Lisa Longstaff of the UK's Women Against Rape bemoaned the fact that some women are prosecuted for making false rape claims. "Such prosecutions must be stopped," she declared. "It is a galling diversion for women to be jailed when the vast majority of rapists are not – 90% of rapes are never reported and only 6.7% of those that are reach conviction on a full charge of rape. The prosecution of women and the disproportionate media coverage they get are putting rape victims off reporting and leaving all of us more vulnerable to attack. Is that what they want?" Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/aug/12/layla-jailed-after-reporting-sexual-assault
Longstaff once said this: "Every prosecution [of false rape claims] puts women who have been raped off reporting it." Another time, she called such efforts "a concerted witchhunt."
Longstaff's is not the advocacy of a serious social reformer; it is the advocacy of ugly gender get-evenism that has no place in the public discourse about a critical issue. The notion that society can only combat one form of criminality, namely rape, by ignoring other serious criminality, namely false rape reporting, or that society can only wage the "war on rape" by elevating the victimization of one group of our citizens, our daughters, over that of another, our sons, is as puerile as it is patently unjust.
Holding criminals accountable for their crimes is not a zero sum game, and Longstaff's suggestion paints her as an extremist whose pronouncements are not to be taken seriously.
If some women are being unfairly prosecuted for false reporting, such unfairness is as deserving of society's attention as is the unfairness in wrongly prosecuting persons for rape. In fact, women are rarely prosecuted for false reporting, and typically, charges are lodged only where the evidence is clear and manifest. Instances of unjustly charging women for false reporting are extremely rare and receive inordinate media attention. The problem isn't that too many false accusers are being prosecuted but not enough.
In addition, the suggestion that rape victims are put off from reporting because a few women are prosecuted for making false rape claims is posited without any supporting evidence, and is absurd on its face.
As a general matter, the unfortunate gender politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether serious underreporting even exists, much less its extent. See, J. Fennel, Punishment by Another Name: The Inherent Overreaching in Sexually Dangerous Person Commitments, 35 N.E.J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 37, 49-51 (2009). Yet, paid sexual assault counselors posit every imaginable percentage of alleged underreporting as if there were a scientific basis for it, and none of those figures can be reconciled with the numbers of women they claim are actually raped. For an interesting, and even-handed, assessment of the games played when it comes to claims about the prevalence of rape, see Chad Hermann's landmark One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven.
Beyond this, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that holding a liar accountable for her lies will significantly deter women from reporting legitimate rapes, any more than prosecuting some people for arson deters people from reporting fires.
At last year's Specter rape hearing, a feminist writer live-blogged the testimony of Scott Berkowitz, President and Founder of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). Berkowitz's testimony cast an interesting light on Longstaff's claims as to why women don't report:
"On reporting [of rape]: More victims may not be reporting their rapes, but the reasoning has changed over the past few decades. 'A generation ago,' the reasons were things like, 'fear of not being believed; fear of being interrogated about and blamed for their own behavior, and what they were wearing. In short, they feared that they would be the one on trial.' Today, 'the perception of many victims has evolved.' Now they don't report for these reasons: 'they don't want their loved ones to know what happened; they're ashamed themselves; they just want to put it all behind them.' Today, 'fear and shame of how the police wil [sic] treat them' has moved down on the list of reasons victims provide for not officially reporting the crime. As much as we need to educate police to take reports seriously, Berkowitz says, we also must 'educate victims on the importance of reporting.'"
Ironically, claims that "only 6.7% of [rape claims] reach conviction on a full charge of rape" may be contributing to whatever underreporting exists. Last year, the Stern Review in the UK said that claims by rape advocates that rape is not being properly prosecuted might actually put women off from reporting. Here is why: in the UK, the Home Office, and politicians seeking to jack up rape convictions, have long cited the attrition rate for rape, which is the number of convictions as a percentage of number of reported crimes. That rate is 6%. But, the Home Office, and everyone, uses the conviction rate (the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence) for all other crimes. In fact, the conviction rate for rape is 58%. The result of such dishonest advocacy has been to make it appear that law enforcement is terribly, and uniquely, ineffective when it comes to rape. The Stern Review noted that use of the attrition rate instead of the conviction rate "may well have discouraged some victims from reporting." Stern Review, see page 45 (emphasis added).
Refusing to prosecute rape lies hurts not just innocent men and boys, but actual rape victims. For every criminal act, our society accepts the notion that punishing the wrongdoer will promote, among other things, deterrence. In false rape case after case after case, judges and law enforcement officials bemoan the harm to actual rape victims done by the lies of false accusers. With every rape lie, the integrity of every rape claim is diminished. In order for rape to regarded as a serious social malady, the general public, including prospective rape jurors, must be assured that the police are not unfairly prosecuting innocent men and boys and are holding rape liars accountable for their crimes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
I always love the bit that claims most rapes aren't ever reported but then claim they know exactly how many there are. We have no idea bc they're not reported......but it's 90%.
Not that any feminist with an agenda would care but the main culprit that hurts real rape cases is the onslaught of false ones that permeates the landscape. It has become so common that now more and more people look at rape claims with serious doubt. Nothing hurts real rape victims more than false rape accusations.
There is a sad truth to feminism today. A lot of its victims are female. The model and monetary needs of today's feminism put women in the crosshairs and actually causes more domestic violence and rape instead of truly helping to remedy the problems. They sacrifice women as well as men for their own narcissism and monetary gains.
The voices of extremists do not mirror the voices of women, or of rape victims. It is sometimes comical to hear that prosecuting a handful of false rape claimants is putting off victims from reporting when we see case after case of false accusers who, somehow, are NOT put off from reporting even lies on account of the fact that women are prosecuted for rape. I personally suspect that the chief reason women may be put off from reporting their rapes is the same reason rape claims are so terribly frightening for sexually active college men who are not in monogamous relationships and who don't rape: it's a crapshoot as to who will be believed, because that's the nature of rape claims. My solution is not one that not anyone is happy with, for both men and women/boys and girls: cut out the sex play and alcohol. Colleges need to start getting tough instead of more lenient.
Every time I hear the 90% statistic, it makes me think that even consensual sexual activity is supposed to be rape, because, of course, no intelligent woman would touch a man sexually of her own free will, right?
I don't understand why anyone feels this has to be a zero sum game. We are all human beings, we all deserve respect, and when people falsely accuse each other without any repercussions our legal system turns into a witch hunt. In this case, that witch hunt targets only half of the population whether or not they deserve it. Do these people not have sons? Or any sense of human decency?
False rape reporting turns into a story about the boy who cried wolf. It needs to stop being rewarded or ignored.
Lying to the police is a crime in most jurisdictions. There is a new type of lie that is called Swatting. Swatting is when someone calls the local police and reports that a person is being held hostage. This Swatting causes the local swat team to gear up and storm down an innocent’s person door. The Swatting is a hoax, just like a Rape Lie. Swatting Hoaxes are being investigated by the FBI because of the dangers involved. Officers are kicking down doors and pointing guns at innocent people in these Swatting Hoax incidents. An FBI agent is quoting as saying that these swatting crimes carry a penalty of between 5 to 20 years.
Isn’t a Rape Lie nearly the same, where the innocent are being targeted and jailed by the police? The Rape Lie Hoax needs to be punished. A Rape Lie hoax, a crime next to murder, needs to be prosecuted.
In a Rape Lie Hoax the innocent could face life imprisonment, bodily injury, death, and untold economic loss.
This link gives a slightly different perspective on the story.
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2010/07/uk-wicked-woman-leyla-ibrahim-jailed.html
its the usual drivel from her trying above all else to pump enough smoke into a situation to hide the fact , lets not forget women against rape holds such people as julie bindel as members.
Incidentally, the only reason anyone would be against prosecuting false rape accusers is if they ARE a false rape accuser. These feminists are covering up their own lies!
Gender feminists gain an extreme amount of social and societal "Empowerment" by inflaming the public with rape hysteria.
These gender-feminists understand that without their "perverted misinformation Alliance" with American law enforcement, they would lose the capacity to "inflame" their way to "Empowerment".
Only a small, small fraction of false rape accusers are charged, which has led to a now "culture of false rape accusations".
It is telling that we have come so far this woman could make a statement like that and be taken seriously by some people.
I suppose it takes a very short time frame to get used to the idea of denying one gender due process.
To simplify:
She points the finger, and then the govt takes you away!
I have heard that boys raised in fatherless homes are four times as likely to become rapists as those raised in two parent homes. This sounds completely plausible.
Perhaps then those responsible for breaking up families, including feminists, should be held to account for rape.
The American gender-feminist community have "inflamed" their way to "Empowerment" by fostering rape hysteria (Not unlike the Klu-Klux-Klan did 60 years ago).
Even if it is true that only a small percentage of rapists are convicted, what is Lisa Longstaff's solution? For 100% of false accusers to go unpunished. Makes perfect sense. If only a small proportion of one type of offender is punished, the obvious solution is to ensure that absolutely no-one who commits another type of offense should be punished! Why didn't anyone else think of that before?
I have no doubt that the majority of rapes that actually occur do not end in a conviction (although Longstaff no doubt exaggerates the extent of this). But that is beside the point. One could make the same argument for nearly any crime. The point of the criminal law is not to detect and prosecute every single wrongdoing. It is to simply punish enough to act as a deterrent to others who may commit such acts. There is no way that most or all crime could be punished unless we lived in an Orwellian society where the state knows everything that happens everywhere. And yet that is exactly where we are heading.
Whenever the likes of Longstaff come out with this type of tripe, they are really just showing their true colors. If they were really concerned solely with the plight of sexual assault victims, you would think they would support punishments for false accusers as a means of discouraging false accusations which risk jeopardizing the credibility of genuine victims.
The truth is that for Longstaff and her ilk it is really all about simply finding an issue to bash men with. And rape is the ultimate emotive issue to draw on. Who cares if an allegation is actually true or false? Just so long as a man is being hung out to dry by a woman, it is all good with them.
So please Lisa, just keep that inane spiteful mouth of yours flapping away, and I am sure that more people will gradually see you and your agenda for what it really is.
The trouble with Longstaff and her ilk is that they never met a rape claim they didn't believe. I grow weary of the debate over the prevalence of false rape claims, because it's a number that's essentially unknowable. I do know there are way too many rapes, and way too many false rape claims, and way too many claims that fall in a gray area where truth is elusive and obscure. To suggest that we can't combat both rape and false rape claims better is ridiculous. I also know that the biggest problem on campus for both is alcohol and one-night stands, and maybe if we were honest about that for a change, we could begin to deal with the problem.
Arod99k - ”The Swatting is a hoax, just like a Rape Lie. Swatting Hoaxes are being investigated by the FBI because of the dangers involved. Officers are kicking down doors and pointing guns at innocent people in these Swatting Hoax incidents. An FBI agent is quoting as saying that these swatting crimes carry a penalty of between 5 to 20 years.
Isn’t a Rape Lie nearly the same, where the innocent are being targeted and jailed by the police? The Rape Lie Hoax needs to be punished. A Rape Lie hoax, a crime next to murder, needs to be prosecuted.
In a Rape Lie Hoax the innocent could face life imprisonment, bodily injury, death, and untold economic loss.”
Yes, exactly!
This is why we need to push for laws that will recognize that a false rape claim is not on par with giving a false identity to police – the potential consequences are so very much greater – and thus lying about specific crimes (felonies, and rape/sexual assault in particular) need to lead to much harsher punishment, perhaps in direct proportion to the total of the harms that an individual rape lie will ultimately produce.
And, as I often do anymore, I’m going to get on my soapbox and argue that the (new) laws should also specifically recognize that those innocent people who are harmed by a false rape (or any felony allegation) are the primary victims of that crime, and, as such, are due their full protections and state representation under the “Victims Rights Act” (both Federal and state versions).
ZimbaZumba - ”This link gives a slightly different perspective on the story.
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2010/07/uk-wicked-woman-leyla-ibrahim-jailed.html”
Thank you for posting that link. While I know that the story was covered here at the FRS, I didn’t want to have to search it out. And, the artcle you linked spelled out the “real” details of the actual case, as opposed to the select (and perhaps some of theme fabricated, as they had never been mentioned in the other news accounts of the case during it’s pendency) details that are now proffered long after the fact.
It’s like so many other historical revisions. The author completely leaves out eth fact that Ibrahim eventually even provided police with a motive as to why she fabricated the attack, instead trying to sell it as a story of police willfully ignoring valuable evidence and focusing solely on her (also forgetting the 4 men who were arrested and faced the myriad of harms to the innocent falsely accused of rape for 2 months).
And, Ibrahim was convicted by a JURY of her peers, not a bunch of “rape apologist’ police and prosecutors (as the author would have us believe). That means other civilians saw through her BS as well, and voted unanimously to convict her.
But, I suppose the new way of furthering rape lies in now to take the “case” to the friendly press for a one-sided retelling – even months and years after the fact.
Nick S - ”If they were really concerned solely with the plight of sexual assault victims, you would think they would support punishments for false accusers as a means of discouraging false accusations which risk jeopardizing the credibility of genuine victims.”
I recall that the first time the FRS covered a story about W.A.R. speaking out against punishing false rape accusers, they did so in regards to the case of Gail Sherwood, who was caught on tape going to stage the second of the alleged attacks against the man with whom shed been involved in a minor vehicular accident.
I can only guess that the reason why they chose cases in which the allegation was so obviously fabricated is that there are no legitimate cases of a woman who was not so obviously guilty having been tried and convicted.
On the other side of the issue, we can easily point to William McCaffery and others who are absolutely known to have been convicted although innocent.
It just goes to show that even though law enforcement in the UK may be getting tougher on false rape accusers (thanks to having been provided a legal statute under which to bring meaningful charges), they are still applying it in an abundance of caution.
The W.A.R. (pigs) aren’t really arguing that woman should not be prosecuted because some innocent woman might be convicted so much as they are arguing that NO WOMAN should EVER be charged and tried no matter how obvious her false allegation/fabricated attack). Using the likes of Sherwood and Ibrahim as “poster girls” for their advocacy speaks volumes.
If a case is dismissed because of lack of evidence, doesn't mean the victim lied.
I am pretty sure that, like how it must be proven the rape happened, it also must be proven they lied of the rape in order to convict them for false rape claims.
So prosecuting false rape claimers should not negatively affect actual rape victims.
There often seems to be a relatively simple but crucial point overlooked in the "punishing false rape accusers will deter real rape victims from 'coming forward'" debate: in theory, at least, a false rape accuser will only be found guilty of that crime if... there is actually evidence for her being a false rape accuser. If the cops/etc. simply don't believe there's a basis to prosecute an alleged rape case, but also don't have any reason to believe the accuser was acting in bad faith: no false rape charges.
So then, what does an honest rape accuser have to fear, especially in a system that is so tilted towards women? Perhaps the system will one day feed the women to the dogs as well (like it has done to men), and reduce or eliminate the need for actual proof to get a conviction (for false rape accusations in this case), but that day is certainly not now.
The War woman is wrong but Leyla Ibrahim was clearly raped so its terrible she was jailed.
How can you convict her of making a false rape accusation when there's male blood & male pubic hair on her, other attacks fitting the same description in the area, she's been diagnosed with PTSD, 5 expert witnesses saying her injuries were not caused by herself, a psychiatrist and a specialist in sexual assault medical examinations saying she was raped????
The poor woman had to have her baby in prison and almost killed herself. Its terrible.
She is a victim of a false allegation as well and you should support her like you did Sara Reedy.
Post a Comment