Ken Clarke should do the honourable thing and resign.

Kudos to Sunny for posting the audio quickly.

I think it’s unfortunate that this has got tied in with “date rape”, as that is an issue where there are some serious questions. AFAIK our law as implemented defines intercourse between a 16 year old and a 15 year old as “rape”, with CPS charging guidance saying “consent is irrelevant”. It seems to me to be wrong to make dividing lines so clear cut, due to the impact on consensual young couples – who can of course be supplied with contraceptives by Doctors etc.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_act/#Section_9_Sexual

But is “date rape” included in some of the statistics? I note that Ken talked about sex between an 18 year old and 15 year old (where punishments are for rape by an adult) as opposed to a 17 year old and a 15 year old (where punishments are heavily reduced for youth). Was that deliberate, and nefarious – or not?

So I’m left somewhat in the dark, as it’s all too murky.

There are cases where the Sex Offender’s registration resulting from this type of sex

OTOH, the “date rape” question is a separate issue

Sorry – last 2 paras are edit debris and should be ignored.

OP,

1. Ken Clarke may be liberal on rehabilitation policy, but he has said abhorrent things about in the past too. Yvette Cooper is right to say he does not understand rape victims.

The URL here links to a quote of Clarke from Hansard (my emphasis in bold):

“… We shall also have to consider the arguments on the other side, where a woman can make an anonymous complaint, the man can eventually be convicted, after going through a long and probably rather destructive ordeal, and the woman retains her anonymity as she walks away, with her ex-boyfriend or ex-husband left to live with the consequences.”

But Hansard was corrected. (this took about half a minute tops to check using Google, btw)

“… We shall also have to consider the arguments on the other side, where a woman can make an anonymous complaint, the man can eventually be acquitted, after going through a long and probably rather destructive ordeal, and the woman retains her anonymity as she walks away, with her ex-boyfriend or ex-husband left to live with the consequences.”

Sam Knight tweeted at the time, “I’m going to give Ken Clarke the benefit of the doubt that he mean to say acquitted not convicted”. Which was pretty obviously the case.

But because Sunny and others haven’t bothered to check, there have been 46 retweets of Sunny’s tweet that

Ken Clarke does have a really bad record on comments regarding rape though: http://bit.ly/avvmJC (via @earwicga)

Never mind!

Can anyone clear up the question of whether Clarke is right to think that the average sentence for rape might be dragged down by cases involving consensual sex between e.g. a 17 year old boy and a 15 year old girl?

Apparently there’s no distinct charge of ‘statutory rape’ applying to such cases in the UK, but certain things I’ve read appear to suggest such cases might be treated as ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ rather than ‘rape’. Is that right?

(Clarke has certainly messed up by conflating ‘date rape’ with cases of unlawful sex between consenting teenagers, but is he right or wrong that such cases are part of the figures on ‘rape’? And if he’s right, is it plausible that enough cases like that are prosecuted to make any difference to the average sentence for rape? (It’s pretty rare for a teenage boy to be prosecuted for having sex with a willing teenage girl, isn’t it?))

Just want to get the facts straight before deciding *how much* of a twat Clarke has been here…

“AFAIK our law as implemented defines intercourse between a 16 year old and a 15 year old as “rape”, with CPS charging guidance saying “consent is irrelevant”.”

The section you’ve linked to refers to an offence of “sexual activity with a child”, not an offence of rape.

Even allowing for the horrible trauma of violent rape for victims, there is far too much hysteria over Clarke’s failed attempt to introduce elements of rationality into what is, admittedly, a highly fraught, emotive subject.

Focus instead on this (worrying) news report from March 2009:

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction, compared with 34% of criminal cases in general. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged with rape were convicted following a successful trial.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/13/rape-convictions-low

The question is what to do about the low conviction rate? OK, I get anticipated points about the need for better police training and police care for victims but the sad fact is that the low conviction rate for reported rape has been going on for years – try this press report from February 2005:

Convictions for reported rape cases have reached an all-time low because of a “culture of scepticism” among the police, according to Home Office research published last night.
The study finds that despite long-running efforts by the government to boost the conviction rate, only 5.6% of reported cases end in the rapist being convicted in court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/feb/25/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

The hysteria doesn’t help to resolve the basic problem. It just blocks rational, sympathetic discussion. There are patently obvious differences in the degrees or severity of rape, which is very likely one reason that juries are so reluctant to convict. The issue of likely repeat offending is an important one but separate from how to improve the conviction rate.

@oldpolitics

That’s probably a fair cop – thanks.

My point stands for the “sexual activity with a child” offence, though. Perhaps not one for this thread, which is likely to be about politics.

Matt

Sure. Nobody’s saying there shouldn’t be (some) CPS and judicial discretion on the appropriate charges and sentences in that case. The issue is Clarke making up examples of rape that sound less serious, when what he’s done is describe something which is not, in fact, rape at all.

Clarke: this is- this is being parodied by people who don’t know what rapists get and are claiming we are cutting the sentences.

Derbyshire: the five year stats come from the council of circuit judges.

Clarke: and they include the 18 year olds having sex with 15 year olds.

Derbyshire: the five years come from the council of circuit judges.

Clarke: and they include date rapes which are- date rapes can sometimes be very confusing [stuttering and Derbyshire speaks over him]

Derbyshire: so is date rape not as serious?

Clarke: date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes but date rapes in my – quite right to say, very old experience of being in trials – they do vary extraordinarily, one from another. And in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances but I’ve never met a judge who, confronted with a rapist as you and I would use the term in conversation would give him 12 months. That would be a crazy sentence.

Doesn’t this whole episode once again underline the need to allow judges to make judgements and not try to devise laws which cover every single possible breach of the law?

All cases are different – but once again Government are trying to account for every possibility and will do what they always do – create confusing and unworkable laws and guidelines.

2/Matt Wardman: AFAIK our law as implemented defines intercourse between a 16 year old and a 15 year old as “rape”, with CPS charging guidance saying “consent is irrelevant”.

Not quite true, I think. One has to be at least 18 to commit most of the offences under the “child sex offences” category. Intercourse between a 15 and 16 year old would be counted as rape only in the absence of consent from one party.

That’s presumably why Clarke said 18 and 15, rather than 17 and 15.

However, as oldpolitics points out, this is not the same legal category as “rape”, and indeed it is separate in sentencing statistics. Some recent ones: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-02-16b.40741.h
(5 custodial sentences less than 12 months, and 58 non-custodial sentences, for “rape” rather than “sexual offences with a child” – about 1 in 15 cases.)

5/G.O.: No – 17 and 15, in the absence of a lack of consent, is legal; in the presence of a lack of consent should of course be in the statistics. Even 18 and 15 as Clarke’s example comes on a different row of the statistics.

Bob,

The question is what to do about the low conviction rate? OK, I get anticipated points about the need for better police training and police care for victims but the sad fact is that the low conviction rate for reported rape has been going on for years – try this press report from February 2005:

Convictions for reported rape cases have reached an all-time low because of a “culture of scepticism” among the police, according to Home Office research published last night.
The study finds that despite long-running efforts by the government to boost the conviction rate, only 5.6% of reported cases end in the rapist being convicted in court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/feb/25/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

“Whilst the number of rape convictions has remained relatively stable, the number of rapes reported to the police is increasing year on year, meaning that the proportion of rapes resulting in a conviction has steadily declined.The rate of conviction [convictions : allegations, not convictions : cases taken to court] for rape has, therefore, decreased from 33%, one in three, of cases reported to the police in 1977 to 7.5%, one in thirteen cases, in 1999, to 5.29%, one in twenty cases in 2004.”

page 8
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100413151441/http://homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-290306-justice-rape-victims2835.pdf?view=Binary

There are patently obvious differences in the degrees or severity of rape, which is very likely one reason that juries are so reluctant to convict.

You have not supported your claim that juries are “reluctant to convict” as I explained in the other thread.

CPS sentencing manual: rape.

cim @12, thank you for posting the link to those statistics.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-02-16b.40741.h

Where it says there was 1 case of rape where the sentence was less than 4 months, and another case where the sentence was 4-6 months (and so on, with the low numbers), what are the circumstances likely to have been, do you know?

Clarke may have ‘mis-spoke’ himself on this occasion, but he shouldn’t have to endure the screeching bile being hurled at him by the Milliblank and – ffs! – Jack Straw.

We have – possibly for the first time since Clarke himself was HS – someone of generally liberal and practical instincts in charge of penal policy (see the DoJ’s recent Green Paper “Breaking The Cycle”), and someone who clearly doesn’t want discussion of a central element of a developed society derailed yet again by tabloidism and the yapping of the usual ‘victim support’ industry. It would be a great pity if a major opportunity to re-order policy in this area – something long overdue and desperately needed – were to be derailed because yesterday’s men and tomorrow’s nonentities want to score cheap political points

Put it this way: who would you rather have in charge of this area of policy – Clarke or Straw?

15/ukliberty: No idea, and I’m not sure about the non-custodial sentences either.

I would guess “unduly lenient judge”, though.

ukliberty – thanks foe the spot. I’ve updated that post, but it doesn’t change the thrust of what Clarke said then.

There was a fair bit of women blaming in that comment, when the focus should be on getting more women to report rape and not feel afraid of doing so

18/Sunny: ukliberty – thanks foe the spot. I’ve updated that post, but it doesn’t change the thrust of what Clarke said then.

That’s because Clarke did say “convicted” then, and updating the post to imply that the “corrected” Hansard was what was originally said is rather unfair on history.

After the debate was over, yes, he went back and had it corrected to “acquitted” which he’d apparently meant to say. (The style of correction is “said 10,000 but the ONS report says 100,000” not “said 100,000, Hansard scribe wrote 10,000 by mistake”)

Nevertheless “convicted” is what he said at the time and I think it’s rather telling that his uncaught verbal slips under pressure – that one and this one – are in the pro-rapist direction.

There was a fair bit of women blaming in that comment, when the focus should be on getting more women to report rape and not feel afraid of doing so

Personally, I think the focus should be on stopping men from committing the rapes in the first place. If we had a 100% conviction rate we wouldn’t have the jail space to put them all, so the ultimate solution is going to have to be prevention. (Not to say that we shouldn’t lock up all the rapists we can find, but it’s never going to be anywhere near enough)

(For avoidance of doubt: prevention by changing society so fewer men become rapists, not prevention in the “she should have done X to avoid rape” sense)

@ 19 cim

“Nevertheless “convicted” is what he said at the time and I think it’s rather telling that his uncaught verbal slips under pressure – that one and this one – are in the pro-rapist direction.”

Do you really think there’s anything in that? I’ve seen myself write words opposite to what I mean – or that make no sense in the context whatsoever – due to what seems to be a brainfart rather than some kind of Freudian instinct.

I kinda feel that, given the overall quote doesn’t really make sense with “convicted” in place of “acquitted”, claiming that the slip of the tongue is what Clarke really meant is akin to seeing meaning in tea leaves or horoscopes. And it does also sound a bit like you want to prove he’s guilty, rather than wanting to find out whether or not he’s guilty (if that makes sense).

Chaise,

I kinda feel that, given the overall quote doesn’t really make sense with “convicted” in place of “acquitted”, claiming that the slip of the tongue is what Clarke really meant is akin to seeing meaning in tea leaves or horoscopes.

Quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Sunny,

ukliberty – thanks foe the spot. I’ve updated that post, but it doesn’t change the thrust of what Clarke said then.

That post doesn’t make sense now that you have the Hansard correction (“…the man can eventually be acquitted…” followed by earwicga’s OP:

That’s right, the convicted rapist having had to go through a ‘destructive ordeal’ who has to ‘live with the consequences’ has the sympathy of Kenneth Clarke, QC, Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, Secretary of State for Justice, and Lord Chancellor.

You’ve made it look like earwicga can’t read.

cim,

That’s because Clarke did say “convicted” then, and updating the post to imply that the “corrected” Hansard was what was originally said is rather unfair on history.

I don’t know about you, but I’m grateful no-one records every single word I say in meetings, doesn’t allow me to correct the record if I make a mistake, and then attacks me with the record at the next meeting.

@ 21 ukliberty

“Quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity”

Would you believe I was originally going to say cim was being uncharitable towards Ken? In any case, you’re on form in this thread. More power to you.

Chaise, ukliberty: Apologies, I seem to have been rather overconcise in what I said. I’ll expand slightly.

My problem with the post being “corrected” in the way that it was is as ukliberty says at 20 – it then makes no sense. An update note added to the bottom of the post to say that Clarke had made a correction to the record later I wouldn’t have had a problem with, because that keeps the actual order of events intact.

As regards what Clarke actually meant, I have no problem believing that he meant to say “acquitted” and mis-spoke under pressure; that seems far more likely. The problem is that his statement – as was pointed out at the time – is still pretty bad even that way round. It’s completely ignorant of the number of cases involved, the likelihood of the scenario he described happening, and in the context of that particular parliamentary debate, the utter lack of effect the government’s proposals would have had anyway.

He clearly doesn’t know a lot about rape or rapists – despite there being plenty of studies out there on both, including some carried out specifically for the CPS – and so I think he’s relying on what “everyone knows” (and is actually false) far too much.

The problem is that the things he says – and means to say – on rape are already not particularly good. A verbal slip – which he is generally prone to, and I don’t hold against him – then makes them even worse, but I really don’t think he should be in charge of the Ministry of Justice with the attitudes towards rape/rapists that he does mean. This isn’t, though, a call for his removal; I have no confidence that many of the other prominent coalition MPs would be any better, and as Conservative Justice Ministers go in other areas he’s fairly good

I apologise for my ‘tone’ with cim, who I respect.

I was just irritated by what I see as a scalphunting OP (and a predictable thread and unthinking retweets) of a decent-ish Justice Secretary, which isn’t based on what Clarke explicitly said, but rather what people have inferred. ISTM an OP not about rape but about scalphunting – it is not treating the topic with the seriousness it deserves, indeed it is only addressing the topic incidentally.

And to say that Clarke has a “a really bad record” in terms of making dodgy statements, pointing to just one statement, and a statement that was obviously a brainfart, is symptomatic of this lack of seriousness.

@ 24 cim

I have to disagree there too. The debate over anonymity in rape cases is a tricky one, and I don’t feel there’s an obvious right answer, but I don’t think it somehow reflects badly on someone involved in justice that they want to protect people from having their lives ruined by malicious false allegations. There are obvious advantages to protection of identity in this scenario, but disadvantages too, and one of those is that it’s very open to abuse. I’d expect people who decide policy to at least take that into consideration.

25/ukliberty: I didn’t think there was anything in your tone to me that requires an apology.

26/Chaise: I don’t think it somehow reflects badly on someone involved in justice that they want to protect people from having their lives ruined by malicious false allegations

I don’t, either. But I do think it does reflect badly to:
– prioritise that over people whose lives are ruined even more by being the victims of violent crime.
– support the proposed policy with that argument, when press anonymity would help extremely few people in that situation. The “lives ruined” bit is not generally caused by (already extremely rare) press reporting but by what your friends and colleagues find out about, and the stress of a trial [1]
– conversely to the last point, forget that most of the social attacks that can be laid against a false accuser do not require their name to be reported in the press. Also to forget that rape victims are often placed under a lot of pressure by friends and family of the rapist – despite their names not being in the press – to drop the charges.
– be considering this only in the case of rape, when ones reputation can be equally damaged in that way by other crimes.
– be talking about a situation like that as if it’s somehow commonplace, playing into the myth that false allegations – especially false allegations that get anywhere near a trial – are anything other than rare.
– ignore that if it was actually a false accusation that got to the trial+acquittal stage, and there was any good evidence that it was false (as opposed to not possible to convict on), the accuser could then be prosecuted and would lose their anonymity if that was successful.

(Some of this at least, I think, the Ministry found out about later when it actually tried to find evidence in favour of the proposed policy being a good idea – their promised document slipped three times before it, and the policy, were quietly abandoned. But I do think Clarke, as the Minister, should have already known most of it)

There are good arguments for defendant anonymity, though I don’t think any of them apply to the UK at present. What Clarke was doing was not a good argument.

[1] Though, again, trials can also be very stressful for rape victims.

@ 27 cim

“prioritise that over people whose lives are ruined even more by being the victims of violent crime.”

I don’t see how that’s ‘prioritising’. It’s levelling a playing field. Maybe there are good reasons to keep that field unlevel, but I think we have to bear in mind that allowing one person anonymity but not the other is essentially unjust; I’d accept it as a necessary evil but not as something that’s inherently fair.

“support the proposed policy with that argument, when press anonymity would help extremely few people in that situation. The “lives ruined” bit is not generally caused by (already extremely rare) press reporting but by what your friends and colleagues find out about, and the stress of a trial”

True in terms of your current life. But say a false allegation made you lose your job and family, so you moved somewhere else to start afresh… whoops, your name comes up in a news search. Good luck getting a new job or friends.

“conversely to the last point, forget that most of the social attacks that can be laid against a false accuser do not require their name to be reported in the press. Also to forget that rape victims are often placed under a lot of pressure by friends and family of the rapist – despite their names not being in the press – to drop the charges.”

This actually seems to argue in favour of anonymity by suggesting it’s ineffective.

“be considering this only in the case of rape, when ones reputation can be equally damaged in that way by other crimes.”

Not many. Imagine finding out that your friend had committed a serious crime ten years ago but was now considered rehabilitated. Which of these crimes would make you most wary: GBH, rape, or murder? In any case, if anything this is an argument for defendent anonymity to be more widespread.

If you think that supporting defendent anonymity in the case of rape suggests misogyny, I’d point out that it’s more likely to be to do with the fact that it’s the only crime (to my knowlege) where the accuser’s name is withheld.

“be talking about a situation like that as if it’s somehow commonplace, playing into the myth that false allegations – especially false allegations that get anywhere near a trial – are anything other than rare.”

Agreed.

“ignore that if it was actually a false accusation that got to the trial+acquittal stage, and there was any good evidence that it was false (as opposed to not possible to convict on), the accuser could then be prosecuted and would lose their anonymity if that was successful.”

This argument in itself ignores the possibility that neither will be convicted due to lack of compelling evidence in either direction. And the fact that compelling defensive evidence would probably mean there would be no trial, so the guilty party would be done for wasting police time or something equally minor. If the accuser lied in either of those scenarios, the defendent’s name is ruined while they get off scot-free (or very near it).

I’m not actually as strongly in favour of protecting the defendent’s identity as the above might suggest. The point I’m trying to make is that there are valid arguments on either side and it seems unreasonable to condemn someone for weighing the issue differently.

we have to bear in mind that allowing one person anonymity but not the other is essentially unjust

I don’t accept this premise, which may be where a lot of our difference of opinion comes from. Why should a suspect in a criminal trial and a witness in a criminal trial receive equal treatment regarding the media’s ability to report their identity, when they self-evidently shouldn’t receive equal treatment in other areas related to the justice system.

(Conversely, and absurdly, are we being really unjust not to require victim and witness media anonymity in cases where the alleged perpetrator is under 18 or cannot be named for other reasons?)

whoops, your name comes up in a news search

My point is that this is really rare. There are quite a few rape cases each year. Most of them don’t even make the local news, and most of the ones that do make the news only do so when a guilty verdict is announced.

(I did a search, back when this was a live policy proposal, for a large sample of Daily Mail “false accusation” stories, using Lexis Nexis. In only one case could I find the person the Daily Mail had named as being the subject of a false accusation also named in earlier reports – and that was in an “in brief” in the local news)

Anonymity – in the press sense – is almost utterly useless in practice to people who are falsely accused. (And outside the press sense it’s impossible)

We’re talking about a situation where someone was falsely accused, and the accusation was credible enough to get them to court, where they were eventually acquitted, and everyone around them despite the acquittal still thought it was true, so they had to leave, and it was reported in media with a decent online archive (prominent trial, then) … and they don’t have a sufficiently nondescript name for their new neighbours to assume it must be someone else. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but it’s really unlikely.

Situations where rape victims benefit from anonymity are considerably more common, partly because it’s far more common to be a rape victim than to be falsely accused as rape (including for men), and partly because there’s still a lot of stigma and disbelief around being raped.

but was now considered rehabilitated

I don’t think anyone is suggesting post-conviction anonymity, which that implies. (As regards the underlying question, I’d probably be less surprised by rape than the other two offences, just because I expect to meet undetected rapists most days, so knowing who one of them is doesn’t make much difference; as for wary, that would probably depend on the details)

@ 29 CIM

“I don’t accept this premise, which may be where a lot of our difference of opinion comes from. Why should a suspect in a criminal trial and a witness in a criminal trial receive equal treatment regarding the media’s ability to report their identity, when they self-evidently shouldn’t receive equal treatment in other areas related to the justice system.”

I think even-handedness should be your starting point, meaning that you should have a good reason to move away from it. So burden of proof, for example, is strongly biased in favour of the defendent, but that’s because otherwise it would be dangerously easy to frame people.

So if you think the reasons you mentioned above are a good reason to move away from even-handedness, fair enough. But if you don’t want to use it at least as a starting point, what IS your philosophy? “All things being equal, we should be biased against the defendent”?

I take your point RE rarity, but obviously that in itself isn’t a reason that these people should be shafted and anyone trying to defend them should be condemned.

“I don’t think anyone is suggesting post-conviction anonymity, which that implies. (As regards the underlying question, I’d probably be less surprised by rape than the other two offences, just because I expect to meet undetected rapists most days, so knowing who one of them is doesn’t make much difference; as for wary, that would probably depend on the details)”

It wasn’t an analogy, I created that scenario purely as a gauge of how people react to different crimes. I probably confused matters by using a scenario similar to the one under discussion.

The point I was making is that the way people react to criminals is not always in proportion to the severity of their crimes on a legal basis. I would feel a lot more uncomfortable hanging around a reformed rapist than a reformed murderer (assuming I knew no further details of the crime), even though I would call murder a worse crime than rape in terms of the effect on the victim. It’s partly an emotional reaction and partly because murder doesn’t seem to prove the perp is fucked up in the same way rape does.

But if you don’t want to use it at least as a starting point, what IS your philosophy?

Well, even-handedness between the prosecution and defence, yes, that makes sense (with weighting generally to the defence because they’re at a structural disadvantage). But this is a criminal case, so the victim is a witness, not the prosecution.

Anyway, the default state is surely that the media can report anyone’s name (true of most cases, subject to contempt of court) with exceptions being put in where there’s a need to protect particular classes of individuals (vulnerable or young suspects, witnesses to organised crime, victims of rape, people who also need to be anonymous to protect the identities of other people). An exception for one class – put in for good reasons – in no way implies or strengthens the case for an exception for another class of people participating in the same trial; they should be considered on their own merits.

I take your point RE rarity, but obviously that in itself isn’t a reason that these people should be shafted and anyone trying to defend them should be condemned.

No, of course not. But if the proposals to “help” them in fact will only help a tiny number of people in fairly obscure combinations of circumstances, while making it easier for rapists to commit more crimes? Then I’m not going to be particularly sympathetic to the idea that the proposer should be anywhere near public policy on the matter. If they come back with an idea that might actually help people who are falsely accused, then I’d be more interested.

The point I was making is that the way people react to criminals is not always in proportion to the severity of their crimes on a legal basis

I see what you mean. Yes, I’d agree – I can see valid reasons to kill or severely injure another person (self defence, or defending another). I can’t see any valid reasons to rape someone.

@ 31 CIM

“Anyway, the default state is surely that the media can report anyone’s name (true of most cases, subject to contempt of court) with exceptions being put in where there’s a need to protect particular classes of individuals (vulnerable or young suspects, witnesses to organised crime, victims of rape, people who also need to be anonymous to protect the identities of other people). An exception for one class – put in for good reasons – in no way implies or strengthens the case for an exception for another class of people participating in the same trial; they should be considered on their own merits.”

But one of the factors is the fact that someone can make a false accusation, safe behind the veil of witness anonymity, knowing that nothing bad can happen to them as a result. The protection of the accuser’s identity basically puts people at increased risk of false accusation.

Even were that not the case, I feel anyone who would attract the attention of serious vigilantees ought to at least be considered for that list.

Way back when, someone I know was falsely accused of rape. The case was dropped before it reached court. I was there when the accused’s BROTHER came within an inch of being beaten up by a group of about twenty people because of this false allegation.

I know that’s anecdotal, but I’m very aware that just because you’re found, or even proved, not guilty doesn’t mean other people will act accordingly. There are absolute morons out there who think “no smoke without fire” means something.

“No, of course not. But if the proposals to “help” them in fact will only help a tiny number of people in fairly obscure combinations of circumstances, while making it easier for rapists to commit more crimes? Then I’m not going to be particularly sympathetic to the idea that the proposer should be anywhere near public policy on the matter. If they come back with an idea that might actually help people who are falsely accused, then I’d be more interested.”

I’m aware that I’m ideological when it comes to things like fair application of law. For example, I’d support presumed innocence even if you could categorically prove to me that the world would be a better place without it. So I guess this might be a permanent sticking point.

“I see what you mean. Yes, I’d agree – I can see valid reasons to kill or severely injure another person (self defence, or defending another). I can’t see any valid reasons to rape someone.”

Films are a big indicator (and probably a cause) of this. There are plenty of films that expect you to casually side with a murderer. I’ve never seen a film that expected you to side with a rapist (Gone With The Wind and other examples of cultural shift notwithstanding) and if they do, I bet they don’t do it casually.

knowing that nothing bad can happen to them as a result.

That’s hardly true. It was only press anonymity being considered [1]. There have been plenty of rape victims who have been harassed by the accused’s friends who couldn’t believe their friend was a rapist. And those are ones who were telling the truth. (Consider the circumstances of the “double retraction” case which made the news a few months ago)

(For what it’s worth, I would think that nowadays terrorism would be the accusation to make if you wanted to ruin someone’s life at minimal personal risk)

I’ve never seen a film that expected you to side with a rapist

Lucky you!

Certainly a lot of “romantic comedies” contain behaviour on the part of (usually) the male lead which would be illegal in the UK under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, presented as “aww, how romantic”

I don’t watch enough films myself to be giving specific counter-examples, but TV Tropes has a whole bunch of them.

[1] Full witness anonymity, so not even the accused knows their identity, as controversially used in recent organised crime cases, would be utterly impractical for a rape case, since it would make a defence virtually impossible. There’s not really any practical middle ground between that and the very weak press anonymity.

@ 33 cim

“That’s hardly true. It was only press anonymity being considered. There have been plenty of rape victims who have been harassed by the accused’s friends who couldn’t believe their friend was a rapist. And those are ones who were telling the truth.”

True. I exaggerated there. But it is open to abuse. Again, that’s not a knockdown argument that proves that we should change the system, but it’s important to take into account.

“Consider the circumstances of the “double retraction” case which made the news a few months ago”

That was fucked up. For what it’s worth, though, I think that was more a case of two laws not corresponding intelligently with one another rather than a law that had been designed to harm rape victims.

“For what it’s worth, I would think that nowadays terrorism would be the accusation to make if you wanted to ruin someone’s life at minimal personal risk”

Interesting. I confess I hadn’t thought of that one. Two points, though: I suspect some people would be more or less immune to public fallout from terrorism accusations (we do tend to stereotype somewhat), and I also imagine someone who claimed they knew that someone else was a terrorist, but couldn’t deliver sensible evidence, would find themselves attracting attention from the government.

“Certainly a lot of “romantic comedies” contain behaviour on the part of (usually) the male lead which would be illegal in the UK under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, presented as “aww, how romantic””

Actually, I watched Rules of Attraction t’other night, and that pretty much opened with a girl waking up to find that a stranger was shagging her. It was played as something embarrasing that happened to her. You weren’t supposed to sympathise with the men involved, but it wasn’t presented as rape either. I think this one falls under “people don’t think that drug rape is actually rape”. Come to think of it, there’s a Simpsons episode where Marge has sex with Homer without his consent, and it’s played for laughs.

That’s the point: I’ve not seen a film that portrays someone as a rapist in the film’s terms – i.e. their actions are treated as rape within the film itself – and expected you to side with them. Which goes to the point about people finding murder easier to stomach.

“I don’t watch enough films myself to be giving specific counter-examples, but TV Tropes has a whole bunch of them.”

Do you happen to know the trope name? I’d be interested in finding out what these films are so I can avoid watching them. Also, tv tropes amuses me and I rarely need an excuse to visit.

I also imagine someone who claimed they knew that someone else was a terrorist, but couldn’t deliver sensible evidence, would find themselves attracting attention from the government.

Thing is, the government has spent quite a bit putting up all these posters that say “Not sure? Report it anyway and let the experts decide” – which means that they’re essentially inviting false (but non-malicious) reports on a “better safe than sorry” principle.

They’ve only just cleared the people who were arrested months ago on a vague report that someone had overheard them maybe talking about maybe blowing up the Pope. That was fairly obviously a “no evidence whatsoever” situation.

Agreed that it would probably be far more reliable if the intended victim wasn’t white, and/or was Muslim and/or Irish, of course.

(FWIW, I’m not advocating media anonymity for terrorism suspects here, since I think they benefit from the government not being able to take them away and not tell anyone)

I’ve not seen a film that portrays someone as a rapist in the film’s terms […] and expected you to side with them.

No, that’s probably very rare. Of course, having lots of films that present someone as not a rapist when they are is probably a bigger problem.

(The TV Tropes link was direct to their “list of rape tropes” page – several of the ones from there are relevant)

@ cim

All good points RE accusations of terrorism.

I agree that films portraying rape as, well, not-rape, is common and far worse than a show expecting us to sympathise with an admitted rapist. (I just thought of one example of the latter: the book of MASH describes one of the main heroes as a rapist, and it seems to come off as if it makes him macho and anti-establishment. It’s a crap book.) I only brought the idea up to demonstrate that we have more of a cultural aversion to rape than we do to murder.

For some bizarre reason, I failed to notice that you’d linked to TV Tropes in the first place. Sorry!