Married mother accused of making repeated fake rape claims

[Impact1986]

[QUOTE=1legmidget;45086930]Man, I've already made this clear, I'm not talking about the current situation. I was providing context to previous claims about repeat/serial victimization being ignored by institutions by and large. If you had bother to read the previously mentioned study, or even my previous post you would have seen plenty of reasons why charges are dropped in cases like these. Did you even bother to read my post or are you just trying to stir up shit?

Obviously something isn't right with the situation pertaining to the article. Maybe the woman is mentally ill. Maybe she's being abused in other ways and this is how she's come to terms with that. Maybe she's acting in a malicious manner and really has a hate boner for men as you seem to want to believe. The only thing that should matter is justice for all parties involved. Statistically speaking, if she's a repeat victim, she's not going to get the help she needs. That's true across all ages, genders, races, and religious/political affiliations for serial/repeat victims. If you still don't understand that, there's basically no hope for you I guess.[/QUOTE]

The study you posted is saying nothing about how repeat victimization is being ignored by institutions. Maybe you should read it.
[QUOTE]Preventing Repeat Victimization:
A Systematic Review

Foreword
A large proportion of all crimes are committed against crime victims who have been victimized before, a phenomenon known as repeat victimization. There is thus a potential to achieve substantial ben
efits by focusing crime prevention measures on individuals, institutions or objects that have previously
been exposed to crime. Successful strategies of this kind would prevent repeat victimization, and
thus also would prevent a substantial proportion of all the crimes committed. The crime prevention measures that are implemented to this end may take several different forms. The strategy is not prima
rily about specific kinds of measures, but rather involves a way of directing crime prevention measures at relevant targets. An increasing number of crime prevention initiatives have been directed at
repeat victimization especially to prevent repeat burglaries. But how well do they work? What does the research tell us?

There are never sufficient resources to conduct rigorous evaluations of all the crime prevention initiatives employed in an individual country such as Sweden. For this reason, the Swedish National
Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) has commissioned distinguished researchers to conduct a series of international reviews of the research published across a range of fields.

This report presents a systematic review, including a statistical meta-analysis, of the effects of initiatives to prevent repeat victimization. The work has been conducted by Lecturer Louise E. Grove of
Loughborough University (UK), Senior Research Fellow Graham Farrell of Simon Fraser University (Canada), Professor David P. Farrington of Cambridge University (UK), and Professor Shane D.
Johnson of University College London (UK).

The study follows the rigorous methodological requirements of a systematic review. The analysis combines the results from a number of evaluations that are considered to satisfy a list of empirical crit
eria for measuring effects as reliably as possible. The meta-analysis then uses the results from these previous evaluations to calculate and produce an overview of the effects associated with initiatives to prevent repeat victimization.

The systematic review and the statistical meta-analysis presented in this report are based on a substantial number of empirical evaluations. Even though important questions remain unanswered, the
study provides an accessible and far-reaching overview of the effects of initiatives to prevent repeat victimization. Generally, the results are encouraging; suggesting that appropriately targeted situational
prevention measures can significantly reduce repeat burglaries.[/QUOTE]

Where does this say that victims of repeat victimization (what is serial victimization anyway?) are being ignored by institutions?

[Deunan]

[QUOTE=Quark:;45080051]When you're accused of rape publicly, you're never going to be looked at the same way again. People will still believe you're a rapist no matter how you're found in court, innocent or guilty.

Putting that onto someone just because you don't like them shouldn't be taken lightly. Being falsely accused of rape is even worse, because people will still believe you're a rapist no matter what even though you're completely innocent. And the person who did it to you will receive a punishment less than that which you would have received had you been guilty? Utter non-sense.

Doing this would [I]not[/I] discourage someone from reporting a legitimate case of rape. It's completely foolish to think it would. Rape leaves physical trauma such as vaginal/anal tearing, lacerations, and so on. If this evidence is present, the rapist is extremely unlikely to be found innocent. Don't be foolish.[/QUOTE]

I do actually like the concept of sentencing in scotish law. For those not aware, it has 3 different results as opposed to the standard 2.

(the normal standard everywhere is Guilty and not proven guilty) the scotish one ads a proven innocent one on top.

Basically translated - there was enough evidence to convict someone. There was not enough evidence for someone to be pronounced guilty and there was evidence that proves the person could in no way have committed the crime.