Guilty until proven innocent.

[Ad Lib]

Just now, MarkoRaj said:

 

I told you I know all that you insufferable bore. I'm simply stating that in amongst the thousands of people acquitted each year, some of them must be false allegations that don't necessarily result in a conviction for the accuser. Unless you have some way of proving otherwise.

 

Literally no one is saying that none of the rape acquittals in Scotland are a consequence of false allegations, dipshit.

They are, however, incredibly rare, and the reason hardly any people are prosecuted for lying about it is that hardly any such cases exist as a proportion of overall allegations.

The overwhelming majority of rape acquittals turn on reasonable doubt, not instances where there is evidence of malicious falsehood.

[ICTChris]

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

Quote

For instance, none of the 52 cases of documented wrongful conviction in the US feature women scorned—although there is one “man scorned”, a remarkably persuasive character who managed to convince his girlfriend to accuse a male roommate who’d rejected his sexual advances.

That is one persuasive chap.

[ICTChris]

Quote

Other revenge cases include a woman trading sex for drugs who was disappointed in the quantity of drugs; a man who beat his wheelchair-bound girlfriend until she agreed to accuse a man of whom he was jealous; an 18-year-old boy living with an older man who threw the boy out after an argument about the man’s reneging on a promise to buy the boy a car in return for sex; and a woman who accused a man she thought had stolen her husband’s truck while the husband was in prison. There’s also the remarkable case of a woman who accused her gastroenterologist of performing oral sex on her after a colonoscopy, because she was angry at his refusal to act as an expert witness for her in a lawsuit. She then, of course, sued the gastroenterologist too.

what

[banana]

On 11/2/2017 at 08:33, MarkoRaj said:

The conviction rate for rape is around 60%. That means 40% of those who are charged with rape have been charged with rape are not guilty of the crime, in the eyes of the law.

Before you even respond to this, I am aware that it is difficult to obtain a conviction for rape and the reasons for this. That's not what I'm talking about. The point I am making is how can you, or anyone else, determine how many people have been genuinely falsely accused from the thousands of people that are found not guilty of rape each year?

You can't, we've been over this before a while back.

The underlying assumption from the <checrrypick lowest number possible from feminist activism sources>% is that all accusations are true, unless proven false. From this assumption, you can gerrymander the stats to arrive at all kinds of hysterical extrapolations for headlines, even moreso when the definition of rape/sexual assault is watered down.

[banana]

 

8 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

They are, however, incredibly rare

and the reason hardly any people are prosecuted for lying about it is that hardly any such cases exist as a proportion of overall allegations.

Again, sources please.

8 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

The overwhelming majority of rape acquittals turn on reasonable doubt, not instances where there is evidence of malicious falsehood.

And you're presumably lumping these all into 'true', an example of what I'm talking about in my previous post.

I could play the same game and lump them all into 'false' if I also wasn't interested in the truth.

[MarkoRaj]

Literally no one is saying that none of the rape acquittals in Scotland are a consequence of false allegations, dipshit.
They are, however, incredibly rare, and the reason hardly any people are prosecuted for lying about it is that hardly any such cases exist as a proportion of overall allegations.

Ok so show me the evidence for the above. I agree that hardly any such cases exist, you have proven that with relevant statistics. But where are the statistics that show the reasons for this?

The overwhelming majority of rape acquittals turn on reasonable doubt, not instances where there is evidence of malicious falsehood.

All criminal cases turn on reasonable doubt, it's the burden of proof in every trial. It doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about

[invergowrie arab]

11 minutes ago, banana said:

 

But when is International Men's Day?

 

[The OP]

Tbf I think we all recall when some evil woman falsely accused Alexander Pacteau of attempting to rape her in a lane in Glasgow. He was acquitted thankfully but it's probably what drove that nice young lad off the rails. 

[Ad Lib]

49 minutes ago, banana said:

You can't, we've been over this before a while back.

The underlying assumption from the <checrrypick lowest number possible from feminist activism sources>% is that all accusations are true, unless proven false. From this assumption, you can gerrymander the stats to arrive at all kinds of hysterical extrapolations for headlines, even moreso when the definition of rape/sexual assault is watered down.

Literally no one on this thread is saying "all accusations are true, unless proven false".

However, just as we wouldn't immediately disbelieve someone if they turned up at a Police Station with a black eye saying they'd been punched in the face, or we wouldn't immediately disbelieve someone who says their car has just been stolen, we shouldn't disbelieve women (and it is overwhelmingly women) when they say that they have been sexually assaulted or raped. Just like any other people complaining to be victims of crimes our immediate response should be compassion and support, not aggressive skepticism.

If we were to take your myopic view of criminal justice as gospel, we would never remand people in custody pending criminal trials for any offence of any description whatsoever. Murderers and rapists would quite literally be allowed to roam the streets when the police know they are an active and present danger to the public because "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY". 

Tl;dr: you are full of shit.

32 minutes ago, MarkoRaj said:

Ok so show me the evidence for the above. I agree that hardly any such cases exist, you have proven that with relevant statistics. But where are the statistics that show the reasons for this?

All criminal cases turn on reasonable doubt, it's the burden of proof in every trial. It doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about

 

My point was that the cases turn on whether or not it can be proved that there was an absence of (a reasonable belief of) consent to a standard beyond reasonable doubt. Very few rape trials involve disagreement between Prosecutors and Defendants that sexual activity happened at all.

It is possible, and indeed, the case, for a significant proportion of unsuccessful prosecutions for rape, that the failure to secure a conviction was because a jury could not conclude beyond reasonable doubt (but likely could have on the balance of probabilities) that there was an absence of consent and/or that the accused lacked a reasonable belief of consent. In Scotland this is compounded by the fact that we have the requirement for corroboration, with very limited exceptions in the rules of evidence. Often a victim will be a compelling witness, but in the absence of independent evidence, a conviction cannot be secured.

That there are so few attempts to prosecute women for false allegations of rape (note, not even convictions, just attempts to prosecute) relative to the number of successful rape prosecutions and rape acquittals is itself evidence that supports the view that the prevalence of false allegations of rape are very rare indeed.

This shouldn't be surprising because false allegations of criminal offences are generally very rare. We would take the low levels of prosecution attempts and rates for any other crime as evidence for it being a rare occurrence almost as read; why wouldn't we take it for sexual offences?

Unless, of course, one was a slavering banana-esque Men's Rights Activist who thinks the idea that women are people too is a disgusting imposition on 21st century Britain.

[MarkoRaj]

This shouldn't be surprising because false allegations of criminal offences are generally very rare. We would take the low levels of prosecution attempts and rates for any other crime as evidence for it being a rare occurrence almost as read; why wouldn't we take it for sexual offences?

You've completely contradicted yourself here given that you've said you don't accept the low level of prosecution attempts and rates for rape are evidence of it being a rare occurrence.

I would assume that a high proportion of acquittals for nearly every crime are because the allegations are false. Otherwise you are suggesting the very fact of being charged with a crime suggests guilt which is ludicrous.

Rape is clearly a different case and I accept that it is harder to obtain a conviction.

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, MarkoRaj said:

You've completely contradicted yourself here given that you've said you don't accept the low level of prosecution attempts and rates for rape are evidence of it being a rare occurrence.

I would assume that a high proportion of acquittals for nearly every crime are because the allegations are false. Otherwise you are suggesting the very fact of being charged with a crime suggests guilt which is ludicrous.

Rape is clearly a different case and I accept that it is harder to obtain a conviction.

 

1. No I haven't, because I haven't said that there is a low level of prosecution attempts for rape. There are literally thousands of prosecution attempts for rape in the UK every year. That the prosecution rate isn't as high as other crimes and that many reported rapes go unprosecuted, successfully or otherwise is because, as countless academic studies have shown, it is generally more difficult to prove a sexual offence in a court of law to the standard of proof insisted upon than it is other crimes. The point I was making was that, with false allegations of rape, the number of attempted prosecutions represents such a small proportion of rape prosecutions and of failed rape prosecutions that the evidence does not support the view that most of these rape prosecutions are failing simply because women are lying: making false allegations.

2. That would be an erroneous assumption on your part. Where allegations are false, it is much less likely that a prosecutor will conclude that there is sufficient evidence to attempt to prosecute a falsely accused person in the first place. Those instances therefore very often are not involved, at all, in "acquittals" because to be acquitted one must first be prosecuted. Note, of course, that being "charged" with a criminal offence is not the same as being "prosecuted" for it. In Scotland, the former is done by the police and the latter is done by prosecutors. If someone is being taken to court over an alleged criminal offence, there have been several assessments of the evidence that suggest there is more than just a significant chance that they are guilty.

We don't need to impute anything about guilt to justify treating people who have reached that stage in the criminal justice process differently from normal people on the street, or for that matter, treating them differently from people who have merely been interviewed under caution in connection with an offence. As I explained earlier, this is precisely why we remand some people in custody instead of bailing them between being charged and going to trial: there are public interests beyond ascertaining "guilt" when it comes to people who are, with probable cause, suspected of being sexual offenders. When there is a clear, on the face of it, case against them that both police and prosecutors have taken seriously, it's right and proper that they should be expected to answer it and that the burden of clearing their name, both in courts of law and in the court of public opinion, should rest with them.

If a teacher was charged with the rape of an unconnected randomer, and prosecutors were about to take him to court, and he pleaded not guilty: would you be comfortable with him continuing to teach your kids while that trial took place?

[MarkoRaj]

Can you stop answering questions I haven't asked?

I genuinely find it difficult to link my post to yours and it makes it difficult to remember why I'm even arguing in the first place.

[Ad Lib]

8 minutes ago, MarkoRaj said:

Can you stop answering questions I haven't asked?

I genuinely find it difficult to link my post to yours and it makes it difficult to remember why I'm even arguing in the first place.

If you can't handle the heat, then get out of the fucking kitchen.

[MarkoRaj]

I actually thought it was just a contradiction in argument but it seems you do actually believe in guilty until proven innocent and are using a moronic, Helen Lovejoy emotional argument to try and justify it.

I can't argue with you, you're just an idiot

[MarkoRaj]

If a teacher was accused of rape and pled not guilty he should have the presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty by a court. I can't believe I have to even say that. Aren't you a lawyer?

[Ad Lib]

57 minutes ago, MarkoRaj said:

I actually thought it was just a contradiction in argument but it seems you do actually believe in guilty until proven innocent and are using a moronic, Helen Lovejoy emotional argument to try and justify it.

I can't argue with you, you're just an idiot

Again, there is a massive distinction to be drawn between treating someone as criminally guilty and identifying them as a likely danger to other people or as someone whose actions should be judged morally and who in public life should not be in positions of responsibility or influence.

People, and society, are absolutely entitled to draw adverse inferences from evidence, regardless of whether or not a court of law has (yet) pronounced someone definitely guilty, definitely innocent, or somewhere in between. If allegations are false and are made and repeated, individuals are entitled to sue those making those remarks in defamation and to prove it on the balance of probabilities in a civil court.

That is how the protection of people’s reputations is supposed to work.

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, MarkoRaj said:

If a teacher was accused of rape and pled not guilty he should have the presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty by a court. I can't believe I have to even say that. Aren't you a lawyer?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, if a teacher faces a rape trial, they are pre-emptively suspended from their duties, because it’s dangerous to let someone who the police and prosecutors believe to be a rapist near school children.

[The OP]

57 minutes ago, MarkoRaj said:

If a teacher was accused of rape and pled not guilty he should have the presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty by a court. I can't believe I have to even say that. Aren't you a lawyer?

Teachers are regularly suspended from their jobs as a precautionary measure when allegations are made against them. I’m surprised this is news.

Schools have a duty of care toward their pupils and so having a blanket “benefit of the doubt” policy would be reckless in the extreme.

[Ad Lib]

58 minutes ago, Bishoptonbankie said:

You're a very aggressive person. However contrary to your earlier implication, not every murder accused is actually remanded in prison pending trial.

I didn’t say or imply that. I simply pointed out that society deems certain people a sufficient risk to hold them in custody before they have been found guilty of any crime. This is so natural and obvious as to expose the “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY” brigade’s intellectual vacuum for what it really is.

[Ad Lib]

Just now, Bishoptonbankie said:

So you're advocating that people shouldn't be given a presumption of innocence then? Really glad you're not a real lawyer.

If you were any sort of lawyer, even a not real one, you would know that is not even remotely what I am advocating.

The entitlement to presumption of innocence means no more and no less than that the state cannot sentence you to a criminal punishment without first positively proving in a court of law that you have committed an indicted crime.

It has got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not wider society is justified in making presumptions about whether you pose a risk to other people or whether your actions make you a bad person.