AIBU to question reversing the burden of proof in VAWG cases

[Itcanonlyhelp]

Would it be unreasonable to deal with VAWG by believing women. So that a man could be convicted on her say so. So long as he was not able to prove he was elsewhere. His burden of proof.
This could redress the power imbalance, take dangerous men off the street, and dramatically reduce sexual assaults.
A small number of men might be innocent but is that worth the price of the advantages of increasing successful valid prosecutions.

You can't be serious? So a bitter ex makes a claim against a man and he will be convicted on her say so. That's a terrible suggestion

That kicks out the whole foundation of British criminal law though?

I suspect we'd end up with far more than 'a small number' of innocent men being convicted if that was the case.

Fed up of the relationship and want him out of the house?

No problem, just get him convicted of DV on your 'say so' and go on with your life.

No, I'd rather all convictions continued to be based on finding someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Anything else would make a mockery of our justice system and makes us all less free.

So, presumed guilty unless proven innocent? What could possibly go wrong? Would totally solve the courts backlog as well.

Yabvvvvu.

And how would this increase "valid prosecutions"? There wouldn't be such a thing if we went down this road.

I see where you're coming from but no, it really wouldn't be reasonable, and while women are less likely to be violent they (we) are not immune to being devious and wanting revenge. So you'd make it easier for an unprincipled woman to use this as a way to punish a man for something else.

What I do think is reasonable, in a society where so many pose a threat to others, is to have a universal database of dna taken at birth, of everyone, men and women. A database with universal rules applied (I know, utopia of sorts) and able be used to convict rapists, abusers, child abusers and murderers. I've thought this for a long time. I know it could be abused by states. Nothing's perfect. But I really think this would be helpful - largely to the victims of male violence.

At the moment we don't believe women, with successful prosecutions at 1%? and physical evidence lacking.

You really haven't thought your OP through though.

So a bloke admits to his wife he's been cheating.

She wants him out of the house and tells the police he hit her when he didn't.

How could he prove he was elsewhere when he wasn't?

At the moment she can't prove he hit her without physical evidence and/or corroborative evidence. So the power balance is in the favour of the man. Why not reverse it. It seems in some sense arbitrary.

Because of course the first thing you have to prove before someone is convinced of domestic violence or rape is that an assault/rape happened….

You can’t just assume it happened because one person said so without any corroboratory evidence and convict someone who is protesting their innocence on the victims account alone. It is impossible to prove a negative.

A man sleeps in bed next to his partner, next day they argue and she says he raped her. No evidence of intercourse or rape at all and he should go to prison for 10 years because she said so? How exactly would he go about proving innocence in that case?

It is absolutely not worth it to send some innocent people to prison because we would also send some him guilty people to prison! You would feel differently if it were you or your partner or son in prison for something they didn’t do because everyone accused of a crime was presumed guilty.

The real answer is to believe women and to properly investigate seriously and at an early stage and improve access and funding for resources that support women to stay away from abusers, gain help and continue to support prosecutions.

Kindly I disagree

I agree that something needs to be done to protect women from men, but the potential for this to go wrong is too great

Most women dont lie about rape or sexual assault, so thats not my issue. Its just that 'innocent until proven guilty' is typically the law of the land (it can be debated as to how effective this is)

I would expect tesco to have to prove a thief stole, expect the cps to have to prove a woman murdered her husband in cold blood - we cant bend the rule despite something desperately needing to be done x

This is a terrible idea. YABMU. The basic premise should always be innocent until proven guilty. You are suggesting that those accused of a crime should be considered guilty unless they can prove themself innocent.

The DNA database is a ridiculous idea too. Also pretty useless as far as sex crimes go. Most women know their attackers. Identifying the perpetrator is not usually the issue.

So the concensus seems to be : with a lack of physical evidence being common place, no witnesses and not believing the victim, we get low conviction rates which cannot be changed. No systemic bias against VAWG cases, just insufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof. And no way forward.
Depressing.

Nobody said there wasn't any systemic bias against VAWG cases. Thats not the question you asked.

You can’t just assume it happened because one person said so without any corroboratory evidence and convict someone who is protesting their innocence on the victims account alone.

Andrew Malkinson might not agree with you there.

Its a fascinating thought experiment OP.

You'll get massive wailing and backlash BUT as a society we happily accept men's word that they haven't done something or that its the woman's fault.

Look at the fixation with the Eurovision winner"s boobs on Mumsnet last night, she couldn't have won due to her performance and talent, just because she's a walking pair of tits. That's how even on a woman centric forum, women are valued and judged.

If we locked up men on women's say so, we would have a few innocent men wrongly locked up but save massive harm against women.

I wouldn't lie to have someone locked up, would you?

But locking up innocent men, pretty awful and unpalatable idea right?

However as a society we are perfectly happy to have rapists, abusers and murders of women walk free despite their crimes and we find that super easy to swallow.

And you'll hear, oh well that's the law etc etc, we have to do it that way.

The truth is that society, including women value men far more highly than women. They believe men more than women. And most of all they want to protect men more than women, despite women being the ones needing projection and men being the oppressors.

Society does not believe women. Society does not value women. Society does not care that harm comes to women at the hands of men. Society will not upset the status quo that allows men to abuse women, often with impunity.

I've read some stupid ideas on here, but this is a strong contender for the stupidest.

Convicting men of serious crimes just because a woman says something happened? What kind of glue are you on?

What a ridiculous idea.

It's disturbing that what the op is saying is that its acceptable for some innocent men to have their lives entirely ruined and go to prison.

Exactly the reason we shouldn’t proceed on that basis as the norm!

That’s not the consensus. That’s not the question you asked.

No. Some of us simply believe in the premise of innocent until proven guilty as a the bedrock of the law.

For everybody.

Can op prove they're not a witch?

She turned me into a newt!