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

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.

UNLESS YOU WERE THERE YOU WILL NOT KNOW FOR SURE WILL YOU?? You're supposed to listen to the evidence. The evidence includes the witnesses testimony.

And then make a decision!

Jesus.

What is unfair about the defendant having to prove and convince a jury that he had enthusiastic consent?

Just like with all other crimes where the defendant claims they have been given consent/permission to do whatever they did.

I didn't decide he wasn't guilty, I said the jury wasn't sure of his guilt. There's a difference. If we had been in Scotland we almost certainly would have gone for not proven - maybe this is something English courts could consider introducing.

Believe me, I never thought that I would ever find myself in that position, because rape is just that - rape. All I can say is that life throws up some very complex circumstances and things are very often not that clear.

I can talk about the case, I just can't disclose what any of the jurors said.

Auld there's no point attack in attacking that poster she is just being honest and did as instructed.

At least that man got some time 8 years.

8 years iirc not gone back

Cases decided by panel of three experts instead of juries.

I don't know this is much better. Some of the statements that judges make I can't believe that juries are any worse.

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

I just don't support this. There will be innocent people caught up in this. Every innocent person is protected by our current system.

There must be better ways of educating the public to understand what rape is, that it isn't always a stranger in a dark alley for example, that women aren't judged for what they wear, what they drank etc, that only relevant details can be brought up at trial, support for victims of rape so that they feel able to report and go to trial, better treatment of them as witnesses (even their own barrister in court). Surely these are a better place to start than a presumption of guilt rather innocence?

It sounds like the previous juror heard in her head, unless you know it happened, you must find him not guilty and did so. How can you deal with that level of stupid?
Of course you weren't there! Of course you didn't know 100% what went on?????? Surely you could have fucking added 2 and 1 though.

Oakenbeach you are repeating yourself.

You seem to favour moving away from adversarial system for some crimes. Add they do in some other countries. Interested to hear your ideas.

It happened to me about 4 years ago not only did they take my phone they wanted my fb twitter and insta details-we’d been mates pre-attack and he had two phone numbers-and only handed in one-nothing was said to him in court about messages but I was questioned for two days over every single message/like/comment I’d made to him-he got off with it Scott free

Personally, based on my experience of judges, I would take a Jury over a panel of 3 judges any day.

MenuPlant

Where have I said that men need to record sex? I think you have mixed me up with someone else.

And I can think of ways of asking the defendant how they know that the person (not always a woman, men can be raped too) consented. What I can't work out is how the defendant can prove this. Even asking your questions boils down to his word against hers in some instances. Or the defendant lies. If they have raped they are unlikely to admit that the person was saying no and pushing them off or even laying there frozen. I dare say they would insist that they were enthusiastically joining in. That isn't proof as others were calling for, more their opinion.

I just don't support this. There will be innocent people caught up in this. Every innocent person is protected by our current system

The ‘innocent’ verdict is there for people who actually are innocent.

Rainbowknickers

I think this is a problem with public perception of rape. For too long it has been portrayed as stranger rape and a violent attack occuring in a dark alley.

I remember seeing an episode of Oprah years ago. Parents were interviewed in a park and asked whether they thought their child would go off with a stranger. 100% of the parents said no, they had taught their child about stranger danger. At the same time a member of the crew was walking away with the child, unbeknownst to the parent. The conclusion was that the parents had portrayed a "stranger" as some kind of cartoon villain so that when they looked like a nice normal man or woman the children didn't recognise the danger.

I think this is the same. The public has to be educated far more about what rape looks like - that it can easily be someone that you've known for years, even had sex with for years. That it isn't the relationship or type of sex or circumstances that matter but that whether consent was given or not.

RepealTheGRA

But you need a system that enables the innocent to be found innocent.

You won't be found innocent, even if you are, if the cards are so stacked against you. Not being able to prove you are innocent doesn't mean you are guilty.

Which is why we are innocent until proven guilty.

Scotland seems to manage with guilty, not proven and innocent and I think they could be extremely guilty in this country too, especially when it comes to rape cases, where the current system seems to be allowing rape with impunity.

I’m unsure why anyone would want that to continue and not discuss ways how the situation could be improved?

*extremely useful not extremely guilty!

RepealTheGRA

I suppose that I am seeing it from an innocent person's point of view.

If I am accused of a crime, with little evidence other than an accusation, and I have no alibi because I was at home alone I am still innocent. The fact that I can't prove it doesn't mean that I'm guilty does it?

Do I therefore deserve to forever have "not proven" hanging over my head?

I’m looking at things from a believing woman POV. I think a ‘not proven’ verdict is perfectly acceptable after a jury of your peers have heard evidence. The Scottish legal system agrees with me.

I’m looking at things from a believing woman POV. I think a ‘not proven’ verdict is perfectly acceptable after a jury of your peers have heard evidence. The Scottish legal system agrees with me.

Why only a woman's POV? Men can be raped too.

And the judicial system affects all of us. Are you willing to risk your freedom, and that of all of your family too, in respect of this? You would accept being tried and found "unproven"?

The system needs to get better at investigating and prosecuting rape (actually all crimes) but I don't accept risking innocent people being found guilty or unproven.

DecomposingComposers

So you think the whole Scottish system is wrong?

Decomposing your approach means that any sex offence with no witnesses or other evidence like extreme violence, is by definition not provable and therefore effectively not a crime.

Your approach means that any man can rape any woman, female child over about 13, or man, and definitely nothing can be done unless he kills them, beats them senseless etc. Because it's 'one person's word against another's.

Victims are witnesses. I never got this shit when I was mugged.

Rape is different, for some reason...

Got it. Thanks for being so clear.

Not proven is really not great at all. And I say this and a Scot. And a police officer.

It’s a cop out sometimes.

I recently read a good critique of Scottish not proven system.

Disproportionately used in rape cases.

Unsatisfactory for both sides.

MenuPlant

That clearly isn't the case. If it were no rapists would be convicted would they? Somehow the required proof is found.

When we were burgled we were subject to a high level of scrutiny by the police and rightly so. We had to show that we were credible witnesses. There was a huge amount of evidence that "proved" who had done it. The CPS refused to proceed. They were charged with multiple other burglaries but not ours. No idea why. I didn't expect the police to just believe me when I said we were burgled though. I accepted having to prove what was taken, have soco round to examine the scene, prove forced entry etc.

I would like to hear lawyers arguments about what we need to retain to protect our civil liberties but how we can improve conviction rates.