Preventing False Accusations of Rape

[Siege]

This is spun off from this thread about Preventing Rapists or at least I hope it will be.

One issue I’ve seen brought up several times in discussion of rapes is that of false accusations of rape. It’s a valid point, even if there’s disagreement about how common false accusations of rape are. I don’t know anyone who’s been falsely accused of rape, but one of my closest friends was accused of being a sex predator and I saw the way it destroyed his marriage and nearly his life. What can we do to prevent such false accusations, both as a society and individuals and what should our response to them be.

Here’s my two cents. If a woman deliberately, falsely accuses a man of rape, I think she should go to jail and pay restitution to cover the monetary loss he suffers because of this. The information that he was falsely accused should be publicly disseminated at least as widely as the original accusation. This could include taking out full-page newspaper ads.

Socially, including the circumstances in which my friend found himself, my solution is simple. You don’t reward such acts by treating the person as a hero. Instead, you treat her like the idiot she is. Make it clear that such behaviour is reprehensible. I’d also advise against dating anyone whose done such a thing.

This issue isn’t my strong suit, and I have a hard time being unbiased or compassionate. On the other hand, there are other people here who might enjoy it.

Enjoy!
CJ

[catsix]

I am going to remember what I should have done in the other thread and quit debating feminists over rape.

My part in this discussion is over.

[Nava]

I think that what the OP describes should be general for all false accusations.

Peer pressure (not just legal pressure) needs to get directed more toward reinforcing decent behavior. Which is the “treat the false accuser like the idiot he/she is” part.

I don’t know how is it in the English versions, but in Spanish the commandment about lying is: “no levantarás falso testimonio ni mentirás”, “you will not accuse someone falsely or lie.” You don’t need to be religious to see that accusing people falsely is an action that causes a lot of harm; the group should make you pay for the harm you have inflicted to them through your lies.

[laigle]

I think there are two main reasons why you see false accusations of rape/child molestation/other heinous sex crimes:

1. It works. Really, if you want to hurt someone, this is the way to go. They are going to lose their jobs, friends, social position, be branded for life. There’s a good chance they will be convicted without corroborating evidence. Even if they are found innocent, they will still be treated like a degenerate by many people.

2. There are no repurcussions. It’s very easy for the accuser to get away with something like this as long as they don’t come out and admit they lied. There’s really no way to prove they were deliberately lying, and as such criminal and civil penalties are hard to bring against them.

There’s not much you can really do about the second case, because you have to prove malice to bring the hammer down on the accuser. But you can give the accused at least the same deference and not pursue these cases in the absence of corroborating evidence. That’s not to say you assume a rape accuser is lying, but if you can’t verify what they say through medical examination, physical evidence, and/or corroborating witnesses you do not have enough evidence to bring a case and it should be treated in that manner.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

How do you prove it’s a false accusation?

Rape is extremely difficult to prove as it is, as well as sadly under reported. Should we mow make victims even more reluctant to report them by threatening to throw them in jail if they can’t prove it?

False accusations of rape are so rare anyway that I don’t think we need to expend much energy worrying about it. It just feeds misogyny even to treat it it’s some kind of epidemic.

[doreen]

@laigle

There’s not much you can really do about the second case, because you have to prove malice to bring the hammer down on the accuser. But you can give the accused at least the same deference and not pursue these cases in the absence of corroborating evidence. That’s not to say you assume a rape accuser is lying, but if you can’t verify what they say through medical examination, physical evidence, and/or corroborating witnesses you do not have enough evidence to bring a case and it should be treated in that manner.

But why should we treat rape accusers differently than any other accusers? If I report my car stolen, my testimony that I didn’t give the person found driving it permission is enough to convict him or her of unauthorized use of my vehicle. Nothing else is needed to corroborate my statement. The same is true if I accuse someone of any other crime where consent or authorization is an issue-if a business owner accuses an employee of stealing a computer, or a person of stealing merchandise, the business owner’s statement that there was no authorization doesn’t need corroboration. If I report that I was robbed, my testimony alone is enough for a conviction. For those crimes, we let the jury hear the witnesses, determine their credibility, and decide whether to convict or acquit even though false accusations can be made. Why should rape be different?

Your idea would make it difficult for anyone to be convicted of rape as long as they didn’t leave evidence of actual violence. and certainly a husband or boyfriend could virtually never be convicted of rape. If I am raped ( or otherwise sexually assaulted) at gunpoint, and submit because I am afraid for my life, the medical examination will at most show that there was recent sexual activity- and perhaps not even that. It will not give any information about whether I consented. All the rapist has to do is say " Yeah, we had sex, but she consented".

[Kalhoun]

The way to decrease the number of false accusations is to quit “protecting” the accuser; i.e., put their name and picture up on the news. That is, unless they want to use their heads and shield the accused until proven guilty. This is an antiquated law that, in my opinion, isn’t doing anyone any favors. Society looks at rape victims quite differently than it did decades ago. A person should be innocent until proven guilty in the jury of public opinion as well. It’s completely unfair to protect the victim and not the accused.

[lee]

There are at least foiur kinds of “false” rape allegations.
The first kind is mistaken identity. My psych book had an example. A woman had picked out her attacker from a line up. The man she chose was later exonerated. There were picture side by side of the accused and the man they later believed to be the actual rapist. To me, they look like twins.

Second, the malicious accusation. The woman maliciously accuses a man of raping her who she knows has not.

Thirdly, there are those accusations that are made out to be false. Accusations that are found to be false for reasons not based on their truth or legal merit. Like that of the young woman convicted, IIRC, of falsely accusing her step-father of rape. She birthed his child and showed video tape of the rape to her mother who then killed her attacker.

The fourth category is one that is said to be false because it is found lacking in someway that does not have to do with whether or not legally a rape occurred. For example, a man forces himself on a woman without consent and then it is deemed that because she did not do enough to prevent it, she was not a virgin, she had dressed provactatively, yada yada yada, that she had not really been raped.

Type one is quite dramatic and probably occurs about same rate a false accusations for other crimes such as muggings. People make mistakes and distraught people make even more mistakes. DNA evidence is very useful in these case and has resulted in several overturned convictions.

I have no idea the rate for the second or third or fourth types. I believe that many use instances of the first type to try to convince others that actual rapes are just the second type of false allegation. The argument goes like this,“See this other rape allegation was false, DNA proved it. That shows women lie all the time about this sort of thing. So, when that woman said I raped her, she was just being malicious. I don’t understand why she wants to hurt me so.”

[laigle]

@doreen

But why should we treat rape accusers differently than any other accusers? If I report my car stolen, my testimony that I didn’t give the person found driving it permission is enough to convict him or her of unauthorized use of my vehicle.

Invalid analogy. In your case, someone was found driving your car. See, that’s what’s called “corroborating evidence.” A more apt analogy would be if you accused someone of breaking into your car, taking it for a drive, and returning it. In order to prove that case, you would have to find evidence they were in the car, that the car had been driven, and only then would there be the jurisprudencial pissing match over whether or not s/he had permission.

Nothing else is needed to corroborate my statement. The same is true if I accuse someone of any other crime where consent or authorization is an issue-if a business owner accuses an employee of stealing a computer, or a person of stealing merchandise, the business owner’s statement that there was no authorization doesn’t need corroboration. If I report that I was robbed, my testimony alone is enough for a conviction. For those crimes, we let the jury hear the witnesses, determine their credibility, and decide whether to convict or acquit even though false accusations can be made. Why should rape be different?

What country do you live in? It certainly isn’t the US if your legal analysis is accurate. In none of the cases you have cited would your testimony be sufficient for a conviction. All of them would rely on proof that the accused actually had possession of the stolen property. If you said someone stole your car and the police found no evidence they had your car, that’s the end of the story. No amount of testimony on your part would yield a conviction because the case would not be admitted to court.

[Kimstu]

To repeat what I said over in the “Preventing Rapists” thread, since I think this issue is extremely relevant to both sides of the issue (i.e., preventing rape and preventing false accusations of rape):

As a corollary, since (as you note) many such situations involve alcohol or drugs, we need to reduce the tendency to use drunkenness as an excuse (for either party). People whose judgement is seriously impaired by drugs or alcohol are simply not in a condition to know clearly what they want or what their partners want. Realizing this, we should strongly discourage people from seeking sex when they’ve had a lot to drink, or seeking sex with other people who’ve had a lot to drink. In other words, you can get wasted or you can get laid, but you should stop expecting to combine the two.

We’ve made good progress in recent years convincing people that drinking beyond a certain point incapacitates them from being able to drive responsibly, even if they don’t feel impaired. Similarly, we need to increase awareness that being drunk incapacitates you from being able to make good decisions about sex, no matter how happy and horny you’re feeling in your drunken state. Maybe we don’t have to go so far as putting all sloshed people in a “party drunk tank” with supervision and no access to sex, as I facetiously suggested above, but we should definitely start eradicating the stupid idea that getting sloshed and having sex (especially with people you don’t know very well) is a good combination. Friends don’t let friends screw drunk.

[doreen]

@laigle

Invalid analogy. In your case, someone was found driving your car. See, that’s what’s called “corroborating evidence.” A more apt analogy would be if you accused someone of breaking into your car, taking it for a drive, and returning it. In order to prove that case, you would have to find evidence they were in the car, that the car had been driven, and only then would there be the jurisprudencial pissing match over whether or not s/he had permission.

The fact that the person was found driving the car doesn’t corroborate my statement that I didn’t give him permission at all. I could have given him permission, gotten mad about something, and then falsely accused him. Just like a woman could have consensual sex with someone and then falsely accuse him of rape. If I accused someone of stealing my car - because he physically took the keys from me without permission and I saw him drive it away, my testimony would be enough. Even if he ditched the car. A jury wouldn’t necessarily convict- but it could. Sure, it’s a stronger case if he’s found with the car, but that doesn’t make it necessary.

What country do you live in? It certainly isn’t the US if your legal analysis is accurate. In none of the cases you have cited would your testimony be sufficient for a conviction. All of them would rely on proof that the accused actually had possession of the stolen property. If you said someone stole your car and the police found no evidence they had your car, that’s the end of the story. No amount of testimony on your part would yield a conviction because the case would not be admitted to court.

Again, I said that the testimony that the person didn’t have permission doesn’t need corroboration - except for the robbery. Are you under the impression that if I identify three people as the ones who surrounded me and threatened to beat me if I didn’t give them my money , they can’t be convicted if it can’t be proven that the $20 bill found on one of them came from me? Or that if a store owner sees a person rip the tags off a sweatshirt, put it on, and walk out without paying for it that’s not enough? I mean, sure the person is found with the shirt, but what is there to say it was came from that store, on that day, without being paid for besides the store owner’s testimony?

[Shade]

One difference is that how many people lend their car to a stranger? “I met this girl in a bar, and she lent me her car, and then later lied about it,” as a defense is so unlikley that it’s almost (but not quite) beyond reasonale doubt right there.

“I met this girl in a bar, and we slept together, and then she found she was pregnant and claimed she was raped” is at least plausible – it happens occasionally.

[EsotericEnigma]

@Diogenes the Cynic

False accusations of rape are so rare anyway that I don’t think we need to expend much energy worrying about it. It just feeds misogyny even to treat it it’s some kind of epidemic.

According to a detective I know personally who specializes in accusations and investigations of rape specifically, you are absolutely wrong on this point. The vast majority of rape accusations are false.

There IS a serious problem with under-reporting of rape though, according to almost any statistic you can find. Rape victims are often too afraid or ashamed to report the crime, and most successful rape prosecutions are not carried out with the willing participation of the victim throughout the whole process.

[Martin_Hyde]

There are certain people that will simply accuse you of rape at the drop of a hat to try and extort you/gain some sort of influence over you. There was once a special on A&E that detailed the “career” of one such woman.

She accused 3 people of rape in one year, ultimately she was put in prison for extortion. She then accused 4 guards of rape, in one instance giving a date and time and said date and time was later shown to be during the accused guard’s vacation week when he was not even present at the prison.

All it takes is a few hundred women like that in the entire U.S. and you’d have a problematic number of completely false accusations being made, problematic enough that it would make any police detective wary about any rape accusation until further evidence probing was done.

In my opinion a rape conviction, nor any conviction, should be made based on the testimony of one witness, with no other real evidence to report.

Eye witnesses are horribly inaccurate, they can easily be lead by a prosecutor or investigator, and their own memories can be so far off it just isn’t even close. An eye witness can change a man’s height by several inches, the color of his skin, his eyes, his weight et cetera. Eye witnesses are just not that reliable but unfortunately they tend to be the most powerful form of evidence presented in a criminal trial.

Rapes need to be considered like all other crimes: innoent until proven guilty. If you come into a rape trial and it’s her word against his, it should be thrown out immediately. Her word against his (with no other supporting evidence) just simply cannot be enough to logically eliminate reasonable doubt.

Now, her word + DNA evidence, is that enough? It’s enough to prove sex occured, but sex does not = rape. For me at the bare minimum in a rape case you should have 1) the word of the victim, 2) DNA evidence, 3) a positive on a rape test (meaning some violence was shown.)

Now these aren’t hard and fast rules, these are just the 3 bare minimums you would have to have to get a “guilty” vote from me if no other evidence existed.

Obviously is we have another person who saw the attack, or people who saw the victim get abducted, pictures of the rape taken by the rapist, et cetera then some of the 3 things I mentioned wouldn’t be necessary. I mean, if we know the guy abducted the victim then you wouldn’t need to show violent sex as a fact, or even DNA evidence.

But as it is too many rape convictions seem to be made on 1) a single eye witness and 2) DNA evidence that simply confirms sex occured, which IMO would never be enough to eliminate reasonable doubt.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

Wouldn’t protection of the accused’s identity be useful for any criminal trial. An accused persons identity only being reveiled to the public and press after they are found guilty, in all other cases the identity being kept to those asociated with the inquest and the jury. How would doing this not be a good idea?

[Steve_MB]

IMO, deliberate false accuasions in general should carry a penalty commesurate with the penalty for actually doing whatever you falsely accused somebody of doing.

[doreen]

@Shade

One difference is that how many people lend their car to a stranger? “I met this girl in a bar, and she lent me her car, and then later lied about it,” as a defense is so unlikley that it’s almost (but not quite) beyond reasonale doubt right there.

Sure, its not plausible if it’s a stranger .Suppose it’s not a stranger. " My sister lent me her car, and then got mad at me and lied about it" is plausible. But we don’t tell the sister " You don’t have any proof that you didn’t give him permission, so he can’t be convicted or even arrested."

“I met this girl in a bar, and we slept together, and then she found she was pregnant and claimed she was raped” is at least plausible – it happens occasionally.

Sure, it’s plausible, and I’m not suggesting that it shouldn’t be allowed as a defense. That’s where credibilty comes in. Because he’s only in the position of saying " I met this girl in a bar and we slept together and then [something happened ] and she claimed she was raped" in the first place because someone didn’t just dismiss her allegation due to a lack of corroboration. As far as I can tell, (correct me if I’m wrong)** laigle’s** position is that if a woman says " I met him in a bar and we went to his apartment . He wanted sex, and I said no, but he overpowered me, and I was afraid he’d hurt me worse so I didn’t fight. He didn’t punch me or choke me so I don’t have any bruises. He simply pushed me down and got on top of me, and I wasn’t strong enough to push him off and run away. ", there is not enough evidence to bring a case. After all, at most the physical examination will show that she had sex recently ( and perhaps not even that). There are unlikely to be any other witnesses.

[Steve_MB]

@doreen

If I report my car stolen, my testimony that I didn’t give the person found driving it permission is enough to convict him or her of unauthorized use of my vehicle.

Er, no. If the person found driving your car says that you did too give permission, the justice system then has to figure out which statement is the truth.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

They don’t knock themselves out or anything.

“Did you give him permission to take your car?”
“No.”
Investigation over.

[lee]

@Steve MB

IMO, deliberate false accuasions in general should carry a penalty commesurate with the penalty for actually doing whatever you falsely accused somebody of doing.

And how are you going to define false accusation?