h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Quick semantic point: it's not just women accusing these men of rape, there's a fair few men making accusations too.

Apart from that, I think Hoo's proposal is actually a reasonable one: people who make malicious/fraudulent allegations should be punished and part of the punishment is loss of anonymity. There would be the problem of establishing motive though - might not always be a clear line between mendacious allegation and a genuine but mistaken one.

"might not always be a clear line between mendacious allegation and a genuine but mistaken one"

Exactly like there's not always a clear line (in terms of evidence available) between consensual sex and rape. That's why you have a trial, and put it before a jury.

It would prevent people coming forward if they felt that if they lost the case they were going to be branded a liar and that they would lose their anonyminity. I think many would feel that they couldn't take the risk.

Except, if you bothered to read what I said, that's not what I said. Quite apart from anything else, and this is possibly a fine legal point that has passed you by, rape victims do not "lose the case" if the accused is acquitted, for the simple reason that it is not the victim who prosecutes, it is the Crown. The victim is a witness in the Crown's case.

If the Crown loses the case, I think it's legitimate to inquire whether the case was brought on reasonable grounds. If, in the process of the original prosecution, it becomes apparent that the original complainant was making their story up, then that should be followed up, and if on further examination it can be shown, then absolutely they should be held accountable.

No victim who is telling the truth has anything to fear from that process, any more than any man who has not committed rape should have anything to fear from a false accusation...

This is a point on which the stats on false allegations become really, really important.

If, as feminists would have you believe, a tiny minority (2% or so, they claim) of rape accusations are false, then it would seem perhaps not such a big problem and not something we ought to prioritise for addressing. Just a tiny minority of nutters who can perhaps be safely disregarded (unless you one of the unlucky few who encounters them and suffers as a result).

If, on the other hand, the police are to be believed, the proportion is more like 40% (not a typo - FORTY percent) of accusations are not merely false, but provably so, then there is a legitimate thing that needs fixing here. (That 40% figure is actual data, not anecdote, collected by a real police department in the US. Sadly, anecdote both from police bloggers and from coppers of my own acquaintance suggests that that 40% is a low estimate, and that the real rate of false allegations is much higher. And bear in mind these anecdotes are not being related by misogynistic MRA morons keen to see men get away with rape, they're being told in a depressed and often frustrated tone by people - men and women - who like few things better than locking up a rapist when they can.)

The real figure on provably false allegation is likely to lie somewhere between the 2% and 40%, but the depressing fact is, there is very little chance of any research being done into it because of the risk of getting the "wrong" answer. And the truth, in this case, matters.

Hoo, I didn't deliberately misinterpret you or not bother to read your long post. I read it through quickly once, and everyone elses and I am thinking about them.

Because I am still formulating what I think about the age of consent and the anonyminity issue. I appreciate that you are furthur forward in that process.

I have also looked for other information in the meantime.

I was also thinking that I was enjoying this discussion in general. And wasn't it nice to be thinking about your posts in terms of finding them interesting and actually compelling

Now I am just narked at the side swipe of 'except if you had been bothered to read my post'

why couldn't you ask if I had mis-interpreted or misuderstood and clarified in the way that you did?

Sorry to be pedant but a mysogynist is a woman-hating man yes?

A man-hating woman is a misandrist.

(Just something that grated a little in your posts with me - other than that )

misogynist / misandrist even

Marital rape occurs but must be difficult to prove, although I think it is recognised in law.

Rape often occurs as part of a power relationship: major on minors, on dependents, on those on the lower social scale (viewed as less credible witness), some are so young they don't even realise they are being taken advantage off (especially children), misplaced feelings of guilt and shame also play a role in their silence. If one wants to look at the stats, one also needs to reflect on those that don't go to court (probably the majority).

Dependence relationships involving rape are normally also accompanied by threatening behaviour and violence. Many of the young homeless, perhaps mentally disturbed, have perhaps come from such a background. In terms of analysis, taking a them and us attitude, leads perhaps to limited thinking. But yes false allegations do occur and can be devastating. This needs to be approached with care and sensitivity across all aspects of the issue. As such someone only able to think in terms of "rational science" is at a disadvantage.

"Sorry to be pedant but a mysogynist is a woman-hating man yes?"

Nope. Misogyny is defined as "hatred, dislike or distrust of women". Nothing whatsoever in any definition I can find says anything at all about who is doing the hating, disliking and distrusting.

And if you've met more than a couple of women, you'll be well aware that there are plenty of women who hate, dislike and distrust other women, and regularly act on those feelings.

It betrays a rather prejudiced attitude that you automatically assume that one must be a man to be a misogynist.

"someone only able to think in terms of "rational science" is at a disadvantage"

Heaven forbid we make policy and law based on the evidence of reality. That would be terrible. Where would it end? We might get to a point where stuff started working, and then what would all the social workers, counsellors, pundits and talking heads do to fill their days?

No, much better we use care and sensitivity to do what *feels* right, and never mind inconvenient distractions like facts.

Tell you what - when you get cancer, how about the doctor gives you some nice homeopathic remedies? Y'know, with care and sensitivity, obviously. I predict that were that to be what you were offered, you'd be slightly less disparaging about "rational science" and rather more keen on evidence.

Rape is an invention of society, hence someone only able to think in terms of "rational science" is at a disadvantage.

Money is an invention of society, yet those who think about it rationally seem to be at a significant advantage.

What, exactly, are you on about? (One more chance to make sense...)

>> One more chance to make sense... <<

I'll take a rain cheque on that

>Nope. Misogyny is defined as "hatred, dislike or distrust of women". Nothing whatsoever in any definition I can find says anything at all about who is doing the hating, disliking and distrusting.<

Yes but that wasn't really my point. You referred to men-hating women as misogynists at one point - should've been misandry not misogyny - as I said, not biggie, it just grated on me a little.

Anyway, I digress

>I've never really understood why it is that anti-rape campaigners aren't angrier about those few women who make the false claims (other than the fact that being angry with a woman - no matter how evil and misogynist that woman's actions - would put them in a difficult position ideologically). <

It was this - maybe I misread.

>>To my mind, making a negligent or malicious false accusation of rape should be absolutely equally as abhorrent to society as rape itself. ... I've never really understood why it is that anti-rape campaigners aren't angrier about those few women who make the false claims ... <<

So you are proposing that
1) "The Rape Act" should be equally abhorrent to society as a "False Claim of Rape", i.e. the rape act is equivalent to a false claim of rape.
2) Anti-rape campaigners should be angrier with those women making false claims of rape than with actual proven rapists.

ps I believe there is category distinction between the two.

"2) Anti-rape campaigners should be angrier with those women making false claims of rape than with actual proven rapists"

No, but I can see why you might choose to read it that way. It isn't what I said, but hey, why let facts get in the way, eh?

What I said was " I've never really understood why it is that anti-rape campaigners aren't angrier about those few women who make the false claims".

I did NOT complete that sentence with the words "than they are about the rapists", because that would be bloody stupid.

That said, nor did I complete the sentence with the words "than they are currently", largely because I considered it obvious that that was what I meant. I'll try not to over-estimate you again...

So - for the hard of thinking - I shall rephrase. I have never really understood why it is that anti-rape campaigners aren't angrier than they are about false allegations, regardless of how numerous or otherwise they believe them to be, because surely every single false allegation is one more piece of ammunition for those who would seek to minimise the seriousness and prevalence of sexual violence.

I think anonymity for the defendant would be a good idea. And I think that because I think it would be helpful to the victim too.

Thing is, unless you happen to be one of the vanishingly small (if I have understood the situation correctly) rape victims who gets jumped by a complete stranger on the prowl for solitary women, then you are faced with the situation that you are accusing someone of standing in either your circle of acquaintances, your local community or (in the case of the Jimmy Savilles) the nation. And we have seen how hard that is with Jimmy Saville, and with that case in the US recently where some high school students raped one of their classmates. We may not know the name of the victim, but even when the boys were convicted, a national reporter said how sad it was that their promising lives were now in ruins. It's one more stone to heave at the victim - you wore too short a skirt, you walked in the wrong place, you smiled at him, you got drunk, you led him on, you will destroy his promising life if you even accuse him. If the accused were anonymous too up until the point of conviction, it takes some of the pressure off having to stand up and break someone's life. I bet a lot of victims more or less secretly believe it's their fault, even if intellectually they know it isn't. Do I deserve reparation more than his family deserve their loving father etc etc etc? He does so much work for charity! He is so kind to his dog!

I appreciate that the publicity is helpful, but I think that overall all round anonymity would help foster the sort of atmosphere where rape victims feel they will be heard without having to run the gauntlet of 'are you sure you want to do this?' Plus, once one conviction is made, then there would be publicity to help those who couldn't bring themselves to the sticking point before.

I don;t believe that prosecuting unsuccessful accusers would foster such an atmosphere. I am really with Peanut here. I do grasp that the idea is that if you didn't do it maliciously you have nothing to fear, and that if you were raped you also have nothing to fear, but you would have to be extremely confident in the justice system for that not to be a consideration, at a time when you are feeling, assuming you are an actual rape victim, extremely vulnerable and supremely unconfident in virtually everything.

I thought the statistic of 40% was interesting, but am I right in thinking that that's 40% of reports of rape, not, you know, actual rapes. Thing is, I would expect that it would be easier to report a not rape than a rape, especially if you are bringing those accusations maliciously, because, well, that's the point isn't it? You *want* to report it. If you are actually raped, then you don't, primarily speaking, want to report it. You want it not to have happened. It's interesting, in fact, that that 40% statistic of *reports* is in a culture where a school can tell girls not to wear strapless dresses to a prom in case it enflames the boys so much they cannot control themsleves. And where reports of rape seem to be very much lower than in other English speaking countries. It suggests to me that the false reports, therefore, might be overweighted in comparison to actual rapes.

And the thing is, well, it would be interesting to have statistics for other crimes that get reported but not prosecuted. To a certain extent, the reason why I, as a feminist, am not more angry at women who falsely accuse (for whatever reason) is that if the case is so clear cut that a jury throws it out in a short time, why was it even brought to trial? I mean, sure, wasting police time you could accuse them of, but it's the police who decide there is enough evidence to arrest, surely? I appreciate mistakes are made, but still. It's now wholly down to one woman's word. OK, that might be me being a little generous.

As for the cases where the line is blurry, where someone believes they have been raped whereas in actual face they have just had an unpleasant experience, I think that what we really need, as a culture/ community/ society, is a fairly full and frank discussion about what does and doesn't constitute rape. Apparently there was a campaign in Canada, which set out to educate the drinking public about some of the apparently gray areas like 'if she is unconscious, then she is unable to give consent, and that is rape' (other descriptions were available too I think). The statistics were quite impressive - instances of rape went down by some measurable percentage. I have 10% in my head, but that may be wrong, but, I think, not far off. Anyway, it has just occurred to me that while it is easy to say that that is 10% fewer men raping, it may be 10% fewer reports, which could be accounted for by some fewer rapes and some fewer women believing the line had been crossed.

OK, this is getting a bit long now...