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?!

This is absolutely ridiculous. You have absolutely no way of knowing how many reported rapes are legitimate, you simply assume that they are because you've decided they are.

The 98% headline number is FAR from useful if you see the breakdowns, and I severely doubt that you have ever looked into this at any depth. In fact, they imply that the number of false claims are way higher than 3%, which is a bollocks figure in the first place.

Would you be happy to be the one innocent (we assume!) man sent down?

I'm not a man so I won't get charged with rape.

If there was the evidence that my dad/son/partner was a rapist and was convicted I'd be extremely shocked and disappointed. What I wouldn't do is blindly believe they were innocent, unlike many posters on this thread and their anecdata about their friends son.

Even that guy posted upthread, if you followed the case its by no means clear cut that he was innocent. His trial collapsed over a technical issue (accidental non disclosure of evidence). There was nothing to suggest his victim made it up or that he was in fact innocent.

The Andrew Malkinson case happened a long time ago, before DNA evidence, and at a time when conviction rates were higher. It's not really relevant to today's scenario.

My concern is with the well over 90% of rape victims whose rapist is walking free. No doubt with a load of "falsely accused" sob stories that credulous members of the public believe.

You really need to do your research better. DNA evidence not disclosed by the police was why Andrew Malkinson got his conviction overturned. DNA evidence can be found in evidence from cases decades earlier. I haven't done the research but I doubt convictions for sexual assaults and rapes was higher in years gone by.

What I asked was if your relative was comletely innocent, would you be happy if they were convicted?

What I asked was if your relative was comletely innocent, would you be happy if they were convicted?

If your relative was raped, would you be happy if their rapist wasn’t convicted and your relative was assumed to be a liar?

Can you suggest another way of doing it that is fair on everyone?

I don’t think there is a way that is fair on everyone. Rape is particularly challenging as so often it comes down to he said / she said.

I think it’s right that there’s a high burden of proof in terms of legal convictions. But I also think it’s more likely than not that when someone says they’ve been raped, they have actually been raped.

Not guilty doesn’t mean someone didn’t do it. I’d actually prefer the options guilty, not guilty (i.e. case not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but opens the door to a civil case) and innocent.

Scotland actually has that system in place, but it isn't without it's faults either.
We have Guilty, Not guilty & Not Proven. Both Not Guilty or Not Proven have the same result, the accused walks free. However it leaves both parties feeling dissatisfied.

Civil cases for criminal allegations is a dangerous route to go down. Although the burden of proof is lower, the chances of a miscarriage are much higher.

I was personally very close to a very high profile case where a won civil case resulted in a criminal trial which the man was found guilty of. Knowing what I do, I believe the wrong person was convicted and has spent nearly 30 years in prison for it. He basically took the fall for another family member.

You are asking me something so vanishingly unlikely that I can't even be bothered to respond.

What you are saying is:

1. there would be a vindictive woman who would say this man in my circle raped her and keep that story up for years while it went through court
2. there would be enough circumstantial or made up evidence to convince the CPS to pursue the case, unlike 98% of reports
3. she would be a convincing enough liar to also persuade a jury

I give it about as much brain space as worrying that an alien is going to anal probe me.

Actually I give it as much time as thinking about whether I or any of my friends/family will be wrongly convicted of any other crime, I.e. none.

What I find odd is the number of people talking about their friends son/their friends husband being wrongly accused. Because I doubt very much a rapist is going to fess up to those he is close to. "Actually mum, we were both really drunk and when she said she didn't want to I carried on because I thought she would enjoy it on the end. So yes I guess I am a rapist".

Of course they don't.

You do realise that your whole narrative means the victims are the ones forced into the "guilty until proven innocent" space? It's assumed they are lying/mistaken until a court convicts their rapist.

If someone accuses your partner of rape, it's overwhelmingly likely they're a rapist.

And here you go:
https://www.criminal-injuries.co.uk/news/rape-convictions-in-england-wales-drop-to-a-record-low/

The number of offenders being convicted of rape in England & Wales has fallen to the lowest point since records were released in 2009. Just 1439 were convicted in 2018/2019 compared to 2,991 in 2016/17.

https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/the-distressing-truth-is-that-if-you-are-raped-in-britain-today-your-chances-of-seeing-justice-are-slim/

For victims, reporting rape is effectively a lottery and the odds are rarely in your favour. In the year to December 2021, there were 67,125 rape offences recorded – an all-time high. Yet the number of completed rape prosecutions plummeted from 5,190 in 2016-17 to just 2,409 in 2020-21. The numbers of convictions almost halved (2,689 in 2016/17 compared to 1,409 in 2020/21). Only 5% of rapes that were given an outcome by the police in the year ending December 2021 resulted in a charge.

Yes

1. inquisitorial rather than adversarial prosecution. That means working to establish the truth rather than "guilty/innocent".
2. additional crime of reckless penetration that focuses on whether the man took appropriate steps to ensure he had consent.
3. altering the "reasonable belief of consent" clause or making it so certain things can't be given as reasonable belief. Such as, being so drunk you don't know who you are fucking. Or having very rough sex with a 16 year old believing she consents, when you are 30

So what? It doesn't change the fact that they should be innocent until proven guilty. The OP is saying that she thinks the rule book should be thrown out the window in SA cases.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies in court

Unless you are saying you'd be A-Ok with your 16 year old daughter hanging out with Brand, as he is innocent?

I don't think melodramatic language like 'throwing the rulebook out of the window' helps anyone.

I think @AdamRyan's post above is talking in the right area. I think there are problems with each of these suggestions and i don't have time to dissect them on a working day, but I think they are in the right spirit.

A simpler change could simply be to presume all sex is non-consensual on the man's part, and put the onus on him to show otherwise. Of course there are problems with this too, but at least it's easy for men to understand, and it can't be worse than the current shitshow. Radical change is needed.

That goes completely against our open justice system.

People have a right to see the court workings being done in their name - and that includes acquittals.

The rules are very strict on what can be reported and when - or at least they are for the media. Joe Public has done serious damage to fair trials in the past by spouting pish on social media.

I've looked at other counties and asked on here and elsewhere, what could be done/ copied from other liberal democracies to improve convictions for rape? It seems that we are little different from virtually all other democratic counties and way better than a huge number of other countries on convictions being taken to court and won.

The Scottish government digested jurlyless Diploc trials, such as held on Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Lawyers and human rights groups were up in arms about democratic processes being overturned, rightly so.

As the majority of rapes take place between two people who know one another and in many cases have had consentual sex in the past, no witnesses, it is very difficult to prove a crime.

Kudos to the first person who can suggest a solution.

We could follow the Swedish example

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-crime-rape-law-trfn-idUSKBN23T2R3

Changed the legal definition of rape to "sex without consent", and introduced a new offence of "negligent rape" cases where courts found consent had not been established, but that the perpetrator had not intended to commit rape.

Increase of 75% in convictions.

The Netherlands have introduced similar

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/07/netherlands-historic-victory-as-law-amended-to-recognize-that-sex-without-consent-is-rape/

You need a legal framework that applies even to celebrities. You also need to be aware that not everyone is pure in their motives - I personally know a man whose ex made accusations falsely against him as revenge, courts have to pick through these. Obviously none of us know the truth about Russell Brand but I suspect it's more complicated than the black and white narrative we are being presented with, relationships are complicated, consent is complicated even (if you are drunk, can you consent? If you say yes but are intoxicated is it yes?)

I think it's much more likely your mate is a rapist, than his ex is a vengeful fantasist.

Obviously any of those are too many. But the point is that we absolutely cannot have a criminal justice system that people don't have faith in, because the alternative is anarchy and vigilantism. Given the number of wrongful convictions that happen, faith is already shaky, and it would disappear if we didn't work on the basis of the prosecution having to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Why are we effectively limiting this discussion to rape? Are we saying that wrongful convictions are less important only in relation to rape charges, or are we saying the same principles around not risking criminals going free apply to each and every criminal offence?

we absolutely cannot have a criminal justice system that people don't have faith in,

Most people who are raped don't report it, often because they don't have faith in the criminal justice system (stats in link)

98% of those who do report don't get justice.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/statistics-sexual-violence/#:~:text=How%20many%20women%20are%20raped%20or%20sexually%20assaulted%20every%20year%3F&text=That's%201%20in%2030%20women,in%20the%20last%2012%20months.

I don't have faith in the criminal justice system when it comes to crime against women and girls on the basis of their sex. I think lots of women feel the same.

So given your statement, what do you propose we do so that we can have faith in the criminal justice system to prosecute rapists?

If you think the problem where SA and rape is concerned is false accusations and wrongful convictions, then you're on drugs.

Jesus fucking christ.

I get the sentiment, but it is a fundamental cornerstone of a democracy. There definitely needs to be reform as clearly the reporting and conviction rates are abysmally low.

I like the idea of introducing an offence similar to negligent rape - I couldn’t see this in the article, but I wonder how much of the increase in convictions was due to the new offence and how much to the rewording of rape (previously it seems as though violence needed to be involved for it to be rape - so their new wording is closer to the existing UK definition I think)

The UK already defines rape as sex without consent, so adopting the Swedish and Netherlands model above would change nothing. The new offense of negligent rape is a different matter, and would be preferable.