~ archived since 2018 ~

UK: Sentenced to life and a minimum term of seven years for a rape he did not commit. . Because he claimed his innocence he spent 17 years in prison.

furchfur

June 7, 2024

429 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/knock-door-20-years-life-201332044.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	UK: Sentenced to life and a minimum term of seven years for a rape he did not commit. . Because he claimed his innocence he spent 17 years in prison.
Author	furchfur
Upvotes	429
Comments	29
Date	June 7, 2024 7:54 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1da59k4/uk_sentenced_to_life_and_a_minimum_term_of_seven/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/uk-sentenced-to-life-and-a-minimum-term-of-seven.1520816 https://theredarchive.com/post/1520816

Comments

[–]furchfur[S] 164 points165 points166 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eastwood96 64 points65 points66 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 62 points63 points64 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smeg-life 47 points48 points49 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scarce12 25 points26 points27 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]COMMANDO_MARINE 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The worst part is that they tell you that if you plead guilty, you'll get a lesser charge and a much lower sentence or possibly even a non-custodial sentence, but if you don't then you'll receive a much lengthier sentence with no chance of not getting a custodial sentence. That sounds fine if you believe that innocent people don't get wrongfully convicted, but the reality is that you will be interviewed at least twice several weeks apart, and if ab details don't match up from your first statement to your second then they will use that to suggest you must be lying. You try asking someone after a night out drinking what happened last night in detail and then ask them again 6 weeks later what happened that night and you'll see that simply due to how people recall things that there will be key differences. The person accusing you, though, will only be interviewed once in a sympathetic way, and no one will expect them to have a photographic memory of events. Once you're accused of something, it really is down to you to prove your innocent where as the accuser will be given all the support and empathy in the world to help convict you with no pressure about getting caught lying because they are not facing a prison sentence. It's the fact that the police try to trip you up with your recollection of events that pisses off the most because who can recall minute by minute events of a night out and if your wrong it means your a liar and nothing you say after that will carry any weight. Its likely prisons are full of people who thought it'd be safer to take the reduces sentence than to hope your word will be believed over someone else whose too embarrassed to admit they were lying for whatever reasons.

[–]Current_Finding_4066 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InPrinciple63 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Knowing that memory is imperfect in that way means that it is not necessarily lying to give conflicting evidence and using lying to suggest the accused is guilty of the crime is not evidence they did. I can't believe courts pursue this illogic when the prosecution is supposed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: there is already reasonable doubt in the accuracy of testimony due to the inadequacies of memory to base a prosecution on it.

I know it was argued that there weren't enough convictions in the courts for sexual matters against women, so courts have slowly lowered the bar to conviction where the end is justifying the means. It's why Title IX was perverted to bypass the justice system and create kangaroo courts and why business managers are being allowed to judge and punish men for alleged sexual wrongdoing in the workplace that would be actually crimes but bypass the more rigorous justice system and disproportionately punish men by depriving them of their livelihood because there is no due process in these shadow courts that are held to a lower standard of proof.

The system of justice is being perverted so that women can avenge themselves more easily over hurt feelings.

[–]walterwallcarpet 54 points55 points56 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Low_Rich_5436 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imjustpassingby762 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dumspirospero816 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]esuil -70 points-69 points-68 points 2 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]kongeriket 74 points75 points76 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 37 points38 points39 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]esuil -61 points-60 points-59 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]kongeriket 48 points49 points50 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Sure, it can technically count as false accusation because the person being accused is the wrong one.

So it is a false accusation.

But the title and the flair are written in a way that makes reader think the rape itself did not happen.

Vibes nonsense. A false accusation is when someone makes a false statement about someone else. She said this man raped her. That did not happen as this man did not rape anyone.

She lied. Consistently. For decades. And a man's life was destroyed. For absolutely no other reason than her word.

She was raped by a stranger, so she did not know and was not familiar with how the rapist looked.

Did you even read the article? Here, let me help you:

When the victim was asked by the prosecution barrister during the trial whether the man who raped her was in court she said yes. Asked how sure she was she said: ‘100 percent’.

You don't say "100 percent" if you don't know and you're not familiar with. Unless your intention is to lie. She lied.

[+]divers69 -38 points-37 points-36 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kongeriket 32 points33 points34 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]divers69 -39 points-38 points-37 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]esuil -35 points-34 points-33 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kongeriket 30 points31 points32 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zathail 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ImHighAsf01 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TenuousOgre 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Readshirt 26 points27 points28 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]esuil -12 points-11 points-10 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Readshirt 19 points20 points21 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InPrinciple63 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rape covers a large range of outcomes, now that it is based only on failure to honour consent, however the same single emotive term is being used to conflate that range into the most heinous possibility to bolster the victim narrative and sway the court on emotion.

I would not be surprised if rape is eventually extended to looking at a woman in a way she feels subjectively uncomfortable, not for any objective measurable reason and we finally get "he raped me with his eyes as a major crime".

The end game here seems to be for women to be able to threaten men with punishment for things they can't easily avoid, in order to control them and avenge their own subjective feelings: a plea bargain is one such manifestation where a woman gets to punish a man severely for the least infraction by conflating that infraction with something far more serious, regardless whether he actually committed the crime or even if a crime occurred.

Rape now puts the entire responsibility on men to accurately interpret what a woman wants and protect her at all costs if it is not obvious, whilst suppressing his own needs: she doesn't even need to give consent. The joke will be on women if men find it too difficult to interpret consent and look elsewhere for sexual fulfilment that is less complicated: the juice is no longer worth the squeeze, especially when he has to be an athlete in the bedroom with unlimited stamina to meet her needs and then can be accused of rape for the most inconsequential things.