Let all accusers understand that they are not to prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable proof and is clearer than day.
Doing away with the presumption of innocence is downright fascist. A presumption of guilt places an impossible burden on the defence because they're being asked to prove negative.
Most men charged with rape are innocent. According to the official Home Office figures only 5% of reported rape accusations result in conviction, most cases are dismissed before trial.
This means the majority of rape accusations are false but the feminist lobby rejects the presumption of innocence and due process. Feminists don't need evidence - every woman who says she is raped, was raped. Women are victims and men are abusers. That's why they refuse to recognise the number of false rape accusations, because the victims are men and the abusers are women. So even if she retracts her accusation - it was still rape.
So the fact that in the vast majority of cases, after due process, the defendant was acquitted, there was no case to answer, or there was insufficient evidence to believe a rape took place, is proof of a patriarchal conspiracy for feminists.
As one feminist posted on my blog,
The low conviction rate is because the CJS is heavily biased against the woman and most cases don't even reach trial- which boils down to rape not being taken seriously. We are living in the midst of a rape endemic.
Or as another one said,
The burden of proof should be placed with the defence.
So, sod the presumption of innocence, sod the complete lack of evidence, sod due process - "all men are rapists". She has a vagina, he has a penis - he raped her!
The other typical feminist excuse for the low conviction rate as one on Josephine Goebbels said,
The reason for the low conviction rate is merely to do with the fact about 'reasonable doubt' and evidence.
Which is completely untrue, acquittals by a jury account for less less than 3% of rape case. Most are dismissed because on the balance of evidence no one could reasonably think the defendant raped the accuser.
The feminist attitude to criminal justice is misandric, irrational and fascist - and if you dare to disagree, you're anti the the victims of rape.
7 comments:
Wow. Does "not A" imply "B?"
Apparently you think it does, which is untrue.
Not unless A and B are the only two options (they're not).
That 5% of accused rapists are convicted does NOT mean 95% of all rape accusations are false.
There are a number of reasons a particular accusation might not result in a conviction.
The accuser won't or can't testify or is too scared to, the accused pleads to a lesser charge, the accused can't be found, or the prosecutor examines the case and determines it is not winnable.
You have to use logic to understand this. "Not winnable" doesn't mean "not true."
Furthermore, the vast majority of rapes are not reported in the first place (http://www.rainn.org/). That a mere 5% of rapists are ever brought to justice is not proof that rape is by any means rare.
Perhaps it's because of attitudes like yours that so few women are willing to speak up when they've been raped.
I haven't claimed that because a prosecution fails it wasn't rape. What I actually said is that up to 95% of accusations are false. I accept that in some of the failed cases there might have been a rape but not in the majority of them, that's just bloody ludicrous!!!
Most of these aren't jury verdicts. They're cases that the minimum evidence threshold isn't met. The minimum threshold is the word of the accuser. The prosecution don't need any corroborative evidence.
In the sample cases that the government looked at in 2005, a suspect was identified in al but 10.9% of reported cases. 24.6% of all cases were no crimed i.e. the police concluded there was no rape. 30.4% were NFA (No further action) and in another 23.8% case the victim withdrew the accusation or ceased cooperating. So 78.8% of cases didn’t get to Crown Court. The Government's own research, from a small case study of cases that did get to Crown court, shows that in 22.6% cases the Crown offered no evidence, and in another 2.6% of cases the judge directed the jury to acquit on the evidence. So that's 25.2% of case at court that are found to be false. None of these case are judged on the basis of reasonable doubt, there fail because no one could reasonable be expected to believe that the accused raped the accuser.
The conviction rate after trial is over 50% in rape cases and rape convictions increase every year. So it just doesn't stack up to say that most of the cases aren't false. There is clear evidence that they are. Even if every jury acquittal was wrong, the majority of cases would still be false.
If the accuser retracts there accusation of rape it’s probably because they weren’t raped but even if you take all those cases the 23.8% and the 10.9% of cases where a suspect weren’t identified. What about the other 60.3% of cases that don’t end in conviction and what about the false convictions?
There are different types of "false convictions."
In one (rare) case, the accuser knows the accused didn't rape her. It's a lie.
In another case, the accuser is mistaken re: who raped her. It's not a lie but an honest mistake.
Not sure why y'all think women who weren't raped would bother to bring rape charges against someone when accusers are so often shamed, silenced and publicly humiliated. Most actual rape victims don't bring charges because it's so difficult to get a conviction. "Why bother?" they think. Plus, they don't want to be subjected to the treatment most accusers receive. And yet, you actually believe women who weren't raped purposely put themselves through this for shits and giggles.
While there are obviously unreported rapes, the facts are more rapes are being reported and ending in successful conviction than ever before. The success rate at trial is good.
The suspect not being identity is only an issue in 10.9% of cases. The vast majority of cases fail because the woman did lie or decides that it wasn't rape after all. It defintely doesn't help genuine rape victims to pretend that women don't make false accusations of rape, when they often and provably do.
Saying 95% of accusations are false IS saying it's not rape - you are negating what the women have claimed. Do you even read what you write?
Conviction rates and true innocence are unrelated most especially in the cases of rape or incest cases where often we are reduced to a 'he said she said' with no witnesses and 'evidence' which could be interpreted differently (ie sperm is there but did she consent or not etc.). Anyone who has worked in a rape counselling center would know this. Maybe you should volunteer at one because certainly your attitude is lacking in empathy and humanity.
I agree with sarbear - there is simply no logical reason for the VAST MAJORITY of women who report rapes and try to go to court about it to be LYING or WRONG about it as you accuse them of doing.
And what in the world is 'facist' about wanting to protect women from sexual abuse I might add? You have presented nothing more than a nasty label with no basis behind it. Look up the term in the dictionary and tell me how it fits.
@ anon (Jennifer)
1) I never said 95% of rapes were false accusations - I said up to. Learn to read.
2) If you don't believe in the presumption of innocence and due process, then you have no complaint about being called a fascist. You are!
3) If you do believe in the presumption of innocence and due process - they're innocent until proved guilty.
4) rape is technically one of the easiest crimes to prove in England. The prosecution only needs the word of an accuser - "she said" - no cum, no physical injury, no independent witnesses.
5) Incest is even a crime between consenting adults. So if there is any evidence of cum - conviction for incest is easy.
6) None of the cases mentioned were thrown out on the basis of "he said, she said".
7) Rape centre workers are not qualified to venture an opinion on guilt at the moment (thank God) and hopefully never will be. They certainly aren't qualified to judge a rape case. So they have no special knowledge here.
8) There are thousands of logical reasons why a woman would claim rape when she wasn't. She might have had an affair, got pregnant, might have got drunk consented and can't remember consenting (it happens a lot), she might just be bitter seeking revenge, or personal gain. The bottom line is because they can. That's what needs to be changed.
Post a Comment