Society/Culture the wrongly accused are not the main victims in rape cases

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Interesting viewpoint below. MP was found not guilty and spent all his life savings on what seems like a very dubious case yet isn't a "victim". Financially ruined and smeared. No compensation (well not more than legal aid rate) and no anonymity. Seems a bit harsh to me.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/13/nigel-evans-trial-wrongly-accused-victims-rape

But after a series of high-profile rape trials that have delivered "not guilty" verdicts,culminating in Nigel Evans' acquittal on nine charges last week, it is the acquitted who are seen as the new victims. "The police and the CPS are dragging the names of decent, honest, innocent people through the dirt on a weekly basis,"wrote one Telegraph columnist. "And it has to stop."
MPs led by David Davis are on the offensive against the Crown Prosecution Service, and there are renewed calls to grant anonymity to alleged rapists, a privilege no one proposes for accused murderers and which would radically reduce the chances of other victims coming forward. The police are overcompensating because of their failures over Savile, so the new narrative goes, and this overzealousness needs to be driven back.
This represents a troublesome loss of perspective
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Fairly sure you cant divulge name of the person making the allegations. You would think there is a case for anonymity of the alleged rapist.

You would not be at all happy to be falsely accused of rape.
 
They should just be abe to sue the arse off the accuser if the accusation is proven to be completely false.
So create a culture where victims are unsure of reporting it to the police for fear of getting sued if they're cleared?

Yes I know you said "Completely false" but how often does that happen?
 

Illinois Nazi

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts Song Contest Winner - 5+ Rounds
Jul 8, 2002
15,048
20,088
Why? You stalking me?
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Whoever's winning
So create a culture where victims are unsure of reporting it to the police for fear of getting sued if they're cleared?

Yes I know you said "Completely false" but how often does that happen?
Happens more often than you'd think, unfortunately.
 
So create a culture where victims are unsure of reporting it to the police for fear of getting sued if they're cleared?

Yes I know you said "Completely false" but how often does that happen?

Probably more often than you would think.

A female officer in the RAN was banging another officer. Her husband found out through the grape vine and suddenly it was rape.

A girl had two step fathers locked up and then accused a third. Only then did the pattern start to become a little clearer.

A girl got knocked up to two collingwood players and when the husband asked for a dna test it suddenly became rape. It turned out the father was a perth glory player after all of that.

They are the ones I know of.
 
Happens more often than you'd think, unfortunately.
Probably more often than you would think.

A female officer in the RAN was banging another officer. Her husband found out through the grape vine and suddenly it was rape.

A girl had two step fathers locked up and then accused a third. Only then did the pattern start to become a little clearer.

A girl got knocked up to two collingwood players and when the husband asked for a dna test it suddenly became rape. It turned out the father was a perth glory player after all of that.

They are the ones I know of.
Fair calls, in terms of it happening more often than you'd think. But I still think people who are that sociopathic would probably still make the accusations. It'd be the ones who have had it actually happen to them and are unsure about reporting it that will be affected more IMO.
 

Gus Poyet

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 1, 2012
9,253
4,056
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
So create a culture where victims are unsure of reporting it to the police for fear of getting sued if they're cleared?

Yes I know you said "Completely false" but how often does that happen?

As opposed to creating a culture where people can be accused of rape, have it ruin their lives and have no recourse when it's shown they did nothing wrong?

You're basically saying hey, these people aren't that many, so how about they take one for the team and let it slide.
 

Gus Poyet

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 1, 2012
9,253
4,056
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
Didn't a poor Gay chap get beaten to death in Melbourne years back when some stupid slag cried out rape in a public area?
 
Didn't a poor Gay chap get beaten to death in Melbourne years back when some stupid slag cried out rape in a public area?

wasn't there one where a guy was accused of doing something with a kid only to find out he was doing some quite positive? I can't recall the details but he was beaten to death by two guys.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
surely at the very least answer is the accused be offered the same protections as the victims? and shouldn't this be for all crimes not just rape?

can anyone offer me a reason why the accused should be named prior to a guilty verdict? and don't give me the "so other victims can come forward" crap, that is a strange and bizarre law only permitted in rape case's, no other charge allow's the
multiple victims from different incidents to come be heard at the same trial. could you imagine all those deadshit bikies sentences if all their assault charges were brought up to one trial?

the commentator is right in that the majority of rape case's are "unreported" (but seeing as they are unreported theirs no definitive way of knowing how many of the "unreported" cases are legitimate) But that dodges the point. Rape case's and how they are handled has gone too far the other way, the fact is our legal system is supposed to reflect the notion that it is better 100 guilty men go free then one innocent man go to prison.

there a good doco about a young lad in WA who was accused of rape, the family in the were so convinced of his innocence that they allowed the film makers to follow every Day of there life leading up to the trial. In the end after spending a Year behind bars this teenager who was tried as an adult was cleared of all charges his family spent there life savings defending him and had to take loans out against the house, despite the fact that many of the experts who commented on the doco suggest the case should not have even made it to court, the family are not entitled to legal fee's and as the case was found not guilty on evidence (or lack their of) there was little chance of successfully suing the girl for false allegations, as you need to prove she lied. Further more as he was charged as an adult he was "named and shamed" the family was harassed, he lost his friends, a year of school, his spot on a footy team and enters adult life the title of "rapist" hung around his neck. (a title that never goes away everyone will still mutter thats, that kid who got a away with rape)

all because a girl want revenge for him ending the relationship. This girl's name was suppressed, gave her evidence from a video screen in a closed court and he couldn't even face his accuser she had even already filed an application to the states victims of crimes fund. and after the trial went back to animosity. Lucky for this young man in WA there are still requirements for unanimous verdicts, I dare say if it had taken place in most eastern states with majority verdicts in place an innocent kid would still be behind bars.

I mean really how impartial can someone be when the tele shouts accused RAPIST every ten minutes and almost always shows the accused in a negative light well before the trial even starts?
 
surely at the very least answer is the accused be offered the same protections as the victims? and shouldn't this be for all crimes not just rape?

can anyone offer me a reason why the accused should be named prior to a guilty verdict?

At a guess it is historical where a community had concerns over an individual and town gossip spread like wild fire. As part of the process to clear the persons name or to find them guilty a very public trial was held.

So I guess it was a process to end vigilante behaviour and accept the process of the rule of law had been taken.

In the last 40 years with cities getting bigger and town gossip getting smaller, it seems less relevant. However, with the rise of social media and the nature of our sensational media, may be it is becoming a more important concept again.


.....just a thought
 

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,406
AFL Club
Geelong
can anyone offer me a reason why the accused should be named prior to a guilty verdict? and don't give me the "so other victims can come forward" crap, that is a strange and bizarre law only permitted in rape case's, no other charge allow's the multiple victims from different incidents to come be heard at the same trial

They are two separate but related issues. A serial rapist may be brought to justice by other victims being emboldened to come forward. But just because there are multiple victims does not mean the cases have to be heard together.

Here's a review of joint or separate trials by the Law Commission.

Their recommendation was :

Federal, state and territory legislation should:
(a) establish a presumption that, when two or more charges for sexual offences are joined in the same indictment, those charges are to be tried together; and
(b) state that this presumption is not rebutted merely because evidence on one charge is inadmissible on another charge.​

I don't agree with their recommendation. I don't think unrelated charges should be heard together - because, as they explain, it could be prejudicial to the defendant. It does make sense to have joint trials for related offences such as a step parent assaulting more than one sibling.
 

Donners

Cancelled
Ex-Moderator
Sep 1, 2002
4,681
1,830
AFL Club
Sydney
can anyone offer me a reason why the accused should be named prior to a guilty verdict? and don't give me the "so other victims can come forward" crap, that is a strange and bizarre law only permitted in rape case's, no other charge allow's the
multiple victims from different incidents to come be heard at the same trial. could you imagine all those deadshit bikies sentences if all their assault charges were brought up to one trial?

Nope.

There is a presumption in favour of joinder in sex offence matters, but it's one which is often rebutted to sever the trials. Without distinctive features to link them, severance is easily obtained.

It's entirely possible to have joint trials for non sex matters. Or do you think theft trials, as just one example, are split into one for every victim?

Rape case's and how they are handled has gone too far the other way, the fact is our legal system is supposed to reflect the notion that it is better 100 guilty men go free then one innocent man go to prison.

The number of compelling cases which can't even make it to Court because of the system's inability to handle them (cognitively impaired complainants in particular) is appalling. The number who can't handle the process (often as a result of the trauma they were put through) is equally damning. Then there's those who were abused for so long that they can't particularise incidents to the standard required by the law, and charges can't even be laid even where there is supporting evidence.

It is a horrible system for victims, even with the changes of the last decade
 

Donners

Cancelled
Ex-Moderator
Sep 1, 2002
4,681
1,830
AFL Club
Sydney
Didn't a poor Gay chap get beaten to death in Melbourne years back when some stupid slag cried out rape in a public area?

Anzac Day 1999. The woman was a drug user and alcoholic. Stupid she may be, but the two men who thought bashing a passerby to death was an appropriate response were far stupider.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
Nope.

There is a presumption in favour of joinder in sex offence matters, but it's one which is often rebutted to sever the trials. Without distinctive features to link them, severance is easily obtained.

It's entirely possible to have joint trials for non sex matters. Or do you think theft trials, as just one example, are split into one for every victim?

So your saying if a bloke robs a shop, two years prior to robbing another shop gets caught he's tried for both at the same time?

I did not know that, if we allow such things why are previous guilty verdicts suppressed at trial? Surely accusing an individual of separate crimes at the same trial has the same effect of knowing the person has a record, it seeks to show a pattern of behaviour. And weighs against the accused as it becomes harder to distinguish guilt for individual offences.


The number of compelling cases which can't even make it to Court because of the system's inability to handle them (cognitively impaired complainants in particular) is appalling. The number who can't handle the process (often as a result of the trauma they were put through) is equally damning. Then there's those who were abused for so long that they can't particularise incidents to the standard required by the law, and charges can't even be laid even where there is supporting evidence.

It is a horrible system for victims, even with the changes of the last decade

Yes it's horrible for the victims, but that's not the point.

The point is that the accused is consider innocent until PROVEN guilty. Tell me how providing anonymity to the accused until proven guilty is in anyway making things harder on the victims?

Take the young man in the doco for example, he was like almost all accused rapists practically crucified before it ever got to caught death threats, the lot.

This bloke was innocent, yet his reputation was irreparably damaged BEFORE he even went to court. If not for the doco, most people would simply have thought he was just another scumbag that got away with it.

In what way is it making things harder for victim by providing him the same protections as his accuser?

I never suggested taking such protections away from the individual's who make rape claims.

When I say things have gone to far it doesn't mean I want to reverse changes making it easier for the victim to give evidence, Only that given these protections changes must be made to help the accused get a fair trial.

The problem your having is you think anyone who goes to trial for rape is a rapist. People talk about how hard it is for victims to give evidence and that's fine. But what about the wrongly accused, could you imagine how hard it would be to stand confront of a packed court room and have everyone looking at you judging you and having a police prosecutor tell everyone how your a filthy ******* scumbag and should be locked up?

The kid in the doco was told and drummed for months don't react, to anything he was railed on by his own barrister just to prepare him for trial, no reaction don't smile don't frown don't get angry don't do anything.

How the young bloke managed to keep his cool when being accused of what I consider to be frankly despicable I don't know, but I can't see how allowing him the same protections that the victim gets is a bad thing.
 

Donners

Cancelled
Ex-Moderator
Sep 1, 2002
4,681
1,830
AFL Club
Sydney
So your saying if a bloke robs a shop, two years prior to robbing another shop gets caught he's tried for both at the same time?

Depends on the circumstances. Probably not, but nor would a person typically face joint trials for rape in such circumstances. It would take quite significant similarities between the two to have the trial before the same jury, regardless of the charge.

I did not know that, if we allow such things why are previous guilty verdicts suppressed at trial? Surely accusing an individual of separate crimes at the same trial has the same effect of knowing the person has a record, it seeks to show a pattern of behaviour. And weighs against the accused as it becomes harder to distinguish guilt for individual offences.

Established convictions and charges are obviously entirely different things. The former has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the latter is entirely in the hands of the jury. It's rare that the former would ever reach a jury. Only in certain, limited circumstances can the latter be used to establish a pattern of behaviour - and even then only if the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Juries are directed to give every charge separate consideration, and the fact that they will often give different verdicts on different charges demonstrates that.

Think about that James Peters case which was in the news recently. Pleaded guilty to giving 55 women hepatitis. If he had not pleaded and had gone to trial, it would be rather illogical to have 55 separate trials.

Juries are quarantined from more than enough evidence as it is. Under certain circumstances, with strict directions, some joint trials are held. It would be ludicrous to do otherwise.


The point is that the accused is consider innocent until PROVEN guilty. Tell me how providing anonymity to the accused until proven guilty is in anyway making things harder on the victims?

Never argued against that. I merely pointed out your incorrect statement of the law.

Take the young man in the doco for example, he was like almost all accused rapists practically crucified before it ever got to caught death threats, the lot.
This bloke was innocent, yet his reputation was irreparably damaged BEFORE he even went to court. If not for the doco, most people would simply have thought he was just another scumbag that got away with it.

In what way is it making things harder for victim by providing him the same protections as his accuser?

I never suggested taking such protections away from the individual's who make rape claims.

When I say things have gone to far it doesn't mean I want to reverse changes making it easier for the victim to give evidence, Only that given these protections changes must be made to help the accused get a fair trial.

The problem your having is you think anyone who goes to trial for rape is a rapist. People talk about how hard it is for victims to give evidence and that's fine. But what about the wrongly accused, could you imagine how hard it would be to stand confront of a packed court room and have everyone looking at you judging you and having a police prosecutor tell everyone how your a filthy ******* scumbag and should be locked up?

The VAST majority of pending sex offence matters never get mentioned in the media. Upwards of 95%. In some cases, their own families don't even know.

I expressed my discontent about the way the Robert Hughes matter started, and don't think he could have ever got a fair trial. But that is a very rare example.

As far as I'm concerned, media should back right away from trials, certainly before an outcome. Their reporting invariably contains inaccuracies and spin and leads only to misconceptions among the public.
 
Firstly, I think there should be degrees of rape. I think there is a big difference between a guy jumping out of the bushes and assaulting a woman and a drunk girl deciding the following morning that she wasn't in a fit state to consent. While I don't deny the latter could be quite traumatic, it's not the same thing.

As for the accused being identified, simply, it shouldn't happen. Innocent until proven guilty should also cover the media.

As for suing false claims...I'm in 2 minds here. Sure, the falsely accused should have some recourse (especially if it's publicly know), but it also brings up the big difference between innocent and 'not guilty' (i.e. unproven).
 
I don't think anyone involved should be publicly named unless there is a guilty verdict, for any crime. The mud sticks even if a person is entirely innocent and shown to be so.
Of course such a thing would be difficult to enforce with modern communications.

I think I would happily defend myself publicly, if I wasn't guilty, for any crime or allegation except anything that has to do with a kid.
 
When I was at school, a boy in my year was accused of rape. He was locked up and refused bail before his trial had even started. Just before the trial was due to begin some 12 months later, the girl admitted she made the whole thing up. Nobody really knew what happened to him, he seemed to just stop turning up to school. That is until he was smeared across the front page of the paper a year later for having been wrongly locked away.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/innocent-boys-jail-nightmare/story-e6frg12c-1111113259916
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...a-very-sad-day-for-justice-20100610-y0cz.html

 
When I was at school, a boy in my year was accused of rape. He was locked up and refused bail before his trial had even started. Just before the trial was due to begin some 12 months later, the girl admitted she made the whole thing up. Nobody really knew what happened to him, he seemed to just stop turning up to school. That is until he was smeared across the front page of the paper a year later for having been wrongly locked away.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/innocent-boys-jail-nightmare/story-e6frg12c-1111113259916
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...a-very-sad-day-for-justice-20100610-y0cz.html




That's just ******* horrid
 
Jan 13, 2001
15,892
6,917
Waiting at the door for the pub to reopen
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Man City
I have long believe that making false accusations of rape should carrying an automatic conviction and potential for a jail term. The accussed will be tarnished with that slur for a long time, whilst the accuser gets a lecture about making false accusations. Shove the accusser in jail, make them pay compensation and have them sit with a criminal conviction against their name for life.

Rape is a hideous crime, but making false accusations against someone is really not much better. It strips away dignity, it tarnishes good reputations and destroys lives. We do not deal with those wasting the time of police and our courts anywhere near serverley enough. Don't get my comments mixed up with acquaitals, but the cases where an individual is directly accussed of a serious offence, by another person.
 
I have long believe that making false accusations of rape should carrying an automatic conviction and potential for a jail term. The accussed will be tarnished with that slur for a long time, whilst the accuser gets a lecture about making false accusations. Shove the accusser in jail, make them pay compensation and have them sit with a criminal conviction against their name for life.

Rape is a hideous crime, but making false accusations against someone is really not much better. It strips away dignity, it tarnishes good reputations and destroys lives. We do not deal with those wasting the time of police and our courts anywhere near serverley enough. Don't get my comments mixed up with acquaitals, but the cases where an individual is directly accussed of a serious offence, by another person.

Do you mean if the false accuser decides to fess up?
In theory I agree - to falsely accuse some one of a crime (any crime) is abhorrent, however practically, I am not sure how this could be implemented.

Simply being found "not guilty" does not equal innocent. Already proving rape in court is hard enough.

These women who falsely accuse are selfish, and do deserve some punishment. They make the path for those who really are victims all the more harder.
 
Back