• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Can't we all just get along?

I was googling to try to find attrition rates for New Zealand (haven't found them yet) but in doing so, I came across this post in a thread:

Are a high acquittal rates is probably reflective of New Zealand as a society that condones violence towards women, particularly in certain subgroups. We share this with Australia to some extent.
Women in New Zealand have easily the highest rate of feeling they have been raped out of industrialised countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims
Note: these are not reported rapes or convicted rapes but survey of female population.
The fact that are conviction rate is so low is simply an indication of structural anti-women attitudes that permeate our society and culture. And there more than enough recent high profile acquittals that illustrate this problem.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/06/the_rape_conviction_rate.html

It doesn't look like Gumboot's assessment of his country is shared by everyone there.
 
Last edited:
Also found this, about cases that police designated as false (not just not enough evidence, but false):​

I n t e rnational re s e a rch contains salutary lessons about the ease with which cases are dismissed as ‘false’. In her analysis of 164 police files in New Zealand, Jordan (2001b) found 3 cases that had been designated false, which subsequently turned out to be early reports of serial rapists. In one of these, a young woman, who was discounted since she was on the fringe of a gang and had minor criminal convictions, named a rapist, who subsequently went on to commit at least 45 stranger rapes over 13 years​

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf
 
Last edited:
But let's suppose it was the wife accusing me of rape despite the fact that I've never done more than talk to her? That would be one of heck of thing for me to get out of. A pretty housewife like her accusing an unattractive single man like me would be an open and shut case in terms of a jury believing her and disbelieving me regardless of evidence.
You may actually believe this, but again it is not supported by facts, so you really don't need to.

The woman would need to subject herself to medical examination and her home to related forensics to show that sex took place. Her sexual conduct and possible motives would be questioned in detail by police and lawyers before, and likely during court proceedings if it went that far (since you are a neighbour and prior interaction may be alleged to have occurred). She would probably be told that the likelihood of conviction was low and of course the state might decide not to proceed to court regardless of what she thought. If it did, she would--in effect--have to face the reality of being as on trial as you were.

It hardly stacks up to the kind of prospect that makes for trigger-happy decisions to "pull a false rape accusation for a quick killing". This is, of course, why so many genuine rape crimes are not reported or pursued, and the same reasons must undoubtedly be a much stronger net disincentive for a woman to pursue a false accusation.

I recommend you temper the worry you have about this, it may be overblown.
 
I've also brought up how, recently, my neighbor falsely accused me of sleeping with his wife.

He is a man, I presume?

But let's suppose it was the wife accusing me of rape despite the fact that I've never done more than talk to her?

Why? She didn't. I do not know the background to this but it is possible her life is not very easy, given the accusation actually made. But still, she didn't

That would be one of heck of thing for me to get out of. A pretty housewife like her accusing an unattractive single man like me would be an open and shut case in terms of a jury believing her and disbelieving me regardless of evidence.

What Francesca said


Furthermore if we are required to get convictions in 97% of all cases then who's to say that I--someone who is ironically actually still a virgin--wouldn't be one of the 97%?

This is illogical. No-one has said we have to get 97% convictions: that is very likely a better approximation of the level of true accusations than the 2-14% convictions actually obtained. But there is no crime where the conviction rate perfectly matches the incidence, is there? Nobody is arguing for a figure here: we are rather attempting to show that the myths surrounding this issue result in a total failure of the justice system to deal with rape and sexual assault at any acceptable level at all: and further that those myths are damaging men and women. You are implying that we seek to get a percent conviction and that we don't care if those convictions are sound. That is false.

I'm not saying anyone here is actually proposing that we mandate a conviction rate but I have heard it talked about in the past. I find that road to be incredibly dangerous to liberty especially with my own history of dealing with false accusations.

I am afraid that is implicit in what you said and this disclaimer does little to reassure me it is not what you meant. It is not part of this thread nor of the argument of anyone who has contributed, though Ivor raised a similar charge. Why raise it if you recognise no-one is proposing it?
 
Relevant to gumboots comments--I am a New Zealander by birth; I have not lived there any of my adult life apart from visits, but I am perhaps more in touch with developments in NZ society than the typical Brit. And I agree that the country is slightly more "progressive" and ahead of the pack in respect of social norms, liberal and inclusive laws and societal attitude. (Although under the last government I think this has gone backwards--but it has in Britain too).

But it is not a case of NZ representing a siesmic difference IMO. It is not--for example--a place where women who make rape reports are instantly believed, and men are wrongly convicted, and they live in fear of it as a result. Gumboot's post speaks to a personal position/impression that I believe is both overblown and not representative, however much it might drive gumboot's actions.
 
Last edited:
<snip>

I'm suggesting that the very reason it isn't as simple as taking both accounts and trying to weigh the credibility of each alone is because of those other factors. Please check out the links if/when you have time, as a lot of it is publicly accessible. Trying to treat each case as existing in a vacuum has more possibility of subjectivity getting in the way as opposed to taking into account as many factors involved as possible, wouldn't you agree?

<snip>

No, I disagree. Human relationships are very complex with more significant variables than could ever be included in a computer model. From reading the abstracts of the links you have provided (and my time at the FSS) makes me concerned that this is being glossed over. For example:

The "Artificial Neural Network Systems for Classification of Offenders in Murder and Rape Cases" project developed two software prototypes that demonstrate developed algorithms for analyzing and comparing large databases of crime data. The CATCH (Computer Aided Tracking and Characterization of Homicides) and CATCHRAPE software applications analyze homicide data and sexual assault data, respectively. Development of CATCH was made possible with the HITS (Homicide Investigation Tracking System) database system. The HITS system provided the required historical crime data for CATCH to learn offender behavior so that new unsolved crimes can be characterized for analysis and comparison. CATCH characterizes an unknown offender by comparing his or her crime to known offenders of other crimes where the offenders' behavior was similar. The information includes level of education, type of work, physical appearance, misuse of alcohol and drugs, etc. The underlying assumption is that individuals who otherwise behave similarly, may also commit crimes with similar behavior.

I say that assumption is very dangerous when applied to human behaviour. What this system is attempting to do is incorporate prior information to produce a better posterior estimate. But what information should be included? What are the relevant factors for identifying rapists? More importantly, what are the relevant factors for identifying non-rapists and are they the same for every individual? Is there any clear boundary between rapists and non-rapists?

This comes back to my earlier question about whether using the fact that black people, as a group, commit more of certain types of crime, is appropriate when assessing the guilt or innocence of a black defendant. I say it is not.

Applying group averages to individuals is a risky business and needs to be used with extreme caution.
 
I have heard that some male sex offenders suffer from abnormally high amounts of testosterone, occasionly as much as ten times the norm. In prison, some have been given hormone therapy, which is controversial. from what i recall, they were very relieved to be freed from their oppressive testosterone.

I wonder if this is akin to insanity, as a defense?
I'm thankful that my own levels were no higher than they were in my teens.
I'm not certain i would have been able to control my behaviour.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...and-does-chemical-castration-work-453025.html

Are the drugs effective?

The jury is still out. There are some published studies that suggest they may be - but these are based on giving sex offenders the drugs and observing what happens. This is not a reliable way of establishing anything in medicine. The gold standard of medical research, the double blind randomised trial, in which some patients are treated with the active drug and some with a placebo, and neither researchers nor patients know who has received what until the end of the trial, has not been conducted because sex offenders are not the sort of patients you can give a placebo to and wait to see what happens.

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/50/3/349

http://www.mermaids.freeuk.com/st002.html
 
Bleh. With quarky's post and others in this thread I have counted off a depressingly long string of myths:

--Women don't noticeably fear rape on a daily basis
--Men fear it as much/more than women
--Women invent rape allegations in significant numbers
--Law enforcement and courts are highly benevolent on female rape complainants and harsh on male accused
--It's not men's fault that they rape women

I don't know if people posting really believe these false ideas, but the effort expended to allude to them is eye-opening.
 
Bleh. With quarky's post and others in this thread I have counted off a depressingly long string of myths:

--Women don't noticeably fear rape on a daily basis
--Men fear it as much/more than women
--Women invent rape allegations in significant numbers
--Law enforcement and courts are highly benevolent on female rape complainants and harsh on male accused
--It's not men's fault that they rape women

I don't know if people posting really believe these false ideas, but the effort expended to allude to them is eye-opening.

What do you consider significant?
 
I was trying to hold off until I could write a significant post addressing some of the things that Fiona asked for on the last page, but I just can't let this slide by.


Bleh. With quarky's post and others in this thread I have counted off a depressingly long string of myths:

--Women don't noticeably fear rape on a daily basis

Did I miss where this was said?

--Men fear it as much/more than women

Some men do. Some women don't. Yes, specific people count. Just because it doesn't affect the typical man, or it does the typical woman, doesn't mean we can just write off those it does.

--Women invent rape allegations in significant numbers

I'm not sure it is in what you would call significant numbers, but it does happen, and men do fear it. Of course men aren't allowed to be afraid I know, or express fear.

--Law enforcement and courts are highly benevolent on female rape complainants and harsh on male accused

Not law enforcement or the courts, but the court of public opinion. You don't have to go to jail to have your life, or social life, really shot to hell with just an allegation. It doesn't even have to be reported to the police to ruin your life.

--It's not men's fault that they rape women

Ok, I must be really blind. Who said this? Who made this claim? Was it removed from the thread before I read it?

I don't know if people posting really believe these false ideas, but the effort expended to allude to them is eye-opening.

It sort of seems that you're looking for them to be 'alluded' to, even if that isn't the case or intent. Not that you don't have some points, but this is getting unreasonable.
 
While I do not think there is much evidence for a sex difference in response to childhood sexual abuse, I do think there is one very significant sex-linked factor you may not be taking into account, even though you mention it: the girls had babies.
I've only heard of the case on radio. The BBC said something like "There were 19 pregnancies and (n) children are still alive." Odd way to put it. I supposed some inherent genetic problem resulting in high infant mortality or miscarriage. I can think of other causes. Frankly, I'm trying not to.
One of the girls called child line but hung up when they would not give an assurance that was not true.
Hadn't heard that.
I think we have to remember that young people brought up in such a family do not have a great grasp on normal relationship: often they are kept quite isolated and know little of how society and the law works either: and they have an inflated sense of the power of the perpetrator for rather obvious reasons... How could they know? Their picture of what the world is like was informed by their experience, just as it is for all of us. You are talking from the position of someone who sees this man as very unusual. But they knew little else. Who would you turn to? who trust? even in these circumstances the devil you know can be a lot less frightening, and I imagine he might have encouraged that view.
Indeed. Hard to put one's mind in that situation.
I see an inconsistency in what you say here and it interests me. You say that boys are frightened and if that is true then it is perfectly reasonable as I read the figures. But you also say they "dream" of fighting to impress girls. And that is truly odd.
Not in terms of sexual competition. If tough guys get (or appear to get) the girls, boys will want to be seen as tough guys. Fantasising about being a tough guy is common adolescent ( and older) male behaviour. It takes on current culture too. Pre- WW1, I think young men fantasised about giving the bully a jolly good thumping. Now they want to be James Bond/Clint Eastwood/ Rambo/ Osama Bin Laden, depending on what movies they watch.
I consider fantasising about being a tough guy beating up bullies as perfectly normal. I'd be worried about a boy who fantasised about beating up a girl. That's what he's meant to be fighting for in his own mind. He has reached the logical, but asocial conclusion that he's apt to take less damage by physically forcing the woman to get what he wants than by competing with other men to get the woman.
What I have been arguing here is that our fears are not properly grounded on what actually happens, but rather on myth and culture with a little truth to sustain it through confirmation bias.
Indeed. I fantasise about beating up newspaper editors.
So there is rape: but it is not usually of the type that is most feared; and there is false allegaton: but it is not so common as the fear it engenders would suggest. Is this perhaps the same kind of mythology but in reverse?
I think it's the same misreporting for headlines that leads young mothers to believe their six year old is safer in their 4x4 than walking to school.
He's not.
Are young men afraid but not as much as they should be, given the incidence?
No, they're not, because at heart all young men think they are indestructble and it will never happen to them. Also, the ones who do understand the risk stay home and marry someone from the office when they are 30 instead of having six kids to three different women before their twenties. Natural selection???
I put it to you that the media do not generally report assaults on young men in the same way: they do sometimes (scarce news day or if there is some special feature, for example): but not even all murders make the news in a big way: serious assault is not national news if it is young male on young male. So it is downplayed and that is not good either. What do you think?
I agree totally. "Lad thumps lad" is no more newsworthy than "Dog bites man".
"Dog kills kid"- that sells papers. And four by fours.

I did think that anger kicked in quicker
Not in a fight context. Fight or flight doesn't require it. I find I get angry at other drivers, healthy street beggars, my customer, the government- none of whom is likely to punch me in the face. This is anger management.:D
Perhaps you would, Soapy.
As I said to Fran- I like to think so. Could be those ole' fantasies again .
Well, Elaine Morgan has proposed a similar origin for rape in "The Descent of Woman", so you are not alone in this speculation. While I find the aquatic ape hypothesis attractive I do not buy this bit: I quite simply do not see this as a likely description of stone age social mores: but we will never know and not much hangs on it I do not think we need a story to explain a sex difference which is not yet established, is all
I'd like the Aquatic hypothesis too, if I could see a single iota of evidence for it, or that Morgan ever seriously researched it on the ground. I tend to think it's a cool, but completely wrong idea. Off-topic though.
[/QUOTE]

I'm 2 days behind. Must catch up with the rest of the thread.
 
That is just not true: the attrition rates prove it is not true.

No. They do not prove that. Because a court conviction is not the only way that a story can be believed. Reputations can be trashed, jobs lost, families hurt without a conviction being recorded.

If this is not an indication of a polarised view then what am I to make of it? I do not charge that gumboot chose his words very deliberately; but in fact it is this kind of statement which leads me to the view that he is blaming women very strongly. What else can it mean?

You seem to be personalising this issue. Why do you think he is blaming women in general?

That is true and I do not deny it at all: I hope that has been clear throughout. However it is also true of an accusation of murder or other crimes, sometimes: and not always, in any type of case. why do you think sexual assault is different?

I don't. Not in the way you mean.

This is certainly true: a false allegation of any sort is horrific and can have long lasting effects on anyone's life. So why the focus on the false allegation of rape?

Because that is the topic.

I want to reiterate: I am aware of the depth of this fear, and it is damaging to us all in different ways. It happens: it does not happen any more than with other crimes and yet the risk of false accusation of other crimes does not limit people in the same way.

What should men do differently?

The fear of a false accusation is not the only fear. There is also the fear that a man will be in a situation where he thought he had consent but the women wasn't really consenting at all.

Not putting yourself in such a situation is sensible.


Bleh. With quarky's post and others in this thread I have counted off a depressingly long string of myths:

--It's not men's fault that they rape women.

I don't think he said that.
 
No. They do not prove that. Because a court conviction is not the only way that a story can be believed. Reputations can be trashed, jobs lost, families hurt without a conviction being recorded.

Yes they can, gtc. But attrition rates and police attitudes are not completely divorced from the attitudes in the wider society, and that is the point I was trying to make. If women were automatically believed in the community in general I would expect to see a different kind of media representation: and a different police response; and a different attrition rate. I can only go on the evidence I have and I don't see any of those things.

You seem to be personalising this issue. Why do you think he is blaming women in general?

I don't think I really understand your point, gtc, sorry. Gumboot said that a rape accusation is a weapon: I don't think there is a war. I don't even think there is a fight. I cannot see how to interpret that word in this context except as a perception that there is polarisation of that sort. To me it implies that people are maliciously making false accusations in order to hurt someone: and I do not see much reason to suppose that it true. I do not feel it is me who is personalising it: I think the use of that phrase is doing that

I don't. Not in the way you mean.

Again I am sorry if I have misunderstood. Perhaps you can explain what you do mean?

Because that is the topic.

Well yes but the topic is also about myths, and false allegation is a very powerful one. There is not the same focus nor fear about false allegations of any other crime, or so it seems to me. I do not think the incidence is any different and this is what the evidence seems to show. You did say that you thought that this fear is wider than just rape: I am not sure how wide you believe it to be. The fear of a false allegation of rape and sexual assault affects some men's daily lives, as we have been told in this thread. Does that apply to fear of other false accusations? I can honestly say that, although shop lifting is largely a female crime, I do not live in fear of being accused of that and it does not affect my behaviour at all. Is it different for men? I do not know.

You mentioned people in professions such as teaching: well safe care is policy for all people in that kind of work and practice is informed by it. This can be detrimental, because some of the rules actually work against good care for young people and I think they are designed to protect organisations rather than children sometimes: and yes, those rules import that fear into the classroom and into care homes and scout camps etc etc etc. But the rules apply equally to men and women in those situations; and if followed there is no reason to feel vulnerable, is there?

What should men do differently?

The fear of a false accusation is not the only fear. There is also the fear that a man will be in a situation where he thought he had consent but the women wasn't really consenting at all.

Not putting yourself in such a situation is sensible.

Again I do not really think I understand your point. If you are suggesting that men should never be alone with women: or should never take an initiative: then not only do I disagree: I do not think that is what most men do. Perhaps I am wrong, but it is not what I see. I think that some limits on our behaviour are sensible to protect ourselves: but they should be proportionate to a real risk. That is all I am saying really. We should get a proper appreciation of what really happens and then take sensible steps: but at this rate we are heading for apartheid or chaperones. Is that what you think you want? It is not what I want. Sorry if that sounds dramatic I do not know how better to express it
 
I have been hunting about and I do see a lot of men's groups based in your country and making quite sensationalist statements (some of which you have linked before) about how far things have got out of kilter: but you still have not given me the attrition figures for New Zealand which I asked for.


I've given you links to the Statistics New Zealand table-builder which has all crime statistics and Justice statistics publicly available for New Zealand.


Your government's statistics show that reports of rape are amongst the highest in the western world in New Zealand: perhaps this is an artefact of liberal policy: or perhaps it is not. Do you have evidence on this?

We'll get to those "statistics" soon...


As to your own experience, it seems to me that you are also a victim of mythology and that it, too, is overblown.

My experience isn't based on mythology, it's based on actual factual events that really occurred. Our life experiences inform our behaviour.


The papers I have read do not suggest that false allegations are more prevalent where you are: and so your fear of it seems to be unwarranted.

And yet the police - the only people actually in a position to assess rates of false complaints - say otherwise. I wouldn't say I am "afraid" of false rape allegations, I'm just conscious of the possibility and take precautions accordingly. When driving a car I'm conscious of the fact I could be killed by some moron on the road and take precautions accordingly. Despite the fact that the odds of that happening are likewise very small.


It is the impact of these false perceptions on all of us that this thread is about: we will get along better if we stop blaming each other for things which do not actually reflect the real world. Do you not think?

Who said anything about anyone blaming anyone? And I think you really missed my point here. My life experiences I recounted are the real world. My caution isn't a result of some perception that women are running around willy nilly accusing innocent men of rape. It's my awareness that, in the very remote likelihood of me running into one of the few sick individuals who would do that sort of thing, due to circumstances in the real world my life will be pretty much ruined by the allegation. That's not a myth, that's simply the reality of the world I live in. If I were to be falsely accused of rape, in all likelihood my life would be ruined. Therefore I take precautions to attempt to minimise the odds of that happening.




This is a second-year student essay... it's hardly robust academic research... and they don't seem to pay much attention to the media because their summary of media attitudes does not reflect reality. Media reporting, even of confirmed fake rape allegations, is very rare. The media is overwhelmingly supportive of victims and there is a presumption of guilt in rape cases.




The sensible sentencing trust is a political group seeking to increase sentencing for violent crime. They have a vested interest in exaggerating crime statistics. The figures there are for total crimes relating to sexual violation, not just rape.

Actual statistics are here. You'll note a 20% jump in reported crimes in 2006 - that's because of the country's extensive campaign relating to domestic and sexual violence against women. Like I said - these campaigns make a big difference in this country, and attitudes towards this sort of thing have changed a lot even in the last few years. That's worth bearing in mind when looking at studies that look back 10 or 20 years.



A student journalist's blog?



Discussions on false allegations really belong in the other thread. I just want to point out the chicken-egg problem that we run into here. Either police have a bad attitude towards rape victims, and so assume victims are lying when they're not, or alternatively police receive a lot of false complaints and as a result have a bad attitude towards rape victims.

It's impossible to determine which way around it is. The only people who actually know are the police and the complainants, and both of them have a vested interest in the matter.
 
Bleh. With quarky's post and others in this thread I have counted off a depressingly long string of myths:

--Women don't noticeably fear rape on a daily basis
--Men fear it as much/more than women
--Women invent rape allegations in significant numbers
--Law enforcement and courts are highly benevolent on female rape complainants and harsh on male accused
--It's not men's fault that they rape women

I don't know if people posting really believe these false ideas, but the effort expended to allude to them is eye-opening.

I hope what I wrote didn't give you the impression that it's not men's fault.
I'm with you. Ultimately, though, I think part of the solution will be medical.
There are often early warning signs and effective treatments for all manner of sickness. Psychopathic behavior is potentially detectable, and treatable before it manifests hideously.
 
That is just not true: the attrition rates prove it is not true.

The attrition rate is irrelevant. Society will condemn a person falsely accused, even if the complainant drops the charges.


While I don't have those figures for NZ, gumboot has not provided them to show me that it is different there.

I've given you the data.


The links I have provided seem to show that attitudes about women and rape are not much different in NZ so far as the justice system is concerned:

Your links were woefully inadequate at proving anything.


As I have hunted about it has seemed to me that there is an enormous effort in that country to present false allegation as very prevalent. The media polarise this issue and those groups are a very loud voice. Just like women, men are very affected by the prevailing focus within the media and this is what I see in gumboot's posts.

You cited a single journalism student's essay on media perception and think you're now an expert on how our media portrays rape cases? Please.


If this is not an indication of a polarised view then what am I to make of it?

Alleged female victims of rape are believe by New Zealanders. Period. Why is this so hard to believe? You yourself believe them, yet you seem unwilling to accept that society here does. You seem to have a vested interest in believing people here don't believe rape victims.



That is true and I do not deny it at all: I hope that has been clear throughout. However it is also true of an accusation of murder or other crimes, sometimes: and not always, in any type of case. why do you think sexual assault is different?

Same reason people convicted of sexual abuse are treated harshly in prison. Sexual crime carries a stigma that no other crime carries. I would rather be falsely accused of murder than any sexual crime.


This is certainly true: a false allegation of any sort is horrific and can have long lasting effects on anyone's life. So why the focus on the false allegation of rape?

See above; rape is perceived as the worst of crimes.


I want to reiterate: I am aware of the depth of this fear, and it is damaging to us all in different ways. It happens: it does not happen any more than with other crimes and yet the risk of false accusation of other crimes does not limit people in the same way.

Two reasons:

1) Most crimes do not come down to a "I said - they said" dynamic, but involve forensic evidence. In contrast rape trials often involve no evidence other than the testimony of the accused and the victim.
2) Rape is perceived by society as a particularly bad crime.
 
I was googling to try to find attrition rates for New Zealand (haven't found them yet) but in doing so, I came across this post in a thread:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/06/the_rape_conviction_rate.html

It doesn't look like Gumboot's assessment of his country is shared by everyone there.

Actually I'd suggest that this sort of Blog actually backs up Gumboots point. Reading the blog the basic belief of the author is that all rape reports are true and thus if the jury doesn't find guilty there is problem in the system.

The fact that a lot of rape trails result in a not guilty is not an issue with people not believing the claiment over the defendant, but rather a sign of how easy it is to get the police to believe and prosecute with very little evidence. If the case was there then the guilty verdict would be made, but many, many people in NZ are of the oppinion that if the complaint is made, then it is true.

Let's take one of those High Profile cases as an example. Now admittedly I'm going to do a little cherry picking of the evidence, but mainly to show some of the glaring inconsistances in the complainent's story. She claims that she was repeatedly visited and raped by three police officers, who we'll call A, B, and C. I'm sure the case can be found pretty easily. During the trial she claimed that the officers would come while on duty, wearing their uniforms. At the time of the incidents all three officers were Detectives, they didn't wear uniforms at work. Also during the time, officer C had a broken leg which was in plaster, something never mentioned by the complainent. Further a period of time after the alledged rapes, the Complainents and the Officers all attended a wedding of a friend. During the reception she was shown flirting with the accused and even sat on one of their laps, actions she claimed she did because she was told to not make a scene and be nice to them.

Now this was a high profile case because it involved high ranking police (well when it went to trial they were high ranking, it was a historical case) and because the police had refused to procecute for so long. Yet even with the glaring inconsistancies in the story because of media attention and pressue, they were forced to take it to trial and when the jury found the accused not guilty there was a huge uproar because many of the public had already decided that the accused were guilty regardless of the facts. Several when so far as spreading information that was suspessed by the court to the public, and one even laid her own false charges in an attempt to get revenge for the complainent.

Merely looking at a blog and taking what it says at face value rather then understanding the background and situation it is written in really doesn't help.
 
It is not--for example--a place where women who make rape reports are instantly believed, and men are wrongly convicted, and they live in fear of it as a result.

Polarising a situation into a ridiculous strawman doesn't help your argument. I never made the above argument.

And again, for the terminally hard of reading...

The outcome of a false allegation is irrelevant.

Wider society will condemn the falsely accused regardless of the outcome of any investigation.

Please read for comprehension. I am getting sick of repeating myself.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom