Bearing witness in rape
I have a new article up at PJ entitled “Bearing False Witness in Rape.”
In it, I discuss the repercussions of false rape accusations, as well as how common or uncommon they might be, based on research that purports to crunch the numbers.
Feel free to comment here, there, or at both sites.
A somewhat related question, if I may. From a legal standpoint, how does one discern a false allegation? What exactly are the standards for determining its falsity?
I read the Wiki link provided in the article, but it left me more confused. I am a layman and I live abroad, and in a non common law country, which maybe adds to the confusion, but I always thought that one spoke of falsity of allegations with certainty IF and ONLY IF the accused had *proven innocence* with such material evidence in the presence of which the narrative becomes manifestly false (e.g. a tape showing that at the time contested the accused was elsewhere). I thought it was a really hard thing to positively prove an allegation as false, and that is why I was very alarmed whenever I read of purportedly high percentages of false allegations, because I assumed more or less such a standard (and I also wondered how come, in a such a case, false accusers are not tried later). I thought that ALL other cases, such as simply lack of sufficient evidence in any direction (pretty much “he said, she said”) resulting in acquittal, or just withdrawing the claim, did NOT count as a false allegation, as in fact the positive innocence of the accused was not proven, so theoretically the allegation COULD STILL be factually true and in good faith (i.e. it was not RULED OUT that it was). Or at least I thought there was a clear principle of some kind, but now reading the Wiki entry it seems to me that the standards for classifying an allegation as false are also disturbingly low, nearly impression-based in some of the studies cited, and generally potentially conflate situations that should be kept separate. IF such is the case – and I repeat, it may well not be, I am a layman, plus a young and a not very smart one, so there is a good chance I am missing out on something – it would be as dangerous to suggest that the accusers be automatically convincted for the purported “falsity”of their allegations, as the same low burden of proof would apply. So technically one could report a crime in good faith, but simply not be able to substantiate it, or withdraw the report for whatever reason, and it would end up in a sentence for a “false” allegation for them? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
Years ago, fresh out of law school, I worked for a year as a law clerk to a trial judge who, before I came to work for him, had presided over a rape trial in which a man was convicted of raping his young-teen niece or cousin or inlaw or some other relative of that order. The prosecution had turned almost solely on the credibility of the victim’s testimony, and following the trial, she recanted, explaining that she had lied at first because she was angry with him over something or other, never expected to be believed, and didn’t know how to stop what she’d started. But the prosecution argued that her family had fallen apart in the wake of the conviction, were denying reality by blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator, and were pressuring her to recant — a cruel pressure that she was too young and weak to resist. Either explanation seemed equally likely. The conscientious judge, a fatherly man only a year or two away from retirement, convened a hearing to take her testimony and see if a new trial was required, and he asked me — fresh out of school, not all that much older than the victim and possessed of no particular life experience or wisdom, to sit in and help him decide whether she was telling the truth. She wept through her testimony, as she had wept through the trial, and of course, it was impossible to know whether or when she had lied. Neither of us could begin to know. I remember speaking with the judge following the hearing and seeing how haggard and drawn he was with the responsibility of deciding and, either way, risking devastation –to the victim, victimized first by the defendant and then again by her family if she’d been telling the truth the first time around, or to the defendant, victimized first by lies and then by the court’s disbelief if she had not been. Oddly enough, I cannot remember the outcome. I only remember the sick realization that there was no possible way to be sure that we were making the right choice, no matter what we chose.
I think that the last two crimes to carry the death sentence were first degree murder and rape. Since rape was considered such a heinous crime with a punishment far beyond the authority of a university it would behoove them to simply turn all allegations of rape over to the police immediately. That would end these politically correct witch ( wizard?) hunts and the liberal arts faculty could go back to more productive occupations like bashing white male patriarchy and capitalism.
With the way things are going now, the universities are opening themselves up to some very nasty lawsuits. If one of my sons had been falsely caught up in this I’d find the meanest tort lawyer out there and sue every administrator and faculty member involved for everthing they were worth for libel and slander.
Those who say rape accusers should be automatically believed are in effect advocating that the accused is guilty until proven innocent. Societally, that path inescapably leads first to far more innocent lives destroyed and then to tyranny.
Tyranny? Hyperbole? Think again. Many people in the UK, Canada and America have been arrested for ‘hate speech’ which amounted to expressing non-PC opinions.
There is a lot of unthinking going on in the left. Radical feminists, race hustlers and climate activists all demand that we buy into their hysterical claims and if we don’t we are demonized. I say to hell with them.
Geoffrey: Amen!
We have, over thousands of years of harsh experience, come up with a justice system that, for all its flaws, is better than anything else yet tried. It includes the presumption of innocence, the judgement of one’s peers, the requirement of professional legal representation for all, the automatic right to face one’s accusers, and much more.
Now people want to shut that down for a particular crime… why? Because THEY are so outraged by it?
Rape is not a new crime. Neither is hate speech, or any of the other “new crimes” that, we are told, require special exceptions to the legal code.
And let us remember that the legal system is intended to protect us. One day the raging rioter at Ferguson may himself need to face an indictment hearing; one day the woman who falsely cries “rape!” may find herself tried, convicted, and punished in “the court of public opinion” she now enjoys.
In the end, insisting that we automatically believe someone is an attempt to shut down dialogue. (We saw the same thing in the early 2000s, when Gold Star mothers against the war were declared to have “ultimate moral authority”, meaning that we should not even try to argue with them. First Amendment, Ms. Sheehan. You may be suffering, but that doesn’t stop you from being wrong.)
Are they deliberately trying to shut down dialogue, or is this merely a consequence of wanting to be taken more seriously? Call it one of Neo’s “fool vs. knave” questions.
Anna,
I think you have a pretty good handle on the situation. Though there’s no way to know how many ‘false allegations’ are incorrect. It is indeed a really hard thing to positively prove an allegation as false, and that is why those who make false allegations are rarely prosecuted for it. Even perjury is rarely prosecuted.
As we all once knew, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is predicated upon the premise that it is better that 10 guilty murderers and rapists go free than that one innocent life be destroyed. That premise is based upon the deeper premise that an individual life is of inestimable value.
The evidence is conclusive that the left and many liberals are moving toward advocating the premise of guilty until proven innocent. That path leads first to the tyranny of the majority and then, to the tyranny of the politically correct elite. Which is where every facet of the left’s proscriptions is taking us. The tragic irony that the freest people in history are willingly exchanging the responsibilities of liberty for the left’s chains of political correctness is material worthy of a Kafka.
“Are they deliberately trying to shut down dialogue, or is this merely a consequence of wanting to be taken more seriously? “
Ultimately, intent is far less relevant than resultant consequence. The left and liberals are insistent upon creating ‘a more perfect world’ (the secular substitute for faith in a beneficent God) but given human nature and the operative laws of the universe within which we reside, coercion is the only means available in attempting to reach that goal. Some on the left, such as Gruber, Obama etc. willingly embrace coercion, most liberals are blind to coercion’s necessity to the ‘perfectibility of mankind’ and it’s ultimate cost; i.e. 1984.
That coercion inevitably and unavoidably leads to exactly the opposite of a utopia is a self-evident, historical truth. One that the emotionally arrested development of the left’s advocates and, the left’s ideology blind them to seeing.
“There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see once they are shown and, those who will not see.” Leonardo da Vinci
This is a good article on the difficulty of determining the amount of false rape accusations.
http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/False-rape-allegations-assault-justice/195323158.html
So are the Scottsboro boys guilty or innocent? This is hard.
For insight, I suggest this website and database on the subject.
Community of the Wrongly Accused:
http://www.cotwa.info/
“Database of Lawsuits Against Colleges and Universities Alleging Due Process and Other Violations in Adjudicating Sexual Assault”:
http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/list-of-lawsuits-against-colleges-and-universities-alleging-due-process-violations-in-adjudicating-sexual-assault/
Zerlina Maxwell is an activist.
The tragic irony that the freest people in history are willingly exchanging the responsibilities of liberty for the left’s chains of political correctness is material worthy of a Kafka.
Or an Arthur Miller. Which brings in a whole other level of irony because his play The Crucible about the Salem witch trials was written in reaction to the McCarthy hearings.
As a Constitutional Conservative… I accuse Obama of raping the Constitution!!
I been raped!!
Ergo, my liberal logic, all rape victim claims are to be deemed truthful.
Arrest and try Obama for Constitutional rape!! Now!
As previously related here, I was accused of rape — clear out of the blue.
The gal — ultimately — told me that she was merely angry with me.
That was all it took to rock my world.
I got off lucky. She didn’t file a police report.
Her anger probably turned on the fact that I was NOT sexually interested in her — whereas she regarded me as the pick of a lifetime.
Date rape? We never dated. We practically never were alone together.
Our relationship was that of landlord and tenant. Period.
%%%%%%
Such a terrible accusation leads most (women) to believe that SOME element of truth must underlie her allegations.
Literally, until the last, until she recanted, the gals in the ‘know’ believed her — hook, line and sinker.
I terminated my commercial relationship with everyone directly involved in this snarl ASAP.
&&&&
Months roll by.
Then, guess who sees me on the H-1 freeway? Yeap.
She waves to me like I was her long lost beau. (!)
During all of these travails it became evident that she was emotionally off the rails.
BTW, it hits like being declared a murderer… yet you have no real way to clear yourself.
As for the punishments against the false claim: they scarcely exist.
Work out the calculus of her decision.
Lastly, the allegation came clean out of the blue.
We never had an argument in the slightest.
A totally unprovoked accusation — is a total mind-blower.
As for one’s defense: you don’t get any.
The universal presumption is that such a serious allegation MUST have some basis in fact.
The truth: no it doesn’t.
Some crazy women will throw out this social bomb… just on impulse. It’s not as if ANY stigma will stick to HER even if she’s found out to be a raging liar.
blert:
There is no question that false accusations can happen, and do. Sorting out the true from false can be a nightmare.
False accusers sometimes are mentally unbalanced, and sometimes are sociopaths. There are more such people around than one would think.
Glad your situation featured the woman recanting.