[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There's a lot more evidence of people trashing rape victims' reps than of false accusations aimed at getting a payday, which seems to be your slant on things. And sometimes those attacks have had some pretty sever consequences for the victim. The point isn't that you remember her name or not a few years later - it's what happens to them at the time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eal-court.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicid...ehtaeh_Parsons

Not that it is what's most important here. But neither of those are examples of the media or general public trashing victims of their crime. The first one is a horrible story about what the victim was subjected to in court during the proceedings, and the second was another horrible story, but again nothing to do with the general public or media attacking the victim, but actually about what her attackers did in social media.

I also keep reading statements like the one you put into your post like "far more evidence" of what happens to victims versus evidence supporting false accusations. Doesn't that go without saying? When would there ever be evidence of "false accusations"? I would guess any false accusations that occur either get settled out of court if the "alleged attacker" has money or there is a not guilty verdict found court (or not enough evidence to prosecute). But in both of those cases, there will be no "evidence" that the claim was false, just not enough evidence to convict. Also, I'm not meaning that in all the above scenarios it means a crime didn't happen, just in false accusations, I'd assume there is rarely an outcome that ends with, "it was proved it was a false accusation", but rather it either goes away, gets settled or it's just determined there wasn't enough evidence to prove a crime was committed.