National Register of False Accusers

[Saffron]

Hello Lilah

I must stress that the register of false accusers would only include names of people who had been tried and convicted of making a false accusation. (or "attempting to pervert the course of justice," as it is properly known.)

The register would not include those victims whose cases had not made it to trial, or had not resulted in a guilty verdict. Just because the accused rapist is not found guilty doesn't mean that the allegation was false. There is a big difference.

The register would comprise the names of those people who had been proven to have made false allegations in the past. Proven by a court of law, not just by someone disbelieving their story. I don't understand why this should be a terrifying idea. There is a register of those convicted of sexual crimes, and I know categorically that not EVERYONE on that register is in fact a sex offender. The SOR exists because of the gravity of the crime concerned, and because most people who are genuine sex offenders have a tendency to re-offend.

The severity of sexual crimes is precisely what makes the false accusation of rape so very serious. Speaking from my own experience, false allegations totally ruin the lives of innocent people and their families. parents, siblings, partners, children. false allegations mean that people lose their jobs, homes, families. they are named by the local papers, who also give out their addresses, and often they are subjected to attacks and abused in the street. This is why there needs to be a register of false accusers, in the same way that there is a Sex Offenders Register.

Additionally i am not certain where your statistics have come from, but I was under the impression that one US study of a mid-sized town showed that up to 43% of all rape allegations were admitted to be false. However, it makes no difference how many allegations are false. it still ruins lives. if it were only a tiny percentage of children being abused, would that make it less of a crime?

I am not trying to stop women from coming forward to report rape, far from it. However, false allegations are far more common than anyone would like to believe, and as people we almost automatically side with the "victim". We judge people by our own standards, and therefore, as honest people, we cannot understand why anyone would fabricate an allegation of rape, in the same way that we find rape itself abhorrent.

Interesting to hear from someone who is so against the idea of this register. As a survivor yourself, surely you must see that for every false accusation made, sympathy for genuine victims is eroded?

Saffron

[mol12]

QUOTE, sympathise with people who are falsely accused, i do
but this could quite easily end up with some poor victims not only suffering a rape but then being put on an offenders register.... that is just too much to happen to one person.

"18 years on and still living with it"

QUOTE threatened or cant face the trial.

I can understand, mental stress that we go through, is something that is beyond any one's understanding

[maria]

hi mol12 i can understand how you feel but what about the person that gets falsley accused remember they lose everything and gain nothing so it does work both ways why should an innocent man/women get falsley accused and the person doing it get away with it there has to be some sort of punishment for that person the stigma that goes with a person who has to go through it is as horrendous as the person that has been raped as do the family, the girl that accused my son hasnt just accused once but on 4 accasions that we know off, my question to you is my son and my family have been through hell and back and still going through it and why because this little so an so needs attension and the mother money why shouldn't she be put on the list? she's ruined my son's life and reputation and lost him his career had his name and picture splatterd all over the papers and radio and came out of court laughing so did her mother very funny isnt it i don't think so hugs x

[mol12]

Iam one,of the falsley accused
quote,what about the person that gets falsley accused remember they lose everything and gain nothing .I know what he is going through, all i can say is forums like this keeps us fighting.good luck to him tell him to hold his head up high,

[Guest]

Hi!

Just looking on this site for information and saw this idea of a 'register'. Heres the problem: If this 16 year old girl who has falsely accused before is placed on a register, what happens if at 23 (for example) she REALLY is raped? Should the boy who cried wolf principles apply to something as serious as rape? Her allegations wouldn't be taken seriously. Same as if a person on the sex offenders register is accused again people think that they MUST have done it.

Rape and false allegations are terrible things to happen, but unfortunatly the system is intricate enough already (I know, I've studied law) that adding these 'registers' doesn't really do much more than complicate things.

I wish you all luck in the future x

[Saffron]

Interesting point, and one that, to be honest, i hadn't really considered before.

I suppose that having your name added to a register of false accusers should act as a deterrent.

If someone is on the SOR, there is an automatic assumption of guilt in any future allegations. i suppose being on the False accusers register would cast doubt over the veracity of a woman's future complaint.

But our courts are already guilty of allowing these kind of assumptions to be made - allowing previous convictions to be highlighted, even for irrelevant cases, they are prejudicing jurors into assuming guilt before a shred of evidence has been heard.

Just because it already happens doesn't make it right. But until we can judge each case individually and without prejudice, we will never have a justive system that works.

[diana_holbourn]

But what could happen is that if someone on a false accusers register made a rape claim in the future, they could be interviewed by reputable psychologists to try to determine whether the claim was genuine, and if they concluded that it was, the charge would proceed. If their record of false accusations wasn't brought up in court, the jury couldn't be swayed by it.

I know someone who made a false accusation who was interviewed by psychologists who concluded that he'd made the accusation as a cry for help, because he was afraid of being abandoned, or thought he already had been, and they decided he needed to be taught to be more psychologically independent. The police were notified of what they'd concluded.

[utterlydestroyed]

There is little chance of 'false accusers' being interviewed by police let alone charged and convicted in my experience.

[utterlydestroyed]

My understanding is that the suggestion is there should be a list for those who make "false allegation". not a list of those falsely accused.

I'm ALL for a list of those who make 'false allegation of rape', even if its not public, but a simple data base only accessible by the plod, but that would mean trusting the police to actually keep the list up to date and consult it and make the list checkable for defence teams, etc.

It might make the police investigate PROPERLY and with IMPARTIALITY without making pre-judgements against the accused.

...but quite frankly given my personal experience of corruption, malpractise, prejudice, dishonesty, lack of impartiality, lack of integrity and complete lack of transparency of conduct operative with the UK police

...I think, regretably, the idea is a none starter.

I for one due to personal experience no longer trust the police.

[friday]

If someone is on the SOR, there is an automatic assumption of guilt in any future allegations. i suppose being on the False accusers register would cast doubt over the veracity of a woman's future complaint.

But our courts are already guilty of allowing these kind of assumptions to be made - allowing previous convictions to be highlighted, even for irrelevant cases, they are prejudicing jurors into assuming guilt before a shred of evidence has been heard.

previous convictions are only allowed if either the defendants barrister agrees or they are remarkably similar (like same set up in rape case, eg lone girl aged 20-25 in x area at night), otherwise they can only be used in the sentencing but bear in mind that previous convictions have an affect on victims compensation too.

i have no objection to such a register so long as those on it would have to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" to have made a false accusation. there has to be the same rules for both sides.

[Rights Fighter]

previous convictions are only allowed if either the defendants barrister agrees or they are remarkably similar

The above is actually incorrect. I have known cases where the previous convictions have gone in despite objections from the defence barrister and when there is no "similar fact".

For instance in one case the defendant's previous conviction of ABH on a man who had threatened him with a pick-axe handle, over 20 years previously was put to the jury. He was actually defending himself and was prosecuted for that!

[Saffron]

A false accuser's register would only have the names and details of those who had been tried and convicted of making a false accusation - ie: "attempting to pervert the course of Justice". It would not include any whose attackers merely got a "not guilty" verdict.

[friday]

The above is actually incorrect. I have known cases where the previous convictions have gone in despite objections from the defence barrister and when there is no "similar fact".

For instance in one case the defendant's previous conviction of ABH on a man who had threatened him with a pick-axe handle, over 20 years previously was put to the jury. He was actually defending himself and was prosecuted for that!

its unfortunate that his previous conviction was allowed but that actually goes against the legislation so it shouldnt have been.

in my case the jury were not allowed to know he had skipped bail and was caught with cannabis whilst breaking his bail conditions. and this was not the first time he had been caught with cannabis. this was actually important because he was trying to say i suggested buying cannabis (trying to slight my character). in the end he accidently said he had a conviction for cannabis possession but it didnt change the verdict. i really think his skipping bail should have been allowed to be said because it was recent and relating to the crime. the jury were also not allowed to know that we missed half a day because "he got lost on the way to court" when in fact he was going to do a runner.


yes, i agree if they have been found guilty they should be on a register BUT i do not think that the register should be allowed to be brought up in court if she claimed to be raped again, because lying once doest mean it wont happen for real.

[friday]

by the way this poll is quite biased, there is only one choice (yes)!

[Rights Fighter]

Friday said: "its unfortunate that his previous conviction was allowed but that actually goes against the legislation so it shouldnt have been".

Are you telling me that you are more qualified than the appeal solicitors, two barristers who reviewed the case and the appeal court judges who refused this as a ground to appeal saying that it is perfectly legitimate to bring this evidence in?

I attended a trial a few years back where the defendant's "previous" of stealing a packet of biscuits off a milk float was actually put to the jury!