Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

All current rape and sexual assault cases to be reviewed - BBC

207 replies

UpABitLate · 27/01/2018 09:57

here

This raises a massive amount of questions and will be taken by many quarters to mean that most accusations are malicious and that lots of men are in prison for nothing / can be sent to prison on a "woman's word" (the evidence is fitted to make sure of that).

There is a line in the article which says:

"It also begs the question of why the review is to rape and sexual assault cases when many believe the problems of disclosure are systemic, he added."

I think this just shows up that our justice system has deep issues and worst in the area of sexual offences. We seem unable to "get it right" and the entire thing is already balanced on a foundation of laws evolved from property law, a societal tendancy to disbelieve victims, and here by procedural cock-ups.

I also note that new evidence that weakens cases does not mean it didn't happen - but of course this is how it will be taken. Undermining victims massively.

And yes - why only these types of cases when the problem is systemic? Because of an underlying perception, again, that women and girls lie (them being the majority of victims in court).

I think we need an overhaul of how approach sex crime. Trying to tackle it in our adversarial system, with the cultural underpinnings we have, is just not working. These crimes are effectively legal, the difficult in prosecuting is so high. It's only really if there's lots of evidence of other simultaneous crimes (other physical harm from violence, threats with weapons that are found, murder) that our laws are suitable.

Other countries have an inquisitorial approach, maybe we need to look at that.

And the agencies involved in all of this need to sort their shit out. On the one hand we have withheld evidence, on the other hand we have warboys. The system is not working for lots of people.

OP posts:
Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 18:16

Ah right so you now understand that no-one in the conversation recently had suggested that we do away with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Just to be clear.

There is no judgement of "not enough evidence to convict" that I am aware of. We have guilty or not guilty. Apart from in scotland, as just discussed.

Unless anyone else has some more info.

OP posts:
Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 28/01/2018 18:14

Agree with delete

DeleteOrDecay · 28/01/2018 18:01

It's a good idea because so many idiots in this country think a not guilty verdict= innocent. Even using the term 'proven innocent' during a discussion. These same morons then go on to lambast the victim and this feeds into the notion that not guilty = woman made it up.

I'd be all for a not proven verdict in England. Some cases can't be proven in court but it doesn't mean it didn't happen in reality. It could help victims feel slightly more at peace with what they've been through, knowing that it's not that the jury didn't believe them, but that unfortunately, there just wasn't enough evidence for a guilty verdict.

PrincessoftheSea · 28/01/2018 18:00

Upabitlate, I just explained it to you above. Also I was interested in your opinion on the "not proven" verdict.

Quentin, thanks. I am still not sure why this differs from "not enough evidence to convict"? Is it not the same? To me it doesn't do anything about the low conviction rate.

QuentinSummers · 28/01/2018 17:53

Why is this a good system?
At the moment if a man is found not guilty then there are loads of calls for the woman to be prosecuted for wasting police time, that she made it up and ruined an innocent man's life.
" Not proven" basically means that although the man has been found not guilty there's still a question that he did it.
In those cases it would be lot harder to start going on about the victim being a liar and wasting police time.
I can't see any disadvantage to it, the man has still been found not guilty and it would be much preferable for the victims.

Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 17:47

Why don't you have a look on wiki and read some more about it, and why the scots do it, that might assist you.

I'm still interested into where you read in the recent conversation that ?someone wanted to do away with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

OP posts:
PrincessoftheSea · 28/01/2018 17:40

No I thought you meant 2 verdicts as in either guilty or not proven. I understand now it is a 3 verdict system. Still not sure about the value as would seem to me an easy compromise verdict and same as the usual "not enough evidence"

Why is this a good system?

Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 17:16

Princess I'd still be interested in where you got this from in the recent conversation:

"So you are basically removing the principle of innocent until proven guilty ?"

OP posts:
Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 17:15

Princess well they use it in scotland, where they have 3 verdicts they can give. From wiki

"The result is the modern perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary."

If you don't like it, I'm sure the scots will be interested to hear from you.

OP posts:
PrincessoftheSea · 28/01/2018 17:07

"Not proven"sounds to me equal to "we have no idea" which I suppose is so often true

Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 16:57

Arken - that is a judgement they have in scotland already I think?

OP posts:
Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 16:54

Princess - where on earth in these last few posts have you read that?

OP posts:
PrincessoftheSea · 28/01/2018 14:32

So you are basically removing the principle of innocent until proven guilty ? Disagree that is a good idea.

Arkengarthdale · 28/01/2018 14:06

I think it's high time another outcome of a court case was introduced as well as convicted and acquitted - not proven. Not proven would not mean that the accused didn't do it, as happens now. If people get off/acquitted 'on a technicality' it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it, although at the moment it does. I think a third outcome of 'not proven' would be really useful.

My normal eloquence has deserted me today, apologies for the mangled writing!

Dervel · 28/01/2018 13:54

The whole reason I suggest civil cases is not an end point solution, but merely a first step in changing the cultural conversation. I have floated the idea of a charity before, but have no idea how to set one up.

Another possibility are legal firms specialising in rape/sexual assault cases kind of like the no win no fee personal injury ones. As distasteful as I find this to type, but the sheer number of rapes would make this a veritable goldmine. The downside being they would be unlikely to pursue men with no assets, but it is at least a start.

QuentinSummers · 28/01/2018 13:44

upabitlate really interesting posts thank you

Graphista · 28/01/2018 13:35

Dervel I suspect you're right.

And yes it does start when we're kids, often from men who are SUPPOSED to protect us.

Regarding patriarchy - come across him before, often posts on threads like this - make of that what you will, and make use of advanced search

Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 13:28

So this:

"Lawyers for Dawes' estate, which is said to be worth £25m, argued that Ms Lawson had made up the story for financial gain. While admitting that the couple had had sex and used controlled drugs, they claimed Ms Lawson had consented and denied that she had suffered psychological trauma. But the judge, Mr Justice Eady, held that there was overwhelming evidence of Dawes' predatory behaviour towards women, and concluded that Ms Lawson was telling the truth."

The judge was able to make an informed view with all the evidence in front of him. I suppose this is the more "inquisitorial" approach that has been mentioned a few times.

I am glad she got justice one way or another but reading the impact on her, really massive impact. I hope things got better for her - this is from 11 years ago.

OP posts:
Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 13:24

england rape case civil court

OP posts:
Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 13:23

scotland recently

You see I bet if women started doing this a lot, I bet certain people would find "reasons" that it should be stopped.

OP posts:
Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 13:21

If there were enough successful civil cases, it would also start to shift the narrative that women are liars and that not guilty means innocent...

Which would then loop around to improving prospects with criminal cases.

OP posts:
Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 13:20

Yes it feels like a bit not great taking outside of the criminal system BUT I agree that it's better, "balance of probabilities" is a lower bar. There have been things I've read saying that because of all the cultural stuff around sex offences, the bar is not "beyond any reasonable doubt" but "beyond any doubt at all" for lots of jurors.

Have many women had success with this option?

Could there be a fund? I would contribute.

OP posts:
Dervel · 28/01/2018 13:13

That’s why I think it’s important to pursue civil cases, because ok a man might be found innocent in a criminal case, but the standard of proof is much higher.

Once a man loses a civil case for rape then there is no issue with reporting him as “the rapist ” in subsequent reporting. This will have a snowball effect meaning people are going to have a much harder time of defending perpetrators in discussions if they have lost a civil case.

Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 13:07

The other thing is men always say don't bring children into this, I'm talking about women.

They don't understand that it is a continuum of behaviour that we encounter that starts when we are children. So to us, it is all part and parcel.

OP posts:
Original poster
UpABitLate · 28/01/2018 13:05

When you look at the treatment in the system of victims of CSA then you begin to see this in action.

Girls who have been groomed and are being pimped described as "child prostitutes" in reports and the concern being more around their "wayward" behaviour than trying to protect them.

We are deemed to be competent actors when it comes to sex very young, while for men it seems much older. You see court cases where children - girls 12, 13 are being described as "seducers" of grown men, that sort of thing. It's another highly damaging narrative and one that we don't seem to be changing very fast. Fact is that large numbers of men are attracted to teen girls, and teen girls are often pretty easy to manipulate. We need to protect them more.

Most women know that street harassment is worst during school years, again something that men always seem surprised about and then they get all why didn't you go to the police... And of course we all know why not.

I do think that really given that most men (thankfully) have very little experience of this stuff, they need to listen to us when we talk about it. This stuff makes our lives miserable. It is not getting better. And now we have warboys, we have this review, we have things like that girl who was groomed and sent a pic to an adult being threatened with action by the police with no mention of going after the man (I still don't know what happened with that in the end, what happened to "public interest"???) which all feel like the authorities very much wanting to push things back to how they were. The numbers of reports now are too high for them to deal with and I suspect it's still just scratching the surface. Attitudes in many forces are still hostile to victims of sex offences (unless they are really proper extremely violent stranger attacks), they want to get on with "proper" crime. And it's difficult, and messy, and takes resources they want to spend elsewhere. Things were much easier when women (and children and men) didn't report this stuff, and they only had to investigate when someone was dead as a result.

I'm not feeling very positive about this at the moment.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread