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?!

Proof really that if you ever go on a date or change your mind the law does not support you. And the news will put forward an argument that makes it seem like false accusations are common when more like 2% of reports.

Why is a man's life being ruined by a "false accusation" held up as so much more serious than the much much higher number of real life women whose lives have been ruined by being raped?

I don't think it's being held up as more serious - but it's not difficult to find men who've killed themselves after false allegations took away everything in their lives.

The problem is that both things are serious, and there isn't an easy answer (maybe no answer at all) unless you completely disregard the plight of one because lowering the threshold to protect either will disadvantage the other.

@TheGhostofLoganRoy
There are numerous safeguarding laws and regulations that require people in certain jobs to assume guilt without conviction, if you're a headteacher of a primary school and a teacher has been arrested on suspicion of possessing CSA images, or accused by ten pupils of molestation, your legal safeguarding obligation is to suspend that person unless he is found innocent. So legally in terms of safeguarding the law says that it's guilty until proven innocent. Would anyone genuinely advocate that a person found with CSA should be allowed unsupervised access to young children during the months/years they're waiting for the case to come to trial? Of course not! When someone's behaviour has flagged a serious safeguarding concern, then legally it has to be a case of "guilty until proven innocent" in order to protect children.

I disagree with your interpretation. I agree that people misunderstand what innocent until proven guilty means, but that’s the exact reason why the first reaction is suspension. There is a prima facie case to answer, but without investigation the first action is to keep that employee at home while you investigate. The difference is that in the case of employment law, and in fact all civil law, is that the burden of proof is vastly different- it’s not beyond all reasonable doubt, it’s on the balance of probabilities. This creates different responsibilities and reactions for those responsible on safeguarding laws. In the case of civil law, a manager is an investigator, whereas in criminal law it’s the police.

it is however perfectly true that the investigator isn’t required to treat a suspect as “innocent”, however they ARE obliged to give the suspect a chance to defend themselves and give an explanation of the evidence before them- which could be seen as a derivation of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Perhaps, for sexual crimes in particular, which are not well investigated by the police, we should consider an investigational judiciary force? Ideally, it would investigate quickly because AFAIK, these are crimes committed with drink taken or opportunistically. So they need a quick response while memories are raw and the forensics are fresh. The current situation where there are allegations made and it takes two or three years for charges to come to court is appalling for the victim and the defendent.

you completely disregard the plight of one because lowering the threshold to protect either will disadvantage the other

Not sure 100% what you mean but I assume you are saying making a system where rapists are more likely to be convicted means I am suggesting increasing the chances of innocent men being convicted.

At the moment more than 98% of reported rapes report in no charges being brought.

3% of allegations are assumed to be false.

Mathematically, out of 100 cases you could increase the charge rate to 33% before risking one extra man being falsely accused, assuming "false accusations" aren't weeded out at a higher rate than genuine rapes at charge, which seems unlikely.

So I think there is quite a lot that could be done to help rape victims without impacting men very much at all

Innocent until proven doesn't really apply.

To get a criminal conviction, the burden of proof has to be "beyond reasonable doubt" which is a pretty high level of probability.

Lots of people will have committed crimes and got away with it, either because the police/CPS couldn't gather enough evidence, or because the jury weren't convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" about the evidence presented to them. None of that makes the accused "innocent", it just means the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict.

What do you do? Simple. You allow the law to take its course. There is a risk that too much assumption prejudices the legal outcome of course.

You can of course act on rumour or reputation all you like, and privately come to a position, but that is a separate matter.

And even if they are convicted the sentences are often very lenient.

That is incorrect, it puts the rights of the accused above all. The conviction rate for cases brought to court are around 75%.

The reality is, as I previously stated, having enough evidence to go to either the CPS or Procurator Fiscal up here in Scotland with, is the difficult challenge. As most situations it is one persons word against another. I see no way to get round that sadly.

It is very easy to say lets sacrafice one innocent mans liberty, until the time came and it was maybe you that was accused. Don't forget that the Andrew Malkinson case ended up with him spending 17 years behind bars as he would not confess to the crime. Had he made the false claim of hm being guilty, he would of been out far sooner. But the man who actually did carry out the rape could never be brought to justice as it was a solved crime.

LuwakCoffee
In cases whih are brought to the police, evidence including dna is gathered immediately as is first and normally second interviews of the victim, any witnesses and if known the accused. An exampple would be if the accused and victims clothing worn at the time were available, both would be seized and entered into evidence, with dna testing carried out.

Over 98% of reported rapes don't result in a charge, so no court case. So your 75% stat is irrelevant.

If 98% of rapes don't result in a charge, that means there are an awful lot of rapists walking free.

This state of affairs means there is no deterrent to rape really, and that most victims don't see justice. I think it says a lot about you that you raise the case of one man as a reason why that's ok, vs the thousands of rape victims every year

No-one should be named. Unless convicted. Mud sticks and its unfair

Bollocks to that. they never get convicted.

A four year investigation and multiple complainants and multiple people who knew all along is MORE than enough.

I think its unfair for people to be put at risk of being raped by sexual predators who aren't being brough to justice, but hey ho

You can use whichever stats you wish. Personally I feel it would be better to use the 75% conviction rate in the hope more victims come forward. I agree wholeheartedly I'd much prefer for all men who commit this type of crime should be brought to justice.

But lowering the requirement for beyond reasonable doubt is not the way forward, and would only result in cases being overturned. Causing more distress to victims.

May I ask if you would feel the same way if it was You, Your Father, Your Brother whatever wrongly accused and then convicted of probably the most emotive and despised crime there is?

I completely agree that rapists should be held to account, and punished. But from a close acquaintance's account of what happens when rape is alleged and the legal system gets involved, following a drunken student hook up, there's no proper follow up, once allegations are made. Her DS is still waiting, 18 months later, to find out whether the complainant even gave a full victim statement. Nothing after summer vacation, or six months, but she is still on tenterhooks to know whether the case will go to court. All the clothing and DNA samples were taken in evidence. Her son has been on the verge of breakdown for closing on two years.

Was he actually charged? If charged, it can take a long time to get to court unfortunately. To find out where in the system the case is, he needs to speak to his solicitor.

Can't speak for England, but in Scotland the accused gets Police bail after formal interview, with the charge made at the time. Then faces the court for preliminary formal charging within a month.

If it can be dealt with at Sheriff level, he will be asked to enter a plea. If he is contesting it, pleads not guilty, then comes before the Court for trial when all investigations are finished and there is Court space. More serious cases which rape often is are referred to the high court. That can take a while.

Victim statements are a completely seperate thing. I believe they are only read out once the person has been convicted and prior to sentencing.

Meanwhile, the complainant has graduated and moved on, hopefully to a happy successful life. Having shattered and shredded a 20y old young man's personal and professional prospects beyond redemption.

None of us can really make comment on that as we don't know what happened.

This is where I feel the naming of those accused of crimes like this should be witheld until conviction. Even if found innocent there will always be that question hanging in the air for him for ever more.

I think it absolutely should especially when the alleged victims have been sought out with financial incentives to talk about a certain celebrity

No celebrity involved here @Superfoodie123 . Just two drunk students.

Just to pick up on this post Adam.

In this case:https://news.sky.com/story/semina-halliwell-rape-victim-12-took-her-own-life-directly-after-police-interview-her-mother-tells-sky-news-12582931
None of us know what the Police officer said or didn't say. If it was just that he couldn't be arsed, then he is a complete cunt.
I don't like having to say this. But rape support services should make people aware of all that is going to happen. Sadly if there is no or very little evidence and minimal chance of conviction, it may be kinder to inform rather than go through all the humiliating details several times and a physical examination.

This case: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-ayrshire-girl-who-killed-13591548
I actually remember very well. It happened not a million miles from me. Although the lad was convicted he didn't get near long enough. However the one that should hang his head in shame was his barrister. I believe the law was actually changed in Scotland as to what could be asked of the victim.

This case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31930196
shows just how difficult any of these cases are. I'm very surprised the CPS carried on with the private prosecution unless there was some very good evidence that she had said or done something fraudulent.

You sound on top of the game in Scotland, @CallumDansTransitVan . But this case will be heard in England, and my chum is in pieces without any idea of how long it could drag out. She hopes that the CPS will decide there's not enough evidence to proceed, but intercourse took place (acknowledged by both parties).

The system is much the same in England. Has he been before the court and charged? If a charge is in place, in most cases it will go to trial. As I say the lad needs to speak to his solicitor. They will be able to tell him of time scales and the CPS position, as they need to give any evidence they find to him.

I don't think that her son has been called to court to answer any charges so far; it's been over a year already. She is desperately hoping that CPS think it's a complete waste of time and take no action.

And perhaps that's the sensible answer. Drag it out to put the defendent's life on hold for the equivalent of a prison sentence. It makes the point. And costs way less than incarceration.

I don't think the courts are operating like that by way of giving punishment. Remember if it is a case that is to go before the courts, the woman in question will be wishing it over with as much as your friends son. Covid put cases back incredible lengths of time.

If it is rape he has been bailed on I think it will be a summary charge which has no time limits for how long it takes to get to court. That said, it could be that the case has been seen as not being likely to convict and the CPS haven't told his solicitor. He needs to speak to them and they will chase it.