To be sad and horrified that rape convictions have dropped to 1.7%

[darkriver19886]

I am utterly horrified. This article came up on my newsfeed and I am shocked that it has dropped so low and it's likely it will be dropped even further with the move to take victims phones.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-police-investigation-disclosure-forms-cps-a8888376.html?fbclid=IwAR00s8kr5yRHXzqN1xQqeoL95A6u1VYidBaPV-T0RPAe8sclst-b6b5aiFk

Yep, pretty much.

Yep, pretty much

So you’re seriously suggesting the people should
only have sex in the equivalent of a porn set

No, that's not the only possible response.

Technology is possibly the answer though. Perhaps biological tracking of hormonal and respiratory responses via some kind of unobtrusive wearable tech could provide crucial evidence that a rape had taken place?

No, that's not the only possible response

Genuinely interested in what that response might be!

pretzelfiend

I know in Japan they have something like a 99% conviction rate for all crimes that go to Court because prosecutors won’t take a case to Court unless they are damn sure the person will be convicted.

This is not a model we should be copying. But again it all comes down to money. Court cases cost. A lot. Most defendants do not have adequate funds to cover those costs, even if found guilty. So where does the money come from? That’s why the CPS reject so many rape cases.

You know that phrase “is it in the public interest”? Well that means, is it worth spending tax payers money on this case. That’s the real meaning of it. Rape cases are apparently a poor use of tax payers money. That is the bottom line.

Just reading through and this worries me

'As jurors we were told that, to convict, we had to be absolutely sure and certain of guilt. Absolutely sure.'

It is supposed to be beyond all reasonable doubt

Not beyond all doubt

I have read before that with sex offences, it does morph from beyond all reasonable doubt to beyond any possible doubt whatsoever no matter how outlandish.

I suppose this is why men are getting away with murdering women if they say that had an erection when that did it.

Will read rest of thread.

Incidentally the person who keeps banging on about showing consent being impossible. If that is the case then it does for non consent to. Meaning rape with no witnesses and no additional violence/witnesses is impossible to show as well.

Fyi it looks like
What steps did you take to know she was consenting
What did you say
What did she say
How did you know she sad not too drunk to understand what you were saying etc

And the jury thinks what they think of that evidence
Exactly the same as the current process where it is non consent that is what needs to be proved

It is supposed to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt

Very good point.... Perhaps given the particularly emotive nature of this crime, it shouldn’t be left to a jury.

Oakenbeach

Women don't tend to resort men for rape unless they have been raped. And even then most of them don't. Report it, I mean.

Your scenarios start from an assumption that women are often liars and likely to lie about rape.

Is really interesting.

Oakenbeach what do you mean?

It is a fact that the standard is beyond all reasonable doubt not beyond all doubt.

You jump from that to no jury. Are you thinking of a more investigative system like other countries (forget what it's called) rather than the adversarial system we have?

I watched a Swedish crime drama on Netflix (it was called Quicksand, I recommend it!) just last week and was surprised to see no jury in the court room. I googled it and apparently Swedish courts rarely have juries. Maybe it’s something to consider here for certain crimes, I’m thinking rape cases would be a good candidate for this.

Interesting there seems to be an idea that men should always film sex.

That's grotesque idea but one that happens a lot, sometimes without the woman's knowledge, and shared with other men/websites aimed primarily at men...

If you have a jury of somewhat dimwits (of your peers apparently), what can you do?
Just look at threads on this website? I find myself shaking my head in disbelief, horror and amusement at times!

In the trial I sat on, the judge didn't use the words 'beyond reasonable doubt'. She said we 'must be sure'. Is that a change in court language, or just something this particular judge says? I only sat on one case (it went on for 2 weeks - 4 days were deliberations) so I don't know.

MenuPlant

I'm not fully understanding your post but surely the current system is different to the proposal of the accused having to prove that they had active and enthusiastic consent throughout?

Literally how can any of us prove that? I wouldn't even know what that looks like and no idea how I can prove that I have either given it or received it. How can I prove that my husband has given this if he were to complain to the police tomorrow (and I know that a woman can't commit rape, but assuming it would be indecent assault)? But what do I need in order to prove that I had consent?

DON'T EVENNNNNN STARTTTTTTTTT!

This has made me so fucking angry I could spit nails.

Just ARGHHHHHHHH!

What a nasty thing to do to victims.

I am speechless.

(Sorry for rant!)

Who the fuck from this website would you consider intelligent enough to sit on a jury A. when you're the victim and B. when you're the accused?

You're putting your life in the hands of halfwits sometimes!

Thanks AuldJosey...

When I did jury service (not a sexual assault/rape case) the judge gave very specific and helpful clarification and instruction. It scared me deeply that nearly all of the other jurors didn't seem to understand or take into account what had been said.

Rape conviction rates are appalling, something needs to be done. Ideas I’ve heard suggested are:

Rape myth training for juries.

Cases decided by panel of three experts instead of juries.

Not proven verdicts, so everybody at least knows they’re a rapist even if they can’t be jailed.

Support/funding for women to pursue civil cases if criminal cases don’t result in a conviction so that then it can be decided on a ‘balance of probability basis’.

And yes there does need to be a societal shift away from the presumption that women are lying.

for all the personal stories on this thread.

Miss Sue it is definitely beyond all reasonable doubt in England at least.

The judge chooses how describe that to jury so they understand, I don't know what/ if there are any guidelines around that

MenuPlant

I don't think that all women lie. That doesn't mean though that the man on trial is guilty - the woman might be mistaken about his identity, or the police might have accused the wrong man, no doubt in a tiny number of cases yes the woman is lying but I still believe in the concept of a fair trial because that protects all of us.

MissSue

1. You shouldn't be talking about it
2. You come on a thread about rapists not getting convicted and say that you just weren't 100% convinced. And the judge suggested you needed to be, so you decided he was not guilty.
3. Half-wits are very common

Decomposed I'm not suggesting that.

It would be similar I suppose, how did you know she was enjoying it, how did you know she was keen to be penetrated etc

It makes me sad that apparently some people find it impossible to think of questions that you could ask someone to see if they had a handle on whether a sexual partner was into it or not. Add if people can't think of questions, they can't be able to gauge it in the act very well... that's really awful actually.

Surely it's not hard to think of answers to question 'how did you know your partner was into it last time you had sex?'!!!
I mean, come on.

Decomposing your assumption that men will have to record sex as a matter of course, does indeed suggest that you think women lying is common, so common that men need to take major and constant steps to guard against it.