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

@Assassinatedbeauty

You posted.... It should be required for the defence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had consent. Not that they believed they had consent, but that they had active and enthusiastic consent throughout.

Where does it say anything there about a presumption of guilt?

Stop waffling on about your science fiction nonsense.

Why are you so against trying to find a solution that would help convict rapists!

Oh that's funny.

Where does it say anything there about a presumption of guilt?

Requiring proof beyond reasonable that the man is innocent is the same as presuming the man’s guilt.

Read what I wrote, and you might figure out your mistake.

Winding it back to the last sensible point....

AuldJosey I would totally agree with you that the victim's clothing worn and sexual history should be inadmissible. It's just got nothing to do with it at all.

I haven’t once asked a victim about their sexual history, none of us trained officers do.

I only ever ask about recent partners if it is relevant to the enquiry.

Nicknacky - you're a cop - not the defence barrister.

Why are you so against trying to find a solution that would help convict rapists!
Do you live on Uranus? Because you sure as hell ain't on planet Earth!

Thankfully none of that generally gets brought up by defence lawyers in Scotland nowadays.

@Nicknacky do you know if that is because of specific laws or guidance/instruction? Or some kind of cultural shift?

assasinated I think is is a cultural shift plus guidance, and more general understanding about sexual offences rather than specific legislation preventing it.

We are generally finding that defences are not now giving witnesses a hard time as it alienates the jury.

Nicknacky

What do you think needs to be changed, and how, so that conviction rates improve?

Genuinely, I have no idea. When I get allocated a sexual enquiry quite often I will have an indication from the outset if I’m going to have enough evidence to put to the PF. It is one of the hardes crimes to get a conviction on and I think one of the downfalls in Scotland is the not proven verdict as it can be a cop out at times. So, sorry, I don’t have an answer for you.

Actually, nowadays I would say most of my work load is non-recent offences which is a different kettle of fish to investigate than offences committed shortly prior to being reported.

But I do take great exception to the idea that the police don’t take the investigation seriously. Ours is under the instruction of my DI and we do everything that we can to investigate them. There are some shit SOLO (sexual offence liaison officers) officers around I grant you that, but sometimes we need to ask hard questions.

Nicknacky

I don't doubt how committed the police are. I have 2 senior officers in the family, one of whom works specifically with crimes against children. I don't know how he does what he does.

What are the hard questions that you need to ask?

Any detailed questions about the intimate details can clearly be hard for a victim, I think that goes without saying. It’s not pleasant to ask but has to be done.

Not to mention questions about the last time they had a sexual encounter (if relevant) and a good solo will be as empathetic and tactful as possible.

I frequently have women that fail to tell me things, like if they have kissed him or had a previous sexual encounter with him as they fear it will jeopardise the investigation so I may well have to re-visit her and ask her about that. And no, it doesn’t impact the enquiry but I do need to know about it.

The victim is they key witness and it's an attempt by the defence to destroy their character, thus their testimony. It shouldn't be allowed really. Whether legislation needs to change, I don't know, but your character should not be torn apart, given that not only are you a witness, you're also the victim.

Given that the victim is going to be saying 'I was raped', the defence try everything they can to discredit her as a witness.

But I do take great exception to the idea that the police don’t take the investigation seriously

Why @Nicknacky

so I may well have to re-visit her and ask her about that. And no, it doesn’t impact the enquiry

Perhaps not in YOUR enquiries

I don't doubt how committed the police are

You really should

I speak as I find.

I speak as I find
Perhaps avoid making sweeping generalistions