False rape accusation...who would you believe?

wmahcm

creditcarder wrote: »

Why not? The figures about false accusations you are saying are dubious as most police are not going to investigate if an accusation is false, and that doesn't include times where the woman says she was 'drunk', she did not explicetly say yes, or some other form of malarkey.



Tbh, if the figure is 10 % of proven false accusations then I imagine you can multiply that by a disturbing degree.

Does anyone know what's the ratio of unreported / unprosecuted rapes to false accusations ?

ittakestwo

creditcarder wrote: »

Why not? The figures about false accusations you are saying are dubious as most police are not going to investigate if an accusation is false, and that doesn't include times where the woman says she was 'drunk', she did not explicetly say yes, or some other form of malarkey.



Tbh, if the figure is 10 % of proven false accusations then I imagine you can multiply that by a disturbing degree.

Not being able to prove rape does not mean a rape did not happen. It is very hard thing to prove and often the prosecution give up on lack of evidence. If It is somebodys word against another then the prosecution is doomed. So only 10 % of reported rapes end in a conviction in ireland. But obviously this does not mean the other 90% of unconvicted reports of rape are false accusations. Only a nutter would read it that way.

wmahcm

ittakestwo wrote: »

Not being able to prove rape does not mean a rape did not happen. It is very hard thing to prove and often the prosecution give up on lack of evidence. If It is somebodys word against another then the prosecution is doomed. So only 10 % of reported rapes end in a conviction in ireland. But obviously this does not mean the other 90% of unconvicted reports of rape are false accusations. Only a nutter would read it that way.

It's an abysmal conviction rate, how can it be improved ?

iptba

I think the conviction rate should be seen in the context that the conviction rate for a lots of crimes is quite low.

wmahcm

iptba wrote: »

I think the conviction rate should be seen in the context that the conviction rate for a lots of crimes is quite low.

How does it compare to the conviction rates for other crimes, and why are they also so low ?

creditcarder

wmahcm wrote: »

It's an abysmal conviction rate, how can it be improved ?

Have a lower threshold of evidence, blocking the accused from giving pertinent evidence, discrediting evidence that could go against the evidence that the accused does give, and just generally not believing what the accused says.



Tbh, I think false accusations are on the rise and are a part of the 90 %.

creditcarder

creditcarder wrote: »

Tbh, I think false accusations are on the rise and are a part of the 90 %.

Why would you think that?

wmahcm

creditcarder wrote: »

Have a lower threshold of evidence, blocking the accused from giving pertinent evidence, discrediting evidence that could go against the evidence that the accused does give, and just generally not believing what the accused says.

Tbh, I think false accusations are on the rise and are a part of the 90 %.

Sorry, I'm not buying the "most rape claims are false" shyte

wmahcm

wmahcm wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not buying the "most rape claims are false" shyte

Which he didn't say. He said that they're part of the 90% and that such claims are on the rise.

Which they probably are.. since we've seen a variety of claims debunked who were inspired by the metoo campaign.

I don't believe that most claims are false. I do think that many claims are confused considering the way that consent and regret sex has been made so conditional and fluid.

creditcarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Which he didn't say. He said that they're part of the 90% and that such claims are on the rise.

Which they probably are.. since we've seen a variety of claims debunked who were inspired by the metoo campaign.

I don't believe that most claims are false. I do think that many claims are confused considering the way that consent and regret sex has been made so conditional and fluid.

Bingo, but I'd add that the person is still a false accuser. They're not idiots/children and they know that they consented. And, before people reply, I am not going down the rabbit hole of drinking and sex.



Also, it's hilarious how you see a common arguing style lately. 1) Ask a question but not give any of your own opinoin, or 2) Grossly overexagerate what the person is saying.



Tbh, it's best to just ignore those types of people if you ever meet them in real life. They are usually people who you don't want to be around.

creditcarder

creditcarder wrote: »

Bingo, but I'd add that the person is still a false accuser. They're not idiots/children and they know that they consented. And, before people reply, I am not going down the rabbit hole of drinking and sex.
.

I'm a believer in personal responsibility. If you chose to get drunk, and go home with a stranger, then you're responsible for what happens. But then, I'm male. There's very little sympathy given to guys who end up beaten up or killed for their bad choices.

There should be a return to encouraging people to be aware of their personal safety rather than this encouraging of females to behave any way they wish. Males are generally better able to protect themselves due to natural physical differences. It's just the way things are.

Any claim to a legal authority that paints another person as an aggressor should be dealt with in a serious manner, but so too should the person making the claim be held accountable for making the claim. False or confused claims cause damage especially these days with the "believe her" movement.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm a believer in personal responsibility. If you chose to get drunk, and go home with a stranger, then you're responsible for what happens. But then, I'm male. There's very little sympathy given to guys who end up beaten up or killed for their bad choices.
.

So you believe that if your drunk & you go back to a house, for whatever reason, if someone in that house kills you, then you are responsible for that??!
Really?
Of course you are not responsible.
What if you are sober & someone kills you, are you responsible then?

Eric Cartman

bubblypop wrote: »

So you believe that if your drunk & you go back to a house, for whatever reason, if someone in that house kills you, then you are responsible for that??!
Really?
Of course you are not responsible.
What if you are sober & someone kills you, are you responsible then?

false comparison.

when somebody youve been kissing or flirting with invites you back to their house, any reasonable person can tell you what theyre expecting.

bar somebody going 'come back to my house ill murder you' , nobody goes to a house expecting to be murdered.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

So you believe that if your drunk & you go back to a house, for whatever reason, if someone in that house kills you, then you are responsible for that??!
Really?
Of course you are not responsible.
What if you are sober & someone kills you, are you responsible then?

I often wonder why posters can't stick with the example being used and need to interject an entirely different example instead. So.. let's make it easier for you.

A female who meets a stranger, gets drunk/tipsy, and decides to go back to his home/hotel. A reasonably common scenario. A "successful" or "failed" sexual encounter, the girl leaves and claims rape thereafter.

I spoke about personal responsibility and being aware of personal safety. You, on the other hand, are objecting because it's horrible that people should be responsible for their own safety.

And no... I'm not going to join a long discussion on the topic, because it's been done to death before. Your quoted post set the theme, and I can quite easily imagine the line of arguments you'd make.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I often wonder why posters can't stick with the example being used and need to interject an entirely different example instead. So.. let's make it easier for you.

A female who meets a stranger, gets drunk/tipsy, and decides to go back to his home/hotel. A reasonably common scenario. A "successful" or "failed" sexual encounter, the girl leaves and claims rape thereafter.

I spoke about personal responsibility and being aware of personal safety. You, on the other hand, are objecting because it's horrible that people should be responsible for their own safety.

And no... I'm not going to join a long discussion on the topic, because it's been done to death before. Your quoted post set the theme, and I can quite easily imagine the line of arguments you'd make.

You are the one that came up with the scenario, so are you responsible if someone assaults you when you are drunk?

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

false comparison.

when somebody youve been kissing or flirting with invites you back to their house, any reasonable person can tell you what theyre expecting.

bar somebody going 'come back to my house ill murder you' , nobody goes to a house expecting to be murdered.

He came up with the scenario.
& no, I don't believe that everyone expects to get sex because someone is kissing them!
I certainly wouldn't

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

You are the one that came up with the scenario, so are you responsible if someone assaults you when you are drunk?

You're responsible for placing yourself in a dangerous situation while drunk. So, yup.

Are you responsible for what the aggressor does? Nope. You're responsible for your own behavior and any precautions you might make (or ignore) regarding your own safety.

So placing yourself in a dodgy or dangerous position is irresponsible, and that is what society should be focusing on reducing... rather than passing all responsibility on to the aggressor.

So.. is my position clear enough? Don't worry.. I'm aware that you don't agree with me.

Eric Cartman

bubblypop wrote: »

He came up with the scenario.
& no, I don't believe that everyone expects to get sex because someone is kissing them!
I certainly wouldn't

nobody said they did , but im hardly inviting them back to mine / being invited to theirs for a game of scrabble, its the being invited to their house afterwards sets the implication , accepting that invite alone is a strong barometer of consent.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that invite alone is a strong barometer of consent.

No it is not!
Seriously, learn from this.... Just because a female is in your house, does not mean she automatically wants sex.
Can't believe you have to be told that

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're responsible for placing yourself in a dangerous situation while drunk. So, yup.

.. rather than passing all responsibility on to the aggressor. .

No. No it does not. A victim is not to blame.

Seriously, you think society should be teaching people that they are responsible for what some asshole does to them!

Let's hope you are never a victim. & if you are you are tested with respect as you should be.

Eric Cartman

bubblypop wrote: »

No it is not!
Seriously, learn from this.... Just because a female is in your house, does not mean she automatically wants sex.
Can't believe you have to be told that

why did you bring gender into this, women invite people to their houses for sex too.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why did you bring gender into this, women invite people to their houses for sex too.

Of course, but women also invite people to their house not expecting sex.
Just because you are in someone's house or they are in your house, does not automatically mean sex.
You do know that right?

creditcarder

bubblypop wrote: »

So you believe that if your drunk & you go back to a house, for whatever reason, if someone in that house kills you, then you are responsible for that??!
Really?
Of course you are not responsible.
What if you are sober & someone kills you, are you responsible then?

Hmmm, yeah, kinda. Like, if a guy is asking for you to go down an alley and you have been drinking all day, you would be judged for going down the alley.



BUT, nobody here is saying that a woman should expect rape or is blamed if she is raped while drunk and she says no. What people are complaining about is where a woman can say she was raped because she had a pint or did not explicitly say 'I consent' (apparently moaning or recipricol movements don't count :P) to avoid her friends being cruel to her.



I repeat, nobody is saying that a woman deserve to be raped or any other ad-hominen attack, or is blamed for being raped (in the actual sense of the word and not the new definition to keep up rape numbers based on false studies).

creditcarder

bubblypop wrote: »

No. No it does not. A victim is not to blame.

Seriously, you think society should be teaching people that they are responsible for what some asshole does to them!

Let's hope you are never a victim. & if you are you are tested with respect as you should be.

Well, he is a man so at some point he has most probably been a victim of assault :P

creditcarder

bubblypop wrote: »

No it is not!
Seriously, learn from this.... Just because a female is in your house, does not mean she automatically wants sex.
Can't believe you have to be told that

He;s speaking in the sense that in a courtroom it is used to prove that consent was possible.



Again, nobody is saying that if a man violently rapes a woman that she is to blame.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

No. No it does not. A victim is not to blame.

Naturally. That's why I'd prefer society to stop encouraging women to be victims, and instead take care of their personal safety by being aware of the very real dangers that exist. Getting drunk and going back to a strangers home/hotel is dangerous.

Seriously, you think society should be teaching people that they are responsible for what some asshole does to them!

Once again, you're reading what you want to read... rather than what I wrote. Perhaps read what I wrote again? :rolleyes:

Once more, I'll make it easy for you:
"Are you responsible for what the aggressor does? Nope. You're responsible for your own behavior and any precautions you might make (or ignore) regarding your own safety."

Let's hope you are never a victim. & if you are you are tested with respect as you should be.

I've been mugged, assaulted various times, and put in hospital by a group of seven guys (I've also been assaulted a few times by drunk females, including a bottle to the back of the head). I'm very aware of the dangers out there. In most cases, I could have taken measures or acted differently to prevent them from happening. Not even simple decisions looked back upon with hindsight, but by being aware of my surroundings and, well, not being a dick. Lesson learned. Haven't had any further problems in over a decade.

See... the problem with your attitude is the assumption that I'm disrespecting a victim. I'm not. They have my sympathy for what happened to them.

The difference between us is that I'm not expecting the world to magically change into a fairlyland where females can behave as men would and not be exposed to danger... You're expecting that females can behave any way they want, and that they hold no responsibility for what happens... but what does that achieve? Nothing... because those dangers are going to continue to exist.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Naturally. That's why I'd prefer society to stop encouraging women to be victims, and instead take care of their personal safety by being aware of the very real dangers that exist. Getting drunk and going back to a strangers home/hotel is dangerous.



Once again, you're reading what you want to read... rather than what I wrote. Perhaps read what I wrote again? :rolleyes:

Once more, I'll make it easy for you:
"Are you responsible for what the aggressor does? Nope. You're responsible for your own behavior and any precautions you might make (or ignore) regarding your own safety."



I've been mugged, assaulted various times, and put in hospital by a group of seven guys (I've also been assaulted a few times by drunk females, including a bottle to the back of the head). I'm very aware of the dangers out there. In most cases, I could have taken measures or acted differently to prevent them from happening. Not even simple decisions looked back upon with hindsight, but by being aware of my surroundings and, well, not being a dick. Lesson learned. Haven't had any further problems in over a decade.

See... the problem with your attitude is the assumption that I'm disrespecting a victim. I'm not. They have my sympathy for what happened to them.

The difference between us is that I'm not expecting the world to magically change into a fairlyland where females can behave as men would and not be exposed to danger... You're expecting that females can behave any way they want, and that they hold no responsibility for what happens... but what does that achieve? Nothing... because those dangers are going to continue to exist.

No, the difference between you & me is that I know the victim is never to blame.
& giving security or safety advise is just that, it does not absolve any offender of wrongdoing, neither does it blame the victim for whatever an offender does to them.
I'm sorry you feel that you were in someway to blame for everything that happened to you, you are not.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. The person that does something illegal or bad, causing hurt to a victim, is always wrong. Always.
And I'm very sorry you seem to think society should somehow excuse offenders because their victim did something stupid.

ittakestwo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Naturally. That's why I'd prefer society to stop encouraging women to be victims, and instead take care of their personal safety by being aware of the very real dangers that exist. Getting drunk and going back to a strangers home/hotel is dangerous.



Once again, you're reading what you want to read... rather than what I wrote. Perhaps read what I wrote again? :rolleyes:

Once more, I'll make it easy for you:
"Are you responsible for what the aggressor does? Nope. You're responsible for your own behavior and any precautions you might make (or ignore) regarding your own safety."



I've been mugged, assaulted various times, and put in hospital by a group of seven guys (I've also been assaulted a few times by drunk females, including a bottle to the back of the head). I'm very aware of the dangers out there. In most cases, I could have taken measures or acted differently to prevent them from happening. Not even simple decisions looked back upon with hindsight, but by being aware of my surroundings and, well, not being a dick. Lesson learned. Haven't had any further problems in over a decade.

See... the problem with your attitude is the assumption that I'm disrespecting a victim. I'm not. They have my sympathy for what happened to them.

The difference between us is that I'm not expecting the world to magically change into a fairlyland where females can behave as men would and not be exposed to danger... You're expecting that females can behave any way they want, and that they hold no responsibility for what happens... but what does that achieve? Nothing... because those dangers are going to continue to exist.

Would you stop making rape being a battle of the genders.

Would you say this guy who was raped in dublin last year was partially to blame as he walked the streets intoxicated and thus put himself in danger. If you were raped when in intoxicated, what would you think if people felt you were partly to blame because of the circumstances you put yourself in.

Circumstances are subjective and it would be sad if the law let circumstances of rape be a defence. Obviously people should not put themselves in danger but when a crime is committed you can not hold them responsible because someone else wrong doing.

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/man-jailed-for-rape-of-victim-he-found-lying-unconscious-on-dublin-street-1.4117122

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

No, the difference between you & me is that I know the victim is never to blame.
& giving security or safety advise is just that, it does not absolve any offender of wrongdoing, neither does it blame the victim for whatever an offender does to them.
I'm sorry you feel that you were in someway to blame for everything that happened to you, you are not.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. The person that does something illegal or bad, causing hurt to a victim, is always wrong. Always.
And I'm very sorry you seem to think society should somehow excuse offenders because their victim did something stupid.

You really are incapable of reading and responding to what I actually wrote, aren't you? (rather than making crap up, like your last sentence)

blue note

The big difference between someone going back to a house and being beaten compared to raped is that no-one goes back to someone's house wanting to be beaten, whereas plenty of people do for sex. And often (the majority of cases I think) in the case of a rape there's no physical evidence to show that sex was not consensual. Add to that the fact that there won't be any witnesses to the rape, alcohol is virtually always present so people's memories will be impaired and easily called into question in a trial and you'll have one person's word against another, I can't imagine how hard it is to get a conviction for rape.

And separately, life is full of putting yourself into situations that carry different degrees of risk. I'm going skiing in a month and there's a chance some out of control skier will ski into me and I could get seriously injured. I was at my stag this weekend. I was drunk wearing a dress in a town. If I'd wandered off from my group the chances of me being beaten up by people looking at me as an easy target would be infinitely higher than any time I can remember in the last few years. I wouldn't be responsible for the people's choice to attack me if anyone had, I knew going out that I was putting myself in a position of risk. And at least that was my choice.

I suppose the point is that people should have the information to make informed decisions. If you choose to get drunk the chances of a predator targeting you are far higher. It's terrible that these people exist but they do and they always will. Making informed decisions about your own personal safety and a person's accountability for committing crimes against you are separate. I wouldn't judge someone for doing things that carry greater degrees of risk, including things like getting drunk or sharing a bed with a male friend, etc. But I do judge people that say things like "rapists will rape, there's nothing you can do to protect yourself." people should be allowed to make informed decisions and misinformation like this is not helpful.