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

@Oakenbeach you are really suggesting that you want all women chipped like a bloody pet cat? In order to track their physiological data in order to prove they were raped when that inevitably happens?

Fucking stupid offensive misogynistic nonsense.

@AssassinatedBeauty

Ok then, so what’s your solution? You haven’t said how men proving their innocence would actually work in practice

It’s not misogynistic to want to stop rapes and increase convictions!

I’d be ok with a chip if that meant the chances of being raped reduced and the chances of me securing a conviction if raped increased.

@AssassinatedBeauty

How would you like to see the process changed? What changes would you make?

It’s awful

Yes it is. They were clearly trying to break her. They held her underwear up in the court. You might want to read up on that case and what a travesty it was. Stop pontificating about something you don't understand.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/northern-ireland-ulster-rugby-rape-trial-not-guilty-im-with-her-a8280066.html

They were clearly trying to break her. They held her underwear up in the court.

Isn't it this that needs to change though rather than turning our legal system on its head and now make the accused guilty until they can prove innocence?

Why can't the system change so that there can be no reference to clothing at all? I fail to see how what underwear was worn or what clothing was worn can have any relevance or impact on a fair trial so why can't that be banned? Same as banning any reference to the victim's past sexual history - why can't we ban that?

I agree completely that changes have to be made. I just don't agree that those changes should be guilty until proven innocent or requiring men to prove enthusiastic consent throughout. Yes, consent needs to be enthusiastic throughout but how on earth does anyone have the "proof" of that? If you want that brought in can you explain how you propose the proof be shown?

They don't have to prove their innocence. They would have to put forward their defence case as to why they had enthusiastic consent, to persuade the jury beyond reasonable doubt. And work on the assumption that women are not automatically lying when giving testimony and give their testimony the same weight as any other witness.

They would have to put forward their defence case as to why they had enthusiastic consent, to persuade the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

But don't they already do that? Isn't that the problem - that a guilty man would simply say he did have that consent? The victim then contradicts that. That's surely part of the problem - one word against another.

How would you have a man prove it?

Tip of the ice berg, having known people who have worked and are working on gang rape crimes this country is in an absolute mess and the general public really don't know the actual extent of just how bad it's got.

They don't have to prove their innocence. They would have to put forward their defence case as to why they had enthusiastic consent, to persuade the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Surely “persuading the jury beyond reasonable doubt” of innocence is virtually the same as “proving” innocence, so the man would be guilty until proved innocent, which in turn implies we should lock men up until they can prove their innocence as otherwise we are not protecting women by letting guilty rapists on the streets.

And work on the assumption that women are not automatically lying when giving testimony and give their testimony the same weight as any other witness.

On what basis do you believe that there’s the assumption is that a woman is automatically lying, and their testimony isn’t given the same weight as any other witness?

how can rape convictions be increased other than by simply believing the woman

As I said before, by being investigated better by police for a start. I called my rapist the day after it happened and he more or less admitted it on the phone. I told police I had recorded it, I wanted them to take a copy. They fobbed me off for months (ironic given the latest developments!) and then my phone crashed and needed resetting and I lost it. When they dropped my case they said "we have no evidence sex took place". I had evidence, they didn't bother to collect it! That's why my complaint was upheld against them and the detective got a written warning.

These rape centres need to be better informed on collecting evidence too. I had the examination but my bottom was too painful for an internal. They told me at the time, "it's ok, the DNA swabs around the area will be enough". Turns out it wasn't. Even though his DNA was all over my private parts, it wasn't proof of "penetration".

Then the CPS need to be taking more cases to Court. We can't increase the number convicted until we get more cases into Court. That's logical and obvious. If the CPS routinely accept more cases, the police will submit more cases to them.

As to what happens once it's in Court, yes "beyond reasonable doubt" needs to be defined a lot better. But lets get some more cases in Court in the first place.

Asta19

Completely agree with your post.

Asta19

Completely agree too..... There’s a lot that can be done within the current system, and it’s shameful that things can go wrong like they did with your case.

However, I don’t think that’s enough, and whereas it might improve convictions rate significantly, even a 5-fold increase in rates would still leave us with the shocking stat that 90% of rapes did not lead to convictions. There needs to be radical thought on how we deal with this that goes beyond incremental improvements to current systems.

If we can chip people to find out if they are committing crimes I propose that it is men who are chipped not women.

The idea is bizarrely dystopian and obviously a terrible idea. However it's interesting that yet again our oh so reasonable posters on the thread who are just trying to stand up for due process, suggest that it is women who have to do the work (in this case be microchipped from cradle to grave).

Also this rather discriminates against men and boys - what if they are raped.

All very bizarre.

Women are assumed in general to be less in touch with the truth, more emotional, more likely to lie especially around rape and sexual assault.

This is well known.

Women and girls are also widely assumed to be "asking for it" according to multiple surveys of the public.

The idea of regretted sex as a motivation to report an innocent man for rape is also deeply embedded in public psyche.

All this stuff is well known, especially to those who post in FWR on the regular.

Asta juries being extremely unwilling to convict men of sex offences is a real issue and I don't know how to solve it.

Also according to PP, direction given was not "reasonable doubt" but "any doubt at all" which is not the correct bar.

Most rape cases that get to court result in conviction in england and walesa bit over 50%) , but with so few going to court even that stat feels low, as they are picking only the most open and shut cases to go to court in the first place.

It doesn’t help that rags like the Daily Mail have without fail a story on their homepage about a woman caught lying about rape every day when these make up less than 1% of cases.

This cherry picking leads it to seem like a much more prevalent issue which then leads to juries not believing women. They have this rapey agenda and it’s disgusting.

I tweet at them all the time about this and have emailed them. Julie Bindell did a good Guardian article about this.

Id urgh more people to contact DM and complain about this because it’s absolutely disgusting the biggest news paper in the world is misrepresenting how prevalent this issue is.

*urge

@Menuplant

Rather than simply attack my idea so vitriolicly - one which I admit is a bit odd but which nonetheless possibly work, why not explain how your ideas would work.

It’s easy to say “let the man prove his innocence” but you appear stuck when asked about how this would actually work, and fulminate when the logical outcome of this position is spelt out.

You appear to prefer the moral high ground to actually trying to think of solutions.

If we can chip people to find out if they are committing crimes I propose that it is men who are chipped not women

I remember when the (Yorkshire? Sutcliffe?) Ripper was on the loose, the police suggested a curfew for women. Funnily enough, when it was pointed out that a curfew for men would actually resolve the matter, rather than implementing that suggestion it was dropped altogether.

@Oakenbeach your "idea" is risible. It is probably impossible and more importantly deeply misogynistic. The solution to getting rape convictions is not to track all women and girls and record their physiological data. It's embarrassing for you that you keep trotting it out as a plausible suggestion! And then you have the temerity to criticise others for not offering solutions! At lease they're not wasting our time with offensive flights of science fiction.

There was an excellent programme on BBC3 years ago where they showed a group of men and a group of women different scenarios and asked them to judge if what they had seen constituted rape. They were all quite nuanced and not clear cut.

Interestingly the male group identified rape more often than the female group but I thought it was a really good way of educating people as to what can be rape. We definitely need more education like that in order to change the public perception so that when they are on a jury they "get" it, or if someone discloses to them they can call it what it is.

It's multifaceted and won't be solved by changing just one thing.

Also agree that clothing worn and previous sexual history should be inadmissible. I don't see the relevance in them apart from to sway the minds of a few dumb jurors.

Vitriolic?

& I have at no point said "let the man prove his innocence" :?

Stranger and stranger.

I also don't understand why it's vitriolic to suggest, in the event of this amazing chip, that if a sex must be chosen to be chipped, that it's men. Seeing as they are both the perpetrators and victims of most violent crime (the way things are measured at the moment which is arguably a bit wonky, but nevertheless). Seems a win win to me. But apparently no. Chipping women so that men can feel reassured they won't be falsely accused = reasonable. Chipping men to actually stop pretty much all crime or get loads more criminals caught or convicted = vitriol.

Loving your work here mate :D

@Menuplant

Apologies, it was @Assassinatedbeauty who was suggesting presumption of guilt until a man can prove consent beyond all reasonable doubt.

As for this chip, it may be risible, impractical, weird, fanciful or even technically impossible, but I can’t accept it’s misogynistic!

How can it be when its basic purpose is to finally find a way to make rape a crime that can be proven for cases that wouldn’t even get to court at present, and in so doing provide a strong deterrent to would-be rapists, and be far, far less invasive than the current process!

To recap, as I think there’s been widespread misunderstanding, the chip or implant would identify hormonal and respiratory changes that were consistent with the stress and trauma of a rape. If a woman had been raped this biometric data could be extracted and pinpointed to a date and time, thus providing powerful evidence that any sexual encounter wasn’t consensual. It should avoid the need for much invasive questioning and the anxiety of hoping the court simply accepts her version of events. There would be no data of a personal nature over and above the biometric data collected - this wouldn’t be remotely the same as taking smartphones.

Because of what this chip/implant does, it wouldn’t work on men.... You can bemoan the fact it’s unfair and “why should a woman have to do this” and you’d be right! It would be unfair and women shouldn’t have to do it.... But faced with a choice of either getting such an implant/chip and making rape far more difficult to commit with impunity, or ‘taking the moral high ground’ and refuse on principle, I know what I’d choose and I know what I’d recommend for my daughter (and son for that matter).

To do otherwise would be to cut off your nose to spite your face, and any principle that is so vehemently held that it couldn’t be relaxed to support something that could be expected to fundamentally deal with the impunity most rapists have currently has arguably gone full circle and morphed into misogyny!

" it was Assassinatedbeauty who was suggesting presumption of guilt until a man can prove consent beyond all reasonable doubt." No it wasn't. You have misunderstood.

Stop waffling on about your science fiction nonsense.