especially when Cristina Lagaurad took his place ! ! she was sarcozys wing girl

Surely you’re not arguing that anywhere near all rapists are convicted? Because that would make you fairly uneducated about this issue

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/alarm-at-rape-conviction-rate-1966140.html

“if he was guilty he would be in prison … simple as.”

…I’ve never met anyone who has as much faith in the legal system as you do, haha.

Also, he may still be guilty – the courts never decided ANYTHING on the matter, except that they couldn’t go ahead with the trail. He may not at the same time, but we’ll never really know – that’s the thing. Could be that he IS guilty and this incident is being used to stitch him up at the same time! :O

Maybe just one genuine claim. DSK was stitched up because of his views about not saving banks over nations amongst other things. He was a warning to the rest to toe the line or else.

….oh right…. he is as white as snow…not

Funny how whenever powerful men are accused on sexual violence, it’s dismissed as a “stitch up” job.

Agree, Nick Beard. Just as likely that they actually sexually assaulted someone. And because of this attitude, they KNOW they can get away with it more often than not.

“Just as likely that they actually sexually assaulted someone.”

So Lenbot, by your logic there’s a 50:50 chance everyone is a rapist. That’s you or me. And I know Im not one…… So prove that you aren’t

Lenbot didn’t say “one in two people rapes”. What Lenbot said was, if two people have a differing version of events, one must be telling the truth. It’s more likely to be her, obviously, due to stats around sexual violence, but let’s be generous and say 50%. How did you hear that as you and Lenbot are equally likely to rape, Chuck?

Nick Beard
Funny how whenever powerful men are accused on sexual violence, it’s dismissed as a “stitch up” job.

Lenbot
Agree, Nick Beard. Just as likely that they actually sexually assaulted someone.

That’s where I got it from. Note the words “just as likely” which convey a sense of equivalence. It’s the same place I got my inference that you assume guilt on the part of rich men. A theme you continue in your next comment….

Chuck, I’m not saying there’s a 50-50 chance that everyone is a rapist, what kind of idiot do you take me for?

If someone is accused of something – no body knows the truth until it is proven either way. It’s just as likely that the accused is guilty as the accuser is lying. That’s what I’m saying.

Cases in which rich and powerful men are accused of sexual assault, they are often supported by people deciding for themselves that the accuser is a “gold digger”, or lying to “stitch them up”. And usually, unless the accuser is absolutely squeaky clean (especially in their sex life), they are dismissed offhand.

THIS is what makes it almost impossible for survivors of sexual assault to bring their rapist to justice, and if they do, it’s almost always a traumatising experience. Not to mention the ridiculously tiny chance they have of actually seeing their rapists charged with anything.

” It’s just as likely that the accused is guilty as the accuser is lying. That’s what I’m saying.”

So a mere accusation bestows 50% of the credibility? Well I say you’re a rapist. Prove that you aren’t.

…yeah. that’s how it works.

If you accused me of it and wanted to take me to court over it, then off we go. I would have to prove my innocence, and until I proved myself innocent, or you’re proved to be lying, no one will ever be sure (except us two) if I committed rape or not.

I have no problem with that. I get that false accusations happen and I’m aware of the devastating effects. But I’m more worried about how few rapists actually go to court over it and are charged with the crime they committed. I’d like a system that worked so that everyone could trust it – and I’d like to see people stop speculating so much and victim blaming so much – it’s doing nobody any favours.

No that’s emphatically NOT how it works. No-one has to prove they are innocent, it’s up to the prosecution to prove they are guilty.

You keep telling me to learn the law, well I did and we learned that on the first day.

Well, I actually work in law in this area and no, the prosecution has to prove their guilty for a conviction. That’s it. It has no effect on what people think nor is it supposed to.

Okay, apologies Chuck and Nick. My bad.

My other points still stand. People just deciding it’s a stitch up job makes it tougher for anyone to bring a case against someone who is rich, famous and/or powerful. Rich, famous, powerful people are just as capable of committing sexual assault, and judging by how the cases go (and the outpouring of support for them and animosity against the accuser), it’s easier for them to get away with it.

In the Strauss-Kahn case here, it was never proven either way – that’s why in order to be fair it’s best not to make a judgement call and just accept that either one could be telling the truth (that’s where the “it’s just as likely that he sexually assaulted someone as it is that the accuser is lying” comes from – I was challenging people’s assumptions she’s lying).

Am I wrong in saying this?

No it’s not. If someone is making false allegations about rape and the criminal justice system is doing nothing about it, then why shouldn’t her victim bring her to book for it? As a lot of people are pointing out – he’s rich, he doesn’t need the money anyway. He might appreciate having his good name vindicated in public though.

But of course, he’s already guilty of being a rich, white man so in the eyes of some (Nick Beard above) he’s guilty of………whatever

It must be nice to respond to what you think the post said rather than what it actually said, Chuck. What I said is that it hasn’t been proven that her allegations were false, just that the prosecution didn’t take the case forward. If you’re familiar with the legal system, you understand these are two different things. And if you’re going to argue that money has no influence in the justice system, then you’re definitely guilty of naivete.

Disappearing comment?

Well Nick, if YOU knew anything about the law you’d know that Ireland, like most common law jurisdictions, has accepted the Woolmington Principle – that it is for the accuser to prove the accusation.

The accuser does not get the benefit of the doubt in criminal trials. Your assertion that “one must be telling the truth. It’s more likely to be her, obviously” amounts to a presumption of guilt. Attitudes like yours are what convicted Michael Feichin Hannon and are part of the reason some people want to get rid of the jury system.

How can anyone be expected to prove a negative?

Well, it is just as likely that he did it. Statistically, if you’re aware of sexual violence cases, it is FAR more likely he did it and is getting away with it then that she brought a false allegation. Also, I find your lack of understanding of the distinction between the prosecution and the witness to speak for itself. She has to prove nothing, actually.

However, what I haven’t said is that a judgement in his case should be brought on this basis. So you are confusing what we are saying (the reality that he probably did) and the thinking that should used in court. I can make all the presumptions I want at home – you’re claiming that I think this should be extended to a jury.

What I did say is that just because there was no prosecution doesn’t mean she lied. Do you understand that the prosecution often does not take up cases when they believe someone is telling the truth?

“What I did say is that just because there was no prosecution doesn’t mean she lied. Do you understand that the prosecution often does not take up cases when they believe someone is telling the truth?”

Exactly, Nick.

Chuck, I suggest you do a little research into this whole area, it’s a lot more complicated than it may seem.

Nick, you may be typing in your bedroom but your assertions that he is “FAR more likely to be guilty” than not are visible all over the world. Do you understand that? That’s probably his motivation in taking a civil case – to clear his name against people like you

You are prejudiced. You have pre-judged this case in spite of the evidence on the basis of some statistics that you don’t provide that apparently know better than anyone the truth of every single rape accusation

Your prejudice prevents you from examining the facts in this particular case – that the accuser was already shown to be lying about a previous rape allegation, and that the prosecution themselves said that she lied to them (in fact they referenced a “pattern of lies”) and had no credibility. And yet you maintain your presumption of guilt.

People like you are dangerous for justice. Your agenda is more important than the facts

If my agenda was more important than facts, I would indicate that he should be put in jail on my opinion. Which I’m not. What I am saying is that someone being able to sue for false allegation simply because their case was not taken up by prosecution is incredibly irresponsible in the climate we have where rape conviction percentages are in single digits.

Try to understand the difference between his criminal case and these charges he’d like to bring. Until you understand the distinction between a criminal and civil case, there’s really not a lot of point in my trying to explain the finer points of law to you.

Your words also really make the extent your survivor blaming clear. “made previous false rape allegations”. We have no idea if they were false. All we know is that they weren’t taken to court. “history of lies.” Not a statement by the New York District Attorney’s office, but by DSK’s office. Interesting that you choose to believe his account. People like you are why survivors are so afraid to share their stories and don’t gain access to justice.

You’re confusing the legal process with the court of public opinion. I am more than welcome to believe, and say, I think he’s guilty. What I can’t do is convict him. Anyone is welcome to their own educated beliefs rather than having to wait for a court case to make up their own mind. We just can’t convict him on that.

Discourage them even more than they are already discouraged, more like.

Nick – are you saying people falsely accused of rape should just shut up and take it on the chin?

I’m saying that not being able to prove a rape doesn’t mean that she’s lying. I actually work in this area, so most of the time, it’s one person’s word against another. We have a legal system which tries to come down on the side of the accused, so in “his word against hers”, juries are told not to convict. I think there is a lack of understanding on this thread of the difference between “not able to convict” and “she is definitely lying.”

Are you suggesting that all people who are acquitted of any form or crime or that their case is not taken forward by the DPP should be able to sue anyone reporting the crime?