Garda in 13 years that a Man/Women has made false rape accustion. ?


    You just backed it up with facts yourself? :confused:


  • Options
    #59
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    please helpThank YOU wrote: »
    you say in your post that false allegation are so incredibly rare? can you back that up with facts? because I went on the central statistics office web site on recorded crime Offences by Garda division . type of Offences . .and there is not one record on file from the year 2003 to 2016. section 12 of the criminal law act 1976 any person who a knowingly makes a false report or statement. so what that is tell me our any one who looks at this that no person in Ireland has made a complaint to Garda in 13 years that a Man/Women has made false rape accustion. ?

    Is that even a category on its own? Even a 10 second Google search shows people being prosecuted for giving false statements. You're trying to fit the facts around your opinion.


  • Options
    #60
    Here we go
    Registered Users Posts: 286 ✭✭Here we go


    How do you decide a false claim from ature claim that the prosicution couldn't prove as far as I'm aware the % of sucsesful convictions is small


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Here we go wrote: »
    How do you decide a false claim from ature claim that the prosicution couldn't prove as far as I'm aware the % of sucsesful convictions is small

    The conviction rate is small as the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, as would a false claim be. Some people saying just because a conviction didnt happen doesnt mean the rape didnt, by the same token a lot of cases cant be proved false beyond reasonable doubt so thats dropped too. False accusations are even harder to prove as bar concrete evidence like the accuser telling a third party who comes forward or an email / text etc.. its almost impossible to prove they just made it up, especially in the common cases where both parties agree that the intercourse did take place.

    Look at ched evans, the chaps life is still in tatters even though he's innocent, but trying to secure a conviction for a false claim that lands her with a custodial sentence is impossible


Advertisement