[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

I'm not saying it's bad because it's wikipedia, I'm saying they are bad because they do not have an exact country in which we are talking about. From our own standpoint, we are talking about first world countries with higher court systems. Looking at these statistics, they are taken from countries around the world, some of them with much higher rates of accusation against rape victims. Many countries see being raped as a crime. I would just like to see SPECIFIC statistics for countries that we are more talking about, such as the UK, the US, Australia, ext.

I'll do my best to research that tomorrow. I'll report my findings whether they support my case or yours.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

Actually, no. It's up to the individual person not to rape somebody. How about instead of victims having to feel terrible about not reporting, somebody blames the rapist for not coming forward? I don't want to hear that they don't have conciouses, we don't blame murder victims for being murdered. What about somebody who was robbed of their garden gnome and didn't report it, then their nextdoor neighbor was robbed of their garden gnome and the person came forward afterwards. Is it their fault too?

No, we don't blame them for being murdered. We also don't blame victims of rape for being raped. The whole "she was dressed provocatively" argument and it's kin are rubbish.
Your example is also flawed. In your example the first person doesn't have any clue what happened to the garden gnome, however in the case in this thread she did know who raped her.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

There is only one person who should be blamed in a rape case: The rapist.

I agree. It's not the victim's fault. I am simply considering it like this:

If I have the ability to stop a criminal from shooting an innocent man, but choose not to, am I partially responsible (difference between "responsible" and "to blame") for the man not surviving?

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

[/font][/color][/size]There shouldn't be charges, but why can't we just believe the victim and help get her help? Is jailing the person the only thing to come of an accusation? We shouldn't automatically assume just because she has no evidence he/she has no evidence that they are lying, rather, we should do our best to help the person.

[/font][/color][/size]
I'm not saying she can't get help, I'm saying that her opinion is invalid as a statistic in use with the number of unreported rapes.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

Not so much. There are many laws that protect rapists. I've heard of cases (I'll try to find sources) of people using things such as "I used a condom, she had time to pull away" or "There's no way he could have been able to take off her jeans, jeans are too hard to take off, she must have had to taken them off herself" and gotten away with it. Coercion and cases where consent is not given are still instances of trauma, instances of rape, but are not given the same attention because it wasn't a guy coming out of the bushes, are are often not convicted.

Sorry I think you might have misinterpreted my sentence.
What I mean is that if a rapist is proven to be a rapist then he will be convicted, however the reason the conviction rates are low for accused rapists is because very few are actually proved to be rapists.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

[/font][/color][/size]Woman accuses rich man of raping -> Only goes to court for money -> Just wants money -> Lying. Automatic accusation, did not think through other options.[/size][/color][/font]

When a woman accuses a rich man of raping her, then provides little to no evidence and then settles out of court for money, then that's no longer an assumption it then becomes a reasoned opinion based on evidence even though I may be wrong. It's not really up to me to decide whether she was lying or not, the jury know far more than we do.