Let’s get one thing straight… If making it easier to report rape has as a side-effect that more innocent men will end up in prison, is this an acceptable trade-off to you?
Do you believe that *all *crimes should go unprosecuted because innocent people have gone to prison in the past?
Why do you think that rape accusations, if treated seriously and investigated with the same rigor as other crimes, would lead to a higher level of false convictions than those other crimes?
Please properly read what I wrote. Just above the last paragraph it says: “I doubt there is much evidence either way, but why would false accusations increase as a result of victims not having to face their rapists in court? Crazy people decide to falsely accuse innocent people, I doubt having to see them in court would deter them.”
There is nowhere that I said it would be an acceptable trade-off. I doubt it will come into play much. But even then, say the total amount of false accusations rises, but the percentage is the same as for any other crime, then yes, that is acceptable. Just as acceptable as for all other crime. If the measures only increase the false accusations and are not helping actual victims, then you’ve taken the wrong measures.
:rolleyes:
No its not “okay”. Rape has very very heavy penalties, usually after murder its the most heavily punished crimes. This an order different from being falsely accused of littering or public drunkeness or a traffic offence.
And the same amount of false accusations as for any other crime is just going to have to be acceptable. Obviously we need to do what we can to prevent locking up innocent people, nobody is arguing we shouldn’t. What is unacceptable is to demand a lower-than-average percentage of false accusations in the case of rape only.
Also, I didn’t use the word “okay”. Don’t use quotation marks of you’re not quoting me.
I’m going to leave this thread now, boiling point has been reached. I don’t want to read any more crap about how in the special case of women being raped, men need extra protection.
I’m unsure how “more innocent men end up in prison” is a natural result of crimes being easier to report. The investigative process is still the same, is it not? We haven’t lowered the threshold of proof for rape convictions.
All crimes have false convictions and certainly we should always err on the side of underprosecuting, not overprosecuting.
If they were treated like other crimes, then only because a rape accusation is useful accusation to use as a weapon, being a particularly serious crime, and not needing a corpse as an accusation of murder would. An accusation that tends to stick even if there’s an acquittal. But rape isn’t treated like other crimes.
Pedro Hernandez is being tried for the murder of Etan Patz, no body has ever been found.
We have little evidence and a confession from a guy with mental health issues, but its likely he will be convicted.
It might not make them recant, but it could impact their credibility with a jury. And the current prohibition on publishing the names of supposed rape victims, which means even those whose accusations have been disproven don’t get “named and shamed”, while men accused of rape do get named, even if acquitted, that makes a rape accusation a good weapon with little deterrent for misuse.
Those who make false accusations might be crazy, but normally have some reason for doing so. Bad reasons, like needing an excuse for being pregnant or even late for work, but still reasons, like rapists have their reasons. Both are mainly characterised by a disregard for others, so a deterrent is important.
In England there’s even a compensation programme, wherein the government gives out several thousand pounds to victims of rape, or those they believe to be victims of rape, even without a conviction. The programme covers other crimes, but with lesser sums and generally requiring a conviction. Most people obviously wouldn’t roll the dice and see if they can con some money out of the government, but some people would.
I think the opposite. The justice system isn’t there for victims, it’s there for justice, and it’s main aim should be not to perptrate injustice on the innocent. In addition to that, I don’t think many rape victims who aren’t coming forward can be induced to come forward by being told they won’t have to face their rapists in court.
That’s the Kanin study, or those interested.
According to this link, the founders of the Innocence Project said:
Obviously, that only includes cases where DNA is available, and where DNA is important to the conviction, so cases where sex happening is uncontested, but consent is the issue, don’t show up there. Take as you will.
So stranger rape for the most part… Which doesn’t have much at all to do with either date rape or crazy bitch accusations.
In the cases of Stranger rape, incorrect accusations usually result from eyewitness testimony being flawed.
[QUOTE=gracer]
What is unacceptable is to demand a lower-than-average percentage of false accusations in the case of rape only.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, false accusations are not demanded by anyone, they happen. I disagree it unacceptable to be more careful in the case of rape. Not all crimes are equal and rape, like all crimes with heavy punishments need to be treated with far much more care.
Theft is different from other offences because it is an inherently legal activity (transferring property) which becomes illegal due to the mental state of the individual involved.
Are these false accusations or erroneous accusations? There’s a difference. And if there’s DNA evidence, as someone else pointed out, it suggests that the incident wasn’t invented out of whole cloth.
Well, I take is as being irrelevant to the issues of consent that appear otherwise central to the argument that “rape is different”. It is a disturbing number, and the number of overturned cases is one of the many reasons I personally will always be against the death penalty, but I have read the link and don’t see anyhting that addresses rape in comparison to other crimes where innocent people have been convicted. It would be interesting to know whether rape is over or under represented among all crimes for the existence of DNA evidence suitable for post-trial review. I suspect the answer is “over”, but I haven’t found any raw data either way.
I do note a few other issues with the link, and the cite in this thread.
[ul][li]The actual number of cases where DNA excludes the convicted rapist is 20%, not 25%[/li][li]There are an additional 20% of the cases where DNA testing was inconclusive. The proper response to that would be to not draw conclusions[/li][li]There seems to be a sensationalist desire by teh wroter to match a 1-in-4 statixtic which is why 20% becomes 25%. That does make me wonder whether the reporting is distorted in other ways as well. It wouild have been better to stick to 20%, which is disturbing enough a statistic already[/li][li]No indication of any follow up or survey of those 2,000 cases to see whether any part of that number represents something other than a clear case of false conviction (multiple rapists, improper chain of custody, etc.) I personally doubt that the numbe rwould shift significant;y, but it would be interesting to know whether anybody looked at this beyond the initial startling number. [/ul][/li]
So - if your argument is that people are sometimes wrongly convicte of serious crimes and that our justice system should be adjusted to try and reduce that number. Then this is a good start. But it doesn’t say anything unique about rape or justify any argument based upon issues of consent or he-said/she-said burdens of proof.
Really? Nobody I know who’s been raped in england has got any money from the govt. You must be thinking of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which is not just for rape, has maximum limits which area much higher than the average payout, has to be applied for and waited for.
It applies to violent rape, so you’d need evidence that it had occurred, rather than catching the particular person who did it. You don’t just get given thousands of pounds just for claiming, say, a date rape.
You should check your sources before making outrageous claims.
The investigation is one thing
The courtroom is another…
It can be hard to prove, beyond reasonable doubt…which is why many women do not report the crime, especially when its against someone who they know…
Who are you listening to? Your imaginary friend the Rape Fairy? The only study which I’ve seen which came up with a supposed nearly 50% figure has been universally condemned because the study’s author did not enumerate the methodology by which the police department came to their conclusions, did not name the town or the officers, and did not seem to find it odd that the department routinely polygraphed rape victims—and only rape victims because apparently we’re all lying whores.
Allreputable studies come up with a rate that tracks with the rates for other violent crimes. Where the problem lies is with the attitudes of people who define a false rape accusation as whatever lets them sleep at night, which usually involves paranoid hate fantasies about women out to get them.
The Kanin study, which I just mentioned, where the guy doing the study refused to name the town, the police department, or the method by which they came to their conclusions that rape victims all lie? Or the excuses they used to justify polygraphing rape victims—but not rapists?
And he links to a notorious MRA site.
I call shenanigans. MRAs? Yeah, no.
If the rape they committed is reported, that is, which it’s usually not. Rape is a very serious crime, why shouldn’t it have heavy penalties?
People are often reluctant to face facts. If someone meets all the definitions of it, are you really going to argue that because they were reluctant to call it by the dictionary word it doesn’t fit them?
That’s really weak sauce.