Acquiescence

How does that tie in with the fact that juries often seem to believe that women will have sex with men in the most bizarre situations, in order to avoid convicting a man of rape?

There was that dreadful case on here recently where a MNers daughter's rapist was found not guilty because the jury chose to believe that this young woman had persuaded a stranger to have anal sex in an alleyway with her.

There was another one where a young woman on the way to work in the morning was raped and the jury found it perfectly reasonable to thnk that this woman had decided to break her normal morning routine to have sex with a stranger behind some bins or some such ludicrous idea.

All of this seems to assert that women are up for sex all the time with pretty much anyone anywhere. Not that women won't have sex with strangers at all.

I agree wholeheartedly Sakura. I find it ethically uncomfortable to acknowledge a bitter truth that the belief that women won't have sex with strangers, can nevertheless help with a rape conviction.

And yes, I'm always reminded of that book (and film) when I remember that story, but if it helps, it was from the early nineties (the Stephen Lawrence murder era) and I perhaps naively hope that it wouldn't happen so much now. I do remember feeling very relieved that the police officer telling the story had persevered and was supported by his senior officers, even in that era of policing.

HerBex yes, you're absolutely correct. Some robberies are conducted without violence and it is more of an implied threat. Others are perpetrated with accompanying violence. Then there are "handbag/wallet/phone snatches". All are often described under the umbrella heading of "muggings", but the effect on victims and the penalties on conviction, are very different. Hence my request for clarification, so that we were all working to the same definition.

Also, the age-old notion of white woman reporting the black man as a rapist is the overriding theme of To Kill a MockingBird. (I really hate that book)

WHite women have often been used as pawns by the patriarchy to vilify black men, and it saddens me to see that it is still going on in its various forms today.

"plus it has to be said, some disbelief that a woman would have consensual sex with a random stranger)"

this makes me because women's sexuality is so controlled and repressed by society, leading to the idea that most "good, decent" women would never have sex with a stranger, and because of this , and only this , it is more likely that a woman who was raped by a stranger will be believed when she says the sex was non-consensual

I wonder what The Establishment would make of the fact that women do have consensual sex with random strangers.

It is more of a practical issue than a legal point, as SuchProspects confirms. There are so many hurdles to negotiate between a crime being reported - and conviction.

In English law, there has to be enough evidence for the police to charge in the first place, but then the CPS must decide on the realistic chances of a conviction. I recall that in percentage terms, this always had to be at least a 51% chance, but it could well be higher now. Then there is the trial itself and in the event of a not-guilty plea, the jury system.

Yes, even stranger assailants have claimed that sex was consensual, but if a woman reports it soon enough so that any injuries can be examined and forensic swabs taken, there is a much better chance of a suspect's apprehension, charge, prosecution and conviction. With independent evidence, such as photographed injuries and forensic exhibits, (plus it has to be said, some disbelief that a woman would have consensual sex with a random stranger) that case is much more capable of proof.

Perhaps it's more helpful to describe the need for independent evidence to prove a crime, rather than witnesses, but as SP says, if something can be independently verified, it is understandably more capable of proof.

I do think the law change in 2003 has led to more skilled interrogation of suspects and investigation of rape generally, because of the "new" onus on gaining express consent. However, a rape trial is horribly traumatic for a victim and it is only fair for a police chaperone or family liaison officer to explain the likelihood of a prosecution or conviction in an acquaintance rape, where there is little or no corroborating evidence. The focus then moves away from justice and on to how the victim can process the trauma.

Ultimately, as much as I detest the fact that women are raped, I still couldn't endorse a justice system that convicted without more evidence, than the word of the victim.

A personal anecdote here, but I remember a police officer telling me about investigating an allegation of rape made by a white female having a secret relationship with a black male. Her family were members of a violent organisation, far-right of the BNP and all the males had convictions for racially-motivated assaults. When the relationship was discovered by her family, they violently assaulted the boyfriend but he refused to report it, because he loved this woman. The pressure on their continuing relationship was so great from the family, that she was forced by them, to allege rape.

There was no forensic evidence, no injuries and no corroborating evidence at all. When the suspect was arrested and questioned, he on the other hand, was displaying fairly grievous injuries. Only skilled intervention and interviews over several days elicited the truth and the female retracted the allegation completely. The suspect still wouldn't provide a witness statement about his assault, however.

I have often wondered what might have happened if evidence had been fabricated, or if circumstances had been different and their relationship had ended acrimoniously, leading perhaps to the female pursuing the allegation. A presumption of guilt without evidence would have possibly seen that man convicted of a crime he didn't commit.

Yes that too.

And the fact that women blame themselves and don't acknowledge it's rape for weeks, months or years after

Yes it is SaF

The thing is, most people aren't aware that the conviction rate for rape is quite so low and that so much of it is not even reported.

That's one of the reasons why we generally don't have vigilantism, because people aren't aware that there is absolutely no justice for rape (or very little chance of it).

• As SAF says

Mugging = robbery.

Robbery is basically theft with force or threat of force.

There is no difference in English law between the evidence of a victim who is a witness and an "independent" witness.

When considering the likelihood of a successful prosecution CPS would consider whether there was independent evidence for any crime. Independent evidence (I would have thought fairly obviously), makes a conviction more likely. SAF says, the evidence of someone being in possession of something when there is no realistic path to them having it is independent evidence.

In terms of the practical issues that rightfully get in the way of a successful prosecution I think the theft by "friend" is the closest analogy (to acquaintance rape). Because you are looking at an act (receiving goods/having sex) that the victim could have reasonably consented to. Without other evidence, from a jury's perspective, it becomes one person's word against another. Reasonable doubt is a high barrier to get that through if the rapist hasn't said something in interview that shows his true colours.

And juries pretend to believe them and let them walk free to rape again.

Yes but women get raped by men they don't know and these men still claim (preposterously) that the women agreed to casual sex with them.

But aren't many muggings carried out without actual violence being used? So it is not robbery with violence?

For example, in the case of someone being told to hand over their mobile phone. 3 young men approach that person, say "that's a nice phone, give it here" and stand there expectantly waiting for it.

The victim hands it over, because there are 3 of them and we all know a mobile phone isn't worth risking being beaten up and injured perhaps seriously, for. But at no time has the victim been threatened with actual violence.

What crime is that? Can the defendents claim that they thought the victim was kindly giving their phone to them?

It only applies to situations where it is one person's word against the other. Not to trivialise this at all, but it is much the same with traffic accidents, where both drivers exchange details and leave the scene, only reporting the accident thereafter and neither being able to offer independent witnesses. If the collision is head-on and there is no physical evidence left (e.g. tyre marks) it is often difficult to prove who crossed the central boundary marking.

If the burglar assailant is unknown to you, there is physical evidence of breaking and entering, you have physical injuries consistent with your account of the weapons or violence used and the items stolen are found in the burglar's possession, you wouldn't need independent evidence. Your neighbour's testimony would be helpful, but not essential.

If however, you welcomed a friend into your house and she stole an item of your property, you reported the crime and when arrested and questioned, she claimed that she did indeed have this item, but you had given it to her that day as a gift - and there was no written evidence or independent witness testimony to suggest that you had/hadn't done so, then in all probability, the police would not be able to charge your friend with theft, since they could not prove that your friend intended that theft, or to permanently deprive you of the item.

It would be your word against hers.