[chris_wot]

Don't have sex with someone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

Edit: I think you are referring to this:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6958799/City-lawye...

If no rape is found to have occurred, which seems likely given there were police witnesses, then that lady is going to be in a world of bother. Firstly, it will have meant that she has appealed against a sentence, which means if it didn't occur she has perjured herself. Secondly, it's pretty clear that a false accusation like this is slanderous and the offended party would be well within their rights to sue. And thirdly, if a criminal conviction for perjury is recorded against the barrister, then I'd say it's likely she won't he able to practice law again.

[mirimir]

Pretty much.

But damn, if I were a young male today, I would probably require proof of consent from prospective partners. Maybe a signed affidavit, blood sample and affidavits of competent witnesses. Or maybe just forget the whole premarital sex thing. Too dangerous anymore, in so many ways.

[chris_wot]

It's a great pity that some people falsely accuse others of rape, because all those who have been raped are automatically disbelieved by a significant portion of the population.

[wccrawford]

While I agree that it's shame that people falsely accuse other of rape, and that it makes the situation worse, I don't think that's the root cause of people disbelieving claims of rape.

I would be that most instances of disbelief stem from knowing the accused and thinking they'd never do it, or having some personal interest in the person not being found guilty of it. For others who aren't acquainted with the accused, I've seen a lot of it come from misogyny in general, and a general belief that men are superior, so the man must be the one telling the truth.

Obviously, that's a bunch of crap. But personal beliefs and feelings don't really require logic, so they continue.

On the other hand, I personally know someone who believes that no woman will ever falsely claim rape because it's such a horrifying thing (and causes such strong feelings in women who were raped), and so she believes every woman who claims it to the extreme, despite any evidence I've ever seen presented to her, and any court findings to the contrary. She appears to be completely able to understand that some people will lie about anything if it gets them what they want at that moment.

[maaku]

You think marriage makes any legal difference?

[mirimir]

OK, forget that too.

Maybe stick to VR, I guess.

[morgante]

In practice, there are basically no repercussions for falsely reporting rape. The "victim" isn't charged with anything and retains their anonymity while the (innocent) "perpetrator" has their life ruined.

[chris_wot]

What do you think should be occurring though? Many women won't report being raped due to being shamed, mocked and threatened and their livelihoods ruined.

Perhaps those being convicted should also be given the same anonymity until after they are found guilty?

[morgante]

I think women who falsely reported rape should be charged with slander and pay substantial damages, at least.

> Perhaps those being convicted should also be given the same anonymity until after they are found guilty?

Yes, this would be a huge step forward (especially if both sides respected it). A big problem with rape cases is that both sides have social and professional repercussions regardless of the outcome. If rape cases were entirely sealed for both parties, that would be very helpful.

[chris_wot]

That would only occur in cases where it can be positively proven that rape did not occur. To avoid conviction the accused must demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt they raped the other party. That means that it is still possible it occurred, but in order to reduce the risk of convicting an innocent person they get to go free. I guess that's the lesser of two evils.

In terms of identifying the accused, Australia has sub judice rules that generally prohibit identifying the accused. I'm surprised that the UK doesn't either, given how closely our systems of law are related!