To think that “innocent until proven guilty” just doesn’t always apply, particularly in cases of sex offences?

[AngeloMysterioso]

It should… I know it should. In a fair and just world.

But the fact is that, in this country at least, because it’s almost always a he-said-she-said, the level of prosecutions and convictions for rape is so shockingly low that virtually every rapist out there is technically an innocent man.

I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t like trial by media, I don’t think someone should be convicted of a serious crime purely on somebody else’s say-so, but I also know that so many men are being able to get away with it that innocent until proven guilty has become a complete crock of shit.

Especially when the perpetrator is famous. Even setting aside the one in the news right now, we also have a recent case of a footballer whose crime was literally recorded and he still got away with it.

I mean what the fuck do we do?!

Legally innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean people can't talk about things that happened.

If I've seen something or had something happen to me, I can speak about it. Other people can also speak about it. If the person we are speaking about considers it to be untrue, they can take legal steps themselves.

Juries in England and Wales convict more than the aquit in rape cases. And at higher rates than any other serious violent crime.

I'd love to see a comparison between the money and time spent by police investigations, defence and prosecution teams, and documentary makers.

Genuinely.

Innocent until proven guilty.

In general, the problem with most rape cases is that there are no witnesses to the deed. Most cases do not involve a woman being dragged behind a bush by a complete stranger, and forcefully violated. That would clearly be considered guilt.

But it's more nuanced than that. Anyone ever had a casual hookup and thought better of it the morning after? I did (40 years ago and it didn't cause me guilt or trauma).... but I didn't try to kid myself it was rape -- even though I had second thoughts before it ended.

I think people's response to your proposition will be based on whether they assume they or their loved ones would be the accused or victim in a given scenario. This is why when I generally speak to men about Russell Brand they tend to be more adamant that he must be treated as innocent until proven guilty whilst women feel that the sheer amount of testimonies from women with substantial corroborating evidence is enough to suggest he had at least done some of what is alleged.

I personally feel that the burden of proof for criminal prosecutions (beyond reasonable doubt) is sometimes insurmountable in lots of cases and this means that some of the worst types of people in society are able to reoffend. I also feel that if the burden of proof was lowered, not quite to balance of probability but somewhere between this and reasonable doubt, then a lot of bad people would be prosecuted and only a few completely innocent people would be wrongly convicted. For example, the number of women who have died during 'sex games gone wrong' is shocking and I simply do not believe that many of these were not out and out murder, but the burden of proof is such that the perpetrators get away with lesser charges as the prosecution can't get murder to stick.

I think one of the biggest problems in these cases stems from our treatment of celebrities - why are they given so much leeway to behave badly, and excused by other people? We see this time and time again..

Many many other just shrug their shoulders when a celebrity behaves like a predator, oh it's just so and so he's like that, he's a bad boy, he's cheeky, whatever... Like that creep John Barrowman who would regularly flash female co stars and thought it was funny. The other people around them (managers, agents, producers etc.) are all complicit - the talent gets whatever the talent wants to keep them happy...

But because there is money to be made somewhere, that will always matter more. And because the cult of celebrity makes them think they are above decent behaviour.

Have there been documentaries accusing people of crimes that have proved to be untrue?

Lord McAlpine?

But one wrongful conviction is too many. It absolutely cannot be a case of saying "We don't care how many wrongful convictions we get because look how many criminals there are out there who get away with it."

Yes I think most men accused of it are guilty. However I would never agree to guilty verdict without a trial.

That said if a man is found not guilty I'm still believing the woman. I'm not stupid enough to believe in justice for rape victims

I'm not quite sure what the point of that is ? Doubtless you would find some documentaries cost more to make than some police investigations. Not that it makes them any more reliable. Or even good documentaries.

By the same token there could be cases where the police investigation cost a fortune. Again, doesn't make them any more correct.

(P.J. O'Rourke did once suggest that the US constitution was missing a clause where all powers not reserved by the federal government and not removed from the states should belong to broadcast journalists. But that was 30 years ago, and I suspect he was being humorous.)

Maybe we just need to reverse the concept.? We are all guilty until we have proved our innocence. Would certainly seal up any loopholes the Daily Mail seems to be able to find when a headline deadline is due.

God will know His own.

How many raped women who get wrongly portrayed as liars/gold diggers/fantasists is too many?
How many rapists walking round scot free, continuing to rape women is too many?

Rape Crisis England says less than 2 in 100 rapes recorded by police in 2022 resulted in a charge, let alone a conviction.

And yet some people are still daft enough to ask why women who have been raped don't go to the police.

Ah, so two wrongs do make a right.

The Alex Salmond scandal being a good example. Police & Scottish Government investigations, TV documentaries.

Found not guilty of 12 charges (in Scotland where they have "Not Proven" for cases which can't be proved). Meaning the jury decided not that there wasn't enough evidence but that the accusations were false (quick google will tell you why).

Salmond won his inquiry case against the Government for misconduct relating to the handling of the accusations and the inquiry. The government had to pay his legal fees at cost to the taxpayer.

You already do, and will continue to.

A family member of mine was accused of sexual assault wrongly. The woman had a thing for him , she stalked him for months and they ended up at the same party. He was just lucky that he had alibis from multiple people that he wasn't even at the party any more at the time she claims he assaulted her. Had he been presumed guilty from the start it would have ruined his life. This one was absolutely deranged in her obsession. My family member moved away and this girl accused another guy she was obsessed with of assaulting her 12 months later. She was allowed to make these two false allegations and get away Scott free with potentially ruining peoples lives.

Innocent until proven guilty is a premise of our criminal justice system and refers to convicted guilt.

But we know full well that across many crimes the perpetrator is never caught - that doesn't mean they are innocent. We know that many charged may be acquitted or found not guilty - and may still not in reality be innocent.

Informally I suppose it means 'rumour alone' is not enough. 'He looks creepy' 'he is a traveller / black / a scout leader / lives alone' - not enough, and none acceptable to think or say.

But enough observation, testimony and evidence to avoid defamation / libel? We do know when people are guilty of things.

If 4 women who didn't know each other accused him or it was recorded, I'd accept there was more than a 99% chance it wasn't a false accusation.

I don't like trial by media. If the allegations are there, then the police need to investigate them. Not Murdoch newspapers..

Depends on what you mean by proven guilty. I sat on a jury (mostly female) for a sex offence and the chairwoman managed to convince the rest of the jury that proven really only applied to murder and that if we thought he probably did it it was good enough. No guidance from the judge on what we needed to consider.

We had such statements as 'she's such a pretty girl she couldn't be making it up', 'he looks the type'. No real evidence but he got convicted.

Juries aren't great but what's the alternative.

This, also weird people are taking the burden of proof required for a criminal court. Other courts like civil and family have much lower ie probabilities so you can be found guilty in a civil court of an offence towards someone eg damages for assault or harassment that a criminal court would find not guilty.

I agree with you that ‘innocent til proven guilty’ sticks in the craw when you have a multitude of allegations, similar enough in nature to show a pattern of behaviour. And we know it will be very difficult to prove the case in court, as the low conviction rates show.

So I think it’s a bit of a ‘cheap’ card for someone to play in this situation.

But other posters are right in that our justice system is founded on it and rightly so, and I wouldn’t want to see that change.

The problem is that publicising these cases allows people to come forward which is very important, but it also means that even if the defendant is found innocent there can still be some damage to their reputation - look at Cliff Richard.

YANBU. The law as it stands does not work for women.