[chuff me dizzy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nguish-three-w

[Livia]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

Maybe not expressed very well but it isn't just about past centuries but pretty much the here and now as I would say still far more men get away with rape than women get away with making false allegations as double standards are still applied to women and many still believe the old 'she must of asked for it' garbage.

I am not condoning false allegations by any means, but it seems to me that the sexual mistreatment of women by men, past and present, can breed a lot of resentment in women.

Not to the extent they'd like to see an innocent mail jailed, and put it down to "what comes around, goes around", surely? Women should be resentful of other women who falsely accuse, and thereby weaken the cases of genuine victims.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nguish-three-w

Speculation. Come back when he's charged with something.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Agree. Sometimes there is clear evidence that someone's lied. If there is evidence they should throw the bloody book at them because they're making a mockery of the pain of real victims.

I'm not so sure. Even if there did have to be clear evidence, I think the thought of charges being able to be "flipped" would put many genuine assault victims off when it comes to reporting the crime. Which in turn would increase the confidence of potential offenders in believing that they can get away with it. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not so sure. Even if there did have to be clear evidence, I think the thought of charges being able to be "flipped" would put many genuine assault victims off when it comes to reporting the crime. Which in turn would increase the confidence of potential offenders in believing that they can get away with it. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent.

Punishing someone for breaking the law does not set a dangerous precedent. I say this as a woman first, and a lawyer second, if someone accuses an innocent man of rape, and there is clear evidence that she has lied... I want to see her prosecuted.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Speculation. Come back when he's charged with something.

Not MY article ,just copied and pasted it ,get off your high horse

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by Livia

Not to the extent they'd like to see an innocent mail jailed, and put it down to "what comes around, goes around", surely? Women should be resentful of other women who falsely accuse, and thereby weaken the cases of genuine victims.

Maybe, maybe not. A sense of injustice and resulting resentment can cloud people's judgement and perception of a situation causing them to lose sight of the rights and wrongs involved.

The 'what comes around, goes around' comment was just to highlight the correlation between the actions of one group to those of another.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Punishing someone for breaking the law does not set a dangerous precedent. I say this as a woman first, and a lawyer second, if someone accuses an innocent man of rape, and there is clear evidence that she has lied... I want to see her prosecuted.

What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.

An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.

Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.

Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?

The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.


With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However... it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.

This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.

An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.

Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.

Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?

The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.


With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However... it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.

This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.

Very good post. As you say memory of events can be distorterd by time, not to mention the subtle pressure put on young, vulnerable girls to 'put-out' seemingly giving the impression to observers she was 'willing and consenting' when actually she was neither - but a victim of manipulation.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.

An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.

Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.

Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?

The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.


With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However... it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.

This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.

Agree, think this posts sums up why rape/sexual assault is such an inherently difficult case to decide upon, it would be a massive mistake to presume that because there wasn't enough evidence to convict someone then by necessity the accusers were lying

[arista]

[Livia]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Not MY article ,just copied and pasted it ,get off your high horse

I was responding to your post. Please don't resort to insulting me, it's against the rules and it makes you look small.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Agree, think this posts sums up why rape/sexual assault is such an inherently difficult case to decide upon, it would be a massive mistake to presume that because there wasn't enough evidence to convict someone then by necessity the accusers were lying

I was suggesting that false accusers should be prosecuted if there is clear evidence to say they were lying, not that there might be a little evidence. Unless it's okay for innocent men to pay the price because some rape victims are not believed. Sounds a little one-sided to me. Justice for everyone, isn't that what it's all about?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What constitutes "clear" evidence, though? And who decides on the difference between a lie and a distortion of memory? Memory plays tricks, especially over time. Eidetic memory is exceptionally rare - people remember in vague "concepts" and the gaps are filled in by the subconscious, and sometimes that process creates distortions.

An example of why this is relevant to this discussion: Someone could have consensual sex, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and there could feasibly be concrete evidence of the encounter being consensual: e.g. a video might have been made, or there might even have been witnesses, depending on the wildness of the party. That woman over time, especially if there's an element of regret, might remember that encounter differently and genuinely believe that there wasn't consent - like I said, the memory plays tricks, and not wanting to have done it after the fact could easily distort into a memory of not having wanted to at the time or during.

Believing this, that woman might report it as an assault. And then the hypothetical video surfaces showing that it was in fact fully with consent. What now? There was an innocent man accused, there is concrete evidence that the accuser has "lied", so she should be charged? What a horrible mess.

Aside from that - what would you consider to be concrete evidence? A simple not-guilty verdict certainly isn't, there's a reason the verdict isn't defined as "innocent", plenty of guilty people avoid charges due to lack of a good case against them. Witnesses? Again can't really be trusted - for one they may be biased (towards either accuser or accused) as they would almost certainly not be impartial strangers in a case like this. They might also have experienced "bystander apathy" at the time of the incident and, again, be experiencing distorted perceptions of what actually happened. So it could really only be a video. And how often is that going to happen, realistically?

The only thing I can think of as being concrete, to the point of warranting charges against the accuser, is some sort of evidence of conspiracy, such as something either written or recorded with them clearly stating that the accusation is untrue. Otherwise I can all but guarantee there would be mistakes made, and genuine victims would find themselves facing charges, whilst their attacker walks away. And that would be an utter disaster.


With specific regards to the Roach case: it was decades ago. It was always going to be near impossible to prove, and that's why he's going home. The case was paper thin. However... it was decades ago, and so likewise, I very much doubt that there's any concrete evidence to say that he DIDN'T do it.

This is true of the vast majority of rape allegations. "Her word against his". And it'll always return a "not guilty" verdict (usually doesn't even go that far). Half of those "not guilty" men are guilty as sin. But yeah, whatevz, let's just lock up their accusers, teach 'em to keep their ***** mouths shut.

Clear evidence is evidence that can be corroborated.

Your last paragraph is a little dramatic. I am not happy for innocent men to be accused, and for the accuser to get off scot free. I'm not spending an hour on the course the law may take. If you're guilty of wasting police time and attempting to pervert the course of justice, you should go to prison - whether you have a penis or not.

[lostalex]

We have a system that is designed to let most guilty men free. A system that unashamedly says it's better to let 99 guilty men free than to convict 1 innocent man. It's important to always remember that.

"not guilty" and "innocent" are very different things. Most guilty people are never found guilty of their crimes, that doesn't mean they are innocent though.

unfortunately there are still plenty of innocent people found guilty.

Maybe that's why so many people love the idea of religion and God, because it's comforting to think that the guilty will face SOME sort of justice eventually. but they won't, they just get away with it.

I'm just speaking in general, not about this case specifically.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Clear evidence is evidence that can be corroborated.

Your last paragraph is a little dramatic. I am not happy for innocent men to be accused, and for the accuser to get off scot free. I'm not spending an hour on the course the law may take. If you're guilty of wasting police time and attempting to pervert the course of justice, you should go to prison - whether you have a penis or not.

You're suggesting that the justice system is infallible, though. Like incorrect evidence is never corroborated. Like innocent people don't end up behind bars. In an ideal world where miscarriages of justice don't happen, right, fine, charge those found to be making false accusations. But with the system being as imperfect as it is now? No. I can't see many rape victims if thy know there's even a CHANCE that a mistake might be made and they'll end up charged, shamed and jailed standing up and going forward with accusations. I certainly wouldn't trust the "justice" system to make the right call every time.

Victims are ALREADY afraid to speak out for fear of not being believed. Rape reporting rates are abysmal and conviction rates are shockingly low.Adding the possibility of flipped charges to that is utter madness.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Livia

I was suggesting that false accusers should be prosecuted if there is clear evidence to say they were lying, not that there might be a little evidence. Unless it's okay for innocent men to pay the price because some rape victims are not believed. Sounds a little one-sided to me. Justice for everyone, isn't that what it's all about?

Well I was more talking about generally than anything someone specifically had said in this thread. It just always seems the case that when there's a not guilty verdict reached there's always a lot of calls for the accusers to be named and shamed or even prosecuted themselves. Rape and sexually assault is so notoriously difficult to prove either way that it's rare for any accusations to actually end up in a guilty verdict, I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases it's more that there was a lack of evidence to return a definite guilty verdict rather than the accuser's all just lying.

[the truth]

Those who are clearly exposed as lying and falsely accusing must be imprisoned.
This is the just way forward. This re-balancing the situation is essential. especially if we continue with the naming and hsaming of the accused. This will in effect discourage those thousands of women who make up rape claims simply for money or revenge. It will in turn free up police time for the genuine victoms of rape. This will save money and time working on false claims. it will lead to more justic and more balance. it wont scare genuine women off , because ultimately those accusers who are saying the truth have nothing to fear. personally Id keep the accused anonymous. naming them is clearly being used as a way to advertise for victims in the daily mail and often even more gold diggers.
if anyone has a claim let them go to the police and through the right channnels, not this revolting media witch hunt which destroys lives.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by the truth

Those who are clearly exposed as lying and falsely accusing must be imprisoned.
This is the just way forward. This re-balancing the situation is essential. especially if we continue with the naming and hsaming of the accused. This will in effect discourage those thousands of women who make up rape claims simply for money or revenge. It will in turn free up police time for the genuine victoms of rape. This will save money and time working on false claims. it will lead to more justic and more balance. it wont scare genuine women off , because ultimately those accusers who are saying the truth have nothing to fear. personally Id keep the accused anonymous. naming them is clearly being used as a way to advertise for victims in the daily mail and often even more gold diggers.
if anyone has a claim let them go to the police and through the right channnels, not this revolting media witch hunt which destroys lives.

No. That is not the right attitude to have.

Most rape victims already do not ever come forward, and your strategy would make them even LESS likely to come forward.

We need to encourage MORE rape accusations, not less.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by the truth

it wont scare genuine women off , because ultimately those accusers who are saying the truth have nothing to fear.

Again, the suggestion that the justice system is infallible and that those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear. I wish I still lived in a world where I believed that to be true. But it just isn't. The justice system is massively human, and as such, massively open to error. The guilty are set free often, and the innocent wrongly convicted. I can guarantee that, if this suggestion of prosecuting accusers "found" to be lying, eventually a genuine rape victim would find themselves behind bars. It's simple law of averages. It would definitely happen. It would also create yet another imbalance between "haves" and "have-nots"... would you REALLY go up against a rapist who happens to be able to afford to have an expensive legal team behind them? Knowing that they could have the charges flipped? I doubt it. You'd be ****ing insane to risk it. If it was one of my daughters and I knew for a fact that it had happened, I still wouldn't risk the "justice" system if these proposals were in effect. I'd be sorting it out myself.

Add to that - because mistakes would definitely occur - and because most people instinctively know that the legal system can't be entirely trusted - fewer people would come forward with genuine reports in the first place.

Lower chance of a rape being reported at all then in turn increases the confidence of potential offenders to commit an act of sexual aggression. Round and round we go. Like I said - rates of these offenses (real rape, that has really happened) being reported at all is horrendously low, and conviction rates are already SHOCKINGLY low, of people who in all probability did rape someone but where it can't be adequately proven.

The situation with sexual offenses and "justice" really doesn't need to get any worse.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

No. That is not the right attitude to have.

Most rape victims already do not ever come forward, and your strategy would make them even LESS likely to come forward.

We need to encourage MORE rape accusations, not less.

wrong we need more honest rape accusations, we need to punish the rapists and invest more time and money into those cases....but we cna only save money and time and resources into funding these legitmiate cases by punishing those who falsely accuse. there are tens of thousands of false accusers who are effectively stelaing the resources than should be being used on the real victims. there is only so much to go around, resources are finite, very finite