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

KomradeBishop

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Maybe you should listen to it yourself then :rolleyes:

Great, have you got a link, or a transcript?

KomradeBishop

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree


But this war crowd are saying that women should NEVER be prosecuted for making false allegations of rape.

Citation needed. So far, we have nothing to show that.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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

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

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.

The guardian has had a number if these cases highlighted for some reason. De freitas is the latest, where somehow her vulnerability is highlighted as making her above the law. If a rapist wasn't prosecuted because they were vulnerable there's be a very different reaction I suspect

Lyaiera

Wibbs wrote: »

I can see one side of the logic of this, namely that prosecuting such individuals may put off real victims from reporting for fear of punishment.

Yeah, I can see that too. Although it's a bit of a grandiose threat. I would imagine the far more prevalent reasons for not reporting a rape are to do with not being believed by friends and family, guilt and shame the victim feels in thinking they caused their rape, or that they didn't do enough to stop it, abuse from people who not only don't believe them but also feel they're lying, and people suppressing the rape and not wanting to deal with the inevitable consequences and trauma of it.

seamus wrote: »

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

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

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.

Timberrrrrrrr

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Great, have you got a link, or a transcript?

It doesn't seem to be up yet but i'm sure it will be here in the next few hours

http://classichits.ie/category/podcasts/

Timberrrrrrrr

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Citation needed. So far, we have nothing to show that.

Again feel free to listen to the podcast when it's uploaded.

Grayson

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

The example given in the story is one I've seen crop up recently. The police had no forensic evidence and said that no charges would be brought. The girl was ok with that, she understood that the police were limited in what they could do. The Accused brought a private prosecution.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/06/call-crown-prosecutors-account-suicide-alleged-rape-victim

Now saying that she killed herself to avoid consequences, that's the worst victim blaming I've heard. That's really messed up. I guess your username is a bit apt

CramCycle

There are huge dangers to false accusations and I am of the opinion that even if not pushed to the Gardai they should be prosecuted.

About 15 years ago a close friend had a rape allegation levelled against him in the public domain at a music festival, not reported to the Gardai, by a girl he knew in his social circle. His story was that he had fallen asleep that night, he woke up in his own tent where he went to sleep with his jeans still on. She claimed he had forced himself on her over the night. He was terrified, he still had his clothes on, she was inside a sleeping bag that she was still in when they woke up etc. I did not even know what to say to him. He said to me, worst case scenario, he had morning glory or he hugged the sleeping bag but that he was out of his bin, remembered everything but it would have been like a flaccid rope he was so drunk.

Later that day, a friend of the girls told us that the girl had made it up and admitted the whole thing to her and one or two others, he had rolled against the sleeping bag (not ideal) but that was it.

To this day he still gets looks from her friends, who were once his friends. It doesn't matter whether the mud sticks or is washed off, it will leave a stain that some will notice no matter what happens. An accusation does not have to go to the Gardai to be damaging, the guy doesn't even go home to the country for a pint with his mates in case he bumps into any of her social group.

mrkiscool2

Again, this would have to be done properly. Just as proving rape is tough, so is proving that someone who came forward with a rape allegation lied about is tough too. If the case goes to trial and the defendant gets off that doesn't mean the alleged victim lied, it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

However, if evidence is found that the woman lied about the rape then they should absolutely be prosecuted. Rape is one of the worst things someone can be accused of and even if they walk free and didn't do it, it's going to stick. Prosecuting any person who files a rape allegation when it wasn't true not only stops women (and men, because a man could also do it) from doing it but it would actually help the person accused of rape show that it was all BS and not have it hang over them for the rest of their lives. 109 prosecutions in 5 years sounds about right for somewhere like the UK and I applaud their judicial system for not letting liars, who dirty the name of the person they accuse and waste police time, get away with it!

The_Captain

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.