If a woman accuses a man of rape they are currently entitled to the right to anonymity. This still applies if the accusation proves to be a false one. I guess a topical example of this in practice is when a woman accuses a footballer of rape with there being no shred of truth in it, only for his name to be dragged through the mud and she can slip quietly back into obscurity with her nice payment from the News of the World
The government have plans to scrap this right to anonymity where the accusation proves to be false. I'm not sure what I make of this. My initial reaction was to back this idea, as I see knowingly falsely accusing somebody of rape pretty much as bad as actually raping somebody. But such a change in law could see women more reluctant to report a rape attack, which would obviously be dreadful
If anybody has any opinions on this matter that'd be swell, because it's bugging me far more than it should do
On a lighter note, my friend just sent me the wikipedia entry for Cheryl Tweedy. Enjoy the first paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheryl_Cole&oldid=100232012
I think they should be named and shamed
Even if the accuasations prove to be false the rumors can follow a person for years.
kill them all
that'd teach them
jesus advocating murder
thats a start
rape is not a crime
now thats controversial
always speaking the truth
i love wikipedia
i know what you mean though. i think anonymity should be introduced for te defendant until proven either way.
there are different degrees of not being convicted of rape, ranging from no chance to not proving beyond reasonable doubt. that'd need to be factored in with women's anonymity.
hahahhahahaha!
??
That wikipedia entry tells the truth!
!
Hmmm
"Ashley Cole (born 20 December 1980, Whitechapel, London, England) is an English footballer of half white and half Barbarian descent. "
From his entry.
The problem is that you're looking at what we'd hope to be the uncommon example
As I understand it rape is a very hard crime to prove, which would make sense since it's so likely to come down to one person's (drunken?) word against another's.
The idea that a woman sets out to deliberately profit from falsely yelling 'rape' is a pretty horrible one and I hope a very rare circumstance.
What SHOULD happen is that the anonymity should remain and also the man should get anonymity, surely? The only reason you should reveal either side's identity is if they are determined to be known or if he is found guilty...or I guess if she could be found beyond a shadow of doubt to have purposefully made a false accusation.
haha, Wikipedia
this law worries me. If the accusation is definitely proved to be deliberately false and malicious, naming the accuser would be reasonable. But what happens if there's just not enough evidence to convict the rapist? A woman who has been raped will therefore additionally be branded a liar. Hmm.
how about anonymity
for both parties, until a ruling is made?
Up until a few years ago, the accused was allowed to interview the accusee.
This meant, in one high profile case, that the attacker interviewed his victim for over 10 days, wearing the same clothes he had on when he attacked her.
:D
wikipedia owns.
ummm i think they should maintain their anonimity. mostly for the reason you've highlighted: that it would make women perhaps less likely to report incidents.
i don't think the accuser's anonymonity should ever be removed
except if she has been convicted of perjury or obstruction or whatever. rape conviction rates are pitifully low in this country as it is.
the accused should be given anonymity too i guess.
oh actually this is a way more complicated than i thought
problem is:
the anonymity is because of the 'shame' of being a victim of a sex crime. but anonymity legitimises the shame.
and if child victims are always anonymous
shouldn't their accused be too, until conviction?
oh i don't know
*frowns*
agreed
I think I need to hear some more discussion about this
bollocks
i'd expect a rape victim to be entitled to anonymity. it is her choice.
maybe it's inconsistent with other crimes but rape is different.
that's my point
why is it different?
is a typical rape more violent than GBH? no
it's more violating and that's partly about 'shame' and the victim feeling guilty. why is that?
i'm not saying that rape should be reduced to teh status of common assualt or whatever
but i dont think the current system is at all healthy. i dont know what the solution is
why
does the victim feel guilty? i don't understand that.
the only way to improve conviction rates is to be content to risk sending lots of innocent people to jail. juries won't do that unless you change sentencing guidelines. but would you be happy about someone going to jail for 3 years for rape?
the victim shouldnt feel guilty but often does
rape is far more common than you think but it's not openly talked about.
i know what you mean about raising conviction rates - the presumption should always be of innocence. quite why britain's record is so appalling compared to other developed countries is a mystery to me. anyone know?
shorter sentencing guidelines
i dont think that is true
and i'm talking about conviction rates here
though sometimes the sentences do strike me as woefully lenient
especially compared to property crimes say
but
it's so difficult to convincingly prove rape. no jury will convict someone on the basis of flimsy evidence if it means sending somebody to prison for a decade. they would convict more if the sentences were 3 years or so...
juries dont set the sentences thank god
surely they should be convicting based on evidence alone?
i know they don't
but they will be aware of what sentencing guidelines say because the judge will tell them. if the sentence is longer, they will be less likely to convict.
in practice, if rape trials were conducted on the basis of evidence alone, the conviction rate would be much lower.
i think the victim should always have anonymity
as long as they havent been proven to be lying.
but so should the accused. at least until proven guilty that is. the only argument against this would be to protect other would-be victims whilst the case is still being processed. but this has no respect for the life of the possibly innocent accused. its 'guilty even if proven innocent'
why
are rape victims entitled to anonymity? what is the case for it?
It's psycologicaly damaging
and having attention drawn to it can't help their state
that can't be the
reason why we have it, surely?
I would imagine most rape victims
wouldn't want the world knowing about it. 'Ooh look, there's Betty, the one what got raped the other week! Doesn't she look ill?'.
i know
but why doesn't it apply to all crimes? i just can't imagine that the case for victim's anonymity is that it wouldn't be nice that everyone knew...
Don't know why it doesn't apply to all crimes
It should. But I don't know why it doesn't.
aren't all victims of crimes entitled to anoymity?
I don't know much about criminal law. I would want to be though for most crimes, I reckon.
no, not at all
but i'm sure what the rules are concretely...
oh
it really should.
probably
yes
Rape Claims
While a women who accuses someone of rape is entitled to anonymity if she if found to be making a false accusation she can be charged for purgery (sp?) and maybe perverting justice which means that her name can be published from court records, however Im not sure how often this happens, in the recent case with that dude who was sent to prision due to a false accusation no charges were pressed against her i dont think.
perjury
fuck's sake...
and no she can't
she could be charged with wasting police time ... perjury would involve the fabrication of evidence and what-not
perjury
yeah but if she makes a false accusation and knowingly lies in court is that not perjury?
i thought perjury was
lying in court
lying
under oath. telling the police someone raped you wouldn't be perjury...
obstruction of justice
or is that american?
it's American
and i THINK that refers to people who interfere with and deliberately mislead police investigations.
a bit similar to 'perverting the course of justice'
well why can't the false sccuser be charged with that?
i'm not 100% sure
but i think it refers to existing police investigations.
further to perjury
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1990361,00.html
"There is already a machinery for revealing the identity of a woman who makes a wholly fictitious allegation, possibly for malicious or revenge reasons, claiming a sexual encounter that has not taken place at all. In such blatant cases, she can clearly be prosecuted for perjury, or for wasting police time. Once she is charged, the media are legally entitled to name her. (True, the woman in the case that provoked the attorney general's inquiry - who had a history of making false accusations - has not been prosecuted, but many similar fantasists have.)"
only if she goes
to court and lies under oath. it is not perjury to lie to the police....
and, of course,
can you imagine a newspaper bothering to try to sensationalise a case of 'wasting police time'?
^^^ Man i write pretty
anonymity for the accused too, surely?
jacobjones you usually have something worth reading to say, surely the accused man's identity should be secret until a verdict is reached?
i would have thought so.
surely the damage caused by public knowledge of an accusation rape is greater than the damage caused by public knowledge of victimhood? (i've excluded the actual crime itself from the equation)
that's what i thought!
nice to have it legitimised by someone who knows about stuff though! :)
there've been quite a few teachers' careers ruined by this kind of thing, albeit with accusations from children.
that's a toughie though, because while they're under investigation they clearly can't continue to work with children, in case they're guilty.
people being people, the reason for their "extended leave of absence" while the investigation is ongoing is almost always going to be a hot topic of conversation at the school gates.
unfortunately "man cleared of rape" doesn't make a great headline, it would appear.
.
"I see knowingly falsely accusing somebody of rape pretty much as bad as actually raping somebody"
WRONG.
understatement
of the year. the wrongness that is.
i thought that
but i think dove_from_above would probably reconsider it in retrospect
Why so?
I was referring to the most extreme example of a false claim, such as the one I referred to. I know it's extremely rare to get such black and white cases, but the idea of a woman accusing a man (in these cases a known celebrity) of rape so that she can profit from it is absolutely disgusting. How is it not? You are knowingly accusing somebody of one of the worst crimes possible, knowing full well that it isn't true
As I say, I'm referring to these (rare) extreme cases. I'm fully aware that the lines are blurred in 99% of false claims
Would you rather be falsely accused of rape
or have a dick up your arse?
I'm talking morally
Everybody knows why rape is wrong. Forcing yourself upon somebody in that manner is universally seen as deplorable. Everybody in their right mind regards rapists as some of the most sub-human species of a person
Accusing somebody of such a thing and knowing it isn't true, and knowing their name will be published in connection with such a vile crime is, to me, pretty much just as disgraceful as the actual act itself
You think women who falsely accuse men of rape
are some sort of sub human species?
How does your argument even work?
If a child accuses someone of molesting them they're as bad a pedophile?
Accusing somebody of rape
and knowing what the possible implications for that person are is, to me, absolutely disgraceful. As I said and as you seem to be overlooking, I'm talking in extremes. I'm very much aware of the possible complications in proving a rape claim to be false
If a drunk woman wrongly accuses a man of rape, there is some level of understanding there. But couldn't you then argue that if a woman accuses a drunk man of rape, that there should be some level of understanding there too? I'm not saying there should, just that this is a difficult argument to untangle
Also, your argument about a child accusing somebody of molesting them is, for you, ridiculous
wait what?
if a women accuses a drunk man? is she drunk too?
and kids are perfectly capable of lying
...
"Accusing somebody of rape and knowing what the possible implications for that person are is, to me, absolutely disgraceful"
of course it is. but you said it was comparable with rape. which it isn't.
.
I'm wary of coming across as some kind of rapist sympathist here, which I fear is what is happening
Maybe I should be quiet
no you're not
cos you're not sympathising with rapists.
you guys are arguing over a completely bullshit point.
it is absolute bollocks. stop it.
comparing the two is pointless.
erm
We stopped about nine hours ago
I went out
(there may have been bumpage)
I don't think so.
Protecting women's rights in cases like this is very important and I think having them scaled back in light of a few high profile cases involved some footballs who are considered "top blokes" is foolish and dangerous.
I hope that footballer point
isn't a dig at me. I'm quite happy to concede that my original comment equating a deliberately false accusation to the act itself was insensitive. I do think you took my words too literally and applied them to all cases, which isn't what I was saying at all
But I'm really happy with this thread. It's opened up a discussion that I really wanted to learn more about. DiS is good for that : )
I was at you. <3
I just think rape if horrifically too common with disgusting rates of conviction and that is BY FAR the biggest problem with the status quo.
I have known a girl who has been raped and have been accused of rape myself (though nothing actually happened and it was all taken back and I'm not good friends with the girl despite a lot of people at my school distrusting me). I do not pretend that what happened to me, though frustrating and unfair, can ever compare to what happened to my friend.
But yes, good thread.
*i AM good friends...
ho_fo
I'm not talking about the *main* argument.
I'm talking about the completely bullshit sub-argument over the moral relativity of rape.
RAPE IS BAD.
we know that.
thanks for telling us.
now fuck off.
sorry, it's an emotive issue.
i know a rape victim, and i'm sure you do too.
It is, very,
and I believe no one should need first or second accounts to fully appreciate that.
In an ideal world.
why?
"dove_from_above killed my dad"
is that as bad as murder?
I think murder is different
because the crime is all about the immediate physical effect on the victim. He/she's dead.
Rape (for all kinds of social reasons that don't necessarily bare close scrutiny) is about much more than the violence of the act. The victim's suffering might not be primarily physical but psychological. (This is acknowledged and is why the anonymity rules and so on exist)
Being falsely accused of rape, maliciously, might have a somewhat similar effect on someone's psychological well-being as being raped.
That's what I think the argument is anyway. The more I read it the less I agree, though I suspect at the very least it's not inconceivable that there could be cases where someone was more negatively effected by a false accusation than someone else was by an attack.
If it's even possible to determine the relative impact of negative events on different individuals objectively. Which it pretty much isn't.