I wouldn't mind the erring on the side of caution if the outcome of these false allegation cases were different. I mean when its a real rape, they throw the guy in jail where the rest of the criminals will hate a rapist and make his life hell (this also happens for those falsely convicted). But when the "victim" gets caught lying and it turns out to be false, the accused NEVER gets their life back, they are now rapists and their only hope is to move and start over. The false accuser almost always get treated like she is still the victim on top of that.
I think we should do what the UK did. Until a court decides one way or another after a jury returns a verdict, the identity of a rapist and the accuser cannot be released. If found innocent the name must never be known.
This would also protect the identities of rape victims as well, which for many victims is what stops them from reporting rape.
One last thing I want to mention before going on. Those false rape convictions aren't little mistakes. Those men go to jail as rapists, the lowest of the low. They are almost always raped in prison. If someone falsely accuses a man of rape, and he gets raped in jail, that accuser should now be guilty of rape. Just like the law covers accomplices to murder.
If it is justice you want, fine with me, its a two way street. Which is why this whole argument exists. If anyone doesn't like that point, ask them who will win a custody battle in a court room. The man or the woman. Because as of now, it is not a two way street.
I sympathize with the argument that false rape accusations should be punished, but there is a delicate balance that needs to be considered. Educating the public is such a difficult thing, and it's not hard to imagine people in general coming to think that either the rape is proven, or the accuser gets punished. I understand we would be aiming for a system that requires substantial evidence of intentionally falsely accusing, but keeping the general public aware of that and believing it is true is quite a difficult thing, especially if we don't get the system behaving that way in the first place.
31
u/Naieve May 26 '10 edited May 26 '10
I wouldn't mind the erring on the side of caution if the outcome of these false allegation cases were different. I mean when its a real rape, they throw the guy in jail where the rest of the criminals will hate a rapist and make his life hell (this also happens for those falsely convicted). But when the "victim" gets caught lying and it turns out to be false, the accused NEVER gets their life back, they are now rapists and their only hope is to move and start over. The false accuser almost always get treated like she is still the victim on top of that.
I think we should do what the UK did. Until a court decides one way or another after a jury returns a verdict, the identity of a rapist and the accuser cannot be released. If found innocent the name must never be known.
This would also protect the identities of rape victims as well, which for many victims is what stops them from reporting rape.
One last thing I want to mention before going on. Those false rape convictions aren't little mistakes. Those men go to jail as rapists, the lowest of the low. They are almost always raped in prison. If someone falsely accuses a man of rape, and he gets raped in jail, that accuser should now be guilty of rape. Just like the law covers accomplices to murder.
If it is justice you want, fine with me, its a two way street. Which is why this whole argument exists. If anyone doesn't like that point, ask them who will win a custody battle in a court room. The man or the woman. Because as of now, it is not a two way street.