Agreed
I also think that if they were both drunk it shouldn't count as rape ( unless one was a sexual drunk and forced themselves but there would need to be proof because people lie )
Or if an individiual gets someone drunk with the intention of coercing them into sex. Because the fact of the matter is, people's inhibitions are diminished when they're drunk.
I think people fail to distinguish between paralytic drunk, where you're incapable of pretty much anything other than mumbling and vomiting, and lowered inhibitions drunk, where you're just more likely to do something stupid. It's already established that being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions (drink driving for example), so why should it be the case with any other choice made while intoxicated? (Not that I agree with this line of thought, I just think the disparity in legal principles is worth discussion.)
Maybe they didn't but 9 times out of 10 they permanently ruin someone's life simply by lying because even if the truth does come out it can take years to correct the damage, in the meantime the real victim (the falsely accused) can't get ANY job until the false charges are purged from their record.
If it wasn't found out they were lying the persons life could have been over. And it would be dangerous for them to be able to easily have sex and claim rape so if they were to do that it's basically a warning so people don't get fucked over.
I'm pretty sure this post has been posted before, but I'll voice my opinion again, just in case. I agree to /some/ degree with this. However, the threat of harsh punishments for false accusations could intimidate and defer actual rape victims from coming forward about their assault for fear of being jailed/criminalized if they can't provide enough evidence. Victims have a hard enough time coming forward as it is (not just women, but men as well- in fact, it's probably a lot harder for men to come forward about being raped), but think of how much harder it would be for them to come forward if they knew there was a chance they would be the ones going to jail instead of their rapist.
Not every rapist is stupid; there are plenty of smart rapists who know how to get rid of evidence before leaving the scene of their crime. And if sufficient evidence isn't presented, it could make the victim look like they're lying. So, if there were harsh punishments for false accusations, it certainly would make an actual victim more wary of coming forward about their assault knowing that they may not be able to provide enough evidence to convince a jury and that it may potentially lead to them being imprisioned.
Actually, even if they are telling the truth they can still be scared. Siblings can trick your parents by lying. People can lie about alibies. Sometimes they don't believe you.
There was something someone said awhile back that their friend was raped by a football player and the principal tried to convince to her say she was lying or she would get repercussions in school.
The thing is, a false accusation is only confirmed if it is explicitly proven that the alleged rape could not have happened. Simply failing to prove it happened does not count as a false accusation. Therefore any accusation made in good faith are protected, only the liars can be caught out.
I see your point, but who knows what the rapists attorney could dig up to make it seem like the victim is lying...or any other number of scenarios that could make the victim look like the criminal. I agree that false accusers should be punished, however, my point was that having too harsh of punishments set in place would scare an actual victim into not coming forward. They're already terrified about no one believing them, adding on a chance of punishment and public shame isn't going to help the real victims.
But that's my point, simple character assassination won't work, you'd have to have hard evidence of the lie; something like security camera footage of the victim in a grocery store across town at the exact time the attack was supposed to have happened. It's the same reason the prosecution rate for rape is so low, you have to be able to explicitly prove it.
You could also argue that the lack of penalty for false accusations allows them to continue, weakening genuine accusations by association and preventing real rapist from being brought to justice.
No one is accepting rape here. Even hardened criminals think it's wrong.
What we're saying is that if someone has consensual sex then cries rape because they regret it the next day, they shouldn't get to ruin someone's life because they felt they made a mistake.
I'd like to ask a sensitive question.
What happens immediately after one has been raped? Do you run, do you curl up and cry, are you beat up? Does it happen in a "public" area (alley, dark street, scary-movie type place) or is it more domestic abuse?
If I were raped and there was a punishment for lying, I would never ever report it, because unless that shits on video, it's hard to prove, and then if you don't prove it, you have to fear being in trouble for reporting it.
That's not how the legal system operates though, it's not "he's guilty" or "she's lying" only, there's a huge gray area of "can't be proved either way". The only way anyone would go to prison for a false accusation is if there is hard evidence that they were lying, evidence that would only exist if it were indeed a lie.
Regardless of how the legal system actually operates most people don't fully understand it and if there was any chance that you'd be punished for reporting rape it would stop a lot of people coming forwards, already the majority of rapes aren't reported so for anyone who is tossing up about reporting this would make it harder
In the paper world, all our ideas (including mine) would be great. In the real world, as many have pointed out, gathering evidence is difficult.
And everything hinges of evidence...
Is justice not everything? Your reputation, work ethic, grades, criminal prosecutions and defense, civil prosecutions and defense...
Literally everything is how you're perceived based on what you can show for yourself.
I also think that if they were both drunk it shouldn't count as rape ( unless one was a sexual drunk and forced themselves but there would need to be proof because people lie )
There was something someone said awhile back that their friend was raped by a football player and the principal tried to convince to her say she was lying or she would get repercussions in school.
What we're saying is that if someone has consensual sex then cries rape because they regret it the next day, they shouldn't get to ruin someone's life because they felt they made a mistake.
What happens immediately after one has been raped? Do you run, do you curl up and cry, are you beat up? Does it happen in a "public" area (alley, dark street, scary-movie type place) or is it more domestic abuse?
And everything hinges of evidence...
Literally everything is how you're perceived based on what you can show for yourself.
Also, how is everything you said there justice?
I meant to comment that to a different thread.
Sorry, I'm following a lot of debates right now.