Ken Clarke

[Alkaline]

If that guy manages to convince everyone else that she consented, she's been raped, and then in Alkaline's world of justice, she gets absolutely shat upon for crying rape.

In the current world of justice quite a few people get convicted when they haven't done anything at all.

[Guest Gladstone]

In the current world of justice quite a few people get convicted when they haven't done anything at all.

Though I have (and neither do you have) any statistical evidence to back that up, I'm sure that's true. (I.e. if convicted in the eyes of the law, the stats will never show that you haven't done anything wrong, so there's no way of actually calculating that!).

But - like so many other things in politics/law/life there are two conflicting interests to protect here. The first being to protect vulnerable girls/women from would be sex offenders and the second being innocent men from lying cunts claiming to have been raped.

I would say - and this is just a guess - that more rapists go free because of lack of evidence/reporting than completely innocent men get sent down. As I say, I have nothing to back that up with, just a hunch. I reckon, given that that is probably the case, then the law sort of trying to side with the females here is correct because more rape victims are not receiving justice than the converse.

Obviously it's a very far from perfect system, but would you rather see less innocent people locked up at the price of more rapists walking free? It's a fucking tough one and I don't know the answer.

I wholeheartedly agree that women crying rape (falsely) should get a whole lot of shit thrown their way, but I just think it's impossible to say with complete conviction that despite not getting to a guilty verdict that they are definitely lying. That would be a very dangerous game to play and would all but stop any rape victims coming forward.

[Alkaline]

Though I have (and neither do you have) any statistical evidence to back that up, I'm sure that's true. (I.e. if convicted in the eyes of the law, the stats will never show that you haven't done anything wrong, so there's no way of actually calculating that!).

But - like so many other things in politics/law/life there are two conflicting interests to protect here. The first being to protect vulnerable girls/women from would be sex offenders and the second being innocent men from lying cunts claiming to have been raped.

I would say - and this is just a guess - that more rapists go free because of lack of evidence/reporting than completely innocent men get sent down. As I say, I have nothing to back that up with, just a hunch. I reckon, given that that is probably the case, then the law sort of trying to side with the females here is correct because more rape victims are not receiving justice than the converse.

Obviously it's a very far from perfect system, but would you rather see less innocent people locked up at the price of more rapists walking free? It's a fucking tough one and I don't know the answer.

I wholeheartedly agree that women crying rape (falsely) should get a whole lot of shit thrown their way, but I just think it's impossible to say with complete conviction that despite not getting to a guilty verdict that they are definitely lying. That would be a very dangerous game to play and would all but stop any rape victims coming forward.

I'd obviously rather see justice served properly but as we all know that's great in theory but not in practice. I would also say it's pretty obvious that more guilty people walk free than innocent people get jailed.

I just feel with rape cases there is very little protection afforded to men in general and it usually comes across as a guilty until proven innocent crime rather than the other way round. I appreciate it's a very sensitive issue and it's almost always, certainly in the case of date rape and men taking advantage of drunk women, a his story vs her story unless there is some obvious physical evidence (how many men have got a bit carried away while having sex though and been a bit rougher than they meant to).

Long story short: Clear as mud, always will be.

[Guest Gladstone]

I'd obviously rather see justice served properly but as we all know that's great in theory but not in practice. I would also say it's pretty obvious that more guilty people walk free than innocent people get jailed.

I just feel with rape cases there is very little protection afforded to men in general and it usually comes across as a guilty until proven innocent crime rather than the other way round. I appreciate it's a very sensitive issue and it's almost always, certainly in the case of date rape and men taking advantage of drunk women, a his story vs her story unless there is some obvious physical evidence (how many men have got a bit carried away while having sex though and been a bit rougher than they meant to).

Long story short: Clear as mud, always will be.

Yeah - absolutely. I agree with your sentiment completely, I just don't know how it can be done any differently.

If this makes any difference whatsoever, I know a guy who was accused of rape - I think it was last year.

The story was a bit like this (I heard it second hand though):

Accused (let's call him Joe Bloggs, and let's call the alleged victim Jane Doe), was absolutely wrecked on booze - had been out with his mates - turned up at Jane's door fairly late in the evening (Friday or Saturday night), and she let him in as they were good mates.

She says he forced himself on her and raped her. I'm not really sure whether his story was that they had sex that was consensual or if they hadn't had sex at all, but he certainly denied raping her.

It went through the trial and everything and was kept surprisingly quiet for my neck of the woods in public. There were murmurs about it, but not too much gossip to be honest.

In the end it was a "not proven" verdict.

Now, it turns out (I also heard this second hand) that Jane had psychological problems and had accused someone of raping her previously. That guy didn't get convicted either, though I'm not sure if it got as far as trial or anything.

That was the last I heard of it. Joe's life seemed to carry on as normal. It hasn't ruined his life - or doesn't seem to have done anyway.

Given that it was a "not proven" verdict, that doesn't necessarily say that this girl is lying and made the story up, but looking into it, the assumption that a lot of people would make here is that she's a little screwed up, seeks attention and has cried rape twice, so she should get absolutely hammered for it. However, it was "not proven", not "not guilty", so it would be pretty unjustified to do so. Plus the fact she apparently has mental health problems anyway. What she probably needs is some help, rather than punishment.

Each case is completely subjective though.

I also know a convicted rapist. His story was that he went home with two girls after a night out, having pulled one of them, and had (consensual) sex with her upstairs in the bedroom. He came down during the night and had sex with the friend on the sofa in the living room. She claims he raped her, he said it was consensual and she only said it was rape because she felt guilty about shagging the guy her mate had just shagged.

It went through trial and he was convicted and spent a couple of years in prison (I say a couple - know idea how long it actually was).

He maintains he was innocent, and his fiancee stood by him and they got married a year or so after he came out of prison.

It's the wife I know rather than him, and you can see that the guy with a drink in him is letchy as fuck, even now that he's married. That of course, does not make him a rapist, but this case was very much a his word vs. her word and the jury believed her. I could easily see how it could be decided the other way round as well though. There's nobody that knows the truth outside the guy and the victim. That's why it's so difficult.

I also don't think this guy's life has been ruined in anyway. He's very lucky that his fiancee believed him and stuck by him though. If he was innocent, he's obviously spent time in jail he shouldn't have, but he's came out the other end and he's doing absolutely fine. If he was guilty then I'm not sure what to think to be honest because he seems to be as I say doing absolutely fine, but the girl he raped is probably struggling to come to terms with the whole thing (I don't know the victim at all) and he should probably have spent more time inside to be honest.

[Alkaline]

Yeah...

Calum, your idea of what would and wouldn't ruin someones life are clearly different to mine o_O I'm sure the second guy will have to deal with the stigma of being in jail and also having been on the sex offenders list for the rest of his life. His children, if he has any, will also have to deal with it when it inevitably comes out that their dad is a convicted rapist somewhere along the line. He will also have to deal with the fact that, if he is innocent, he has no way of proving that he didn't do it. I wouldn't be surprised if it affects his relationship with his wife either.

[Guest Gladstone]

I don't want to go into much detail about either of them for obvious reasons - but honestly the second guy leads a pretty normal, happy life. He moved away from the area he was living in at the time to move back closer to his original home. There really aren't many people who know about it so the stigma doesn't seem to be there.

Obviously I can't vouch for what goes on behind closed doors etc but on the face of it it doesn't seem to have ruined his life at all.

And, if he does have problems with his wife behind closed doors which he may well do, that's far less 'ruining' of a life than I'd expect for a convicted rapist.

[Oedo 808]

With rape cases, statistically, if you're good looking you're more likely to be found innocent.

[Alkaline]

I don't want to go into much detail about either of them for obvious reasons - but honestly the second guy leads a pretty normal, happy life. He moved away from the area he was living in at the time to move back closer to his original home. There really aren't many people who know about it so the stigma doesn't seem to be there.

Obviously I can't vouch for what goes on behind closed doors etc but on the face of it it doesn't seem to have ruined his life at all.

And, if he does have problems with his wife behind closed doors which he may well do, that's far less 'ruining' of a life than I'd expect for a convicted rapist.

Thats the beauty of a criminal record though, it follows you around regardless of where you live. Work, social life, losing the majority of your friends, none of which are an easy loss.

Convicted and guilty in the eyes of the law but by what you have said about the case it was very ambiguous.

[Skubbs]

Now, it turns out (I also heard this second hand) that Jane had psychological problems and had accused someone of raping her previously. That guy didn't get convicted either, though I'm not sure if it got as far as trial or anything.

This highlights another problem, that women might not report a second incident if they weren't taken seriously the first time - the psychological effects of the first attack can have devastating effects. Obviously in this case I can't comment, so I'm not attacking your friend and saying he defintely raped her.

Not all women who suffer sexual abuse hide away from men or dislike sex, and it isn't unreasonable to think that if one person has taken advantage of a woman someone else might do the same thing.

[Christy]

Mother sets fire to her daughter's gloating rapist - Telegraph

Of course, this is one way of dealing with a rapist.